Friday Staff Survey: Dick Cheese Doesn't Count...

This survey was compiled by TNG co-founder Zack.

Original Illustration by Maggie.

This week's staff survey question was actually posed originally in the very, very early days of TNG. However, not that many people answered it and I'm genuinely curious as to what everyone has to say. This question was first posed to me at Laurial Plaza two years ago over many margaritas. I hope that no one out there is actually forced to make this choice, but today's question should give you something to think about:

What would you rather give up for the rest of your life: Cheese or receptive oral sex?

Full survey below the fold. Plus, how come so many of our staff members had actually been asked this before?

1. Zack, Co-founder and primary contributor:

I had to weigh this carefully and deliberately. I like to snacking on cheese and I like getting BJs. However, two primary factors informed my decision here: A) I don't always know what to do with myself while getting head. Where do my arms go? When do I reciprocate? Sometimes handjobs are more fun and more, well, hands on. B) I'm sure that when I'm 64 I'll be able to enjoy cheese, but who knows if I'll be able to get BJs anymore? So cheese wins out. Sorry, oral sex.

2. Michael, Co-founder and primary contributor:

I was vegan for over 3 years. Possibly the worst three years of my life. My first link back into the non-vegan food chain was a slice of Vace cheese pizza. OMG, so good. Cheese is just too delicious, more readily available, and is known to raise serotonin levels. I can have orgasms without mouths involved.

3. Allison, Staff Contributor:

This may be more difficult for the lesbians to decide.... Even though I can't put a vagina on a ritz cracker, I still choose oral sex over cheese.

4. Craig, Staff Contributor:

Oral sex. I just can't quit you, Brie.

5. Matt, Staff Contributor:

I'd rather give up receptive oral sex. Honestly, I'd rather give than receive. Plus cheese is just so good.

6. Rocky, Music Editor:

Well I'm really more of a giver than a receiver, so the bj's, while nice, aren't all that necessary (as long as I'm still allowed to make out and fuck, of course.) As for the cheese, aside from a nice smoked gouda, I'm not super into that either, so this is a toughie... I guess I'll vote to keep the cheese, because I'd rather have a decent cheeseburger than a bad blowjob. Also, I feel weird answering this in a jury room...

7. Maggie, Staff Cartoonist:

As a vegan, my girlfriend has already made this decision; as for me, I balked at the question. After seriously weighing both options, I'd totally skip out on eating cheese to continue eating ... well, can you blame me? They do say vegans taste better...

8. Corey, Managing Editor and Staff Contributor:

This is really three questions:

1) Do I like cheese? YES. It is the best food category ever, followed closely by coffee and olives.

2) Do I like giving head? YES. Giving head is like making music. It takes rhythm, stamina, creativity, enthusiasm, and good breathing. As a former bass clarinetist myself... well, you get the idea.

3) Do I like getting head? ...........Oh, I'm sorry, I think I just fell asleep at the mere thought of getting head.

Anyway, that's my answer. I'm really jonesin' for some cheese now.

9. Ed, Staff Contributor:

It is offensive to my sensibilities and a betrayal of every principle upon which this great nation was built that any person who dares call him or herself an "American" would choose cheese over oral sex. Fellow Patriots, let me say unequivocally, and with no reservation in my heart, that when oral sex is administered properly in the pursuit of freedom and consistently to release our brothers and sisters from the tyranny of our oppressors, you will, without question, find me inextricably on the receiving end of a gifted and enthusiastic mouth that is striking a blow for liberty. Give me head or give me death! (Sorry, we were watching the John Adams mini-series this weekend.)

Editorial Staff:

10. Andrew, Editorial Assistant:

I'd give up cheese. No doubt. Also, I'm lactose intolerant so that just adds to the reasons to give cheese the boot. (No offense, cheese.)

11. Hans B., Editorial Assistant:

That's a tough one, but I've had more bad blowjobs than bad cheese. Cheese wins.

11. Jenna, Editorial Assistant:

I'd definitely have to go with the sex over the cheese, but that's possibly only because I'm not really a cheese person. If the question was about chocolate, I can't promise my answer would be the same...

12. Gem, Editorial Assistant:

I agree that this question is more difficult for the lesbians to answer and in fact, this question has been posed to me on more than one occasion. I'm actually surprised I've never asked this question in a staff meeting as it has somehow become my default icebreaker question in many a social circle.

Anyhow, answer is oral sex. Although the question is a toughy, I honestly cannot even fathom why anyone would ever answer differently.

13. Lauren, Editorial Assistant:

Woah! This is the second time I've heard this question today! ahaha. And always cheese and oral sex... never chocolate or masturbation...? I'm standing by the ladies, definitely give up cheese over oral sex.

14. Whitney, Editorial Assistant:

At the risk of having to relinquish my dyke card, I'd give up receptive oral sex. There are lots of ways to get off, but only one way to get macaroni & cheese.

Read More......

Sexual Disorientation: Phones r 4 Txt, People are for Sex

Delve into the jungle of the newly out and single. TNG Managing Editor Corey discusses dating and sex - or lack thereof - every Wednesday morning in Sexual Disorientation.

In a posh San Francisco hotel room two blocks from Union Square, I had just done something over the phone that Alexander Graham Bell couldn't possibly have had in mind. It happened with a fellow Georgetown student with whom I had started getting flirtatious by phone and chat while living on the other side of the country. We still had weeks before we'd see each other in person, so while I normally wouldn't have done it, I thought phone sex might be okay in this situation.

"So," I heard from the other side of phoneline, "how did you enjoy our first time?"

With that one sentence, I suddenly felt very strange about what we had done. Phone sex is not sex, and the implication that the two were the same - and we had just experienced our "first time" - freaked me out. What I didn't realize yet was that this was but one symptom of a problem that this guy and many others share in the so-called Digital Age.

Technology allows us to communicate in a depersonalized way. But what happens when we become more comfortable with even romantic relations through the medium of a computer or phone? What happens when we make intimacy unintimate?

It wasn't just this incident that made me wonder. We hooked up once when I moved back to the District, and although we both enjoyed it, I didn't think it was a good match and wanted to cut things off. He, on the other hand, wanted to give it another go.

But whenever he asked me to fool around again (or, for that matter, have a conversation), he wanted to do it via phone or webcam. At this point we were living ten minutes away by foot in Georgetown. "Wouldn't you rather come over in person?" I asked. It seemed utterly bizarre that someone would want to mess around using Skype when I could be there in ten minutes, especially since we had done so before and there were no complaints. Needless to say, I took that as a sign that I should abandon any notion of reviving this affair.

We've all heard warnings about the dangers of these kinds of communications. But in this case there was no risk that my "teenage college student" was really an old man living in backwoods Virginia in a house full of human hair. He was who he said he was, he just preferred to partake in even his most intimate encounters from a distance.

And while that's an extreme example, I think it's part of an all-too-common trend. How many folks seem to have nothing to say in person but will talk up a storm through chats and texts? Or will flirt and send all kinds of signals from the safety of their PDAs but hardly show any PDA when encountered in person?

Sometimes these electronically-only men have led to boring dates where they haven't had anything to say. Having determined that our chemistry wasn't real, we've parted ways and that's been that. More puzzling are the men who will go on one of these horrible dates, return to their laptops and phones, and request that we go out once again. They don't seem put off by the fact that we have no chemistry in person because the chemistry when we communicate electronically still seems to work.

Truth be told, the "information age" has brought out the worst dating qualities in more than just these dependent users. It's bad over-analyzers like me, too.

If you have a conversation with someone face-to-face, you have it and it's over. You retain certain memories - images and words and emotions - but you usually can't go back, retrace every word and ask all of your friends about it. I find that when I try to report back on a conversation to another friend, I realize in telling the story that most of the little details I've fussed over aren't very important.

On the other hand, when you can return to everything that was said it's easy to become obsessive. I know I'm not the only guilty one because I'm constantly asked by friends to interpret what someone meant between the lines, whether someone is interested in them, etc.

And on top of that, breakups in the land of emails, texts and IMs present the perfect opportunity to relive the past again and again. I've tried to wipe my Gmail account of long-lost men, but they still creep up when I search for something obscure or look back into the annals of emails past. Thanks to the good folks at Google, our flirtations and relationships can never really be erased - they just get archived.

All of this leads me to my conclusion: technological communication doesn't really make the dating thing any easier. It leaves a digital version of a paper trail, it allows people to escape finding real chemistry, and for some people it can even come to replace intimacy altogether.

Flirting and fooling around through an electronic medium may take away some of the pressure and awkwardness, but that's part of meeting people and dating. I love reading through the missed connections on Craigslist as much as the next girl, but if finding a partner was as easy as finding a used sofa, relationships wouldn't even be worth pursuing. I'm want a relationship so that I can turn the computer off and spend my time with another human being. It doesn't seem logical that I'll find that with someone who needs to have a keyboard between us.

So I'm going to try my best to pursue relationships the good old-fashioned way - in real life, or IRL for you instant messagers out there. My phone bill is high enough as it is, and I'd rather spend the evening watching old episodes of "Friends" than some guy stripping on a webcam.

Read More......

Ticket Giveaway: "Romance for The Rest of Us" w/ Reid Mihalko

This post was written by TNG co-founder Zack.

Romance is a many splendored thing. Breakfast in bed. Flowers at work. Taking the time to flush after you take a dump with the door open. Lets face it: all the schmaltzy gestures that work in the beginning of the relationship can be downright bizarre a couple years in. If I came home tomorrow with my house filled with candles and flowers I would probably just worry that my boyfriend wasn't aware of our building's fire code. Thats why we have our own version of romantic gestures. I like surprise him with concert tickets, he does the cooking. That's our kind of romance.

Floating, sex positive community center Whole DC is putting on a class tomorrow (March 5th) at the Darlington House Library, from 7 - 9p.m., entitled "Romance for the Rest of Us." Hosted by sex writer and Cuddle Party originator Reid Mihalko (pictured), the workshop addresses the fact that real romance won't always look like the movies and gives some tips about how normal people can keep their spark alive.

And luckily enough for you, we're giving away a pair of tickets. To enter, simply answer the below question as both a comment and an email to Zack@thenewgay.net.

What is the most romantic thing that anyone has ever done for you?

Answer that makes me go "awww" the loudest wins.

Read More......

I Love Making Out

TNG co-founder Zack's loins were left all giddy by last week's taste of spring. This week, he continues his semi-regular series on things he loves by writing about sex.


How did everyone's Saturday go? Mine was really fun. I got to participate in Crack: Journey to Uranus (which was a huge success) an then go hang out at Shift afterwards (also a huge success.) Beside the once in a lifetime fact of me both attending and enjoying Town and Cobalt in the same night, Saturday marked the triumphant return of my leaving the house with a flask full of Jim Beam. The last time that happened (a year ago to the day, incidentally) I ended up showing my penis to an old friend in the linen closet of a Columbia Heights house party. This year it lead me to go up to every guy at Cobalt I've ever been attracted to and try to make out with them. Though I am hazy on the exact numbers, I believe there was tongue contact between me and roughly seven or eight other unsuspecting guys. That doesn't even include my amused and fully-informed boyfriend. I would be horribly embarrassed if I wasn't so elated.

Making out is one of my all time favorite activities. In college, my friends and I tried to decide what all of our "things" were, the oft-repeated idiosyncrasies that defined our dating life. One of my friends went crazy and messed up every relationship at the two-month mark. The other had a habit of feeling up girls on the dance floor before he had ever kissed them. But my "thing" was making out. Aggressive, serial, almost compulsive making out. For shits and giggles, my best friend kept a running tally of everyone I had kissed-with-tongue between orientation and graduation. The final total was somewhere around 68. If there was ever a nuclear holocaust I'm sure that the entire homo population of my Alma Mater could be cloned by taking a quick swab off my tongue. That's to say nothing of the good-natured straight girls who also fell in my path.

What is it about making out that makes it one of life's greatest joys? The objective concept of it is almost as gross as sex. Lets take the moist hole in my head that food goes into and spit comes out of and marry it to yours. Then lets try to guess what we each had for lunch. But in actual execution? Heaven. A good first kiss can seal a relationship forever (just ask my boyfriend. Our was, of course, standing up in the smoking area outside the Black Cat.) But a bad first kiss — too much tongue, too much teeth, too much garlic-flavor— can send one screaming for a nunnery.

Seriously folks: What is the appeal of making out? I'm scared that if I spend too much time trying to understand it I will ruin the fun.

Read More......

I Love Foreskins and Body Hair

TNG co-founder Zack's loins were left all giddy by last week's taste of spring. This week, he continues his semi-regular series of things he loves by writing about sex.


My boyfriend likes to tease me about my all-abiding love for bacon. Whereas I just consider it a tasty breakfast treat, or quick on-the-go snack, he sees it as the chosen people's forbidden fruit. There might be some truth to this. Though I was not brought up kosher, many of my Jewish friends mark their first foray into pigskin (or "Bacon Rebellion," as my friend Shelley called it) as the beginning of a break from family and culture that defines growing up.

While bacon (and its hippie cousin, turkey bacon) were never out of reach to me, my Jewish upbringing did leave me eternally fascinated with something I could never have: a foreskin. The way that some guys wish they could have boobs for one day, just to play with, is the similar to my infatuation with a little piece of skin. Sexual connotations aside, I don't have one and some people do. It's crazy to think about- my religion, and most western culture, snip off a piece of our most sensitive body part and we've all come to think its normal. What would it be like to have the flap? Unless I want to invest a painful series of weights and pulleys, I'll never know.

Foreskins are more of a curiosity for me than a turn-on. If I get close enough to see one I'm probably turned on already, so its hard to gauge their effect on the whole mating process. Body hair, however, is a whole different story.

80% of my body hair is relegated to my legs. The rest is a scant smattering that collects around my nipples and leaks into a thin arch between my pecs. But for as long as I can remember there are few things that I find as attractive as a "happy trail." Known in some regions as a "treasure trail," it is the thick line of hair that leads from one's belly button down to parts unknown. When creeping out the top of one's jeans it is a strong visual suggestion of what else a guy has to offer and, as such, it is one of my favorite things.

But like some of my other favorite things - dignity, the ability to practice moderation- I will never have a hairy stomach. So I have to appreciate from afar... and on some lucky occasions, from a-close. My desire to pursue the things that I myself don't possess can be disconcerting. At its most romantic, it fulfills Plato's (and Hedwig's) origin of love, the myth that humans are just half-entities trying to find their missing piece. More realistically, it's an odd slice of hetero convention in my gay dating pie. Isn't the definition of straight desire the pursuance of that which is unlike you?

I guess I could theorize all day, but this was supposed to be a piece about beauty. The whole reason I'm writing it is because of someone I saw in the showers at my gym yesterday. I know I write about that place a lot, but it's like a museum for lovers of the male form. You look, you don't touch, and maybe later in the day you tell someone else about what you saw there. What sent me running home to describe to my boyfriend was a guy with a thick fog of black hair that crept up his legs onto his ass, curled over onto his belly and came to rest on the length of his torso. No matter what you like, its hard not to read the poetry of the male body.

Read More......

Tristan Taormino: The New Gay Interview

GWU grad student Chad submitted this interview. You can also read more about the book reading this Saturday and the after party.

You don’t usually see them, but they’re everywhere around you… lurking near the barstools at the pub, sweating in the steam room with you at the gym, hiding in the bathroom stall at work with that scary man who always spends 20 minutes on the toilet after his morning coffee. I’m talking about buttholes! Sure they can be awkward, they can be disorderly, they can even be hairless if you’ve got the moxy to ask Andre for a back/crack/sac… but most importantly, they can be fun! And that is what renowned feminist, queer advocate, and anal sexpert, Tristan Taormino, is here to remind us.

Engaging, charming, and filled with rectal fervor; Taormino has spent the last 10 years promoting sex-positive attitudes, and plain-old good sex, through workshops like this Friday’s ‘Anal Pleasure 101’ hosted at from 7-9pm (14^th Ave. and Rhode Island, NW). Tickets ($25) are limited and only available online, here. Your ass has its own language, dear readers… and this woman is the fucking Rosetta Stone! Don’t miss your chance learn sphincter-nese, and meet a remarkable queer icon in the process! Check below the fold for more on Tristan Taormino, including our conversation about how her anus had me at hello…

Taormino has authored four books, including the acclaimed The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women and Opening Up: Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships; edited numerous collections of lesbian erotica published by Cleis Press, including fourteen volumes of the Lambda Literary Award winning anthology Best Lesbian Erotica; and directed (and starred in) an assortment of adult movies and sex-education videos. She was kind enough to talk with me Tuesday about her work on, and for, all the world’s assholes.

Full interview below the fold.

The New Gay: Tristan, what got you started in the sex industry?

Tristan Taormino: I was supposed to go to law school! I was finishing up undergrad [Tristan graduated from Wesleyan University with a degree in American studies], and started applying to law schools. I had taken a class in college on queer optimism in the early 90s, and actually wrote my thesis about sex and sexuality. When the law school thing didn’t work out, I asked my thesis advisor for advice. He told me that he thought I was a good writer, and that I seemed to enjoy writing about sexuality, so he suggested I look into sex writing. And that’s what I did. I started out freelancing, but then got my first major gig in 1996 editing the Best Lesbian Erotica series. I was really drawn to that project because at the time there were only maybe a handful of good erotica novels, or even romance novels, that featured lesbian sex. I liked the idea of working on an annual series focused on exploring and celebrating lesbian sex.

TNG: We’ve been promoting your Anal Pleasure 101 workshop at TNG. You are considered an anal sexpert (I’m kind of in love with your job title, by the way). What about anal sex appeals to you the most?

TT: [Laughs] I just love anal sex! I love everything about it.

TNG: I don’t get it. Can women even get off from that? Don’t worry, I plan on attending your workshop on Friday, but I might need a little spoiler now to help me understand.

TT: Ugh. Oh course women can get off from anal penetration! It can be from just anal play alone through indirect g-spot stimulation, or by adding some clitoral stimulation in combo during the process. Not to mention, there is a powerful emotional and psychological aspect to anal sex that adds to the experience. This is why I teach about, and have written so much about, anal sex. There is a real dearth of information on the subject from the woman’s point of view. Guys have a prostate so it is obvious that they enjoy anal stimulation, but it can be just as much fun for women!

TNG: So would you say that, for you, mastering the anus has been a smooth and easy journey, or a difficult and chaffing one?

TT: [Laughs]. For me it was smooth and easy, but I know that’s not everyone’s experience! A lot of people I talk to have had very negative first experiences, and it takes them a while to get back into it. I loved my first time! I was lucky enough to lose my anal virginity to a well-experienced dyke… she knew about lube… it was mind blowing!

TNG: If your anus could talk, Tristan, what would it say?

TT: “I’m the center of attention! I hope that other hole doesn’t feel left out.”

TNG: You’ve often said that you self-identify as a lesbian [although you’ve had heterosexual partners] because you strongly identify with the queer culture and community. What about the queer experience do you most treasure, and what things about our community would you still like to see change?

TT: Queer people have always been on the forefront of the sex-radical/sex-positive movement. Probably in large part because that is how we figure out we are even gay to begin with, through sexual deviation from mainstream practices. Coming out makes us want to investigate sex, it makes us value sex as an important part of our identity. I love that self-explorative spirit in our community! As for what I would change, there is still too much segregation in our culture. When I worked on Dark Odyssey [what’s been described as “a weekend retreat filled with workshops and kinky play that mixes spirituality with sexuality”] it was really hard at first to get gay men there. They have so many spaces already where they can go and be unmixed, and feel perfectly comfortable. Sometimes it is hard to convince people how important it is to have mixed spaces where all different types of people can come together and interact. More recently, I have noticed a growing trend of all-gender queer sex parties, and I am happy to see that. But we still have a long way to go.

TNG: Yeah, beyond experiencing marginalization queer men and women can often have difficult times finding commonality in our culture. Do you think there is something strong enough to bind us cohesively?

TT: ANAL SEX!!! Everyone has a butthole… everyone can enjoy anal sex! Man, woman, straight, gay… no matter religion, color, or political disposition… our assholes are all the same.

TNG: Wow, buttholes could save the world!?

TT: [Laughs] You kind of left that wide open for me, sorry.

TNG: In writing your books, and gathering material for your workshop, have you been able to draw completely from your personal experiences or have you needed to seek outside expertise?

TT: I definitely had to consult a lot of outside, especially medical, references. In the beginning I had no idea about anal anatomy. I get a LOT of questions and feedback in my workshops, and after 10 years I can now field most of the stuff myself. Every once in a while, though, I’ll still get a question that stumps me and forces me to do more research.

TNG: Abstinence only education has been a huge failure in the United States. What do you think successful sex education curriculum for young kids should involve?

TT: Ahhh, this is such a big concern of mine! They won’t let me go near anyone under 18 because I’ve been in sex films, but I WISH I could talk to them! I’ve gotten emails… plural… not just one, from young girls asking if they can get pregnant from anal sex. I think that just highlights an overall failure of current sex education to teach children what they need to know to be safe and healthy. I think kids should stop being protected from real information! They should be told the truth about all the ways you can have sex, and the all the ways it can potentially risk your health, from people who aren’t afraid to be honest and explicit with them. Teachers need to stop using heavy jargon and medical terms to communicate sex. When you say fallopian tube to a 15 year old, they have no real concept of what that is. As educators, we need to meet kids on their level and explain things with pictures and language that they can follow. Also, we need to provide better access to safe-sex materials, like literature and condoms. Condoms in every counselor’s and nurse’s office.

TNG: Yeah, they don’t let me near anyone under 18 either… probably for different reasons. But do you think it is counter-productive to be so explicit with children? With adults, a certain shock value can bring us out of our comfort zone and spark good communication; with kids though, it tends to distract them.

TT: There’s a way to be explicit without being provocative. I just mean that they should have access to sources of specific, unambiguous information.

TNG: Moving back to sex-positivity for adults, do you feel that public sex venues, like the old sex theaters from NYC’s Times Square, have a place in contemporary society?

TT: Oh god, the sad fate of the sex theaters! Definitely when people have access to information, and sex, in public spaces, they get to learn and experience more about themselves and how they fit into the world. Sex clubs and peep shows can be sites of not just orgasms, but where people come out and figure out their sexuality… where they do activism, educate, and interact with each other. Sure there will always be spaces that are no more than sleazy peep shows, but the potential is there for them to be a lot more. Historically, these venues have been really influential spaces for gay men… and slowly they are becoming so for queer women too.

TNG: Have you always been so outspoken and raw with who you are?

TT: No, I’ve definitely not always been this way. But I feel driven as a sex educator, and when you can tell the truth and be honest with people about who you are and your experiences, that’s when they really start to learn things about themselves. I am really passionate about what I do, and I think people can pick up on that and know I am speaking from my heart.

TNG: Where have you found your best role models for sex-positive behavior?

TT: Queer women. People like Betty Dodson, Carol Queen, Deborah Sundahl, and the like. They paved the way for a sex-positive movement, and are all role models of mine.

TNG: Finally, what is next for Tristan Taormino?

TT: I just finished two new books. The first one, which comes out in May, is an anal sex position guide, fully illustrated with 4-color photography. It is being published by Quiver Press. Just when you thought I didn’t have anything else to say about anal sex, just wait! The second book should come out in about a year, it is going to be a sex toy bible. That’s my other favorite topic, sex toys!

TNG: Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with TNG, Tristan. It was a real pleasure!

TT: Hope to see you, and your readers, at the workshop on Friday!

Read More......

Sexual Disorientation: Leagues, Positions or Players?

Delve into the jungle of the newly out and single. TNG Managing Editor Corey discusses dating and sex - or lack thereof - every Wednesday morning in Sexual Disorientation.

Baseball has given me only three things: a good reason not to watch TV in the summer; this picture of Nomar Garciaparra, which pretty much got me through high school; and a lot of great analogies for sex.

We start out as kids learning the ever-popular bases, which beyond first being kissing and a home run being, well, a home run, get kind of confusing. (In fact, either this Urban Dictionary entry is out of hand or I don't know nearly enough slang to be writing a dating column.) But we soon learn that there are also different "leagues" involved in courtship, with the Majors reserved for people who really know how to score. And at least if you're a gay man, you'll also become familiar with baseball positions - the catchers and pitchers deal which some people have taken beyond a top-and-bottom metaphor to a total descriptor of people's roles in a romantic pursuit.

But how much do leagues and positions, which are essentially just ways of grouping the dating pool, really matter? The more I talk about it, the more I feel that it's an illusion - at least to an extent.

I began to raise all these questions over the weekend after I was blatantly checked out by a random guy in the lounge outside my office. He was tall, dark, and handsome, totally cute, and way out of my league. Don't be cocky, I thought to myself; there's no way this guy could be checking you out. I looked away for a second but couldn't resist turning back. He was still looking in my direction, smiling ever-so-slightly. I started blushing and averted my eyes, leaving him to walk into the coffee shop and leaving myself confused.

Back in my office, I changed my gmail status - the bat signal of the 21st century young professional - to a detailed description of what had happened and the question of why someone who couldn't have been into me would have given me "the look." Within no time, five friends had responded to my message. The first few were from hetero ladies telling me that no one was out of my league. I appreciated their kindness, but really, I thought, they couldn't be serious.

I'm not what I would consider a shallow person, but I've always thought it a universal understanding that some people are objectively better looking than others; it has been a fact of life, like the sky being blue or Starbucks being overpriced. I have always believed that the personal chemistry I feel with a person, what we have in common, and what I can admire about them mean a lot more to me than how they look, but that has never stopped me from wondering if I've been attractive enough to earn someone else's attention. In fact, thinking about it I realized that I only employed leagues to place myself below people I found to be too good to want me, not to veto someone from earning my consideration.

The plot thickened when a gay friend suggested that anyone could be in whatever league they wanted if they were willing to play hard enough. If you can be the aggressor, and can pursue with confidence, you can get what guys you want. It may not exactly follow the "what position do you play," top-bottom idea that I've never gone along with, but it did have to do with roles. If I could lose my shyness and indecision and just go for it, could I change from being a gazelle to a cheetah and no longer have to worry about what guys are "in my league"?

I remain unconvinced. Yeah, my self-esteem isn't as high as it might be, and being a little less timid couldn't hurt my chances on the singles market. But part of that is who I am. I'm awkward, earnest, complicated, sometimes a little too naive and sometimes a little too skeptical, I always over-think things, and I can never accept the obvious answer. (Hence writing a column about this incident instead of just saying, he checked me out and therefore probably thought I was cute.)

And I think it's about more than just being the pursuer or the pursued, the one at bat or the one simply hoping to catch what comes near. Like it or not, people look different, present themselves differently, take care of themselves to different degrees... At the end of the day, no two people are quite alike, and we cannot be attracted to everyone.

But I think that what Ben told me makes sense, which is that "there are many, many teams in your league. So it is for most people." If I'm understanding him correctly, this means that we all seem attractive to different people. No matter how much I might change myself or how confident I might become, there are some guys who still wouldn't give me a second glance. But some people may not want me to change at all. Short, awkward guys with messy, self-cut hair and eyebrow rings might be exactly their type.

So maybe the labels we affix to others and ourselves don't matter nearly as much as the people playing the game. I've tried to keep this in mind this week while interacting with cute guys, even if my gut has told me that they're out of my grasp. Life is too short to always worry about what other people might be thinking based on our own conceptions of ourselves. I always thought it was presumptuous to assume that guys looking my way were checking me out, but maybe it's more presumptuous to believe that I know better than them what kind of guys they should be looking at. There is no rational system behind attraction, and as William James said in A Pluralistic Universe, "the only thing that ever drives human beings insane is logic"."

The new system is going well. And while I haven't hit it out of the park yet, at least I'm not sitting on the bench.

Read More......

Ticket Giveaway: Anal Pleasure 101 w/ Tristan Taormino

This post was written by TNG co-founder Zack.

The butt: place from which you defecate or oft-misunderstood sex organ? If you answered the first option you have a lot to learn. Though it can be dauting (or just smelly) the body part that dare not speak its name in front of your grandparents can actually be the gateway to a great deal of fun.

Whole DC, a sex-positive floating (but soon to have its own venue) community center is holding several events this weekend to along the themes of open relationships, polyamory and just plain good sex. There is a whole roster of awesome events you should check out, but the one we're giving away a pair of tickets for is the class Anal Pleasure 101 with queer (and foxy) author Tristan Taormino. (Pictured.) The co-ed and trans-friendly class is described like this:

In this sublime workshop, one she has taught around the world for over 9 years, Tristan introduces you to the world of anal pleasure for men and women. With humor and skill she covers a wide variety of topics, including: myths about anal sex; anal anatomy, the G-spot, and the prostate; basic preparation and hygiene; lubes, anal toys, and safer sex; anal penetration for beginners, and much more! There will be time for questions & answers with Tristan and her books & DVDs will be on sale for you to take home.

To win a pair of tickets, simply answer the below question both as a comment and an email to Zack@thenewgay.net. The workshop takes place this Friday at the Hotel Helix from 7 - 9 p.m. Please do not enter unless you are able to attend:

I'm going to throw caution to the wind here and leave this question open: Why do you want to win tickets to this class? Most creative or bizarre answer wins.

If you don't win, or just want to support local organiations, you can buy your tickets online.

Read More......

I Love Boners

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Read More......

Introducing "Wide Stance" with Rocky and Corey

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Read More......

Gays, Sex, and the Lutheran Church

TNG Managing Editor and religious conflict studier Corey submitted this piece.

I've lately been forced to spend a little less time writing for TNG and a little more time writing my thesis, for which the March deadline has been too rapidly approaching. My topic is the consideration within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America of altering their position on sexuality - specifically, on how to handle same-sex partnered members of the congregation and, potentially, of the clergy.

The word "Evangelical" seems out of place in their name, at least in our current sociopolitical climate, as they are not what one would typically call an evangelical church. The ELCA is part of mainline protestantism - like the Episcopal and Methodist churches - and has almost five million members. Like these other mainline groups, it has traditionally been more liberal than other Christian denominations, including other protestants and Catholics. The final draft of their proposed "statement on human sexuality" won't be publicly released until February 19th; my thesis adviser is actually on the task force making the decision, but is sworn to secrecy until that date. (For anyone who has felt like a professor was keeping critical information just beyond your reach - I think I have you beat.)

I've been thinking about this a lot, though, and have read through dozens of church documents and studies, as well as a draft of their final proposal. My most shocking discovery is that the Lutheran church has done what many Americans have failed to do: they've separated gays from sex.

When I started coming out to people a few years ago, I often felt disenfranchised from gay people I talked to who invalidated some of my opinions on the basis that I hadn't had sex. I told one friend that I didn't think about myself as a top or a bottom, and he just laughed and said, "Don't worry, that'll change once you've actually done something." Indeed, a lot of people thought it was weird for me to come out when I hadn't so much as kissed a guy before. "How do you know you're gay?" they asked. It's a silly question - plenty of people think they're hetero before they've hooked up with members of the opposite sex, and most of them don't wonder if they should make out with some individuals of their sex or gender "just to check." The presumption is that people are hetero until proven gay, and Exhibit A in the U.S. Orientational Court tends to be sex.

What interests me about the Lutheran's process is that they have separated sex and orientation. In 2005, the church as a whole decided against the task force's recommendation to allow people in same-sex relationships to serve as pastors. When this happened, newspapers across the country published headlines like, "Lutheran Church Continues Ban on Homosexual Pastors." As I have written my thesis, my adviser has asked me to never use the term homosexual or gay. The ELCA has never in its history so much as hinted at a ban on homosexual persons from serving as pastors. The question is: do people with homosexual orientations have to remain celibate to serve, or can those in committed same-sex relationships also be rostered members?

On the one hand, this is not a great thing. It sets a double standard between gay candidates and hetero ones (as hetero pastors can be married in the ELCA), and suggests that there is something wrong with gays having sex.

On the other hand, it also shows that Lutherans accept that some people are gay and that there is nothing about this itself that prevents them from serving. A gay individual is not just a disease-infested whore, but rather an individual with a different sexual orientation than her/his hetero peers.

It should also be noted that the churches are expected to be warm and welcoming to any gay members of their congregations. What the church is trying to decide is not whether or not to welcome gay persons, partnered or single, but rather how to address those partnerships - whether or not to bless those relationships. It remains to be seen exactly how they will decide, but when the task force publishes their recommendations next week, we'll know at least what is to be voted on this summer.

The whole thing is a bit confusing to me, considering the following. The church acknowledges that sex is a good thing, part of God's creation and not something about which to be ashamed. They believe that it has more than just a procreative function. However, they also believe that it is strictly for people in committed, life long relationships, and as of today, they seem on the fence as to whether or not it is something that gay people should be doing.

I guess I have a hard time wrapping my head around ambivalence towards sex. I can better understand the wackos who think it's all filthy and awful - I disagree, but at least that makes sense. And I can understand people, religious or otherwise, who think sex is enjoyable and an essential part of life, and believe that as long as it's safe, they will go for it as they see fit. The ELCA's position is much more nuanced, and hard for this agnostic gay man to figure out.

But for better or for worse, I know that they have drawn a distinction between gay people and gay sex - and even gay sex and gay relationships. While they may choose to largely affirm gay relationships, they still won't approve of a weekend of cruising Craigslist and going to glory hole parties (sorry, y'all). And in a world that too often equates gay identity with who and when and where we fuck, I think that on at least some level this is a good thing.

Read More......

Madonna-Whore, Meet Savior-Scum

TNG Managing Editor Corey submitted this piece.

I've long been thinking that I have some kind of a gay man's version of the Madonna-Whore Complex. If you're unfamiliar with this term, it's the idea that straight men want to marry a Madonna (a sexless, perfect, saintly woman) and sleep with a Whore (a... well, you know). For me it's a sad-but-too-often-true look at the double-standard expected of hetero women in today's culture.

The version I associate with - which I have come to call the Savior-Scum Complex - is the desire of gay men to find a guy who is part gentleman, hero, and rescuer from the depths of the single abyss, and part dumb asshole who you know will treat you like shit. (I can only imagine that a lot of hetero women share this same kind of concept, based on my interactions with them; I'm not sure if gay or bi women have a take, but if so I'd love to hear it.)

What I hadn't realized before is that the District is the perfect / worst place on earth for a Savior-Scum sufferer. It is hard to imagine a more phallocentric, messiah-on-the-outside, dirtbag-on-the-inside figure than the American Politician. As I read Ben's post from Wednesday on our need for Barack Obama so save our poor souls, I realized that he is the perfect candidate for this. I'll admit it - I'm very attracted to our new president, and not just because he looks like this with his shirt off. While I want him to do a great job and fix all our nation's problems, I also know that I will probably only be disappointed in the end. He will pivot from his principles, make an egregious error, be the center of some scandal, or otherwise find a way to let us (or at least people like me) down.

At best, politicians prove themselves human and flawed; at worst, they prove themselves to be somehow sub-human - dark, Blagojevichian creatures of the first ring of hell. And, perhaps perversely, part of me is more than happy to see this happen.

Hit me with your worst, Mr. President. We both know I want it.

Read More......

The Greatest Gay Lie Ever Told?

This post was written by TNG founder Zack.


In Ben's recent post, The Single Guy, he presented a fairly objective account of a single gay guy's foray into oodles of unemotional sex. The narrative withheld most judgments on the experience. Our readers did not. Commenter after commenter indicated that experience sounded "bleak" or "like looking into hell with the lid off."

This opinion is not just limited to some off-handed comments on a website. Most guys I know who are in serious relationships talk about their frivolous single phase as if it was a stint in a Cambodian jail. Like the strains and indignities of the unattached gay life were so miserable that their end is as relieving as a hemorrhoid removal.

I don't think I've had the traditional gay single life, a fact of which most longtime readers of this site are aware. Because I bitch about it all the damn time. But still, even though it can be lonely or frustrating there are aspects of wanton sluttery that sound really appealing to me. It sounds like a part of one's life that, disgusting as it might be, needs to be gotten out of the way. I wouldn't even trade my boyfriend's little toe for a night of Manhunt fun or JR's cruising but I am curious what the experience was like for others. My friends that have done such things never speak of them fondly when I ask them to tell their stories.

"I'm so glad those days are over." "It was the worst." "Trust me, you're lucky to have skipped all that."

I don't buy it.

It makes me imagine some guy meeting his friends for brunch one morning and saying "Uch, the worst thing happened to me last night. I met a guy at a bar and he gave me a blowjob. I'll never be the same."

As one friend rubs his back in consolation, his other buddy says "You think that's bad? I have three dates next week. Three dates! It's...It's...."

As he struggles to properly express his horror at the prospect, their fourth friend, heretofore quiet, begins to let out wrenching, shuddering sobs. As his chest shakes and the tears trickle down his cheeks, he manages to choke out "I fucked a guy last week. He had really nice arms. Then I fucked him again in the morning!" As the group wallows in their own misfortune, the waitress hurries back to the kitchen for a round of chocolate ice cream and xanax.

Does this sound accurate? It is really easy to say in retrospect that a lot of dating and random sex sucks. At the time, though, I think men get something out of it. They wouldn't do it if they didn't. They get sex or comfort or conquest or validation or any of the billion possible medallions that one hangs invisibly around their neck as they walk back home in the morning from a house they've never been to before and will never go to again.

There are very few instances where someone holds a gun to your head or a dick to your mouth. The "Queer as Folk" life isn't for everyone and I know many people that have skipped it all together. But for those that did make a choice to go out and sample the local fruits: Why are you so quick to turn your back on it?

Read More......

A Letter To Marketing Hot Guy

TNG Contributor Ben submits this post as part of our growing collection of letters.

Dear Marketing Hot Guy,

I'm confused by your signals. For the last several months, you have dominated in your role as anonymous symbol of homosexual desire. I've seen your photo in the Blade, MetroWeekly, and numerous other print and online publications (always with your shirt off) promoting methods by which I can get my rocks off. Whether you're marketing phone sex, online sex, or products and locations that increase my chances of finding sex, our relationship (and your perfect chest/blonde glory) has been clearly defined. However, I sense you want more.

Imagine my surprise when I saw you clothed (a suit no less) in a recent ad for a career building website (see photo on right). I'm not sure what's going on here, but there's a big difference between "let's get naked/don't let the sun catch you in my house" and "let me help you develop your resume and improve your interview skills." It's just a bit….fast. Sex is one thing, but keep in mind that gays grind through visual eye candy faster than the ladies in my office kill sugar cookies (their annual consumption of sucrose is equal to the production capacity of several small latin american countries), so if you want to stick around and deepen our relationship, I need more personalized marketing, like those testimonial ads I've seen for headache medicine and personal injury lawyers (Bidderman and Associates got me my money, AND cured my headache!) or maybe ads for the neti pot or shamwow. You know, more intimate items. It's about developing trust, and you've got to earn it. I need our relationship to be based on more than just sex and flashy promises. That means for now, steer clear of the luxury items. Gays are too tough to fall for the pretty lies their tricks tell them, so don't even think about trying to sell me an SUV.

I'm not saying I'm not open to you sticking around, but like most, I've been burned. With any luck, our marketing/consumer relationship will blossom, and one day your wrinkled self will be on TV with your life partner, selling me financial planning services like in those TV commercials where joyful self-involved ex-hippies bounce around on a beach to a 1960s soundtrack, trying not to remember how they sold out their ideals to selfishness and greed (for us, you will probably be floating through a space station to Lady GaGa).

Commitment and transitioning relationships are tricky things, but I'm willing to try.

Love,
Ben

Read More......

Real Men Don’t Screw Dudes

TNG reader Evan submits this piece.

For those of us (gay men) coming of age in the Internet Age, “gay for pay” is probably a familiar term. Not so for the mostly straight (presumably), female, and bug-eyed audience of the Tyra Banks Show. Luckily, the titular beauty queen is here to enlighten. On Thursday’s episode, Tyra casts a disinfecting ray of sunlight on the gay-for-pay phenomenon (which is, FYI, straight guys doing gay porn). And she wastes no time getting down to brass tacks. “How do I say this on daytime TV?” Tyra ponders to her first guest, a nervous looking Kurt Wild, straight man and professional gay-sex-haver. “O.K. It’s Christmas day. . . Do you like to give presents, or receive them?” The audience erupts with laughter and applause. Best metaphor for anal sex between men ever! He equivocates a bit before Tyra calls him out: in front of the camera, she tells us, Mr. Wild prefers to “receive the presents—on Christmas day or Hanukkah or whatever.” Because the gift of sodomy knows no religion.

Now, I must admit that I have never watched the Tyra show before. Except, that is, for the clips Joel McHale and crew show on The Soup. On that program, Tyra is mocked weekly as a silly, self-obsessed, attention-desperate airhead. Taking this assessment at face value, and being generally familiar with the whole daytime talk-show oeuvre (Go Jerry! Go Jerry!), I wasn’t expecting much more than a tawdry freakshow. But I was disturbed, in my naivety, by the gender politics that came up during the hour. To be specific, the show sets up the two gay-for-pay pornstars as symbols of failed manhood.

The first part of the show is spent with Kurt Wild and one of his gay-for-pay costars, Aaron James. The air in the studio is repulsion mixed with incredulity. How can these two young men consider themselves straight—girlfriends and children notwithstanding—and voluntarily have sex with men? When Tyra asks James how he got into the gay porn business, he cites the big money and his adventuresome spirit: “I mean, how can you say no to something if you’ve never tried it in life?” (Tense silence.) “Wait, wait, back up Aaron,” says Tyra, “I think every woman in this audience has been asked a lot of things and we say ‘Hell no!’” (Laughter and applause.) We all know that men are terrified about pushing the boundaries of their sexuality, but even women won’t do some things!

In the next segment, Tyra trots out three straight men who bartend at gay clubs, saddling them also with the gay-for-pay label—even though all three profess to being frank about their heterosexuality with bar patrons. The first man, Victor, claims the hardest part of his job is pushing past the throngs of lusty gay men after his shift. “There was a guy that came to the club . . . and he actually offered me $40,000 to sleep with him that night.” (Gasps from the studio audience.) Tyra responds, “And were you gay for pay that night?” The bartender proudly shakes his head and smiles, “No I was not.” (The audience laughs with relief, applauds.) On to Corey, a fauxhawked muscleman with studs in each earlobe, well-pruned eyebrows, and a soul patch. He discusses one bar patron with a certain fetish: “I will give you $100,” the man told him, “if I can lick the bottom of your boot.” (Gasps from the studio audience.) “So I just thought he was joking around . . . [I] put my boot right on top of the bar there, [he] threw down a hundred-dollar bill, and just licked it, like, three times.” (The audience giggles, gasps, and makes various sounds of disgust.) Julio, the final bartender, explains that he too was offered money (this time $10,000) to spend the night with a patron, but he just couldn’t do it—he has a beautiful wife. (Audience cheers and applauds.) When did people start believing that straight flesh is the gay man’s Holy Grail? The pitiful gay man who pursues this ultimate prize—when did he become a stock character?

The comparison between straight gay-pornstars and straight gay-club-bartenders is hardly fair, but it screams here. After the bartenders share their stories of triumph—they are positively beside themselves at the depraved antics of those crazy queers—it becomes clear that the pornstars, in contrast, have failed at being real men. They fell to temptation; they took the money. And after doing gay sex, they have no claim to the moral superiority over gay men that is the birthright of the bartenders, and all other straight guys.

In Tyra’s defense, she does seem to recognize a homophobic tone in the conversation and attempts to address it: “A lot of people, like, say that, like, gay men are, like, freakier than, like, straight men—it’s not true—a man is a man, and a man is just nasty!” Thanks, girl. But the final segment shines ever more negative light on the porn actors by opening the discussion to three anti-porn panelists. The first is Matt Sanchez, a pro-military activist and self-described “100 percent flag-waving red-blooded Reagan Republican” who made headlines in 2007 when his gay porn past was exposed. Espousing his own straightness, Sanchez warns James and Wild that their porn pasts will come back to haunt them. Annie, a female ex-pornstar talks about the “empty hole inside my heart” that steered her to the adult film industry. “Every time you have sex with a stranger,” she claims, “a piece of you gets taken . . . and the shame builds,” leading to drugs and despair. Finally, Sean Kennedy, news editor of the Advocate, speaks explicitly on behalf of us gays, explaining that the gay-for-pay phenomenon does not sit well among the “gay community.” Gay for pay, he argues, is essentially a fraud whereby straight guys lie about their orientation to take advantage of gay men financially. Never mind the large number of Straight-Men-Doing-Gay-Sex! porn outlets, which suggest that the gay-for-pay thing is fine by us. Does looking at gay-for-pay porn make us race traitors?

It is not my aim here to tackle lofty (though worthy) questions of whether pornography is harmful to the actor or the viewer, to the individual or society. Nor is it my place to speculate that Wild and James are, in the depths of their respective hearts, actually gay. Or bisexual. That’s none of my business. But the scapegoating and suspicion of these men reveal only our anxiety surrounding those forbidden gaps between “gay” and “straight” (Friday’s edition of Tyra takes on bisexuality: is it real or bogus?), as well as our ongoing discomfort and fear of what two men can do together in bed. Responding to the criticism Aaron James says, “Tyra, I’m not ashamed of anything I do. I think people have a problem with gay for pay because they have a problem with homosexuals.” Right on, Aaron. I hope you find the woman of your dreams. (Or man.)

Read More......

Questions about Sex Shopping

Many of my friends are fans of Manhunt, the popular online nexus for gay sex shopping. Most have strong opinions about the value and overall impact of Manhunt, but I try to stay clear of taking any of those opinions as my own, being that I’ve never used the site. However, I have a few questions you may be able to help me with:

Q1: Interactions at clubs often feel like awkward financial transactions, so I understand how a more efficient consumer’s medium like Manhunt makes sense. Complex social variables are distilled into an online form that follows function. Your identity coalesces around your dick, your worth is easily quantified and bartered for goods, and your self-esteem is decoupled from anything more confusing than your stat marketed success. I’m impressed by the efficiency, but at what point does one tire of being a consumable product? Granted, we’re all consumed as product on a daily basis through our jobs, and we market ourselves obsessively in all facets of our lives, but from my own experience, I don’t feel very good about life or myself when I wear masks for extended periods of time. I just become frustrated and neurotic. With sex specifically, I find masks particularly intrusive to my well being. Is there a limit to the extent we can compartmentalize ourselves without damaging our ability to connect as real people? We are, after all, creatures of habit.

Q2: I have another friend who spends many hours a week on Manhunt talking to his invested community of virtual people, developing personal relationships that don’t transition from the keyboard to the headboard. Some of these friends he’s known for years and has never met. He tells me that he meets a lot of guys on Manhunt who are of the same mind. Is it now typical to build community through websites specifically oriented toward scoring quick sex? Is this unprecedented? Is it easier to develop gay community online than in the real world?

Q3; Could Manhunt be making men passive? With greater selection and ease of accessibility, does sex apathy set in? Most of my friends can't even remember the names of their tricks, so I would guess "yes."

The hunt is instinctual to males, but if you can lay back on your couch and let the dick come to you like a delivery pizza, in time doesn’t that make the modern gay man equivalent to some well-fed, caged animal in a zoo who can no longer exist in the wild?

The currency of online sex shopping is less complicated, but to me it seems that essential aspects of the transaction would lack appeal. You never know what you’re buying until it shows up on your doorstep, and with little more than a glance at the label it’s returned as soon as you try it on. Clicking on the merchandise and putting it your online cart is no substitute for more aggressive manifestations of animal nature: assembling the pack with which you run, roaming store to store, engaging in the hunt, and finding and winning the piece that stands out on the rack. Touching it, trying it on, modeling it in the mirror and contemplating whether it works on you, and maybe, just maybe, taking it home. Then again, that’s just me. Maybe I’m old fashioned.

Read More......

Better Porn

I was discussing a compare/contrast of gay porn with some friends at a Christmas party when the topic of straight porn surfaced. The two men I spoke with mentioned that lately they have started watching straight porn, as I have. Like them, I fumbled upon it while looking for gay porn, and decided “sure, what the hell.” Also, like them, I somewhat enjoyed it.

We all seemed to agree that whether its for novelty or theatre, there is some entertainment value to watching straight porn, for both the guys and the girls. While much of the fascination comes from watching talented actresses (who are nothing like the ladies in my office) get pummeled by often compelling man-bulls, I’m lead to believe that perhaps part of the fascination is that gay porn has become so boring that we’re looking for other sources of stimulation.

Granted, the problem may be that we're oversaturated. I’ve recently learned that most of my friends have much more porn than I do (I thought I was doing fairly well), with one friend of mine recently revealing that he had over 800 hours of porn on his computer. Perhaps we're so steeped in virtual flesh that we've lost something, but I’m not convinced that's the entire story.

I know of at least one gay site that splits itself in two, with one half featuring guy-on-guy, and the other half guy-on-girl, tapping into the fantasies that gay men have of watching straight men have sex with men. There are also numerous sites that use and market “straight” men as their primary carrot for luring gay men to their site. This seems to imply that gay men not only crave straight men, but an unobtainable fantasy and perhaps a more authentic masculinity (the latter is for another post entirely).

Watching the straight guys can be enjoyable, but I would like to see porn rely less on the easy option and truly blossom as a medium. Why not increase the theatre? If we want unobtainable fantasy, challenge us. I want to see sci-fi porn, where astronauts have to fuck there way through an alien race. I want historical porn, with orgies on a pirate ship. I want developed narratives, elaborate set-up, and costumes.

Most of all, on some level I want to connect with the actors. Xtube has a constant feed, where users post their home videos in real time. I bookmarked one particular video for jerk off material, but the next day, it was gone (the video was removed by the creator). The video was of straightforward sex, and it was creative and “real” in a way that you could sense an interesting undercurrent of context (a good video, in my estimation), but I was most intrigued by why the video was taken down. Was the tape made without the knowledge of the guy getting fucked? Did the guy getting fucked object? Did one of his friends find it online and tell the guy? Who is this guy who posts videos of his tricks? There’s a story here that we will never know, and it’s probably just as interesting (if not more so) than the sex itself. My point is that the mind is the greatest sexual organ, and personalities, stories, scenarios, and context sets it off as much as dick+hole visuals do.

With the amount of creative capital in our community, surely we can raise the bar, and maybe even give the straight boys a break. At very least I would expect a recurring porn soap opera.

Read More......