“I’m unemployed and I live with my parents”
For the record, that does not describe me – I’ve been employed at a job I hate for more than five years, and I’ve had my own crib, without even so much of a roommate for a quarter century. OK - not counting an inexplicably hot homeless woman in Hawaii that managed to move in with me for the better part of a week in 1986 after I fucked her not realizing she was homeless.
No, those words don’t describe me – those are the words of George Costanza in a 1990 episode of Seinfeld, when he tried doing everything the opposite of what he had been doing, and introduced himself to a hot waitress who was immediately turned on.
Of course, that was television.
Turning now away from television to another corner of not real life, academia, last Saturday, I was graciously allowed to attend part of the Eastern & Midcontinent Joint Regional Conference of The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. Strip Club god -check that - the actual Lord God that people around the world pray to whether they realize it or not – Joe Redner, was a speaker (his topic: “The history of nude dancing in Tampa, Florida,” which he somehow managed to fit into only an hour and a half), as were a host of professors from a large swath of the country.
This was not my father’s sex seminar (my father actually went to sex seminars – he was a gynecologist). The titles to the various seminars were fascinating, and those I attended grabbed and held my interest by the collar. Topics included “Read between the lines: An analysis of print media coverage of sex workers,” “From the Devil in Miss Jones to the DMJ6 – Trends in the (gendered) count of US adult films,” “How swingers find other swingers: The commercialization of the swinging lifestyle,” and “The cost of the cum shot: A synergistic view of HIV/STI risk in the Adult Film Industry.” The presenters were mainly female, but there were a few guys mixed in – the kind of Type B-guys that look like they became sex academicians mainly so they wouldn’t be hard up – coincidentally, one of the very same reasons I’m I’m thinking about going into the field! Here’s a link to the conference website:
http://www.sexscience.org/uploads/media/ER-MR_2009_Prelim_Program.pdf
I attended three seminars, all in the Women’s Sexuality concurrent session (conspicously absent was a session about our sexaulity). The first session, “Menstrual cycle influences on women’s attention and neural response to potential sexual partners,” was presented by Dr. Heather Rupp of The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University-Bloomington, a gorgeous early 32ish babe who I’d gladly break the $350/hour barrier for even without a DFKCIM (“deep French kiss with cum-in-mouth) finish. I don’t know what she’s done since having this lousy picture taken (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/rupp.htm), but whatever it is, it should be mandatory for all chicks. Speaking of menstrual cycles, I’d pay full kitty even if she was bleeding, and not wash my top sheet for a week.
More relevant than her appearance, here’s her c.v.: http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/research/pdf/Rupp_CV.pdf To her credit, Dr. Rupp has made studying female physical attraction to guys a big part of her studies, and who among us guys who spent the 80s and 90s being lambasted for, do I dare say, being attracted to attractive chicks can’t appreciate that! As the title to her seminar discloses, part of Dr. Rupp’s work has ventured into determining variations of what chicks like based upon the stage in the menstrual cycle. Having been aware of some previous studies in this area, at least one of which concluded that chicks like more masculine guys just before ovulation and more feminine guys after, needing as many weapons in my girl-getting arsenal as I can get, and Rupp being so freakin’ hot, my interest was piqued.
Rupp’s study is described at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114182256htm and the actual detailed article, for you serious students, is at http://www.indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/Rupp_masc_fmri_2008.pdf While I admittedly spent part of the time daydreaming about what our babies would look like and how nice her asshole would feel wrapped around my tongue while my nose explored the upper end of her butt crack, I really did manage to pay attention to her talk – thank goodness for my having dropped two loads from my balls in a hooker-in-heat’s mouth the night before to ease my usual Saturday afternoon tension (here that hooker is, in case you are interested, which you should be, at least when she’s in heat: nicole-needs-protein.mht ). Anyway, here is the question the participants were asked:
Please imagine yourself in the situation described below and make your decision as if you were in that situation. You are not in a committed relationship and are open to a sexual encounter. You and some friends are out Friday night. While out, you meet the man presented in the image for the first time. You two have a good time talking together and that continues into the evening. You and he end up back at his place to continue hanging out. It is clear to you that he would have sex with you if you want to. Imagine that you are in this scenario and open to a sexual encounter. Based on the image and information presented, please indicate using the button box:
How likely would you be to have sex with him?
1=Very unlikely
2=Unlikely
3=Likely
4=Very likely
Unfortunately, in paying attention to Rupp was saying, I found an astounding flaw based upon my own research findings that come from dating as long as Rupp has been living: according to Rupp, the biggest factor in a woman’s choice to go home with a guy she just met and have sex with him was “the sexual health risk of the individual” as related in the paper, or, as stated more basically during the session, the number of sex partners the guy had been with. The study was about meeting a guy out and hooking up with him for sex, and yet the MRI results indicate that women would rather go home and have sex with a guy who has had fewer sexual partners.
This may be what all the female teachers are thinking when they bang their 14 year-old students, but chicks looking for sex out in a club? NOT!!!!!! Yes, because its obvious that girls are combing the clubs looking for that quiet guy in the corner who looks like he wants to put a revolver to his temples from watching his 6′2″ friend pick up girls every Friday night that he would marry, only to hear stories about the taller friend leaving the girl with a facial, bolting in the middle of the night without so much as bringing her a warm towelette or a Cum Kleen, and never calling her again.
Yes, because its obvious that girls in clubs respond best to guys who approach them respectfully and ask them things like, “so, what did you major in?”, as opposed to guys that pull up behind them on the dance floor, grab them around the waist, the shove their phalluses into their backs.
Sure, because girls preferring guys with fewer partners is how, as a recent study determined, 15% of guys have 85% of all heterosexual sex.
Of course, because this must explain why five or six chicks gang up on rock stars backstage.
Naturally, because how else to explain why Derek Jeter can’t get laid anymore, and there’s a text message service which sends out an alert to women on where to find “ballers ( e.g., “I just saw michael jordan leave the club with 10 white girls in a stretch hummer Sent from New York, NY on March 18th, 2008 at 10:14 AM” – http://www.mozes.com/balleralert?pg=9). Yes, at a little after 10, A.M.
Undoubtedly, because how else to explain that Tyrese Gibson has been able to put out the alert that girls can cut the line to his bedroom by first getting a tattoo on their ass with his name on it. http://www.nypost.com/seven/06112009/gossip/pagesix/none_butt_mine_173641.htm
Because women never want the alpha male or to fuck their hot best friend’s boyfriend. Because no Lady would ever be Gaga singing, “And baby when its love if it’s not rough it isn’t fun.” Because no chick would ever get gaga at the thought of “making love” to a thug like Usher ” .. in this club …. on the couch, on the table, on the bar or on the floor, you can meet me in the bathroom, …” and because guys who don’t get it much are known to doggie chicks they just met while the chicks’ heads are stuffed halfway into the toilet bowl in a crowded club bathroom, slapping their asses red the whole time. Not even DirkJohanson has ever pulled that one off (the closest I came was six years ago when I did a G-ing 23 YO on the ladies’ room sink in my office building bathroom, but it was after hours and the building was empty).
And, in my own personal experience, I remember when I was younger and hadn’t had many partners, or if I’m in a slump now, that going up to girls all nervous and unconfident from not having gotten laid in a while is what makes them want to immediately go home and have sex with me! And they particularly get turned on when the guy who hasn’t had it in a while is unemployed, and even more so when he is unemployed and lives with his parents. Oy fucking Vey!
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned??? Horsefeathers! – hell hath no fury like a woman approached by a sincere guy with good-intentions! I know, damnit - I know you’ll find this hard to believe, but that guy is actually me sometimes!
So I raised my hand and asked Rupp (who I swear had said something to the effect of “of course” when reading her conclusions about fewer sex partner preference) something to the effect of,
”uh, women prefer guys with fewer sex partners? That seems contrary to everything I’ve ever observed.”
I half-expected her to say something like, “yes, well, you know, sometimes actual behavior deviates from the MRI results” and cite some study, but like a deer in the headlights seeming to immediately realize that someone had called out a ludicrosity in her work, she replied something to the effect of,
“what observations are you referring to?,”
to which I replied something characteristically incoherent sounding but clear enough under the circumstances like,
“um, like, life, my life, everything, going out, the world, since the beginning of time, and stuff.”
I never got to hear Rupp’s answer – the older, unkept lady who let me into the seminar bolted over to my seat, bent over, shushed me, and admonished me to hold my questions to the end – though interestingly enough, she didn’t shush the broad who asked a question just after I asked mine.
Of course, if what Rupp’s study showed was actually true, one might expect that, unless some guys were incredible at lying, nearly all single guys would have an approximately equal number of sex partners, or at least equal on some sort of annualized basis. After all, if what women were really after was a guy without many sex partners, guys who had more than their share would stop getting any, and guys who hadn’t would get more. In fact, however, I’ve observed that when I get laid, suddenly women are all over the place, unconsciously following me around for the next two days, attracted by the smell of my having had recently had sex – long after I shower!
Possibly the flaw in Rupp’s study was that the guys in the pictures were too impossibly good-looking for the paltry number of sex partners assigned – she kept flashing an image of a big, good-looking black guy who the study purported had been with only 5 women in his life. “Five women this month alone,” I thought to myself – and the seminar was held on the afternoon of the 6th! The study disclosed that the pictures were downloaded from publicly-accessible websites. Me suspects it was Model Mayhem.
Another possible flaw in the study is that there were ultimately only 12 participants. Not that I scored 100% on all six of my Statistics exams over the two semesters I took the course at an Ivy League university but, well, come to think of it, I did score 100% on all six of my Statistics exams over two semesters at an Ivy League university and 12 is way too fucking small of a sample size to conclude jack about just about anything.
I know I’m just a layman (pun intended), not a Kinsey Institute researcher like Rupp, let alone one so caring and compassionate, but obviously, there could be – ARE - some other things going on here. One is that there could – just could - be a disconnect between what the women want in their heads and what actually happens. Not that I’m implying that women can be talked into doing something they don’t want to do, or that they might sometimes think with their clits rather than their cortexes, but I do recall seeing a speed dating study a few years back concluding the fairly obvious: that women went to speed dating looking for a nice guy with sincere intentions, ended up choosing the players instead, and within days wishing they stuck to their original intentions going into the event, regretting having blown off the sincere guys.
What I suspect is really happening is that the undersexed chicks in the study were excited at the thought of the fantasy that there still existed such hot guys with so little experience. After all, while a chick can’t possibly be too much of a whore for my own salacious taste, I do know plenty of guys who, for whatever reasons undoubtedly reflective of (legitimately or otherwise) insecurities (hey, we all have some), prefer chicks who don’t know their way around the bed sack or the nut sack. Like the guys who bid for Natalie Dylan ( XX Factor Watch-Natalie Dylan ). Like my friend George (real alias), who naively thought his hot Czech girlfriend had only been with one or two guys, when she was regularly threesoming with her best friend and black guys behind George’s back.
As an aside, is number of sex partners truly a measure of sexual health risk? On the surface, the answer is “of course.” Then again, has anybody ever heard of antibodies? I used to feel like I was coming down with something every time I’ve so much as made out with a girl. I’ve been going to swing clubs since 1993, and licking whores’ asses since about 1983. I had unprotected sex with my career escort girlfriend several times a week for a year-and-a-half, during which time she was with roughly 1000 guys, and neither of us had ever had an STD – nada, nothing, zilch – more evidence that if you want clean pussy, go to a hooker.
Getting back to Rupp’s study, in the meantime, I’m refraining from going up to chicks and opening with, “Hi – my name is DirkJohanson, and I’ve only slept with five women” – the pickup artists like Dave D’Angelo, and I’m confident the chicks themselves, would not approve. Far be it from me that such a study might better be conducted not in an MRI, but in an actual club – vid the couples leaving and take down their plates, or perhaps follow them home and do exit interviews. Why not?
The next speaker was Linda Henderson of Loyola of Chicago. Her topic, “Shaping vanilla or awakening venus? Women’s identities as sellers of sex toys via in-home parties.” For her study that she reported on at the seminar, Henderson extensively interviewed a grand total of three (3) sex toy saleswomen (apparently, guys are more or less banned from working in the field, and from even attending the parties unaccompanied by a broad).
One of the key findings Henderson presented was that in-home sex parties were popular with women because they didn’t like going to get sex toys in seedy adult bookstores in bad neighborhoods. Hey, that’s a real gender difference right there! Like back in the days before internet porn, I know when I was feeling horny, I wanted to drive into the hood, step over a wino, ask some guy old bi-guy with no teeth for tokens, go into a booth with a floor slippery from freshly-spewed AIDS-infected semen, barely be able to see the screen through other dudes’ dried cum, have some guy’s penis appear through a hole, and then come back out to the parking lot only to find my broken and my radio stolen. I’ll tell ya – the difference between guys and girls!
I did actually learn something in Henderson’s seminar. I learned a new derogatory-sounding term: “heteronormative agenda.” Apparently, the company at which the sex-saleswomen studied work refuses to sell things like double-dildos and such that serve the market largely composed of chicks that are still so mad at their 10th grade boyfriends or their ex-husband that they’d rather buy plastic penises than give some guy the satisfaction of being able to provide the real thing. So, “heteronormative agenda” is what Henderson believes is the agenda of this company to promote women having sex with committed male partners.
Now I know what many of you’re thinking. Why is DirkJohanson of all people, one of the world’s most outspoken advocates of not only banning heterosexual marriage but making a heterosexual marriage ban a veritable 11th commandment, standing up for those saps that stay together and stick it out through tough times, including times when they apparently feel the need to use sex toys since their genitalia alone aren’t really doing the trick? I can’t answer that question. I don’t know. I can’t give you a reason why, but making it all seem bad just seems wrong. I’m sorry to sound like a caring and compassionate person (I know – again!) by not being able to explain myself, but sometimes it just happens.
Thank goodness, an even more caring and compassionate attendee than I raised her hand, wasn’t shushed, and asked Henderson, “What agenda? Aren’t they just trying to make a buck?” Henderson had no answer for that, and admitted that she had been told that the company operated primarily in the Bible Belt and didn’t want to push the envelope too far.
All of this talk about a ”heteronormative agenda” got me thinking, though. After all, if there could be a perjorative term for committed, loving, lifelong, nurturing, monogamous, though-thick-and-thin relationships, why not someone coming up with a positive-sounding word or phrase for a guy like me. After all, “playboy,” its update ”player,” “whore-monger,” and just plain “monger” clearly aren’t in good stead except amongst us guyinist guys, “hobbyist” is way too vague, obscure, and can apply to lots of things including nerdy things like stamp collecting, and even “stud” just doesn’t sound right, especially when used in the first person or by a fellow guy. “Playah” is an improvement, but not quite there. “Baller” is a good word, but isn’t spot on and doesn’t really apply to a regular guy that gets sex $200 at a time. Somebody call Frank Luntz. Better yet, lets raise some money and I’ll call Frank Luntz. If he can make wealthy players not having to pay income taxes on inherited money sound like a good thing, he can certainly make players sound good without the whole tax-avoidance angle. (Actually, he can make anything sound good. After he’s done making guys like me sound good, I want him to come up with a new word to replace “shit”).
Moving on, the final speaker, Dr. Stephanie Marhefka of USF, interviewed of bunch of chicks with HIV to ask them about condom use. Some of them ain’t wearing condoms, guys, so watch out. I know you guys will all find it hard to believe a chick would take something out on you that another guy did to her, but one study participant even said she didn’t use condoms since the guy who gave it to her didn’t wear one, so why shouldn’t she seek revenge on the rest of us guys! Remember, when you marry a girl, you also marry every “asshole” who ever fucked her and left her, or even just dumped her, going back to middle school.
Marhefka seemed to be calling into question laws that require HIV positive people to disclose their status to prospective sex partners, but I was left to wonder whether she would be calling into question those laws had she interviewed HIV positive straight guys.
Then again, maybe there actually is a good reason the law should only apply to guys, such as a far higher transmission rate from guys to chicks than vice versa – but this blog is no place for a guy to be reasonable, so we’ll save these types of concessions for my Nixon goes to China moments later in my career. Until then, I’ll try to refrain from anything even remotely smacking of care or compassion, or even something more in us guys’ department: honest reason – we don’t have that luxury – for now, we have to focus on our own empowerment or it won’t be long before I’m really unemployed and really living with my parents.
Oh, and Dr. Rupp. I know a lot of what I write here sounds tongue-in-cheek, but that part about my tongue in between your cheeks is entirely sincere, as was, that part about us having babies together. I know – you think I’m high risk, but you’re wrong – for you, I’m no risk – I have no diseases, and I’m willing to marry you right away.
Well, then again, there is this tell-almost-all blog.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
