-> COVER -> THE SEX COLUMN
My understanding is that Mr. Ed specifically requested a blind Steel Cage Death Match with the Tuna this time. He thinks if I don't read his whining first I'll treat him gentler.
I'm starting to think our publisher should rename this column "Beatdown Palace." Folks just keep lining up to have the Master of Disaster send them away cryin'. I'll beat them down as long as they can take it, since they seem so obsessed with showing how much better human beings they are than Charlie the Tuna.
So let's begin with what seems to have been and be Mr. Ed's basic arguments:
- Charlie the Tuna advocates lies, perfidy and infidelity and thus is a menace to all of wymyn kind.
Hey, Mr. Ed, what do you call padded bras, wonder bras, six-inch heels, plastic surgery (like our gals Tori Spelling, Cher and Paul Jones,) corsets and bottle-blonde hair? I guess in your mind these are all examples of the heights of truth, justice and the American way, right? Bull!
- Charlie the Tuna don't get as much as me, Mr. Ed, because he's been married four times and don't know how to maintain a long-term relationship.
Lemme give it to you straight, little boy: SOME people would rather work at Mickey D's for ten damned years to show they can hold a steady job than maybe have the courage to better themselves by moving up to Red Lobster where they can make tips. Does that "long-term relationship" make them any smarter, better or richer human beings? I don't think so. Just because you like burgers every night don't mean that everybody has to!
- The rest of the lame arguments seeming to emanate like so much flatulence from this talking horse's ass seem to have something to do with his idea of the pedestalized place of womankind in the grand equation of things. I can't put my finger on it, exactly, Losers, because this guy's long, run-on sentences and misplaced parenthetical asides is almost as convoluted as some girl's rendition of her sexual history. I'll do my best to try to respond.
Mr. Ed, go back and read my brilliant essay on the Goddess Who Must Be Impressed. That's where your pedestal leads, Pal! You want to show your adoration for She Who Must Be Obeyed, do it without wreaking havoc on whole city blocks worth of folks, that's all Charlie the Tuna asks!
When I asked --- since you didn't want me to see what trash-talk you'd send along this time, little Eddie, fearful that I'd tear you to threads --- how best to respond to your diatribe this week, our Publisher said: "Just go back and read what Ed has had to say and respond with whatever you'd like." So I did.
I read a lot of your other columns in G21, too. What did I find? From "Vox Populi" to "Recommended Daily Requirement" you seem to believe you have some kind of sacred mission to take all the other writers in G21 to task on one issue or another!
It just seems that with me you got some kind of special hard on as this is the second time you have begged to horn in on my column to set me straight.
You know what, Loser? You're starting to bore Charlie and (I'll bet) a bunch of my readers. I got more important things to do for the Free male population than try to give you a lesson in the Biological Imperative. Don't let the door hit you in yo' ass on your way out of my space. Like I said, you want an old married guys' advice column, get one of your own.
Meanwhile, in the interest of your continuing education, let me see if I get through your thick skull the essence of what everybody else comes here for...
THE TUNA PHILOSOPHY
If you are really committed to getting some poontang in the near future, as much and as often as you would like it, forget about economies of scale. They don't work. They are irrelevant to what we are about here.(See that picture? That's an ad for Nina Hartley's Guide to Sex Toys. Check it out when you got some free time, Losers; you might learn something Mr. Ed don't want you to know. Hardee-har-har!)
RULE ONE: Act as if money is no object. You might as well go ahead and cash that paycheck -- after taking care of essentials like rent and car payment -- 'cause you ain't gonnah have no money for food (other than that the bimbo scarfs down during the preliminaries) or magazines or new Dockers. Won't happen. She wants it ALL.
You gottah remember, most of the prime bimbos out there, the fine, young, nubile ones with good skin and nice bods that you wouldn't be ashamed to be seen sneaking out of a motel with on a Tuesday morning, got jobs as receptionists, secretaries, office managers and hostesses.
These babes got about as much in the bank as they do between their ears, Losers! If they are spending the feeble little nickels they earn in the pink - collar ghetto on anything it's on mousse, hairspray, revealing dresses, short mini-skirts and perfume so that they can attract some guy with a big bankroll to pay for all the stuff they think their upkeep and maintenance and that fine bearded clam between their legs is worth. And I promise you that it's always worth a helluva lot more in their estimation than it would be on the going market if you and I were the stock brokers!
All that aside, there's one thing you gottah remember. THESE BABES INVEST 80% OF THEIR TAKE - HOME IN GETTING YOU AND ME TO THINK THEY ARE GODDESSES. They don't even think of fleecing you and I as a crime, Losers! They think it's only fair
Stay Hard.
- how men have to struggle to get sex,
- how women are only out for the money, and
- that married people are sexless suckers.
I'd like to submit to our readership that what most of us call our "sex lives" (potential sex lives?) is one of the most influential, costly and time consuming activities we engage in.
The pursuance of sex, love, companionship or whatever YOU deem makes an acceptable "sex life"(even if your idea of an acceptable sex life is just to squeeze somebody's hand at your church on Sunday mornings), controls the whole flow of your lifestyle. "Charlie the Tuna" thinks that the whole male/female interaction boils down to women trying to get a man's money, in exchange for sex; I say, he is a living, breathing validation of MY theory, that most people, and particularly horny guys, find the prospect of having someone in their life, someone to eat, talk and "maybe" even have sex with - PRICELESS.
Think about it.
Single folks: how much time do you spend PREPARING yourself to be "acceptable" to the opposite sex? How much money do you spend trying to create the impression of a "pleasant package". A lot, right?
Understand, I'm not knocking you here - hell, the first thing I did when I got divorced 12-13 years ago, was get me some new rags (clothes). Then I got a different car and actually waxed the sucker on a regular basis. It didn't matter that I couldn't REALLY afford these expenditures, what with being a single parent of two - I wanted to "hook up" with someone BAD and I knew to make that prize-winning Love Connection, I couldn't go cheap on the "hunting gear". Hell, even some of us "old" married guys (and women) like to stay looking like we are marketable - must not take our grand lifestyle for granted.
Now, many men complain that the BURDEN of paying for everything is on them. I say that attitude stems from a lack of appreciation for what women go through to make themselves "acceptable" out in the "market", and what women have to lose - they can literally "lose their ass".
Clothes: a man can easily be "Acceptable" for any given setting, for about ˝ or maybe even 1/3 of what a women has to spend for said-same setting. Makeup, perfume, jewelry. Guys, face it, you like nothing more than a women who looks and smells nice, and none of those accessories come cheap.
WE don't have to spend that kind of money just to reach the "acceptable baseline" for our particular dating/mating market, yet we expect the lady to show up at her door, looking "just marvelous darling". Anything less and we'd be thinking,
"Shit, I'm ponying up for an expensive meal, I've washed and waxed my car to death, and that's all the work-up she could give herself?"
And WHAT do women have at stake, what are some of the most common pitfalls a women can suffer from interacting with men; particularly guys like "Charlie", who are so obviously into lying, cheating and crushing them once they've had their "way" with them? Pregnancy, disease, single parenthood, bruised self-esteem(thank you Mr.Jerk-Face for making it harder on the guys that WOULD treat them better), and gossip to the other fellows about how she "put-out", even if she didn't!
To say nothing of those free-loaders that will hunt down a lonely single woman and drain her of every penny she saved away for her future. Guys, we get off CHEAP! Stop whining or I'll have to call a WHAA-mbulence.
"But she won't give me none unless I give her my paycheck!" Smart woman.
What do most single guys do with their money? IMHO, they waste it. Bar crawls with their "buds", sports events, a series of dates with women who are way beyond them in class, education and looks (read:waste of time and money), and purchasing silly little gizmos to show their single buddies when they come over.
Even after marriage, it takes most guys YEARS to break those habits - it's no wonder that study after study indicates that couples fight infinitely more over MONEY, then they do over SEX - money the MEN have been spending.
I work in a law office that does Bankruptcies, and we never get a broke single woman - but LOTS of single men.
IMHO, it's NOT that women "charge" guys for sex, what they are trying to do wring a modicum of fiscal, social and, yes, psychological RESPONSIBILITY out of us before they give up their most precious possession. Unlike the stock market which,"knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing", women with enough self-esteem and patience know they have to be careful with their most important "private stock".
Good Faith: a lot of these convoluted machinations that people go through, fall apart due a lack of TRUST and HONESTY. Our sole female writer tried to indicate in the VOX POP that I was being a brute by misspelling her name: Truth is, in personal email she "fessed-up" that PHAYLA was her real name, and that, yes, she had "Joe Esterhoused" us on two out of three of her articles (read: pure FICTION, promoted as "personal reminiscences").
THAT kind of behavior underscores the TRUST, HONESTY and VALUE issues that are sadly inherent in "Sexual Relations" and "Sex Columns." Can we put our Faith in someone who can't appreciate that trying to give away a "PRICELESS" gift oft-times diminishes it's value; or a man who claims he can coldly proclaim,"who ya gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes?" Smell that smell? It's mendacity. This column smells of mendacity.
BTW: I sent up a smarmy, nasty, crude, and according to our publisher,"over the top" smack at "CTT". Our Publish protested,"this is a family magazine Eddy, what will people think?" SOME, will laugh their buns off. They might be appalled, but, they can be forewarned. Speaking of forewarning, it "appears" that "Charlie the Tuna" can't deal with responses to his column, without being "handicapped" by receiving an "advance sheet". WOW, tough work, responding in "G-time"(the time between Rod getting a post, and actually "publishing") What I am asking for, is a REAL SHOT. That "Charles" go it alone - use what he can glean from MY writings to delve into my personal shit and trash me.