Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

50 Responses

  1. piny
    piny June 19, 2006 at 4:30 pm |

    …Hm. I’m not sure I can think of it in quid-pro-quo terms, just because there are so many, many things that do and don’t work with various partners. (And I don’t particularly like having someone go down on me.*) It seems like there’s the general rule, “Both partners deserve to have fun,” and the specific issue of what people tend to enjoy. I agree that deemphasizing oral sex on women–which never seems to be a problem for PIV intercourse–does amount to ignoring women’s needs in bed, and privileging the stuff guys like over the stuff they like.

    *Yes, yes, doing it wrong and all that. Whatever.

  2. Anonymous
    Anonymous June 19, 2006 at 4:41 pm |

    Is it all about the orgasms with you guys? Sex is not a contest to see who gets off the most. If it is a contest at all, it’s kind of like tee ball for kindergartners where no one keeps score and everyone wins. If I’m having sex, it’s not necessarily because I want to get off. I really like to perform all sorts of acts in bed that don’t get me off. I am not about to have an orgasm from vaginal intercourse, but it’s also pretty damned stimulating. Vaginal intercourse has the benefit of being physically stimulating to both partners, where oral sex is really only physically stimulating to one. In my bed, there is an “orgasm by any means” policy. If one of us hasn’t gotten off by the time the other has tired out, and is still interested in orgasm, they can rub one out so we can get to snuggling. It’s simple and takes any kind of performance anxiety out of the equation, and no one is compelled to keep score.

    I also must add: your metaphor kind of made me go “yuck” zuzu.

  3. Sexist Pig but Still Liberal
    Sexist Pig but Still Liberal June 19, 2006 at 4:57 pm |

    Is it all about the orgasms with you guys?

    – Anon.

    Yes. In fact many of us guys start to wonder if you gals don’t get an orgasm whether there is something wrong with us.

    OTOH, just as there are many women who can only get off from oral sex, there are also many woman (and even a few of us guys) who, while we like oral sex and cannot imagine living without it, cannot really reach orgasm from it but require rubbing and grinding or PIV sex or something else involving more bodily contact. So I am not even sure of the cunnilingus is a trade for PIV sex. To me, it’s all part of a package: if my partner or I doesn’t feel up to something or other, well, we need to respect each other in that regard — but if one of us doesn’t receive oral sex, even if it isn’t what gives either of us an orgasm, somehow it does seem like something’s missing.


    Another thing which confused me about the bj wars is the contention that no woman actually likes giving them per se. I have no idea about that, but it used to be that they made similar arguments about us menfolk wrt to cunnilingus: that we find it icky and only do it to please our partners. Now I’ve been in situations where the woman got a wee bit over-excited about the activity and it’s caused me to gasp or even gag (very embarassing when sex makes you naseous) from them forcing me in closer down there, but in general, I like cunnilingus … and not just ’cause it makes my partner happy or some such — I am a straight guy: I love female genitalia — that’s an anti-non-sequitor for me: I like to look at her up close, to feel, to smell, to taste. It’s something I like not just ’cause it makes my partner happy (and I wouldn’t like it if it did not) but also because it is something I like per se. Maybe no woman likes giving bjs per se, but I suspect if some of us guys like cunnilingus per se, some women like felatio per se.

  4. PG
    PG June 19, 2006 at 5:04 pm |

    Your Mileage May Vary. That’s really most of what can be said in these discussions. Some guys often would prefer a blowjob to PIV — it lets them just relax and not have to do much work, whereas unless a woman is on top, she tends to be the one who can chill more during PIV, and she gets to be as lazy about cunnilingus as a guy is about a blowjob. And some women prefer PIV to cunnilingus, because they have different levels of comfortable stimulation for the exterior of their genitalia & so forth.

    I envy my closest lesbian friend because her relationships seem so much less loaded with the possibility of sexism. BDSM etc. with another woman is easier to be clearly playing at power and domination, whereas in the context of the inherent differential where one person is taller, stronger, heavier and doing any significant penetration (unless the woman is using a strap-on on a guy). I actually saw gay porn before I saw straight porn, and for a short time it gave me a really negative impression of male-male sex because it looked so violent. It’s hard to get away from that visual impression until one enjoys penetration oneself.

  5. Sexist Pig but Still Liberal
    Sexist Pig but Still Liberal June 19, 2006 at 5:06 pm |

    Now, it’s true that I want to have my entree before he is served his, but there’s a good reason for that — the sauce for his entree will not be ready until I have my entree.

    There are two exceptions that I can think of. Some men might want to orgasm twice, and if they are capable of doing so the first time from a bj, might want their apetizer first that way they can concentrate on the woman’s meal while in a refractory period. Also some women don’t mind serving up the man’s entree without much sauce (they use a packaged sauce mix — I love this analogy, btw ;) ) and want to get it out of the way besides so that way the man can be focused on the woman’s entree and not be distracted by his own hunger.

    Each coupling, nay each time, is different — and that’s part of what makes it so special and exciting, eh?

  6. Anonymous
    Anonymous June 19, 2006 at 5:11 pm |

    SPSL, do note that I said “one of us,” not “he.” I’ve gone several weeks in a row where we sort of trade off who has an orgasm – this afternoon me, tomorrow morning him, two days later it’s me, etc. I mean, there’s no telling when your partner last masturbated, so the orgasm thing might not be as important as the touching and kissing and rubbing and stuff.

  7. ilyka
    ilyka June 19, 2006 at 5:26 pm |

    In one of my relationships it was truly quid pro quo because the man didn’t get off vaginally. Not just with me, but with any woman, and before someone snickers at me for dating a gay man, no, he wasn’t. He’d just had such a number done on him by growing up in a repressive religion that his fear of knocking anyone up stifled him during PIV.

    But I admit that was an unusual situation.

    I suspect if some of us guys like cunnilingus per se, some women like felatio per se.

    Agreed, Piggy.

  8. Thomas
    Thomas June 19, 2006 at 5:26 pm |

    I don’t want to see any TMI complaints on this thread. The set-up is about the nuts and bolts (ptp) of sexual gratification, and graphic description is clearly called for.

    Is it all about the orgasms with you guys?

    No. My view may not be easily generalized, since I’m a sadomasochist and mostly a submissive with a taste for orgasm denial, but I’m sometimes most satisfied when I play and I’m not allowed to orgasm.

    Piny, I’m not especially into getting head either, and I have a hard time coming that way. I’ve always attributed that, at least in part, to becoming acclimatized to my own hand when I was young, but that’s just a theory. You’ve got the same preference and a different physical arrangement of nerve endings, so all I can say is de gustibus non disputandum est.

    There’s something disconcerting about the whole idea of quid pro quo and sex, which is fine where the partners have equal bargaining positions. We’re all aware that in patriarchy, we never see that, so all bargaining takes place on something less than a level playing field. We all come into every pairing (or more-ing) with socialization and baggage and expectations; really, even with ourselves. So in order to have any sex, we have to make our piece with the bad environment. All I can say to that is that for any talk about quid pro quo to work well, everyone has to be sensitive to the needs of a sex partner, including the need to have room to say no. Folks coming from a place of relative privilege ought to be relatively more aware of that, but generally are relatively less so.

  9. Magis
    Magis June 19, 2006 at 5:30 pm |

    Oddly enough, g/f can orgasm through PIV but only IF (note the big IF) she’s gotten off another way first.

  10. Thomas
    Thomas June 19, 2006 at 5:31 pm |

    In my bed, there is an “orgasm by any means” policy. If one of us hasn’t gotten off by the time the other has tired out, and is still interested in orgasm, they can rub one out so we can get to snuggling.

    In my house, there’s often one more with the vibrator — my second or third, or my wife’s fourth or fifth — just laying next to each other.

  11. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte June 19, 2006 at 5:43 pm |

    Is it all about the orgasms with you guys?

    Yes and no. Yes in that a man who can’t bother with my pleasure while I’m bothering with his is greedy and disrespectful. No in that it’s about something bigger, if you must be sappy about it. That bigger thing being treated like I count in my own damn bed.

  12. Thomas
    Thomas June 19, 2006 at 5:46 pm |

    like I count in my own damn bed

    Um, yeah. Now, before I was married, I was not at all monogamous and not every sex partner was someone I had a deep connection with, but I did always take that partner part seriously.

  13. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte June 19, 2006 at 5:52 pm |

    Seriously, what’s a relationship about if not “give and take”? Oh yeah, I remember. In the patriarchy, relationships are about women giving and men taking. All that said, the nature of quid pro quo in sex depends on the nature of the relationship. If you’re in a long term relationship with lots of sexual encounters, the give and take will even out in the long run if both people are committed to having a good sex life. Of course, as Thomas noted, sometimes orgasms aren’t a big deal for one partner, so you have that factor, too. But I’ll be honest–in a one-off encounter, it’s generally understood that both parties are there to get off.

    It’s kinda moot. It’s not like you exchange one for the other in some strict sense. I tend to approach sex as if all parties involved are well-meaning and therefore I give it my all and so should everyone else.

  14. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte June 19, 2006 at 5:55 pm |

    Yeah, exactly Thomas. I think it’s really a maximizing experience thing. Each person sort of casually agrees to do whatever they can (within their comfort range) to maximize each others’ pleasure. It’s not strict tit for tat, which would suck for multiply orgasmic women and probably for their partners who get even more aroused if they’re with someone who is multiply orgasmic.

    I’m guessing. *cough*

  15. Thomas
    Thomas June 19, 2006 at 5:57 pm |

    I tend to approach sex as if all parties involved are well-meaning

    Yeah, but your pre-screening means you’ve got a better pool. The idea of level-playing-field negotiations in most het relationships is more problematic. Women like you and Zuzu are not at all afraid to talk about your sexual needs and how you expect a partner to treat you, and you’ve got pretty well-devoloped “patriarchy told me to do it this way” detectors. Not so everybody.

  16. tbogg
    tbogg June 19, 2006 at 6:18 pm |

    Too many food analogies for me.

    Got anything in baseball?

  17. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax June 19, 2006 at 7:18 pm |

    I was one of the people who mentioned “quid pro quo” – maybe I should have phrased it differently, but I was rushing past that point to what I meant to be my main one (about people not getting to say for other people what they subjectively enjoy). Anyway, what I meant when I said “quid pro quo” was not that people have to trade any particular individual things for each other – let alone that they have to do so every time – but rather that if some particular thing is mainly about pleasing one person, there should be some point where it’s also about pleasing the other person. That the relationship as a whole shouldn’t be lopsidedly about one person’s pleasure.

  18. Different Anonymous
    Different Anonymous June 19, 2006 at 7:24 pm |

    My wife and I have the same understanding as you, zuzu. She never comes from PIV sex, so cunnilingus and PIV sex are, essentially, “her sex” and “my sex.” I love eating her pussy, and getting her nice and juicy for PIV sex is a delightful side effect. As for fellatio, her jaw gets tired pretty quickly, and in any case I don’t like it nearly as much as PIV sex. I’ve only come once in my life from fellatio. (I know, she and I do seem to be pretty limited in the ways we can come.)

    Maybe you folks should do a post about sexual positions. I’m a huge fan of doggy-style myself. All kinds of other positions are swell, too, but when I come I really like it to be doggy-style. No doubt Twisty would spout some crap about this being due to my patriarchal desire to dominate my wife. That’s not it at all. It’s just that I get a far more intense orgasm in that position than in others. Indeed, I get a more intense orgasm from that than I can even from masturbating myself.

  19. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler June 19, 2006 at 7:28 pm |

    Lynn, if that’s what you mean, I agree with you.

    Er, since that’s what you meant, I agree with you. I don’t have the chutzpah to call you insincere without evidence. There are people on both ends of either act, however, who do see going down as the price of being gone down on. They must be stopped.

    Now then:
    Ms. Marcotte:

    I tend to approach sex as if all parties involved are well-meaning

    It seems to me — not just here, and not just on the subject of fellatio — that a lot of people approach sex and partner issues as if the people involved have an adversarial relationship. Look at Caitlin Flannigan and her imitators, also. I think it’s easier for a person who cares for his partner (which isn’t quite the same as love) can do oral sex, or anything else, fairly egalitarianly. Not perfectly, both because we do life in an imbalanced society and because both partners grew up in one, but reasonably. Especially if that’s (part of) the intent.

  20. Julie
    Julie June 19, 2006 at 9:10 pm |

    I wouln’t necessarily say it always has to be quid pro quo. I know that my husband performs oral sex more than I do. Why? It’s much easier for me to get off that way than it is for him to and we both know it. It’s easier for me, being in a long term relationship… there are some nights it’s more about him, some nights it’s more about me and other nights (most) when it’s about both of us. If one night he’s really turned on and I am simply not interested in sex, I can get him off and go to sleep and know that he will show me the same respect a different night. So yeah, there are definately times when he gets a bj without providing anything in return, but there are times when he concentrates on me and then goes to sleep without expecting anything. As far as the two being similar, I think they are, depending on what other things you are doing. I happen to enjoy PIV intercourse quite a bit, even if I can’t always orgasm. I have, however, over the years learned how exactly I orgasm during sex (what positions, etc…) so if I don’t feel like that particular position that night, he’ll usually get me off before hand. We also both use oral sex as an appetizer quite a bit, instead of as the main course. But there are definately times that we takes turns with oral sex, and I see them as equivalent, with the exception of the fact it takes him twice as long to finish as it does me. I’m like Amanda though, I tend to approach sex as if we have the best possible intentions, not as a contest or a competition, so I try to do everything I can to help him and know that he is doing the same.

  21. Hugo
    Hugo June 19, 2006 at 10:01 pm |

    If I can put in a plug for a great book on this subject, it’s David Schnarch’s Passionate Marriage. It’s not just for married folks; he has a long section on the psychological, spiritual, emotional, and of course, physical aspects of what he calls “doing” and “being done.” Some of us are good at “doing” our partners; others are more comfortable “being done”. The goal is to be ever more open to both roles, and ever more comfortable with each other.

  22. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 19, 2006 at 10:31 pm |

    I have long seen the trio of fellatio, cunnilingus, and coitus as complementary but with none of them necessarily requiring either of the others, and have been lucky the last 17 or so years

    (Allison, if you’re reading this, avert your eyes starting… NOW)

    in that both my SO and I have been known to “get there” from any of the three. Kinda reduces the quid pro quo issue when you can come from giving head.

    I’ve more often on the providing end, if we’re collecting gender-specific data, though now that my SO has read the first thread over at Twisty’s, she’s vowed to even the scales a bit as an act of defiance. (Thanks, Puffin!)

  23. Ross
    Ross June 19, 2006 at 11:28 pm |

    I usually prefer to have some sauce on my tapas before the entre. But then again, sometimes I like to cheat and have desert before dinner. And sometimes… sometimes I even like sauce on my desert!

  24. Marksman2000
    Marksman2000 June 20, 2006 at 12:03 am |

    Oh, sometimes I’ll mix it up a bit and get off on manual stimulation, but if there is no attention paid to my orgasm, I’m going to go away hungry. If the attention paid is reluctant or perfunctory, while my companion fully expects both appetizer and entree for himself, I’m going to find another restaurant.

    Taking a little trip down…Memory Lane, eh?

  25. Therese Norén
    Therese Norén June 20, 2006 at 1:15 am |

    Count me as the odd woman here, then. I don’t normally get off on oral sex, I have to have either PIV or dry humping. For us both, oral sex is optional foreplay.

  26. Freeman
    Freeman June 20, 2006 at 6:25 am |

    This is a strange issue for me. I’m a hetero male, and I enjoy receiving oral sex. I also immensely enjoy giving it, as well as a host of other acts aimed at pleasing both myself and my partner. I view good sex as a mutual exploration of the human body, and there’s nothing about the human body I find particularly unappealing or disgusting. My view is, sex is a picnic, and there are a host of different culinary delights to be had. Sometimes I crave meat or poultry, and sometimes I crave pasta or sweets. I have a diverse palate.

    But I’ll admit, I have a hard time receiving oral. I feel guilty, and this sucks, no pun intended, to have to feel bad about accepting something I enjoy so much. I don’t prefer it in exclusion to any other act, and I have a hard time dealing with people who keep score in the sack, vis-a-vis acts received/administered. I don’t like this competitive shit in bed, and on the occasions I’ve encountered it, the result has usually been a bad lay. I’m sure the same is true of women when dealing with men.

    If someone wants to give, it should be of their own desire. Social pressure should have no factor in the matter. If it does, then one needs to re-examine one’s own sexual attitudes. Not everyone enjoys giving or receiving oral, just like some don’t enjoy anal, and not liking these things doesn’t make one a prude. “No,” is an answer I can live with. A grudging “yes” is always worse than no “yes” at all. But what happens when one feels so BADLY about accepting a favor that brings one pleasure, that one stops accepting at all? Is that healthy for either partner? Does it bode well for the state of the mutual sexual relationship?

    In a slight metaphorical shift, I also view all sex as investment. It’s important to keep a diverse portfolio, learn to read the market indices, and think for the long-term

  27. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler June 20, 2006 at 7:07 am |

    It’s one thing to say “why be so focused on orgasms?” in the interests of a varied and versatile sex life; it’s another thing to say it in lieu of addressing either a problem having orgasms or a person too lazy or indifferent to help generate them. It’s all about context. Like blowjobs.

  28. Just Say No To Quid Pro Quo  at

    […] together. I suggest CD blowjobs over vinyl for once, if only to avoid scratching. Anyway, Zuzu at Feministe brings up something I’ve been meaning to bring up, but had […]

  29. The Countess
    The Countess June 20, 2006 at 10:25 am |

    Phase Two Of The Blow Job Talk – Sexual Positions

    I read most of the posts where everyone talked, ranted, laughed over blow jobs. I stayed out of that one. It was nearly a free-for-all on some blogs. Another Anonymous at Feministe said “Maybe you folks should do a post

  30. Frederick
    Frederick June 20, 2006 at 11:29 am |

    Kinda reduces the quid pro quo issue when you can come from giving head.

    Wow, I’d never heard of anyone who could do that. I’m impressed that both you and your wife have that ability.

  31. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 20, 2006 at 1:10 pm |

    There’s speaking of your own experience and speking from your own experience, and I think you were doing both.. If you say, “In my sexual relationships, men have wanted an entree,” that’s speaking of your own experience. If you say “men want an entree”, that’s generalizing from your experience. You complained that Hugo’s generalizing from his experience of women wanting confident men was treating women like an undifferentiated mass…and I agree. I think your generalizing from your experience to what men want is doing the same sort of thing.
    I get that you were generalizing about what men want sexually from your own experience. But during the whole ‘Pete/Carlos’ thing with Hugo, Hugo was generalizing about what women want in a man re:confidence and the like–and he was generalizing from his own experience. You objected to him generalizing from his own experience because it treats women as an undifferentiated mass, and I agree. I think here you are generalizing from your own experience and inasmuch as you do so you are treating men as an undifferentiated mass at least as much as Hugo was doing so regarding women.

    As far as the caveat ‘by and large’ goes, would you have not been concerned if Hugo had said to Pete/Carlos that ‘by and large, women want…’? Because there seems to be plenty of room for such an interpretation of Hugo looking at his original post.

    As for the “I see”s and “for me”s and “I consider”s and whatnot–those apply to various things you were talking about, but there was no such caveat when you pointed out that “men want an entree”.

    I don’t mean to make too big of a deal about this, because I think the contexts are different–Hugo was talking about feminism to a student, and you’re ruminating on what people want sexually–I see that there’s a difference in scope, at least. But still, I think that describing ‘what men want’ sexually, even ‘by and large’, is committing the same sort of mistake that you pointed out that Hugo committed.

  32. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 20, 2006 at 1:55 pm |

    Um. Ok. I think you’re wrong, for the reasons I’ve explained. Talk about tit for tat!

    As far as going beyond what you were trying to say–I think you were treating men as an undifferentiated mass by generalizing from your experience to ‘men want x’ in the same way (without the same scope, perhaps) that Hugo was generalizing from his experience to ‘women want x'; seeing that you had a problem with the latter (“Hugo is reinforcing Pete’s idea that women are an undifferentiated mass who all want the same thing”), I thought you might have a problem with the former. I think both are not the best ways to go about things, as they both reinforce anti-feminist patriarchy stuff.

  33. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 20, 2006 at 3:15 pm |

    zuzu–it’s tough to talk about sex without the puns coming up (so to speak).

    Consider your tits left out of the discussion…

    …would you consider that it might have been the case that Hugo wasn’t speaking ‘for/about all women’ when he was talking wtih Pete/Carlos…but that maybe Hugo should have made it more clear that he wasn’t?

    I hope you don’t feel I’m berating you/your point. I am trying to gain some insight into how to talk about this stuff, when it’s ok to generalize and when it’s not, how much of a caveat one has to give that one recognizes that generalizations come at a price/can be wrong in scope, etc., etc.

  34. Tammy
    Tammy June 20, 2006 at 3:44 pm |

    Just because you’re a teeny bit defensive that you can only get off with an inflatable sheep is no reason to make shit up, jeffliveshere.

  35. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke June 20, 2006 at 3:48 pm |

    But zuzu, did you or did you not insinuate that men like to fuck? Oh, the humanity!

  36. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 20, 2006 at 4:01 pm |


    Whereas I was using the past behavior of a small group of men to talk about the preferences of that small group of men…


    But by and large, a guy wants an entree.

    Seems to me that you were using the past behavoir of a small group of men to talk about the preferences of men in general (although you also went on to discuss your own preferences). You criticise Hugo for using the past behavoir of a small group of women to talk about the preferences of women in general.

  37. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 20, 2006 at 4:02 pm |

    Tammy–At the risk of encouraging more personal attacks from you, what am I making up, exactly? And why do you think I’m being defensive…is it possible I’m trying to understand all of this better?

  38. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 20, 2006 at 4:08 pm |

    Chris Clarke–
    I don’t have a problem with generalizations erm, in general. But I agree with zuzu’s take on Hugo, that he was treating women like undifferentiated masses by generalizing. I am trying to understand how generalizing about men as a gender is different ( I think because of power dynamics, it might be/can be very different)…and I have already acknowledged that the scopes of these two discussions (i.e. here we’re talking about sex and Hugo was talking about feminism in general) means that it’s not as important whether one generalizes here; still, I think it is important. If you don’t, no skin off my nose.

    I am sincere in asking questions about the differences; I’m not trying to get into some ‘boo-hoo-men-have-it-so-bad-because-zuzu-is-generalizing’ sort of thing.

  39. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 20, 2006 at 4:21 pm |

    zuzu–oh, and pitbull/bone stuff? Noted. I don’t mean to overstay my welcome.

  40. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere June 20, 2006 at 4:24 pm |

    Ok, dropped. Thanks.

  41. Josh Jasper
    Josh Jasper June 20, 2006 at 4:34 pm |

    Severe dearth of bi men here. Of course, a dearth everywere.

    OK. First response for Zuzu’s post –

    I like ginving head. In fact, I *love* giving head. Just assume it does not matter for men or women. I don’t like getting blowjobs anywhere near as much I like giving oral sex.

    My orgasm is usually far less interesting to me than my partners orgasm.

    Now. On to the question, is it all about orgasms. Well, yes and no. I’ve been with only a few partners who weren’t concerned about orgasms, and they’re amazing things for me to watch, and be present for, and especially help create.

    That said, some of the most amazing penthouse style sexual experiences of my life did not involve orgasms for everyone. Including me. I’ve had sex parners who didn’t orgasm easily, and for whom it wasn’t important. I adjusted my expectations, and as long as they wanted sex with me, and what I was giving them was what they wanted, we were all happy for the most part.

    Still, I’ll have to say that my favorite sex involves someone(s) I love, and lots of orgasms for them.

    One of the joys of multiple partners (oh yeah, I’m polyamorous too, if no one guessed) is learning that *everyone* likes something differnt, and you may get a good long time to learn what someone else likes, only to be surprised by them going off with someone new and learning something they never even knew they liked.

    Sex, for me, is frequently a way of helping someone someone be really happy and also enjoying myself physically.

  42. Thomas
    Thomas June 20, 2006 at 7:04 pm |

    Severe dearth of bi men here. Of course, a dearth everywere.

    Josh, the whole culture tells us that you don’t exist. There are even scientists who have demonstrated empirically that you do not exist. You are obviously a figment of your own imagination; and yet you show up making comments and stubbornly insisting on your own existence. I just cannot understand your intransigence in this matter.

  43. belledame222
    belledame222 June 21, 2006 at 4:28 am |

    Stubborn, some imaginary people, aren’t they?

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.