Friday, October 29, 2004

Just When You Think You've Heard Everything

In police work, just when you think you’ve heard it all, something always happens to remind you that you haven’t.

Not long after I’d joined the force, I was assigned to work the desk one evening. Not much was happening that night, so I was sitting there reading a magazine, when a worried looking couple in their 30s came in.

Looking around nervously to make sure no one was listening, they came up to me and asked if they could talk with me privately. After I asked them what the problem was, they explained that they were dating and were planning to take a trip to Hawaii. They were worried whether they would be arrested for fornication if they checked into a motel together and shared a room, especially if the room was bugged.

It took every bit of self control I could muster to keep from laughing my ass off in front of them. At first, I thought this was some kind of practical joke that another officer might have arranged to pull on me, but I soon realized that they were dead serious. It dawned on me that they had to be a little “off” to have even come down to the police station to ask such a ridiculous question.

Resisting an urge to tell them that I'd have to be locked up forever if such a thing were possible and that more jails would have to be built to hold all the people who would be joining me, I told them to forget about it and to enjoy their trip. They thanked me and left, still not quite convinced.

Once I was sure they’d left the building, I gave in to my urge to laugh, knowing that my fellow officers wouldn’t believe me when I told them about this couple.

Police work is serious business, many times touched by tragedy. But just as often, it is a job involving humor as well. We hear so much of the tragic events; I thought I’d share an absurd one and give my readers a chuckle.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Hotlanta Kink Test

Your Hotlanta Kink Test score was 510!

Here is the chart so that you can see how you are rated:

100 or less You need to lighten up and live a little!
101 to 200 You have an average sex life in need of kink.
201 to 300 You have sweet hints of a kinky nature.
301 to 400 You are definitely a kinky player.
401 to 500 You are a major league kinkster!
501 to 600 Wow! You're too kinky for most!!!
601 or more SUPER FREAK ALERT! You da BOMB!
The maximum score for this test is 700.

Take this test at:

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Libertines on Animated TV Shows

At least two popular animated TV shows geared to adult viewers have regular libertine characters.

“Family Guy“, has a libertine character, Glen Quagmire, who is a friend of the main character, Peter Griffin.

A profile of him that I found on a “Family Guy” website describes this character:

Quagmire is the next door neighbor of the Griffins and a bachelor. He spends most of his free time chatting up women and then sleeping with them in his love nest. He works at the Quahog Airport as a pilot, and has secret feelings for Lois, the wife of his best friend.

“King of the Hill” is unique in that it has two different libertine characters:

The first is the mush-mouthed Boomhauer, who is quite similar to Quagmire from “Family Guy”. A “King of the Hill” website describes him as:

Boomhauer is known for liking fast cars and fast women.

I remember one episode where we see Boomhauer’s house, which is decorated in stereotypical bachelor pad style down to the leopard print bedspread. In this same episode, the main character, Hank Hill, is worried that Boomhauer will seduce Hank’s impressionable young adult niece, Luann, who had a crush on Boomhauer. (He didn’t, as I recall.)

The second libertine on “King of the Hill” is John Redcorn, whom the same website described as:

John Redcorn is Nancy Gribble’s Native American masseur; he is also her ex-lover from a 14 year affair and the biological father of her son, Joseph Gribble. Nancy's husband, Dale, and Joseph are both completely unaware of this, although this fact is obvious to everyone else in the series. John Redcorn is a Native American rights activist of the Anasazi tribe, and "licensed new age healer". He tries to reach out to Joseph and instill a sense of pride in him, even though Joseph often rejects him.

Up until the episode where they have John and Nancy break up, this had been a relationship both had been totally satisfied and happy with, with her husband in oblivious bliss. I suspect that the episode was written in response to viewer complaints; people who couldn’t abide seeing a functional, successful long-term non-monogamous relationship without those involved having to “pay the piper”.

In this episode, Hank Hill’s na├»ve wife, Peggy, who is Nancy’s friend, finally caught on to the true nature of Nancy’s relationship with John. Peggy confronts Nancy, who admits that she’s just not monogamous, and that she cares for both men, but in different ways. It’s too bad that it couldn’t have simply ended with Peggy learning how to mind her own business and by maybe learning something about different strokes for different folks, but the show had the predictable ending of breaking John and Nancy up. However, it didn’t cover whether Joseph would ever learn who his true father was.

Redcorn’s libertinism is underscored elsewhere, when Peggy goes to see him in a professional capacity as a massage therapist. Hank is frantic when he finds out where Peggy has gone, as John’s reputation for seducing women is well known in their small town (Well known, that is, to everyone but Peggy Hill and Dale Gribble).

To sum up, Quagmire and Boomhauer are allowed to be libertines, but they are presented as faintly ludicrous and pathetic. And John Redcorn ended up having to pay the piper.

We now are commonly seeing gay characters on TV portrayed in a realistic fashion, perhaps we’ll one see libertine characters on TV also presented in a matter of fact way, without there always having to be the a moral to the story.

Friday, October 22, 2004

Sex vs, Trick or Treating

Ok, I'm feeling lazy again today. I found this on another blog and thought it was amusing and relevant to the season, even though I still think sex is better than trick or treating! Enjoy!


10) You are guaranteed to get at least a little something in the sack.

9) If you get tired, you can wait 10 minutes and go at it again.

8) The uglier you look, the easier it is to get some.

7) You don't have to compliment the person who gives you some.

6) It's O.K. when the person you're with fantasizes you're someone else, because you are.

5) Forty years from now you'll still enjoy candy.

4) If you don't like what you get, you can always go next door.

3) It doesn't matter if the kids hear you moaning and groaning.

2) Less guilt the morning after.


(Erm, I DO do the whole neighborhood and I sometimes go next door. Guilt?Don't make me laugh! And forty years from now, I'll most likely be DEAD, not enjoying sex or candy...though you never know! I could be an 86 year old Dirty Old Man chasing after women with a chocolate bar in one hand! Heh, heh, heh!)

Monday, October 11, 2004

My Blog Got Hit By a Cyber-Evangelist

This morning when I went to check my blogs for comments, I found a new comment on my explicit blog. Always appreciating feedback, I clicked to open the comments and found a novel-length response, longer than my entry. Much to my surprise, it was what amounted to a religious cyber-tract.

I was informed that if I didn’t change my sinning ways (and join his particular brand of Christianity, no doubt) that I was doomed -- doomed, I tell you! -- to have a one way ticket on the hand basket to hell! He proceeded to back up his rant with several Bible verses plucked out of context, obviously never considering that I might have actually read the Bible for myself at some point in my life.

I hate to tell him, but his visit to my site was a total waste of time. I happen to like being who and what I am, and have no desire to be anything other than myself. I do not seek to convert others to my way of life, knowing that people are capable to decide for themselves how they wish to live. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

If I ever feel the need for spiritual guidance, I am quite capable of seeking it out on my own, and don’t need anyone pushing their particular beliefs on me.

More amused than angry, I simply deleted his comment, and went to visit his website to see what he was all about. It seems that he feels as if he’s been chosen by God to witness to all us misguided “sinners” on the net and to point us to the “one true way” out of our lives of licentiousness.

If the comments I read there were any indication, he spends quite a bit of time trolling websites and leaving his judgments behind, with little time spent turning religious beliefs into actual practice. And many of these comments were quite telling of how extreme his beliefs are, as he’d gone to the websites of devout Jews and Catholics, as well as us garden-variety sexual nonconformists, and left his little bombs on such sites as well.

I knew I was wasting my breath, but I couldn’t resist leaving a comment of my own on his site. I really didn’t comment for his benefit, but more for the many angry people leaving comments on his site.

Here’s the comment I left on his site:

I checked my blog and found your cyber tract waiting for me. And I'm not angry.......I'm amused.

You're barking up the wrong tree with me, son. I am a libertine by conscious choice and philosophy and have been since first becoming sexually active in the mid 1970s. I am honest and open about who and what I am, and every woman I am involved with knows this up front and is given the opportunity to walk away from me. I'm not ashamed of what I do, so I see no need for subterfuge or deception.

My ethics demand that anything I engage in be between fully consenting adults. I sleep well at night, because my conscience is clear. I am quite happy and satisfied being a "sinner", thank you very much. But I don't try to convert others to living as I do, knowing that people are quite capable for themselves to decide how they want to live. It would be presumptuous for me to do so.

My spiritual beliefs are limited to "treat others as you would wish to be treated" and "don't judge others unless you are willing to be judged in return". Very simple and basic.

I don't expect you to agree, of course, but then again, you have to decide what works for you.....but you should allow others the same courtesy.

The religious people that I respect are those who go about their lives quietly *living* their in action....and who never preach to others. These people can be found helping out in soup kitchens, working with kids at the Y, being nurses, police officers, and so on.

People who constantly *talk* about religion and who go about judging others don't impress me in the slightest. Talk is, indeed, cheap.

Don't SELL religion.......quietly LIVE it.

The world would be much better off if more religious people did so.

Now, back to my life of debauchery......


Tuesday, October 5, 2004

Personality Type and Libertinism

I’ve been fascinated by the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator for many years, and I’ve done a good bit of reading about it. Not surprisingly, I’ve taken a particular interest in how type relates to sexual attitudes and practices. From all what I’ve read, it’s generally agreed that the SP cluster, ESFP in particular, is the type most likely to be non monogamous, but from what I’ve gathered, it’s usually the more common unthinking type of non monogamy, and not the intentionally entered into libertinism by philosophy.

But all that is beyond the scope of this particular blog entry. Because I am an INTP (see earlier blog entries for just what that means!), I will focus on the INTP view of sexuality.

Following are excerpts taken from several INTP profiles I found online that I think are pertinent to libertinism in the INTP:

INTPs put great weight on being individuals and essentially different from other people, who they often view as being too alike and too interdependent.

If an INTP is pushed into doing something he will automatically resist. He must be given the chance to reach an independent decision, approving or rejecting the action.

The INTP takes his interests and beliefs very seriously. Honesty and directness when explaining these interests are usually displayed. INTPs detest facades and particularly dislike people who exhibit them.

In dreaming about what he would like to become or achieve, his goals are invariably highly individualistic.

General role models for INTPs are individualistic, creative and perhaps enigmatic people. Innovative free-thinkers who follow their own new paths are usually greatly respected.

The outward behaviour of an INTP can contrast strongly with his introspective world.

Sexuality fascinates INTPs in a similar way to music…Sexual feelings often clash with the INTPs desire to control and understand his universe.

INTP's natural approach to sexuality will have true-to-type elements. He will be keen to understand and categorise his sexual responses.

The "staying in love" phase is where INTPs start to evaluate the relationship's structure and form.

INTPs may ignore social conventions, not feeling bound by the "illogical" rules of society. To an observer, INTPs can seem emotionally cold. From the INTPs' perspective, they are simply applying logical principles to their own behavior.

They can be insensitive to what other people want or expect from a relationship.

INTPs have more simple needs from interpersonal relationships than most other types have and are not overly demanding in personal relationships.

INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into… having the ability to analyze difficult problems, identify patterns, and come up with logical explanations.

Their minds are constantly working to generate new theories, or to prove or disprove existing theories…ignoring existing rules and opinions and defining their own approach to the resolution. They seek patterns and logical explanations for anything that interests them.

INTPs are motivated to examine universal truths and principles...always asking "Why?" and "Why not?"

If INTPs don't like a rule, they’re quick to challenge it and find flaws in it -- this could make an INTP somewhat of a rebel.

They are likely to ignore any rules, people or tasks they consider trivial. INTPs are usually not good with relationships. They are intensely private, and very hard to get to know. INTPs won't share their deepest feelings with just anyone. They dislike and distrust authority, only respecting knowledge

The INTP is usually very independent, unconventional, and original. They are not likely to place much value on traditional goals such as popularity and security. They usually have complex characters, and may tend to be restless and temperamental. They are strongly ingenious, and have unconventional thought patterns which allows them to analyze ideas in new ways.

In his book, Please Understand Me II, David Keirsey had this to say about the NT (INTP, ENTP, INTJ, ENTJ) temperament cluster:

NTs often have a curious amorality concerning the generally-accepted standards of mating behavior. The rules and formalities of society have little pressure for them, but their own personal standards of conduct certainly do. Society’s seal of approval -- in the form of a church ceremony or marriage license -- means nothing to them.

The sexual ethics of NTs are carefully considered, and strictly adhered to, but may or may not conform to the general mores of sexual behavior current in any given time.

NTs allow no compromise when it comes to their own autonomy. They are the most self-directed and independent-minded of all the temperaments and they resist (and resent) all forces that would coerce them in acting against their own will, that would try to make them march to someone else’s drum… Their resistance hardens against social or moral expectations that are meant to control them, those rituals, manners, regulations, codes of conduct -- those shoulds and shouldn’ts -- that govern most social behavior. And this is just as true if the coercion comes from educational institutions, governmental institutions, business institutions, or from the institution of marriage.

Friday, October 1, 2004

The Language of Relationships

Quite often, the English language has not kept pace with current realities in our ever-evolving society. Take the language of relationships, for example.

When referring to the person with whom one is having an unmarried intimate relationship, the terms most overwhelmingly used are “boyfriend” or ”girlfriend”. These words are universally used, regardless of the age of those involved, circumstances, or type of relationship.

Am I the only one who finds the idea of a grown woman referring to a man in his 40s as her “boyfriend” to be totally ludicrous? Does anyone agree that a man who is not married to the mother of his children but refers to her simply as his “girlfriend” to be making more than a little bit of an understatement?

To me, the words “girlfriend” and “boyfriend” bring up visions of fifteen year olds “going steady”, exchanging class rings, and going to the prom. These terms are both absurd and inadequate to refer to adult relationships.

“Boyfriend” and “girlfriend” hearken back to a time when most people got married in their late teens and stayed married until death do us part. There weren’t enough unmarried adults in the many different types of relationships we see today to need having terms that described mature unmarried non platonic relationships.

Despite the fact that new words are routinely coined to reflect changing realities, the English language has not evolved much in the realm of relationships. From time to time, there have been attempts to address this lack of appropriate relationship terms, but such attempts haven’t succeeded to any great degree.

“Partner” enjoys some popularity in the gay community, but has not caught on among heterosexuals largely because many view this word as referring only to gay relationships, and others think it sounds too businesslike. “Significant other” is awkward to use, “paramour” sounds too hoity-toity, “fuckbuddy” is too blunt, and so on.

Personally, I prefer to use the word “lover”, because that’s what they are to me. I also will refer to lovers simply by their names, without explaining the type of relationship. Or I merely call them a “friend” and let the person I’m talking to figure out just what kind of friend they are to me on their own.