January 3, 2008


Posted in Nerdiness, nutella, Seven Deadlies, The Happy, The How, The Where, The Who at 9:17 am by Dagny Taggart

Damn, this coffee’s cold! Hey Rach, do you mind if I heat this up on your loins?
I was thinking I’d post the story about that time I started making out with my date at his work happy hour, both of us tipsy enough to be perfectly fine with such shenanigans, and how his co-workers teased us (for several months after the fact) about taking (I kid you not) a cab numbered 69 towards more of the same.  Good times, good times.

Then I thought I might post about the guy whose sex addiction appeared to manifest itself during the third year of our relationship, while I was in law school.  Inconvenient timing, that – poor boy was forced to seek companionship elsewhere, as I was a whole four-hour drive away.  Have I mentioned taking some satisfaction in the knowledge that it took (at least) 3 women to replace me?  Because I totally do.

I could write about how strange it is that I almost never discuss sex with my closest female friends, some of whom I’ve known for years.  Or how absurdly prudish most of my law school classmates seemed – next time you need to relax, try drinking less and shagging more, maybe?  Those “group study” rooms in the library did have locks, I’m just sayin’…

But the point I’d really like to address is that I’m not so sure a biological imperative should be a sin.  It’s all about how you handle it.  As per comments I’ve strewn about in various places, I really have no problem with anyone doing whatever they want with whomever they want.  Feel like taking a wide stance?  No problem.  Feel better about it if there’s a hole in the sheet?  Go crazy.  I’m sure there are at least as many who would find my own proclivities repugnant, as there are (happily) who profess to share them, and I’ve got far, far better things to do with my time than worry about what everyone else is doing in bed.*

The real sin, I think, is when pursuit of satisfaction causes deliberate and/or unwelcome harm or hurt to someone else.  Especially an innocent third (fourth?  Fifth?  I guess that depends on the situation) party.  What I mean is, so long as everyone involved knows about and agrees to what’s going on and who’s involved, even when that individual isn’t present, I see no problem.**

Other than that?  I think they missed the boat when deciding that this one was supposed to be a sin. 

*I still think they should be doing more of it, though.
**Barring, of course (I wish I thought this could go without saying) anything involving children or animals.


  1. Nato said,

    Gadzooks, Dagny! Sounds like your New Year’s off to an excellent start.

    I think the people who decided that harm-free nookie was sinful were trying to keep people from having any sort of fun that they hadn’t previously approved of. If there’s anything I despise about organized religion in general, it’s the tendency to turn what should be a moral guide into a system of control.

    Unless, you know, you’re into that sort of thing. (=

  2. Alias Faux said,

    I think the problem is that in the days when they were deciding what was and was not a sin, there was no such thing as harm-free nookie.

    Frankly, I’d say that’s still true.

  3. Virgle Kent said,

    ** What do you mean or “animals”? Woman this jar of peanut butter aint going to eat it’s self? Wait what…. Um backing away slowly

  4. Beach Bum said,

    I totally agree with you.

    But what happens with the rest of us, who are more than willing to be having more sex too, but we can’t find a willing party to have sex with us? It’s been months, ya know? And before that well over a year (yes, I just admitted that), and the one who broke the streak wasn’t really anything to write home about (not that I’d ever write home about these things…)

    What are your solutions so that I can find a way to destress too?

  5. Nato: Hm. Well, I was really just finishing off my deadly sins, but I can’t complain about my year so far. 😀

    And, of course. A better way for religion to express an underlying concept might sound something like: “One shouldn’t hurt other people, unless the other people ask nicely.” 😉

    Alias Faux: Well, if people want to harm themselves, then that’s their call. But I think what I’m really concerned about is deceitfulness on any level, where sex is concerned.

    Virgle Kent: Well, I mean. If the animal has another incentive for whatever’s going on, then fi.. I mean. Wait. What? 😛

    Beach Bum: I think a big part of it is deciding what you really want. It’s quite possible to find someone to satisfy lustful urges, quite another to find someone who’s willing and able to do that, and satisfy other desires (like conversation), as well. That’s just going to take time and patience.

    And if you decide that having more sex is what you’re after, then figuring out your parameters for that is the next step – if you’re not dating the person, do they really need to be exactly your type? Does political orientation matter as much? Not that standards should be relaxed, just that priorities might shift a bit. 🙂

  6. I-66 said,

    Whatever. That llama was totally asking for it.

  7. I-66: You know, if you’re going to get that close to an animal, you should at least give it the courtesy of knowing the difference between a llama and an alpaca.

    Sheesh! 😉

  8. Alias Faux said,

    Have you ever deal with Llamas?

    Trust me on this one, you wouldn’t want to be fouling them.

    My uncle raises them, and let me tell you

    A) they stink

    B) they’re fast

    C) they’re tall enough that unless you’re like 6’8, the geometry would not work

    D) they’re REALLY ornery

    E) they’re spitters, and, I mean, where’s the fun in that?

  9. Alias Faux: Suuure your uncle raises llamas. Suuure that’s how come you know so much. 😛

    A) Some people might like that.
    B) Some people might like that, too.
    C) Wait – there are people shorter than 6’8″? Fully-grown ones? 😉
    D) /pulls out dog-eared copy of “Why Men Love Bitches”
    E) Excellent point.

  10. […] Posted January 9, 2008 A pretty close friend of mine remarked that the last post in the “seven deadlies” category would probably get a fair amount of traffic.  Of […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: