I'm a 44-year-old single father and my 18-year-old son lives at home with me. We get along great and i love him dearly. I work nights and usually get home around 6:30 a.m. Long story short, I came home one morning last week to find my son passed out on the couch with his pants pulled down and a transexual porn DVD on the TV. I was a little shocked but I thought it best to just let him sleep and deal with it later. At dinner that night when I asked him why he was watching transexual porn his face turned white and he fumbled through the excuse that he didn't realize that he bought "tranny porn" and fell asleep before he could get up and turn it off. I didn't push the issue but I am highly skeptical as the DVD case was covered with nothing but transexuals. Excuse my ignorance, but is it safe to say my son is gay? He's had many girlfriends and I've never seen or felt anything that would lead me to believe that he likes men. Are transexuals even considered "men"? Should I try to get him to open up about his feelings or leave him alone? Whatever he is into will never change my love for him but I am unsure how to open up dialogue with him at this point.

A Confused Dad

My response after the jump...

...And yet I get the restraining order?? That's B.S., man. B.S.!!

Update! YouTube took down this video because that baby was doing some straight-up titty sucking. OFFENSIVE, YA'LL!!

I’m a young woman in a committed relationship with my longtime boyfriend, a handsome and VERY well-endowed man. His penis is more than satisfying, but it’s never gotten me off. I only climax when he performs oral on me. I feel guilty because when we make love, I wait for him to finish (and some times even encourage him to cum faster) so he can go down on me and I can climax, too. I can’t cum first because after I do, I don’t like to be touched and then we can’t have intercourse. Any suggestions? I feel guilty for being impatient when he’s doing his thing.

Prefer Oral Over Penis

My answer after the jump...

Is the following video NSFW? Well... it was on TV. Okay, fine, it was on TV in BELGIUM. And I'm pretty sure they don't give a fuck whether something is NSFW or not. They also don't seem to care that I will never look at my penis again without seeing this guy and hearing his stupid squeaky voice. THANKS A CRAP LOAD, BELGIUM!

BTW, my penis doesn't sound like that. It sounds like this.

I'm a 22-year-old bi guy with a preference for males. My last relationship was with a female with whom I've stayed friends. Since we broke up we've been hooking up maybe once a month. The first two times she said she didn't want to hook up anymore, but she kept initiating sex. I like sex, so I went along with it. This continued after she started seeing someone (I didn't know at first) and she felt guilty the first time, but then seemed okay with it: I assumed that she had discussed it with her bisexual BF. She invited me to engage in a threesome with her and her BF, and thereafter I was fucking both her and him independently of each other every two weeks, which my ex thought was sexy. The sex continued to be initiated by both of them, not me, although I wanted it. Soon, my ex's BF encouraged me to pursue a romantic relationship with him, with his current GF, my ex, having primacy. I assumed that he had okayed it with his GF. It didn't take long to realize that he was incapable of having two relationships at once and he stopped fucking me because he was afraid of "using" me, even though it was consensual. My ex also stopped having sex with me (although the BF had okayed the sex) and began to ignore me as a friend.

The rest of the letter and my response after the jump...

But I support couples who choose to be monogamous. It's an unnatural lifestyle, and it's definitely choice I wouldn't make, but I don't believe that couples who make the choice to be monogamous should be discriminated against in any way. They should be allowed to have children and adopt, for instance. I'd even go so far as to say that monogamous couples should be allowed to marry—legally marry—even though adultery rates and divorce statistics demonstrate that making sexual exclusivity a defining characteristic of marriage is destabilizing and often leads to divorce. And divorce is bad for children born to monogamous couples, married or not.

These thoughts—concessions, really, to an increasingly visible and politically assertive monogamous community—were prompted by an atypically fair and balanced article on the subject of monogamy that appeared on CNN's website earlier this week. "Is Monogamy Realistic?" The answer, according to the experts quoted, was "NO."

"It's realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language," said psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton.

Added evolutionary biologist David Barash, "It's within the realm of human potential, but it's not easy."

Lipton and Barash, who have been married 32 years and are the co-authors of "Strange Bedfellows" and "The Myth of Monogamy," said serial monogamy may be more realistic—a model in which people move from one committed long-term relationship to another and choose partners for different reasons at different stages of their life.

I would argue that serial monogamy also has its limitations: a strictly monogamous couple that might be great together and doing a great job raising kids may be prompted by sexual boredom or alienation—a circumstance that could be temporary—to part ways in pursuit of sexual satisfaction. A little leeway, a discreet sumpun on the side now and then, could help countless otherwise solid marriages survive a sexually fallow period.

Those quibbles aside, A. Pawlowki's article was remarkable for its willingness to tell CNN readers—many of whom have succumbed to the PC monogamy police—the truth about monogamy: human beings aren't naturally monogamous and monogamy is a struggle and many marriages crack under the strain of a monogamous commitment. It was a levelheaded, bracing piece of reporting—it was almost brave. I say "almost brave" because Pawlowski chickened out at the last minute and gave the final few graphs of his piece over to the rantings of one of those monoganazis who wants to shove her unnatural lifestyle down all of our throats:

Whatever the temptation, most people still prefer to be in a monogamous relationship, said Nadine Kaslow, a professor at Emory University School of Medicine who specializes in couples and families and who also is chief psychologist at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. "People feel safer and they feel more trusting. They feel like they can depend on their partner," Kaslow said.

It's sad that monogamists can only defend their unnatural lifestyle choices by tearing down those of us who are in healthy, natural non-monogamous relationships. Monogamy is great, Ms. Kaslow asserts, because people in monogamous relationships feel safe and can trust and depend on their spouses. The implication, of course, is that people in healthy, natural non-monogamous relationships don't feel safe and can't trust or depend on our spouses. Well, Ms. Kaslow, I feel safer in my honestly non-monogamous relationship than Jenny Sanford had a right to feel in her dishonestly "monogamous" relationship; my honest non-monogamous husband is more trustworthy than Elizabeth Edwards' "monogamous" husband; and my non-monogamous husband has certainly proven himself to be more dependable than Suzanne Craig's "monogamous" husband.

Again, I'm all for equal marriage rights for people who make monogamous commitments, despite their terrible track record. But the monogamous have to find a way to discuss their unnatural lifestyle choices that doesn't amount to an attack on those who made a more natural choice.

Apparently yesterday was "Global Handwashing Day." I KNOW, RIGHT? I totally would've remembered to wash my hands if it weren't for that damn balloon boy. Anyway, I suppose it's never too late to begin washing one's hands… that is if I could remember how to do it. Luckily, here's a great video that turns the tedious, repetitive act of washing one's hands into a delightfully EROTIC dance. Soapy hand job anyone?

If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to watch amateur porn. While sober.

• You and your prom date are welcome at HUMP

BONUS 18+ age screening of HUMP!, the finest and most handsomely endowed pornographic short film festival in the region! October 23rd, 7pm!!! This in addition to Cinema 21's three boozy, 21+ showings: October 23rd at 9:30 pm and October 24th at 7 pm and 9:30 pm.

Need another reason to HUMP? Need eight? Need to see something to satisfy your kiddie-llama-feces fetish? Sorry, the "no poop, no kids, no animals" policy is as strictly adhered to as a submissive prisoner to the wall of a sex dungeon. But fem-domme action? Encouraged! Mormon undergarments? Encouraged! CFNM? Wholeheartedly embraced!

18-20 year-olds? Invited! So buy your tickets now.

Maureen Dowd:

In an ideal world, bosses would refrain from sleeping with subordinates, so as not to cause jealousy and tension in the office. But we’re not in an ideal world. Otherwise, we’d already have health care for everyone and Glenn Beck wouldn’t have any influence over the White House.

After David Letterman acknowledged that he’d had flings with young assistants, some commentators talked about it in the same breath as Roman Polanski, who drugged and sodomized a 13-year-old. That’s outrageous.

Sexual harassment entails pressuring or penalizing a staffer or making the office atmosphere hostile. Despite the blustering of the attorney of the alleged execrable extortionist, Joe Halderman, there’s no evidence yet that Letterman was guilty of that.

People sometimes fuck people they've met at work. Unfortunately it simply isn't possible to decree that interns shall only fuck interns, assistants shall only fuck assistants, staffers shall only fuck staffers, managers shall only fuck managers, and the boss shall... well, the boss doesn't get to fuck anyone at work, ever. In an ideal world, like Dowd says, no one would fuck a subordinate. But real life is messier. So we have to judge workplace romances/dalliances on a case-by-case basis. The question isn't, "Did someone sleep with someone with less power?" but this slightly more complicated series of questions: "How was the affair conducted? Was the power imbalance exploited by the more powerful person—or, as is sometimes the case, was the power imbalance exploited by the less powerful person? Is there a pattern here? Pressure? Predation? Is this a hostile workplace environment?"

Two people can have consensual sex even in the face of a power imbalance. It infantilizes the less powerful person and makes a cartoon villain of the more powerful person to insist that mutual consent isn't possible.

And for the record: No, I've never fucked an intern or a staffer while working here. And I've never fucked anyone on Ann Lander's desk. And I've never made love in the sun. And I've never been to paradise. And I've never been to me.