Category Archives: sex

>REACT: Dumbledore gay … Rowling wrong.

>J. K. Rowling has revealed to the world that her fictional character is gay – giving his title as Headmaster a whole new meaning. It turns out that Dumbledore is more an old queen than a wizard – unless, of course, he is a wizard in bed. Now we have to look the phallic implication of all those wands.

Since Dumbledore is only an imaginary figure, and since his fictional gayness has never been integrated into the Harry Potter story line, one must assume that the outing was solely for publicity. It worked. The gender preference of the old geezer is now the subject of more media attention than Congressman Mark Foley’s emails and Senator Larry Craig’s bathroom acrobatics.

However, her revelation leads me to wonder how fictional characters can be gay. Since his only traits are limited to those committed to print, he does not seem to be sexual. I could speculate that he is former skinhead … maybe a woman passing as a man … the bastard son of Rasputin. Off paper, he is nothing.

Now that she has outed Dumbledore with an out of text persona, are we not entitled to the salacious details of his past sexual experiences? Forget about the sad erotic obsession with nemesis, Gellert Grindelwald, which left the wizard traumatized. I am sure as a once handsome gay man, he had his share of steamy relationships. Will we ever know if he is a top or bottom? (If you do now know what that means, ask a gay friend). Maybe he is a secret crossdresser (Are those flamboyant robes a hint?) He into leather? Oh wow! Maybe a child abuser? Lot of that going around these days.

And … while she is tattling, why only the gay thing. Let’s hear about the sex lives of the others. Who has been bonking who? When? Where? Why? Does Harry masturbate? Why not totally trash the legacy of Harry Potter by turning it into fodder for the porn mill?

Don’t get me wrong. I like the Potter books. Nice fiction. I do not share the equally unfounded assessment that they promote witchcraft. I do think it is unfortunate, however, that Rowling had to stoop to crass publicity to draw more attention to herself and her books – as if she needs more. Geeez!

She seemed delighted to presage the wrath of religious fundamentalists. Of course, there will be the predicted reaction. She has poked them in the posterior with her magic wand. I can only imagine the Dumbledore cartoon porn that must be flowing onto the Internet, as we speak.

It is just unfortunate that Rowling would bring adult issues to a children’s story.

>REACT: Senator Larry Criag

>If truth does indeed have a certain “ring” to it, then the explanation of Utah Senator Larry Craig is a definite cacophonous “clunk.” The I-said-he-said reports of Craig and the arresting officer needs some common sense analysis.

Perhaps the described toe-touching and under-the-stall hand “swipes” are meaningful signals to the gay casual encounter crowd. Since my own lusts do not involve anonymous public bathroom sex (or even public bathroom sex not so anonymous), I cannot comment on the meaning of the hand signals. If I were ever to see a hand waving beneath the partition, my first instinct would be to hand the poor stranded soul some toilet paper – definitely not my… ah… well… you know.

Craig said he was simply reaching down for some unidentified piece of paper. Did it float into the other stall? And what was this errant piece of paper? An “eyes only” intelligence report from the CIA? Or, a piece of toilet paper? Nothing less than the former would have me groping the floor under an in-use neighboring stall. Moreover, what ever happened to verbal communication? “Excuse me sir. I dropped a top-secret CIA intelligence report on the floor by your feet. Could you retrieve it for me?”

If it were only a piece of toilet paper who, in God’s name, would retrieve it? I have, I must confess, occasionally dropped a sheet or two of poop paper on the men’s room floor. It happens. However, I have NEVER scraped my fingers across the smudged tiles to retrieve it. No. No. No. That is why we have janitors with mops and rubber gloves.

As for the toe touching, Craig claims to have a “wide stance,” and the footsie-wootsie stuff was inadvertent. This is where his story goes down the drain, so to speak. Now, I know those macho men of the once wild west tend do fix there feet to the floor a bit farther apart then the effete metrosexuals in New York. However, making contact inadvertently, as alleged by Craig, is a stretch (no pun intended) – even if the guy in the next stall is also one of those “wide stance” cowboys.

I have seen macho men sitting with their legs at a seemingly uncomfortable ninety-degree angle. I can even imagine them sitting that way on a toilet (and I am way not happy with that image in my mind, thank you every much, Larry Craig). Even in my wildest imagination, I cannot figure how two people’s feet, even “wide stance” people, can come in contact under the stall partition without some sort of unreasonable and inexplicable acrobatic contortion. Sorry, senator, I ain’t buying it.

There also is the alleged peeking through the gap in the stall wall. According to the arresting officer, one of Craig’s beguiling blue eyes was seen peeping into adjacent stall housing the officer. I am not clear if this was before or after the toe-touching and hand-swiping.

(As an aside, I have to tell you that this is the most terrifying part of the story. I am one of those bashful bathroom guys. I mean, I lock the bathroom door when home alone. I hate stalls that leave points of visual entry. It may only be a one inch space between door and frame to you, but to me, you might as well take off the door and set up a camera crew. My anxiety is not unreasonable. The internet if filled with videos taken secretly as people using the potty. Not only do I prefer my own privacy, but also, what is so exciting about watching people dispense with bodily waste. To me, seeing people using the “facilities” is a huge turn off … like seeing an accident you wished you hadn’t. But, I am not Larry Craig.)

What is missing from the Craig version of the story is plausibility. Peeking into stalls, playing footsie, and weird hand signals demands a credible explanation. This is where Craig fails. His abject denial of homosexuality, or bi sexuality, still leaves his actions unexplained.

That leads to the final mystery. Why did he plead guilty? Why didn’t he contact his lawyer? Tell his confidants? His wife? Did he believe his arrest and guilty plea to a lesser charge would forever escape public notice? Apparently. But, this makes Craig not only a bit weird and kinky (both eminently forgivable human traits), but incredibly stupid (not so forgivable).

Ironically, whatever he did in that men’s room and however he expresses his sexuality, he is a cooked goose politically – not as much for his actions, but for his stupidity. His attempted cover-up failed – and it is usually the cover-up, not the “crime,” that brings a person down. Keep in mind, neither Clinton nor Nixon were “punished” for their “crimes.” Only for their failed cover-ups. It is a lesson Craig never learned.