Anonymous Mailbag

It’s Tuesday, rejoice, it’s time for the anonymous mailbag.
Go sign up for the podcast today.
As always you can send your anonymous mailbag questions to, anonymity guaranteed.
With that in mind, here we go:
“So the other day I randomly went to get a massage. I am not a frequent massage client at all. Probably haven’t had a massage in two plus years. Anyways, my masseuse was a very nice Asian woman probably in her 40’s. She takes me to the massage room and I got completely naked and laid down with a towel covering my butt. 
The masseuse then removed my towel and I was completely nude. Like I said I’m not a frequent massage goer so I don’t know if this is normal procedure or not. She rubbed my ass a lot and I inevitably began to get a solid hard on. She also commented a lot about how strong I was.
She then told me to turn over which I did and my fully erect penis was completely visible to her and she did not put a towel on my dick for a solid 10 seconds. I found this odd because if she did not want to see my penis she could have put a towel on me and then told me to turn around right? She did not seem to be phased by the boner at all and was very nice and friendly after.
So I guess my question is if it is normal for a masseuse to see the client’s fully erect boner and would it be out of line for me to ask for a hand job?”
I’ve never gotten a massage in my entire life so I have no idea what’s normal or abnormal in this situation.
Having said that, full frontal male nudity with an erection can’t be a normal part of the massage experience. My bet is she was expecting you to ask for a happy ending, which is why she paused to give you an opportunity to request one. When you didn’t make the request, she finished off the massage without giving one.
On to your question, would it be out of line to ask for a happy ending?
Here’s the part I’d be nervous about if I were you, you don’t want to get Robert Kraft’d here. Leaving aside the morality angle — it doesn’t seem like you were opposed to getting a happy ending here — what if this massage parlor was under FBI investigation and you get the rub and tug and next thing you know your name is in the paper for paying for sex? Then all of a sudden you’re labeled a sexual deviant in public, you have thousands of dollars in legal expenses, and you can’t masturbate anymore without having PTSD.
I just think the risk/reward payoff is really not very good here. Best case scenario, you get a hand job. Worst case scenario, you get popped for solicitation and led out in handcuffs. (Oh, and there’s nude videos of you somewhere out there, which inevitably end up on the Internet somehow.)
Robert Kraft is going to end up paying a million dollars in legal fees for that hand job before all is said and done. Which is cheaper than a divorce, I guess, but still, talk about the least happy ending ever.
Now, if she just goes to town on you and gives you the hand job for free — without any discussion about pay — and then after it’s over you give her a tip, I don’t understand how you could be guilty of a crime then.
Because how could you be prosecuted for tipping a masseuse?
And what are you going to do, stop her mid-pump like Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm?
But I don’t think negotiating a happy ending price is a smart move.
Plus, you’re not exactly a good negotiator when you already have a hard dick. That’s why some wives wait to tell you they want to get pregnant until you’re naked and about to have sex. How many men in world history have called off sex at that point in time? It’s literally the worst negotiating point for men. (The only way to make men worse negotiators than this is to have them drunk in the exact same situation).
The number of men who have had sex and then immediately, I mean like ten seconds after sex ends, suddenly thought, “Wait, did I just agree to have a kid?” is definitely in the tens of millions.
By the way, from a legal perspective, if you’re propositioned for sex and convinced you’re about to get Robert Kraft’ed, decline the sex and offer to pay for a nude lap dance instead. A cop won’t strip down naked and dance for you.
Also, can we just reflect upon the fact that our tax dollars go to pay women to pretend to be hookers? Can you believe that’s a real job funded by taxpayers? You go out and pretend to be a hooker, get guys to agree to pay you for sex, and then arrest them.
I honestly think this is the most dishonest job on the planet.
And our tax dollars pay for it!
“Hey Clay – my son is 5 and just started playing youth football through the county.

I’m being told the boys are wearing different colored socks in September to support childhood cancer awareness and another color in October to support breast cancer awareness. We’re told we have to pay $20 for these two pairs of socks and the proceeds will go to support the causes. 

I’m an assistant coach and asked the head coach who decided to do this. He let me know that the “park board wanted our kids to understand there are people out there that have these afflictions and need support.”

The money isn’t an issue but I have a problem being told we have to support any cause (regardless of how noble the cause is) in REC LEAGUE sports. Plus, at five years old, I don’t think any of the boys will understand the meaning behind the socks. Am I completely off base having an issue with this or should I just pay the $20 and have my son wear the different colored socks? The other option is to just have my son wear the normal team color socks we’re wearing in August throughout the entire season.” 

Here are your choices — you can be the asshole dad who won’t pay $40 to combat childhood cancer and breast cancer because he doesn’t like charities being involved in rec league sports — which is certainly your right — or you can drop the $40 and have your money go to the charity.
And, oh by the way, if you don’t pay the $40 then everyone on the team’s parents will know you didn’t pony up because your son will be playing in the regular colored socks, while everyone else is in the fight cancer socks.
Of all the battles to fight, this seems like a pretty ridiculous one to fight.
Honestly, the way I think about this isn’t on behalf of the parents who can afford the $40, it’s for the kids whose parents might not be able to afford the $40. Can you imagine what a tough spot that would be to be in? You barely have enough money to pay for your kid to be in rec sports and then you can’t afford to pay the extra money for the socks, which means your kid, through no fault of his own, stands out in a different colored pair of socks than everyone else.
In other words, I think the toughest part of the mandatory charity donation is actually requiring some people who may not have the extra money to make the mandatory charity donation to have to make the charity donation. You’re not upset about the financial impact, you’re upset about the principle behind it, I think the person with the best gripe here is the one without the financial resources.
(The different colored socks reminds me, in a totally different way, of how some kids in school would get different colored meal tickets when they were on free or reduced lunch at schools.
It might as well have been flashing, “WE’RE POOR,” for everyone else to see.
That always seemed like a bad decision to me, even as a kid.)
I don’t know what your league is like or how many kids in the league are in difficult financial situations — everyone may be easily able to afford it — but instead of complaining about the cost of the socks, which you can afford, given the fact that you’re an assistant coach I think you should make sure every other kid on your team can afford them and if some other parents can’t afford it just pay for their kids so everyone ends up with the same colored socks on your team.
I do think it’s a decent thing to teach wealthy kids, even very young ones, that not everyone is as healthy or fortunate as they are. The breast cancer socks seem a bit weird — although they’re clearly just copying what the NFL does — but the socks for childhood cancer seem like they make quite a lot of sense.
I wouldn’t fight this battle if I were you because I think the intent is in the right place. I would, however, work to ensure everyone on my team could afford the socks so all the kids dress the same. (Except for the parents, and this would be, who forget which socks to wear on which day and end up screwing up the gesture anyway).

“I coach my daughter’s [sport] team and have been given a sort of heads-up from the league that we are going to have a trans-gendered girl on our roster this year. The girls are ten years old. At the outset, let me make this perfectly clear: like every other kid on the roster, I will use her preferred pronouns, call her by whatever name she goes by, and treat her the same as the other kids on the team. They are young enough where it may not be obvious to everyone else, so my sincere hope is that no one but me and the other coaches for our team will be any the wiser. I don’t plan on addressing it with the team or any of the parents unless I’m forced to by circumstances. I also don’t think this is a situation where the kid is going to go out and dominate like some 90’s-era movie. 

I’m sensitive to the fact that whatever this child is going through is infinitely more difficult and serious than my petty coaching concerns and I hope that she has a good support system in place to meet her needs. If playing in this league helps her out, then its probably a good thing on balance, particularly since they are not really old enough for this to become a safety concern and there are no locker room-type issues (they are all still children after all). If this was a higher age-group, puberty issues might make this untenable and I’d probably have less of an inclusive attitude about the situation. If I have to have a conversation with my daughter about gender dysphoria, then I will and knowing her the way that I do, I don’t think it would be that difficult. That part of this situation doesn’t bother me, though I don’t expect that all, or even most, other parents will feel this way.

But, perhaps selfishly, I can’t help resenting the fact that volunteering time to coach three days a week is hard enough under typical circumstances and that this could very easily make it much more difficult. My main concern is how other parents, both on our team and opposing teams, will react if this situation becomes known. 

So my question to you, King Solomon of the Internet, is if you were in my shoes, how would you handle this situation if you were confronted by a parent who didn’t want his/her daughter playing with/against this child? I’m a believer in being prepared, so I’d like to have some portion of an answer chambered and, so far, I’ve not come up with much beyond “The league follows the [national organization for the sport] guidelines, which allows [child’s name] to play on this team.” 

I know I’ve been unhelpfully vague about age, sport, location, political leanings of the area, etc. Those are all factors here, but I think keeping this vague is probably the right thing to do here.”

There is no doubt you’ve been put in a tough spot here, especially for a volunteer coach of ten year old girls.

I’ve coached little league baseball for the past four years so here’s how I think I’d respond in this situation.

First, it’s not uncommon for girls to, for instance, play little league baseball with boys.

When I was a kid we had a couple of girls play in the boy’s little league. This was long before transgender rights became a cultural battlefield. I bet many people reading this had the same thing in their little leagues. We just considered these girls to be tomboys and no one batted an eye. Some of the girls, at that age, were really good too.

So that’s the first item I’d go to in my arsenal, the idea that while there is a cottage industry of people trying to create and exploit cultural divisions in our country today, this situation isn’t that much different than what might have happened back in the 1980’s or the 1990’s.

Second, and even more pertinent, I assistant coached little league basketball with multiple girls on every “boys” team for two different years of teams. I’m not even sure what the rule is for girls playing on teams in our league, but at young ages, pre-puberty, it really isn’t a very big deal at all for girls to play in boys leagues.

I haven’t heard of boys doing this in a girls league, but I’d assume it happens occasionally, and the biological impact is the same.

There just isn’t that much difference between boys and girls at young ages.

So how did we handle it?

We didn’t coach the boys and girls any different in our league and I don’t really think the sex of the child factors in very much at all. As you said, they haven’t hit puberty and in pre-puberty sports leagues it’s often the case, actually, that girls are bigger and stronger and faster than many, or most, of the boys.

In terms of the language choices that we used, I addressed everyone on the team using the term guys, which I think is pretty generic and not that specific to gender. As in, “Come on guys, we’ve got to pay better attention right now.” Or, “Guys, come here, this is the play we’re going to run now.”

If you have a specific coaching instruction with a specific player then you call that player by his or her name. That’s all you need. The preferred pronouns angle, I think, wouldn’t come up that often. Again, I can’t think of any time the gender of one of the kids was remotely an issue at all.

So I tend to think based on the ages of the kids you are coaching, it won’t be an issue either. I wouldn’t make a big show of addressing the issue or anything like that. I’d just coach the team as if nothing else was different at all.

But I do think the league has an issue going forward with determining what the rules are in situations like these for  post-puberty competition. Because once the boys hit puberty they are going to dominate the girls. That’s no fault of the girls, it’s just basic biology — the boys will be bigger, stronger and faster than the girls.

This is a bigger issue that society is going to have to decide as well. If biological men are able to compete with women, then biological women will pretty much cease winning. This is why the genders were separated in the first place, because if men and women compete in athletic events, women would never win. Or even come close to winning.

In a larger context, I have no issue with adults deciding to define their gender as they see fit, but we don’t let teenagers under 18 — in most states — vote, get married, buy beer or cigarettes, be sentenced to prison under adult penalties, or fight in wars because we don’t believe their brains have developed fully enough to handle those decisions. That’s why we created the distinction between ages of majority and minority.

Hell, we don’t even let teenagers legally go to R-rated movies or buy pornography.

But we let them have gender reassignment surgery before 18?

That seems crazy to me.

It seems like picking your gender is a much bigger decision than, say, deciding to drink a beer or smoke a cigarette. Mind you, I don’t want my 14 or 15 year old — or younger — to be able to do either of these either, but the states (in conjunction with the federal government) have restricted kids from making those decisions.

The rationale is that they are too young to make that decision.

Yet you’ve got parents who are zealots to ensure their kids only eat organic food and yet some of these same parents are fine with pumping artificial hormones into their minor teenagers bodies?

It just doesn’t add up for me.

I don’t have any issue with young kids playing coed sports, but I think letting a really young kid pick their gender is a bridge too far. I don’t let my five year old pick what he eats for most meals; there’s no way I’m letting him pick his gender at that age. (And, by the way, I wouldn’t let him pick his sexual orientation for life at that age either.)

This isn’t about being transphobic, it’s about being kid-decision phobic.

I just don’t trust most kid decisions, especially not those that can have lasting life-long consequences.

Once you get to be 18, you can make whatever choice you want in life, but until that point, you’re still a minor and I don’t think you should be able to make major, life-changing decisions.

But that’s all for the future, for right now I’d just treat this ten- year old kid the exact same as everyone else on the team and not make a big deal about gender at all.

Hopefully that won’t create any major issues for your team, your players, or the parents of your players.

Good luck.

Send your anonymous mailbag questions to, anonymity guaranteed.

And go listen to the new podcast!

Written by Clay Travis

OutKick founder, host and author. He's presently banned from appearing on both CNN and ESPN because he’s too honest for both.