I’m not saying I did, but…

Q You are known as an arbiter of all aspects of sex and
especially definitions, and we are seeking your definitive opinion. My
wife and I were recently regaling each other with anecdotes from our
past, and she easily had the most interesting story: It seems that when
she was a young woman in college, a fellow student invited her over for
lunch. It turns out that he thought she was lunch. He quickly had her
clothes off and was kissing her, although he was still dressed. Then he
brought out a vibrator. He applied the vibrator, she had an orgasm and
then she called a halt to the proceedings. They went back to school,
and that was the beginning and the end of their relationship.

Did she have sex? Now, I think any time you have an orgasm you’ve
had sex, and if someone else is present, even if they’re clothed, you
definitely had sex. My wife’s view is that since he never got his
clothes off and she never saw his cock, she really didn’t have sex. We
would like your opinion on this. –Definition Essential For Intensely
Novel Experience

A Let’s say you and I met in a bar, DEFINE, while the wife
was out of town, and we hit it off. And let’s say I took you home,
stripped you naked, made out with you, sucked your dick, ate your ass,
spanked you, tossed you in a sling, fist-fucked you and then—with my
right arm buried up to my elbow in your ass—slowly stroked you with
my left hand until you blew a massive load all over your stomach, chest
and face.

Now let’s say I taped the whole thing and emailed a copy to your
wife. I think it’s unlikely your wife would turn to you after watching
the video—remember: I don’t get naked, you never see my dick—put a
hand on your knee, and say, “Well, I’m glad you didn’t have sex with
Dan Savage.”

Your wife clearly regrets going to that guy’s room; she regretted
the moment she came, just as you would probably regret going home with
me. These feelings prompt her to round this experience down to Not Sex,
to minimize it, to exclude it from her sexual history on a
technicality: He didn’t get naked, she didn’t get fucked. Your wife can
attempt to rationalize away the sex, DEFINE, but she had sex with that
guy—and that guy’s vibrator—whether she wants to admit it or
not.

Q I’m writing to you to let you know that a huge fan and
reader of your column has been in a coma since September 5. He had a
bad motorcycle accident and has a severe brain injury. His name is Jon
Broom, and he’s my boyfriend, the love of my life and my best friend.
Even though he still hasn’t woken up, I’ve been reading your columns
out loud to him so that he never misses one. I know you’re a busy man,
but I thought I’d take a chance and ask if you could pass on his
Facebook support group at “Get Well Jon” in one of your columns
(tinyurl.com/m3ngc3). I think
it would be awesome for him to look back and see your column when he
wakes up and is able to function again. We appreciate your writings and
support for the people who ask for your advice. Here’s to hope, faith
and community. –Penny Kim

A Oh, Penny, I’m so sorry. Best wishes for a full and speedy
recovery. If you’re on Facebook, please join Jon’s support group.

Q I had to share with you my first reaction to reading this
headline: “Santorum dips toes in 2012 Iowa waters.” My first thought
was “Ewwww,” followed quickly by “Is that even possible?” After all,
santorum is something that is dipped into, not something that can dip.
And then I remembered that before “santorum” meant santorum it actually
designated a person, a senator. Congratulations on a job well done. I
expect I am not the only one who had this moment of cognitive
dissonance. –A Faithful Reader

A Ben Smith at Politico reported last Tuesday that
Republican former US senator Rick Santorum plans to run for president.
Political Wire linked to Smith’s post and added that “Santorum
has a serious Google problem.” Truthdig linked to Political
Wire‘s post and spelled out Santorum’s problem: “The former
senator’s rampant homophobia inspired sex columnist Dan Savage to
launch a campaign to usurp the conservative’s name. The result: If you
type ‘Santorum’ into Google, you’ll find that it refers not to a former
senator, but ‘that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is
sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.'”

Who deserves the credit? Not me. The credit is yours, dear readers.
It’s thanks to you that spreadingsantorum.com—a blog that I haven’t
updated since 2004—remains the number-one hit on Google when you
search “Santorum.” It was a Savage Love reader who first suggested that
we usurp Rick Santorum’s name, another reader who suggested the “frothy
mixture” definition and readers who chose the winning definition in a
free and fair election. Well done, gang.

We can’t take credit for Santorum losing his seat in the US Senate
to Bob Casey by 18 points. That was Rick’s doing. But we helped to make
him ridiculous—there were so many headlines during his failed
re-election campaign with “froth” or “frothy” in them. And for a
politician, being an object of ridicule is a problem, which is why
spreadingsantorum.com and
the “frothy mixture” definition are going to be problems for
Santorum.

“Maybe it’s time to start updating spreadingsantorum.com again,”
writes Savage Love reader PB, “now that Rick is running for president.”
I couldn’t agree more, PB, but I’m a busy guy. Back when I was writing
for spreadingsantorum.com,
I had only the column on my plate. Now I blog every day, I do a podcast
and I’m working on another book. I don’t have the time to give spreadingsantorum.com the attention
it needs. But maybe some Savage Love readers do?

If spreadingsantorum.com is going to remain Google’s top hit when you search “santorum”—and it
should—then the site needs to come back to life. So I’m looking for a
few folks who want to torment Rick Santorum by following every twist
and turn of his sure-to-be-disastrous run for the White House on
spreadingsantorum.com. It
would be a labour of love—unpaid—but you’ll have the satisfaction
of knowing that you’re driving Rick Santorum and his supporters
absolutely batshit.

This article appears in Sep 24-30, 2009.