And you don't even reply that they may need medical attention?! Would you be as nonchalant about people with an interest in children? I mean, I have come to understand the vulgarity of your column, but I'm just wondering when you might draw the line?! Am I too normal or boring because I feel anything can be done so long as they are consenting adults?
Why can't you tell these people they're disgusting? Would that ruin your "image"? Think of the impressionable children who might read that smut and end up thinking there's nothing wrong with having sex with their pets?
Maybe I'm overreacting, and you will probably tell me not to read it if it offends me, but I just had to let my opinion be heard.
G From Queens
Hey, GFQ: I get lots of angry letters; vicious, name-calling, hysterical missives from people who, when the facts are reviewed, don't seem to have read the column their letters purport to respond to. That the majority of these letters come from Isadora Alman doesn't make them any less maddening.
Let's take your letter for example. You're disgusted by the subject of bestiality, particularly people having sex with their dogs. In the column you object to, I allowed a team of experts to address the issue, because, frankly, the whole subject made me wanna puke. And I said as much: "I'm trying not to be judgmental, but really, missy, you make me wanna puke. Blech."
As for the experts -- a vet, a sex therapist, and a spokesperson for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) -- what they had to say could hardly be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of cross-species sex play: "... they lick their butts, they lick their genitals, they lick other dogs' butts, they eat poop -- and it's very common for dogs to have E. coli in their feces -- I wouldn't want that in my mouth ..."; "... just going with your feelings, going with your desires, is irresponsible unless you include your brain, your judgment, before you make the decision to proceed ..."; "... this cannot be considered part of normal human interaction with a pet ..."; "... spend quality time with the dog in some other way."
I, like you, G, have drawn a big phat line around sex: Inside is anything consenting adults want to do with each other, outside is any sort of sexual act involving an unwilling person, an underage partner, or a pet. Having sex with kids is wrong, having sex with people against their will is wrong -- and so is fucking Fido or Flipper or Flicker or FiFi or ferrets. Wrong, wrong, wrong, sick, sick, sick. See a doctor. And to any lil' kinder out there who happened across that column and wound "up thinking there's nothing wrong with having sex with their pets," let me just say this: Put down the dog. Back slowly away from the dog.
Well, my "image" is in tatters. Happy now?
Hey, Faggot: I'm writing in response to "Insatiable" -- the guy who asked if there were words for female genitalia that didn't sound incomplete, derogatory, or anatomical. My girlfriend and I were grappling with the same problem and came up with the following: Boys have names for their penises -- Jimmy, Willie, Woody, Peter, Dick, to name a few -- therefore girls should have names for vaginas. We experimented with several names before deciding that "Suzy" worked best for us. If you aren't satisfied with what's out there, invent something better!
P.S. Do you have any suggestions for the male equivalent of a fag-hag? The best we could come up with was "lesbophile."
Hey, Suzy: A "Dyke-Mike" was the best I could do. Anyone else have a better idea?
Hey, Faggot: My favorite term for the female sexual works is "conch," naturally, exuding "oyster sauce." For those of you who are not seafood devotees, those of us "in the know" refer to our buried treasure boxes as "yoni" and either "nectar" or simply "creation cocktail" issues forth when the right lips drink from this cup. Cheers!
Hey, Faggot: "You taste delicious" is only a safe activity if the taster is in sound, unbroken, uninflamed condition from their lips to their belly, and the woman producing the flavorful stuff -- names for which the "Insatiable" column offered several suggestions -- is free of menstrual blood, vaginal infection/inflammation, and HIV. As a health educator and longtime fan of your column, I'm surprised you omitted any mention of the potential risks (albeit minimal, compared to the risks posed by analogous male stuff) of tasting vaginal fluids, or failed to take the opportunity to remind straight people of the need to practice safer sex -- however boring.
Safer Sex Fanatic
Hey, SSF: Terrorizing straight people by overstating the dangers of cunnilingus is a lame-ass waste of time. The odds of contracting HIV by going down on a woman are slight -- even if you happen to be going down on an HIV-positive woman, the risks are small. Within reason -- avoid blood, check out the condition of your mouth before you press it into anything soft and wet -- straight people should feel free to lap it up.
Will a few straight people contract HIV from cunnilingus, infections that could have been prevented by an obsessive avoidance of bodily fluids, "inflammation," and the devoted use of, for your conditions leave no other option, dental dams? Yep, but straight people seem to have reached a collective, subconscious, wholly rational conclusion: The prevention of those very few infections is not worth the end of oral sex as they know and love it. Oddly enough, that's the same conclusion dykes came to about oral sex when they rejected dental dams en masse a few years back. As someone once wrote me, "It's a quality of life thing."
There are degrees of risk, and the amount of risk each of us accepts into our sex life requires constant reassessment. Risks assumed out of ignorance, or a desire to self-destruct, are one thing (two things?) -- people should be educated and people with low self-esteem should be patted on the head. But risks willingly and knowingly taken on -- flying, driving, voting, the slight risks of HIV infection from hetero oral sex -- are quite another.
One or two people unaware of the risks involved with unprotected cunnilingus probably read the "Insatiable" column, and could have learned something new had I brought up the very long odds of contracting HIV via cunnilingus. But I doubt the person in question would have changed his or her behavior after reading of these minimal risks.