How to Please Your Man While Saving Yourself For Marriage

While I was in undergrad, I heard a tragic story about one of my classmates. Although I did not hear it directly from her, I'm 90% sure it's true, so I'm going to share it with you now. The classmate in question, who we'll call Leslie, was a very good, devout, Christian girl. She was also, as is sometimes the case in these situations, very naive and easily impressed. Like many of her friends, she was prone to responding to things with exclamations like "Really?? Wow!"

During our senior year, Leslie apparently began dating a slightly older grad student at our institution. As far as I'm aware, Leslie had never had a boyfriend before then, and before long they were engaged. Naturally, as a devoutly religious young girl, Leslie was saving herself for marriage. Unfortunately her fiance became, shall we say, frustrated by all the waiting for their honeymoon. I personally don't know who suggested the solution to this conundrum, but I'm betting that, of the two of them, it wasn't the naive virgin who woke up one day and said, "I know! Anal sex!"

That's right everyone. It was decided that they would have anal sex. It was the perfect compromise, don't you see? He could be satisfied now, and she could save herself for marriage. (Well, mostly, anyway.)

Perhaps you can tell I was a little horrified by this story. And it's not the anal sex itself that I have a problem with. I have no doubt that women can enjoy anal sex. In fact, I'm sure that even as I type this there are literally TENS of women having a great time doing the anal sex. No, the thing I have a problem with is the completely insane logic underlying this decision. I just cannot even comprehend the idea of anal sex as some kind of 'sex lite' or alternative to vaginal sex. It is not accurate to say that anal:vaginal::splenda:real sugar. That's what 1st and 2nd base are for, are they not? (I'm really asking, I don't totally understand the 'base' system.) I always thought that for most people, if sex acts are ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being "enthusiastic hugging" and 10 being "things you only ever seen in internet porn," anal sex was about an 8 or 9. Not that people don't do it, but you know, you work your way up the scale, and "normal," vaginal, as-God-intended-it sex comes first. As a Christian, how can you believe that anal sex is what sends the gays to hell but it represents a valid loophole for your own eternal soul?? I'm baffled.

Not to mention that this poor girl basically got taken advantage of. She was probably fed this bastardized argument by her hard-up fiance, and gave in to it because he's her first relationship and her future husband. The biggest tragedy of it is that she was probably thinking that it would just be a temporary thing, something they'd do until they got married and switched over to the traditional sexing, leaving anal sex a distant memory. Well, I have two thoughts in response to that: 1)Of the men in the world that would request anal sex, how many do you think are going to cheerfully give it up and forget about it later? and 2)Even if they did stop, GOD REMEMBERS, LESLIE. Also, anyone that manipulative will probably make a poor life partner, and so the situation is just all-around tragic.

Thus, I've decided to devote myself (or rather, this particular blog post) to spreading awareness of this phenomenon and ultimately saving good Christian girls who may not know any better* from this fate.

*I know there are lots of Christian women who do know better, and to you I say: Go forth! Educate your sisters!

Luckily, Dan Savage is here to help me. If you're unfamiliar with Dan Savage, he writes a sex advice column called 'Savage Love' (although if you're not comfortable hearing about a wide variety of fetishes, I wouldn't recommend reading it), and coined the term 'santorum' and its definition. (Follow the link for further explanation.) Mr. Savage, as a gay man, was a little pissed about Rick Warren (who is opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage) being chosen to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration ceremony. In 'honor' of Mr. Warren, who is pastor at Saddleback Church in CA, Mr. Savage invited readers of his column to suggest and vote for a new definition of the word 'saddleback.' In this week's column, he finally unveiled the word's new definition, which can be found at this special website:

CLICK HERE ----> http://www.saddlebacking.com <---- CLICK HERE

I have to say, given that it's an issue close to my heart, I'm really satisfied with the final definition.

Number of times the phrase "anal sex" appears in this post: 10 (11 if you count the link.)

Hey, Seuss!

I am not a terribly religious person. That isn't to say that I'm totally anti-religion, or that I'm immoral, or atheist, or anything like that. (Although 'atheist' and 'immoral' are not synonymous, but that's a discussion for another day.) It's just that I wasn't really raised in any church. When I was young, I went to a Baptist church with my grandparents pretty often. But I've never technically "belonged" to a church, and since we moved away from my grandparents when I was 7, I've attended church services only sporadically. At this point, my beliefs are probably most closely aligned with Buddhism, but that's only a vague comparison, based on what little I know about the religion. I'm just another godless heathen, really.

On the other hand, I can be pretty superstitious. I guess that this latter fact explains why I find it very difficult to take the Lord's name in vain. One of the few things that I had indoctrinated in me by the Christian church while I was pretty young was the fact that taking the Lord's name in vain was a Very Bad thing to do. And maybe it also has something to do with the fact that, although my parents curse fairly often, they pretty much never involve God or Jesus. So, part of the issue is the fact that I've just never gotten used to hearing it. But I think a bigger part of this hang up is the fact that, you know, even though I'm skeptical about some of the details of Christianity, I still think that Jesus was a great guy, and I can respect the fact that he doesn't appreciate me exasperatedly exclaiming his name whenever I'm having a hard time. From what I've heard, God (wherever/whatever he/she/it is) feels the same way about it, so alright, I'll try to leave them out of it. Especially since, as you may know, several religions seem to agree on that point, and if any of them are right, I'm probably going to be glad later on that I watched what I said. So I'm either A) superstitious, or B) just covering my ass in case of an emergency.

On the other hand, why respect this particular rule, and flout so many others? I have no idea. I think I look at a lot of other things (the f-word, being alone with boys, etc) as things that don't really hurt anyone else. Do I mind if the Creator of the Universe sees me making out with my boyfriend? Not really, our Lord has probably seen much less awesome things in his infinite existence, and I'd like to think he's happy for me. But do I want to personally insult him? Not so much. I heard dude once got so mad that he flooded THE WHOLE PLANET.

So, what do you think? Are you "religious" or not? Do you ever let slip a little G.D. or J.C. or even just an "Oh, God!" ? (I'll be honest, sometimes I even find myself editing "Oh God" to "Oh gosh" or "Oh man." Now you see the extent of this compulsion.)

Slightly unrelated final thought: is "cuss" a Southern word, or is it used everywhere? If anyone out there is reading this from above the Mason-Dixon line, or the West Coast, your input would be greatly appreciated. I don't want to appear unlearnt the next time I venture out of this here great state.