Anonymous Mailbag

“Is it ever acceptable (or just not completely perverted) to masturbate at work?

Here are the logistics. I work in a small office that has individual bathrooms. So it isn’t like a public restroom where someone can walk in on you. Plus a sound goes on when the light for the bathroom is turned on. Further, there are only about 5 men who work here, and 12 women. There are 2 bathrooms each for men and women. So it is rare that any guy is waiting on a bathroom. Basically I think my chances of getting caught are close to 0%. 

Now here is the reason. I usually get tired in the afternoon. I have my own office in which I can close the door, and in the past I’ve taken 20-30 min naps. That doesn’t seem like a good use of time though, and it is risky since someone could knock on my door and I have to jolt awake. Anyways, recently I have gone to the bathroom to masturbate and I have found I am a lot more efficient afterwards. It is a great stress relief. 

In fact, I have had times when I feel so tired/stressed that I can tell I’m not going to get much work done. Then, I realize the best solution for this might just be to masturbate. Because I’ve done that and gone back to work and been productive. This is about productivity!

Is this so wrong?

And if so, are quick naps in your own office unacceptable as well?

Finally, how many men do you think have ever masturbated while at work?”

Okay, we have to begin with this obligatory clip.

The answer I always give for questions like these is this — imagine if you got caught doing it.

I think this is true for much of life, how comfortable would you be with everyone knowing you were doing it? If the answer is, “It would be insanely awful if anyone ever caught me doing it,” you probably shouldn’t do it. That’s an easy life lesson to follow in these days when everyone’s public and private life are constantly coming together.

So if somehow you got caught masturbating at work, how would you ever live that down? There’s no way you can stay at the same job, is there? I don’t think so. You’re masturbation guy then from that day forward. And if you try to get a new job you have to worry that your prior boss might mention you got caught masturbating at work too.

Would anyone want to hire masturbation at work guy?

Having said that, everything in life is risk/reward. Your risk here sounds low and your reward seems to be, or at least you’ve convinced yourself of it, you perform better at work after jerking off. (Personally, I doubt this is true by any statistical measure.)

But if you think you perform better at work and the risk of you being caught is minimal, I don’t see anything morally wrong with your decision.

On the nap front, I think it’s socially unacceptable most places to nap, but I think it should be socially acceptable. I get up so early that I take naps several times a week. I set my phone alarm for 33 minutes and that’s the only length of time I’ll nap during the week. I don’t have time to nap for several hours and I’m afraid of napping any longer than this because then I end up feeling more tired and it makes it tougher to go to bed at night, which is an awful combo.

If I ran a company with an office, I think having a daily nap time would be amazing. We’d just shut the office down, turn off all the lights and everyone would have to nap for 33 minutes from like 1:30 to 2.

It would be just like kindergarten.

Then an alarm goes off and everyone wakes up and goes back to work.

I have zero doubt productivity would skyrocket.

“I have been having casual/friends with benefits sex with this girl for several months now. She’s pretty hot and the sex is really good so no complaints with our arrangement. I’m pretty big on having safe and protected sex and I use a condom every time we have sex. One night she unexpectedly came over for a booty call and I didn’t have any condoms in my apartment. She really wanted to get it on and I was pretty horny and I didn’t want to kill the mood by going to a gas station to buy some condoms. 
So long story short, I end up having sex without a condom and I proceed to use the “pull out” technique. I end up finishing/ejaculating on her stomach/chest. After I’m done, I proceed to go to the bathroom to clean up and get her a towel and some wet wipes so she can clean up as well. I throw her a towel and some wet wipes and I go to clean up myself and she says to me “you’re not gonna help me clean up and wipe the semen off me?”
I’m totally taken aback by that comment. I say to her “I didn’t know I am suppose to. Should I?” She says “a real gentleman does.” 
I haven’t pulled out and ejaculated on girls that often in my sex life, but during the times I have, not once has a girl asked me to help her clean up or wipe off the semen off her body until this time. I thought it was just enough to get her a towel and some wet wipes or toilet paper. 
My question is. What is the proper etiquette and protocol in regards to helping a girl clean up after sex? Especially, when you are having sex with a new partner for the first time? Is it just enough to get a towel and some wet wipes or do I need to wipe her down like a baby? What are the standard procedures for post sex clean up so you don’t look like a total selfish asshole?”
First, what this immediately makes me think of is how many other guys she’s had sex with that cleaned her up. This is just not a thought you want your boyfriend having so for that reason alone I think this girl goofed by sharing that thought with you.
Second, no, this is not what a gentleman does. I don’t know anyone who regularly does this. I think by giving her the towel or tissues you’ve done your due diligence.
Having said that, if it makes her more likely to sleep with you — and she’s hot — this seems like a fairly small inconvenience. It’s certainly not something worth fighting over.
The better play here is to always have condoms in your house and in your wallet.
To me, condoms are like salsa. chips and toilet paper, no single man should ever run out of either in his house or apartment.

“I work for a Fortune 500 company and have many friends that work at other large companies. They all have something similar as it relates to a Diversity and/or Inclusion program. My company has a group you can join for all the predictable identities- Women, LGBT, AA, Asian, Hispanic, Millennial. 

Maybe you’ve explored this and I missed it, but can you explain *why* all these large, publicly traded companies are all in on this Diversity and Inclusion stuff? You always say the only color that matters is green, but my Regional VP (He runs a $1,000,000,000 business) had a goal to increase diversity in our region by 20% in 2017. I have yet to hear a compelling argument to explain the motivation, especially for the bottom line, as to why companies are going down this route.” 

The answer is pretty simple — because by being all gung ho about diversity and inclusion this boss of yours, who I am guessing is white, is guaranteeing he never gets called racist, which would cost him his job.
No white guy in a position of prominence is ever going to call into question the necessity of diversity and inclusion at his company because that’s a guaranteed way he could lose his job. That’s one of the problems with the era we’re in where there is acceptable and unacceptable public opinions.
It is acceptable (honestly required) to be in favor of diversity and inclusion at major companies, it is unacceptable to be opposed to them. This, along with identity politics in general, is my biggest concern with 21st century America. I believe the best guy, or girl, should get the job regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
The two people who like diversity the most in any company are the old white guy running the company (old white guys run companies a very high percentage of the time) — because this way he can “prove” he isn’t racist — and the young minority man or woman who is (typically) in charge of diversity issues at the company. The reason both are so enthused about diversity is because either it could cost them their job if the aren’t, the old white guy, or their job entirely relies on diversity and inclusion existing, the young minority.
There’s never a diversity coordinator who is skeptical about the need for diversity. Nor is there an executive in charge of a company who is publicly skeptical about diversity. (There are many, if not most, CEOs and leaders in charge who are skeptical about diversity and inclusion being a targeted goal of a company privately, but no one is willing to risk their job over publicly debating it.)
This diversity and inclusion mantra can also lead to ridiculous outcomes. I was talking to a buddy of mine recently who works in a decent-sized Southern city which isn’t a mecca for outsiders to move to. He said they recently lost a client because their law firm wasn’t diverse enough. And he was talking about how all the partners met and everyone was like, what are we supposed to do? The top black lawyers graduating from law schools in their region all go to bigger cities because the paychecks are better and every top firm in a big city is desperate to hire young minority lawyers.
So they don’t know what to do. How do you hire someone for a job if no one wants your job because they have better options and there aren’t enough candidates?
Seriously, if you’re a young black lawyer graduating from a top 25 law school in this country today you are being wined and dined like crazy, your GPA and class standing almost don’t matter at all. Some of these lawyers, the ones with top grades, deserves all the wining and dining, but many of them don’t. It’s just so the firms can check the cosmetic diversity box.
That’s crazy to me.
Law schools are pretty brutal meritocracies. The students who post the highest GPAs and achieve the highest standing in the school are the most deserving of top legal jobs. Hiring top performing young lawyers is how firms justify their billable hour rates and ensure they are bringing in the next class of recruits who will one day be stars at the firm. Now, are there sometimes top talent who are missed? No doubt. But in general the most predictive indicator of top legal acumen — as well as work ethic — is the LSAT and law school GPA.
Yet clients are demanding cosmetic diversity for legal work when, let’s be honest, if it’s written legal work, which the vast majority of corporate legal work is, all that matters is the quality of the work. The idea that legal clients are mandating diversity over who produces their legal work — and picking law firms based on it — is absolutely insane to me.
The only thing that should matter is the quality of the legal work.
Now if you can show me that women and minorities are producing the exact same quality work and their work product is being devalued by racist older white men in law firms then I’d agree that’s a problem which needs to be remedied. But a law firm is, in my experience, a complete meritocracy. All that matters is the hours you bill and the revenue you produce. (It also matters the clients you bring to the firm, but unless you’re the scion of a major company’s founder, no young associate is bring a book of business with him at 25 years old.)
To me, all that should matter to companies is whether they are getting the best people.
The biggest flaws I see with diversity being a mandated corporate goal are two fold: 1. mandated diversity on its face is predicated on the idea that people think differently solely based on the color of their skin which is, you know, racist and 2. it falsely assumes that talent is evenly distributed across all races.
Imagine making this argument in the NBA. What if the NBA demanded greater racial diversity on its basketball teams? That would be absurd, right? So why do we assume that NBA teams get the best people for their jobs and that Google or top law firms don’t?
It just makes no sense to me.

“Clay, I need your help. My buddy has a wife that completely controls him. They’ve been married a few years, and he has almost no communication with any of his friends..but I’m the last hold out. We are mid-late 30s and have been best friends since college. 

The final straw is she last minute told him he wasn’t allowed to be in the only fantasy football league he has ever been in. Cost is approximately $100 and they made somewhere around $150k total last year. Live in a modest home, drive modest vehicles, in a cheap, affordable, minor-league city. He also has to keep his receipts any time we have lunch or anything to show her. 

Since he told me last minute, he’d said he would play if there was no replacement and he “apologizes for even mentioning it” to me. There is no replacement…so he texts a couple hours before the draft that he’s gonna be on auto-draft and “the wife is in no mood.” 

I’m tired of messing with this guy, and I know he’s not happy. They have a 2 year old with another one on the way. There is more controlling that I left out..primarily financial. Any advice I can relay to him?”

I don’t know why any men (or women) end up in relationships which require them to abandon all connection to the person they were before they got married.
Now sometimes this will happen when you have a young family and multiple kids to take care of.
I have almost no free time now because of all my jobs and my young kids, but it’s not like my wife is forbidding me from hanging out with my friends or being involved in social activities outside the family. It’s just I have no time to do it.
If you have a wife or husband who is requesting receipts from you for what you spent on daily lunch, you aren’t in a marriage, you’re in a prison.
If your wife won’t let you spend $100 on a fantasy football league and you make $150k a year between you and your wife, you need to reconsider every life decision you’ve ever made.
Having said that, what do you think you’re going to accomplish by telling your buddy this. He’s married now. Do you think if you tell him, “Hey, your wife sucks,” that a light bulb is suddenly going to go off and he’s going to leave her? Of course not. Honestly, what he’ll probably do is tell her what you said and she’ll further isolate him.
He’s in a marital prison right now. You probably just need to bid him adieu until, hopefully, he gets divorced and becomes himself again.
Incidentally, I don’t know why some men and women who get married try to become completely different people than they were before they got married. And I also don’t understand why their new spouses want this. What attracted you to this person initially wasn’t their subservient, meek willingness to obey every command you utter. It was their independence and interests outside of you.
This type of marriage is just really strange to me.
Yet it is far too common.
“I am in my early 30s and have gone back to school to pursue a master’s degree in accounting. One of my classes is a higher level undergrad math class, which is a requirement for the master’s program, and over half of the class is made up of hot 18-21 year old girls. During class I look around the room and catch some of them looking at me with a flirtatious expression on their face and a couple of them have made coy comments to me when walking out of class. I’m a decent looking guy and the only male in the class who has legit facial hair. I’m curious to know if you think this is a situation where they are flirting with me just because I’m not the typical “college student” they are use to seeing, or do these girls possibly want to have sex with me? Is it acceptable for me to try and bang these girls if given the opportunity despite the age difference? Huge outkick fan! Thanks!”
So you have hot college girls who (may) want to bang you, you’re single, and you have the ability to (potentially) do so without being remotely creepy?
And you’re asking me for advice?!
Have at it, my man. You even have the perfect excuse, you’re a grown man who is getting an advanced degree so you have access to tons of young, hot college girls. You’re not the older guy who is hanging out at the bar with way younger girls, you can just help these poor young girls with their homework or even ask a girl out after class to study. This is just cake.
Plus, despite your email which evinces clear evidence to the contrary, you should have infinitely better game than the average college kid in your class.
If you start actually dating a college girl, you can even use the excuse, “We met in class,” and not be the creepy professor having sex with one of his students.
I’m jealous, honestly. As is every other man in his thirties reading this email.
“I’m 29 years old and earlier this summer started dating a girl who lives around 5 hours from me. We met through work connections, hit it off and have been traveling back and forth to see each other over the past 3 months. She’s really the first person I could see myself with/serious girlfriend. At what point do we have a conversation about one of us uprooting our lives in order to live closer to each other? 1 year? Longer? And how do I broach the subject?”
If she’s willing to date you long distance, this is probably a conversation she would welcome at some point, but I think you have to make it at least six months and I think it also depends what kinds of jobs you have and how good the jobs you have are.
I think the easy way to bring it up is by asking where she’d like to live one day when she has a family. (If you’re a single guy and you even mention the concept of a family, you’re ahead of most guys. Meanwhile most girls have been planning out their families since they were three years old.)
So this is a natural conversation to have. If she loves the city she’s in — and you love the city you’re in — then I think the next step is who can relocate easier for a job and/or doesn’t really like their existing job?
If both of you love your cities and both of you love your jobs then eventually something has to give — either one of you moves or the relationship ends. My suggestion as a neutral party here would be the member of the couple moves who has the lower earning job or the job that has the lowest earning potential going forward.
For instance, if one of you works in a corporate office of a growing company located in your city and makes good money and stands to make even better money and the other is a school teacher, the school teacher should move.
If neither one of you are ever willing to move then I think that’s important to find out too. Because what’s the point of a long distance relationship continuing if you are both aware it has no future?
So I think the way to broach the subject is via a question about which city she wants to live in in future years.
Good luck.
Thanks for reading the anonymous mailbag, send your anonymous mailbag questions to, anonymity guaranteed.


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.