Gotta admit I don't regularly read your column man, but I would personally appreciate it if you would stop giving bad advice to people. Your advice is bad and seems pretty informed by an arrogant assumption that you have some kind of answers worth relating to the world. You don't. I'm not trying to only offend you or anything. I don't know you, but I'm reasonably sure you are a person too and so are worthy of a manner of respect. Being dishonest is ultimate disrespect and I just wanted to let you know that from what I gather, you and the world would be better off if you weren't stretching so far to hand out your bad advice. It is a certainty that some other fella will fill your shoes with nearly the exact same diahrea, but at least it won't be you standing in a puddle of your own shit. Maybe you are in need of some brutally honest self-exploration or somethin'. I understand that you've been trading your advice for a pay-check for quite a while now, and quitting would probably be harder than giving up cigarettes, but from my one-time read of your July 8, 2010 column my advice has to be: please stop. For your own health and the health of the world. You'd be better served spiritually and emotionally wiping shit off 80 year old balls after some geriatric craps his diaper in a nursing home. Just give yourself a fuckin' rest man. Please quit. Thanks for your time.
There's no response from me after the jump—the man did ask me to shut up—but I've tossed in a few more letters from folks about the Sex at Dawn column.
I don't agree with Ryan's double-dipping assessment. I can't imagine our evolutionary ancestors standing patiently in line, waiting for their turn to fuck womenfolk. Maybe some modern guys would like the kink, but most men (mammalian animals at least) will fight to the death to keep every other dick out of the ladies in the herd. As for hubby not being gay or at least bi, I wouldn't count on it. An ex-closeted acquaintance of mine told a story of hiring a female escorts with his buddies. His turn-on was watching the dudes and then dipping his dick in their spunk.—NotSoSureInMpls
After the podcast I put the book you recommended on hold. I'm a grad student and library worker so I don't buy many books. However, at the time I was 36th in line. When I checked today there were 140 holds on the two copies in the Multnomah County Library system. That much demand means more copies will be bought for circulation (probably 8 more or so). Nice work! Thanks for the podcasts, books and column.—Matt
All I could think of when you mentioned the name of the book Sex at Dawn was some sort of salacious 18th century duel:
"Sir, you have offended my honor, I demand satisfaction!"
"Very well, sex at dawn. We shall meet on the mattress of honor."—A
I love your writing, but your constant mention of this book as scientific "proof" of whatever it claims is just embarrassing. Evolutionary psychology doesn't prove anything, and the only people who purport otherwise have their own agenda (I haven't read "Sex at Dawn;" I certainly hope it doesn't bill itself as "scientific proof" and that this is just a little bit of inadvertent hyperbole on your part).
Worse, claiming that the "natural" state of man is somehow relevant is, in truth, giving in to the naturalist fallacy promulgated by (most egregiously) anti-gay zealots everywhere. Whether monogamy is "natural" or not is of no more relevance to the morality of monogamy than whether homosexuality is natural or not. The appropriate response here isn't to try to show that homosexuality and non-monogamy are in fact natural, but to point out that it simply doesn't matter. If new research showed that heterosexual monogamy is the "natural" state of affairs, would that make your lifestyle suddenly immoral? Of course not.
So please, for the sake of the validity of your debate and so I can keep my respect for you, don't advance this faulty logic or claim that some pop sci evolutionary psych book proves anything like what you said it proves.—Calvin
Get the best of the Mercury each week in your inbox!