All That and a Bag of Mail: Married Sexpectations
It's the Friday after the 4th of July and I know lots of you still have to work.
That's despite the fact that you are hungover, your ears are still ringing from firework blasts, and bunches of you are probably sunburned from a day spent outside.
But have no fear.
The mailbag doesn't take days off.
Not even when I slept all night beside my two year old's crib in my father in law's house. He was asking me questions all night long. Until about 3:30 in the morning when my two year old woke me up because he had to poo. So I get him out of bed, strip him out of his pajamas, get him seated on the potty with my hands on his shoulders so he doesn't fall in the potty -- this has happened twice -- and what happens?
His pee hits me right in the shins.
I was worried about the poo coming before we got to the potty and I forgot to remind him to tuck his peepee down.
The peepee tuck is a key part of the potty training process.
So what do you do at 3:30 in the morning when your son pees all over your legs and you're standing there bleary-eyed with pee all over your shins?
I just wiped my legs off with toilet paper and went straight back to bed.
Welcome to dad life.
Our beaver pelt trader of the week is Kate Upton in an American flag bikini.
You're welcome.
Now on to the mailbag.
Sean D. writes:
"With the news that you broke about Urban Meyer and Florida this week and the new investigation into Aaron Hernandez's involvement in an attempted murder in Gainesville, I started to wonder if Florida could be looking at possible sanctions similar to Penn State. My question is, if Penn State could be held responsible for aiding Jerry Sandusky by not stopping him when they first heard of the child abuse, could Florida, and perhaps Urban Meyer, be considered indirectly responsible for the murders Hernandez may have committed? If the coaches and anyone else involved with the school played a role in getting Hernandez freed from any charges, wouldn't that allow him to believe he could commit more crime?
If Florida was found to be somewhat responsible could we not see sanctions similar to what Penn State agreed to?"
There are a lot of questions here, but your basic question is this -- if it was uncovered that Florida's football coaches played an active role in helping to ensure that Aaron Hernandez was not prosecuted for felony battery and attempted murder -- presumably because they wanted to keep Hernandez eligible to play football -- could there be NCAA issues at stake?
The answer to that is yes.
But proving any wrongdoing on behalf of Florida's coaches would be incredibly difficult.
Because you'd have to find evidence to prove the wrongdoing.
How could you prove wrongdoing on behalf of Florida's coaches?
The easiest way would be if the victims in these cases were being paid off to keep quiet. Why did the victim of the felony battery at the Swamp bar and the lone shooting eyewitness from inside the car suddenly stop cooperating with police? USA Today reported that the felony battery victim talked to coaches and was expecting a settlement.
From who? Hernandez? How does Hernandez have the money to pay off a victim? Was someone else fronting the bill for Hernandez? Did the same thing happen with the shooting? If so, that would classify as an improper benefit. (By the way, you know your program is corrupt when an improper benefit is a payoff to a shooting victim).
If any of Florida's coaches knew about this, gave money themselves, or facilitated the payments then that could be lack of institutional control.
The linchpin here is that the victims would have to talk about why they got quiet and Florida would have to be involved. I think that's unlikely to happen because most civil settlements require the signing of nondisclosure statements. If these guys have been quiet for six years, why would they suddenly talk now?
So NCAA violations are pretty unlikely.
But as all these revelations about Hernandez's behavior at Florida have unspooled the number of Urban Meyer supporters has diminished. There is now zero doubt that Meyer enabled Hernandez's behavior.
Zero.
Phillip writes:
"Since we get a lot of wedding coverage on OKTC - advice for bridesmaids, bachelor parties, great wedding photos - how about some advice for soon-to-be-grooms?
I was at a Southern wedding recently when a 75 or so year old man called me over to say he enjoyed reading my column and books. We talked for a couple of minutes -- he told me he'd been married over 50 years -- and then he said, "Why do brides smile at weddings when they're coming down the aisle?"
I said I didn't know. And then he said, "Because they just gave their last blowjob."
This joke is funny at any wedding, but it's absolutely hysterical when you picture a 75 year old Southern man who has been married fifty years drawling out the joke while you're still at the reception.
It hits at an essential truth of married sex, eventually you hit a rut (and not the good kind of rut).
About three years after we got married I asked my wife why she didn't wear lingerie anymore and she said, "Because you're just going to take it off."
I think that sums up married sex pretty well.
Many men enter into marriage thinking this means you will have sex every day. Seriously, they do. The male logic is this -- we're both sleeping in the same bed in the same house, why wouldn't we have sex every night before we went to sleep?
You are sorely mistaken.
I can't speak for people who marry as virgins -- what percentage of couples actually marry as virgins today? 2-3 percent? Lower? -- but for people who have had sex before marriage by year two you're going to hit your average sex a week number.
I'd say the average young married couple has sex about three or four times a week. But your average will decline pretty much your entire married life. The only real uptick you'll see is in the child conception era. That is, when your wife turns into a biologically crazed horny woman begging you for sex at all times because she needs your sperm to procreate.
It's the only time in her life a woman will lock her legs into your back and say through gritted teeth, "Don't. You. Dare. Pull. Out."
My wife got pregnant almost immediately with both of our boys. In restrospect I wish I'd gotten snipped, not told her, tried for a solid year of constant sex -- "I just don't know what the issue is." -- and then got unsnipped -- again, without telling her -- so we could have a baby.
Once you have multiple young kids? You'll both be so tired by the time you get to bed that you won't even think about having sex on most nights. Your sexual fantasies will be replaced by sleep fantasies. Instead of dreaming about a threesome with your wife and Kate Upton, you'll find yourself praying for morning rainstorms so your kids won't realize the sun has come up yet. It's possible you or your wife will actually fall asleep while beginning to make out.
Prepare yourselves, future grooms.
Knowing is half the battle.
Chris G. writes:
"I hate parades. 4th of July, Thanksgiving, New Years Day. Hate 'em. They all seem like the non tasty appetizer to the main meal...fireworks or usually football. My wife says I'm being a grumpy old man and I should put on a smile and get there three hours early to reserve a "good" spot. Granted the question is a little bit leading, but....who's in the right here?"
You are completely correct here, parades suck for adults.
They just do.
If you're a grown ass man and woman at a parade and you don't have children you guys should get divorced because you're both awful and your kids will be too.
Now, kids love parades. And I like to watch parades with my kids because they get so excited by them. Especially if it's a Disney World parade. When the characters come by on the floats your kids will nearly have strokes they're so excited.
"It's Buzz Lightyear."
Buzz! Lightyear!
Buzzzzz!!!!!!!!
But adults without kids at parades?
Indefensible.
And don't even get me started on the fat adults at Disney World sitting on their scooters on the front row of the parade without kids. You're blocking the kids views of their favorite characters so you can hog the front row?
I want to smother these people with their extra chins.
Maybe if you weren't spending so much damn time watching parades, fatty, you wouldn't have to cut all the lines with your electric scooter at the park.
JT, our extremely perverted producer at 3HL Tweets:
"Why is it sexy to see a woman in panties/bra, but just normal to see them in a bikini at a pool?"
This is completely true.
Every man who catches a quick glimpse of a girl's panties when she's wearing a skirt or dress thinks he's really accomplished something.
But no one really reacts at all to a bikini bottom.
This tells us that men haven't really changed throughout history. We all want to see something we're not supposed to see. Back in the nineteenth century it used to be scandalous for Congressmen to see women's ankles when they came to watch the Senate or the House debate.
I'm not kidding about this.
Your favorite political heroes were probably getting halfies during Henry Clay's speeches because they were trying to pretend not to stare at exposed ankle flesh.
Davy Crockett's wildest sexual fantasy probably involved a bunch of bare calves all lined up one after the other and, oh, God...
Nick writes:
"Hypothetically you are asked to co-author a book with one of the following people: Bill Clinton, Cam Newton, Michael Jordan, Rick Pitino or Bobby Petrino. No topic is off the record. I realize a number of these men have already written books, but yours is the definitive history. You can discuss $200,000 payoffs, was he suspended by David Stern, Monica, shady recruiting, life as the governor, motorcycles, the life of a "student-athlete," rosters, you name it. In other words you will get to listen, to write about and share all of the details we cannot wait to read years from now. Which book do you co-author? Thanks and I love the column!"
Bill Clinton, for sure.
Although, if I was just going for a money grab, it would be Cam Newton. Because given my audience, a book that I wrote with Cam Newton would probably sell several hundred thousand copies and break the Internet.
Plus, Cam's book just gets better and better. Let's forget about Auburn paying him -- which would clearly be a great story -- can you imagine what he also saw while he was at Florida? He probably doesn't have any love for Urban Meyer and he'd have to tell me the truth.
This could be extraordinary.
So given your question it's totally a choice between Cam or Bill Clinton.
But Bill Clinton telling the whole truth about everything?
That would be an absolute must read.
Web W. writes:
"Clay, my buddy and I were talking about this the other day and we need a ruling. The question is how many hookups is too many? I'll put the question in context. Say you are freshly graduated from college and you move to Nashville. While in Nashville you start to hang out with a girl and things are going well. The only problem is, she went to the same school and hooked up with some of your close friends. So back to the original question. How many hookups is too many? Two close friends? None at all? Lets put this to bed once and for all."
Well, the big question that's unresolved here is, what's a hookup? Are you defining sex as a hookup or just making out?
We need an all-encompassing definition.
If it's just making out at college bars, that's no big deal, I wouldn't even consider that as an issue.
To me a hookup should have to entail some double nudity. Prior to double nudity, it's just making out. (I say double nudity as opposed to single nudity because one of my friends -- and this is completely true -- adopted the theory that instead of worrying about taking the girl's clothes off, he'd just take his own clothes off instead. It's really an ingenious thesis that he summed up thusly: "Most girls are pretty good at keeping you from taking their clothes off, but they really don't know how to keep you from taking your own clothes off." Most of the time it worked. But sometimes he'd end up making out with a fully clothed girl. Which is just a hysterical visual. So you need double nudity).
By "close friends" I'm assuming you mean the kinds of guys who could be in your wedding party. That's the true measure of a close friend. You've just graduated from college so you might still have a really expansive definition of close friends. Over the next decade or so your friend list will diminish. So a close friend needs to be somebody who is a good enough friend to be standing up at your wedding.
Having set those parameters, I'd say two double nudity hook-ups is the tops.
You don't want to be in your wedding and be marrying your bride knowing that she's slept with the entire line of groomsmen standing there beside you.
One is easy to explain, two is pushing it, three or more makes for a ton of awkward encounters.
I'd love to hear what the highest number of groomsmen the bride has ever slept with is. (I've only been to one wedding where a groomsman has actually slept with the bride.) Some of y'all have to have been to weddings where it's an incredibly high percentage. What about groom with the bridesmaids? Anyone ever been to a wedding where the bride has slept with every groomsmen? Five or six? What's the record for a non-sex industry employee?
Matt writes:
"I need your help with a dilemma. I'm going to be a senior this year at UT. I grew up a lifelong Tennessee fan and that passion has not died down (In 7th grade, I told a girl I wasn't going to her birthday party because it was during a UT/UGA game. We're no longer friends) If you look at the home schedule, SC and UGA are the two marquee games. I have a part-time job but also do some freelance stuff for a local college during some weekends. I've been offered 200 bucks to work on Oct. 5 (the same day as the UGA game). (To put that in perspective, my monthly salary is about 600 dollars; 200 bucks isn't chump change for me). So do I go work and make some money or do I skip and go watch UT likely lose to Georgia? How bad would I feel if UT actually won? I can't decide whether or not to skip work, but-- to quote R. Kelly-- here's where I stand: my mind's telling me nooooooooo. But my body, my body's telling me yeeeeeaaaaasssss.
(Even if you don't publish this, please respond. I have decided that your opinion is THE determining factor in this.)"
How about I just send you a check for $200 so you can go to the game?
Email me your address.
Consider it an early graduation present.
Ally B. writes:
"Could I beat Novak Djokovic if Novak was playing from a wheelchair? Say he has an hour or two to practice with the wheelchair prior to the match. I'm in good shape, know how to hold a racquet, can mostly put a ball over the net, but have never really played (I.e. could a decently athletic female beginner beat the current #1 player in the world if that player had to play from a wheelchair?)"
I think Djokovic wins easily.
Here's my theory -- you can never break his serve. Even seated in a wheelchair a top tennis player could serve aces on you all day.
Then the question becomes, how many of your serves could he return from his wheelchair?
Your serves wouldn't be that fast -- and you could also double fault occasionally which would give him points without requiring him to do anything -- so I think he'd return a decent percentage. The vast majority of his groundstrokes from the wheelchair would be too fast and too well placed for you to return them back.
So I think he'd win most of the points on your serve too.
This means he wouldn't actually have to move around very much in the wheelchair.
I think Djokovic in his wheelchair would beat your average female tennis player 6-0. (I also think he'd beat the average male tennis player as well. Probably something like 6-3).
...
Happy 4th of July weekend.
So I was way off.