Category Archives: Tiffany’s posts

I wish the Sherpa was doing the work

Dear Tad,

I received another blog post from our guest blogger ‘Pandora’. Enjoy!

“What is the purpose of the enormous vibrator? To what purpose does the gigantic dildo serve to any couple? A standard by which to prove that you can fit that huge Mack Truck through the tunnel of love? A comparison to the formerly adequate schlong you so gently placed inside of me and now you want to ram Godzilla in there?? Do you really want me to draw the comparison? Really?

I get the whole idea of exploring new realms, trying something new, mixing it up. I get it, but really, should I be able to skateboard on it when I have no other mode of transportation? When you can answer, “Why yes, it really is bigger than a breadbox!” something has gone a little overboard at the sex shop.

Now, I’m hardly a prude. In fact, I consider myself a pretty adventurous chick; I have the mindset that I will try anything in the bedroom at least once. If it works, keep doing it; if it’s too weird feeling, painful or uncomfortable, I say NO thanks the next time and move on to bigger and better adventures (so to speak). However, when my mate brought out the Ground-to-Air missile recently during our “alone time”, that most likely was reclaimed from the Cold War, I gasped in horror and though to myself, “Good god, what’s the plan here? And where am I going to fit that?”

Needless to say, it appeared to be a novelty item that served no other purpose for me than to make me happy that at least my Kegels had been working and the old girl had managed to tighten the twat or at least made me feel as if I had. What I really just don’t get is the pleasure factor. If I had chosen it for myself, ( I prefer the smooth, small, portable kind usually hot pink in color. Go figure) I wouldn’t have complained the slightest because I would have known the type of event that would take place. Or at least have some idea. BUT when your mate walks in and presents the gift of aforementioned “bread box” and won’t themselves realize the task you have ahead of you accommodating a reticulated python in your nest, I say Nay!

Maybe if it’s “your thing”, I say go for it! To each his/her own. But for GOD SAKES, can’t we keep love making reasonable; not the chore of climbing Mt. Everest, the Sherpa is on break and you’ve just used up your last oxygen tank. Because if this keeps up, maybe I am going to have to grab another Sherpa while I sit back and watch them climb the mountain. See how you like it!”




Pandora’s Crotch

Dear Tad,

In recent weeks we have heard a tremendous amount about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and gay marriage in the political campaigns. Where we will be in six months with Republicans holding onto the house, no one knows. In the meantime, there are more and more people who are feeling that they can be freer with who they are. Recently, a friend of a friend sent me a note to tell me her thoughts on things bisexual and/or lesbian, take your pick. I liked it, because it really is an honest depiction of how many women, gay and straight, have thought about their sexuality at some time or another.

Here it is…

“Today I realized that I may have stumbled on the quintessential phrase that is defining my new found independence and sexuality (see above title, maybe its too abstract if I don’t point it out!). While talking to a friend, I realized that with my divorce looming and my sense of self expanding it was time to explore the things that I have always wanted to try and do. I am a new woman. I am free to choose the mate that I want. My words to live by have always been: Be open to love because you never know what package it’s going to come wrapped in. I’ve dated good looking guys, ugly ones, funny ones, hung ones, short ones, black, white, Asian, Mexican, you name it, I’ve tried it. You could say that I’m an equal opportunity heart breaker.

But there is one group that I have never tried to date: women. Not once, not ever. Sure, I’ve thought about it, in fact, some of my best fantasies involve a beautiful, if not slightly butch woman. I’ve never thought in the realm of possibilities that I could be with a woman; I’m not attracted to them. Well, that’s not entirely true. I can admire a beautiful woman. I would probably admit that I find women attractive and men rather hairy, sweaty and obsessed with their dangly parts. As for women, I have a thing for breasts, they are soft and pink and well, I don’t really like my own, so maybe there’s a bit of sizing up the other ladies involved. Not sure, but I do notice a nice pair of breasts just about anywhere. I seem to sneak sideways glances at other women’s hooters, and usually stop by glancing down at my own saggy “girls”.

So, cut to this conversation I had with a lady friend of mine (yes she dates girls) and she challenges me. She snares me in the possibilities of “what if”. She mentions the beauty of women, their softness, and their ability to be nurturing and loving and more selfless then men. I’m intrigued to say the least. I shake my head at her, when I stop to think: Could I? What would be the problem with trying, who knows, maybe all of the breaking up I’ve done over the years has been because I don’t really care what men think of me. I’m pretty blunt when it comes to relationships. I ask for what I want, sexually, emotionally, and physically and I usually get it. If I don’t, I’m out the door. I have always empowered myself in a relationship to be more dominant, more assertive than most other women.

But then there’s the part of me that yearns for someone to love me and give back to me all that I give. Part of me that has forgotten what it’s like to have someone care so deeply about me that they open up entirely. Open up to the possibility and that terrible dread of potential heartbreak; I hope they might consider that it just could be worth it this time, just try. I think a woman could be this for me. I usually say that if it weren’t for the sex, I would be a lesbian. I love talking to women, hanging out with women, pretty much everything but the sex part. That scares me to be honest. Scares the shit out of me. I don’t know why. Maybe the fear of judgment, the feeling of shame I feel that accompanies me even those times when I am alone and want to masturbate without the “helpful” hand of a dude by my side. Yes, thank you religious upbringing and conservative small town values for ruining my possibilities. Maybe not ruining them forever, but I have a lot of guilt to squash before I can move on and try the things I might be missing.

A friend once told me that I’m one flannel shirt away for being a dyke. I laughed with her, because I have always enjoyed sex with men, I like it a lot. It’s just that I don’t want to miss something that maybe I didn’t know I would like or want. So thank you friend, for opening up the possibilities for me to consider, in fact, I think you may have opened up a whole new world for me. Who knows! I’ll let you know how it goes!”

-Confession of a (historically) straight girl


On Carl Paladino

Dear Tad,

In recent weeks there has been a stir around all issues gay. Boy, even I get tired of listening to all of this banter—whether or not gays should have equal rights bla, bla, bla. I’m not really sure why we continue to debate this, but the religious types are not going to let us live all of this down. They think we are flaunting our so-called “lifestyle” (as if I could pick it up or leave it like a nudist “lifestyle”—I have never understood the use of this term except to belittle the romantic experiences of gay people). We are in their faces, as GOP candidate for governor Carl Paladino has suggested (he stumbled upon a gay pride parade in Toronto somewhere once and now has PTSD as a result of seeing those “dysfunctional” homos grinding away). Given the recent violence against gay people, I don’t think the timing of his comments was the best, but then who am I to say?

And what kind of candidate for governor (especially of New York) allows local interest groups to write his speeches? Rather than coming in with his own ideas and suggestions on how to improve the Great State of New York, he would rather be given all of the right cues just to get himself elected? What cynicism! He is also accused of sending pornographic emails and of using derogatory terms when referring to women. Forgive my concern, but I used to live in New York City for a number of years and I have a soft spot for that state and that city and I‘m really not impressed with this guy. He has done more to spread intolerance, particularly of gays, rather than inspiring people and bringing them together.

I respect that Paladino has his opinions, but don’t be a hypocrite. Don’t accuse gays of being perverts, Carl Paladino, when you send people pornographic emails and make disparaging remarks about other races and women. The gay people I know (as well as the straight) do not do these things, and I would rather not be lumped in the same category as you. Do, however, give your opinions and stick by them. Even if I don’t agree with your philosophy, you still have the right to have your opinion and don’t let the media take that away from you, which it seems you have. Everyone left, right or center, who has an opinion, should be heard. That said, I still find Paladino a divisive candidate for a state like New York and I would hope that people might see the light come election time. Please, Carl Paladino (I reserve the term Mr. for gentlemen), give up the pornography for the sake of our children; as a mother, I demand this of you!

Very kind regards,



Could the nature of DADT politics be partially economic?

Dear Tad,

Recently, as most of us already know, we witnessed the United States Senate once again throwing gay Americans under the bus. We know this fight continues in the court system, with the Witt case being the most prominent example. However, what is the real fear behind the US Military not being able to repeal this law? Could it be, due in part, economic? Could we be so cynical as to believe that the US Government essentially would not want to fund the spouses of gay service members?

Imagine for a moment, if you will, the very possibility that allowing gay Americans their human rights might mean having to shovel out quite a bit, where the good ole Greenback is concerned. I am not saying this is the only reason for the government’s reluctance to repeal DADT, but might it be that we just don’t want to pay for these additional people on the government payroll? The truth is, if you allow gay service members to serve then you get into the murky business of whether or not to allow their spouses or significant others to be recognized, monetarily.

Now, everyone knows, from having read my earlier post this week, that I am not a big advocate of gay marriage (as based upon the current heterosexual model), but I do support the rule of law. I do think that, given all of the domestic partner laws around the country, the US Military may very well have to consider allowing the spouses of gay service members their due, just like their heterosexual counterparts. It would look pretty bad, if gay people may serve their country, but their spouses were unrecognized, financially. How would that work, legally? We can all see how difficult an issue this is, when we consider the very real possibility that the US Government would have to allow for financial supports of gay service members’ spouses/significant others. This could cost the US taxpayer plenty of money (which I, for one, am willing to spend).

As anyone knows, who has had service members in their families, the benefits of being in the service can be myriad. One has to consider the insurance for service members for their spouses should they be killed in, say, Iraq. My family has served in every conflict that the US ever had. I follow the Army Times and other publications and I know that some service members’ families, in fact, probably just about all, receive as much $400,000 should their loved ones be killed while on active duty. If gay service members are killed, their spouses/significant others could potentially receive such monies and, boy, would that cost a bundle! Because, I’ll tell you right now, there are more gay people serving in the US Military than anyone can imagine.

Consider for the moment the cost of paying for gay spouses in the military—it staggers the mind. I can see the hesitancy on the parts of so many members of the Senate. Good Lord, do we really want to tax people more to pay for these homosexuals? I can understand that view as greedy and short-sighted as it is. I can also understand the view of a gay person serving who deserves as much as any straight soldier to be recognized for his or her efforts in the defense of his or her country. These are our defenders. When we deny them basic human rights, we do our nation a disservice.

It is rumored that General von Steuben from Germany, right hand man to George Washington during the Revolution and the author of the first US Army book of rules and regulations, was gay. What if he was? I could care less. If had not been for him, we might not be free today to express ourselves in this beautiful country. I would hope that all Americans would value their soldiers, sailors, marines and coast guarders and give them all the same fair treatment. It’s the least we can do for people who serve our country. And remember, the next time you see some dashing lad in uniform that a lot of gay people tend to gravitate towards careers with the most fabulous costumes and uniforms: the clergy, Hollywood, and the military.

“This land is your land, this land is my land…,
this land was made for you and me…”




Maybe Tiffany isn’t allergic to the wedding ring after all?

Dear Tad,

Bravo, my dear boy, bravo!! You make one of the best arguments for gay marriage I have seen yet. Perhaps, you are right, perhaps, I can be persuaded. Once you read my post on gay service members in the US Military that I will be adding to the blog shortly, you may see that we agree more than you know. And, since you put it that way, I suppose gay people should want marriage, I mean, especially, given the opportunity to be married by Elvis and all. I would never want to advocate depriving anyone of that happiness!

And by the way, I agree whole-heartedly that people should be able to frame the debates how they like and have what my quarreling family members call, spirited conversation! The freedom of speech exists in this country for a reason, use it!

I wish you a pleasant day!




Reframing the gay marriage debate

Dear Tad,

Forgive me for my brief hiatus. It actually seems like an eternity. I did not have much of a possibility for holiday this summer what with getting my five-year old son off to his first year of school (kindergarten), so this was my time to take a few days off. Tad, I want to applaud you for your recent work on the blog (I noticed your Aussie boys are getting a lot of attention!) and I want to take this moment and thank our readers for continually tuning in. Just fabulous, Darlings!! We’re blowing up!! I want to, on a more subdued note, give you my condolences and the rest of our community as well for the recent mishap in the Senate. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was not repealed and this is a sad note for us all, as a nation. And it brings me to another battle we face I want to talk about: so-called gay marriage.

I want to speak about marriage and gay marriage in particular because I think my views on this issue are not part of our current dialogue on the issue and I think they should be. Gay people want the right to marry, but I am beginning to question some of the reasoning and assumptions behind marriage. I am wondering if we wish to emulate what marriage currently is, or rather, move into a new paradigm of what marriage should look or be like. If giving homosexuals the right to marry strengthened the institution of marriage then it would be easy to support the idea of “gay” marriage. But in my opinion, gay marriage only perpetuates a flawed institution.

A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in many developed countries in order to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar to opposite-sex civil marriage.

Gays should encourage civil union legislation. Why? It could be argued that marriage is an elitist institution. It is an institution that survives (to) the exclusion of certain people. In American society today, marriage rights are granted to certain individuals and not to others. This in itself creates conflict. Heterosexual marriage is posited as the good or moral alternative to anything else and gay marriage is seen as an abomination on several levels by more than 50% of Americans.

Coupling is the norm for most people. If a person is not coupling, he or she is seen as a dissident or a non-conformer. Just as heterosexuality is the norm and is in no need of explanation, people are expected to couple up and marry, because this is one of the oldest and most socially accepted practices in our Western industrialized civilization.

One is either for marriage or against it; either capable of ‘participating’ in marriage like normal citizens, or not capable (in which case there must be something psychologically or emotionally flawed about such a person). Married people never have to explain why they are married, but single people seem to be pressured by those around them about why they are not “coupled.” Indeed this must cause many single people who desperately want to be married a great deal of embarrassment and consternation. What these attitudes do to single gay people is another matter, but we can safely assume that the psychological damage is worse as these people already feel inferior and marginalized. Marriage perpetuates the idea that there is a “soul mate” and that there must be something wrong with a person if he or she does not have this set-up or even want it.

The idea of romantic marriage is a very 20th century one. In previous centuries, men and women got married for financial or political reasons, not for romantic love. Romantic love was a side-note, a distraction to the reality of property rights, social ambition, and security. More than likely in the 16th century people married for financial or political security, whether this be the king or the vassal in the field. Most people entered into some kind of arranged scenario for expediency, not because they were in love. Today, if a person were to marry for money, this would be seen as scandalous. Marriage today is romantic. People who don’t marry for love are seen as problematic. If a person married for reasons other than romantic love, the marriage contract would become invalidated and the institution marginalized.

Heterosexual marriage discriminates against straight people as well. Straight, unmarried couples are also not entitled to the benefits of marriage, according to our very puritan society; only persons who are “fortunate” enough to enter into this contract are allowed these special rights. The institution grants rights to heterosexual couples such as tax cuts, hospital visits, inheritance rights, but only if two people are legally bonded in hopefully “holy” matrimony. Whether it be straight, single people (unworthy because they refuse or haven’t been capable enough of finding themselves true love) or gay people who are seen as simply immoral, the marriage institution succeeds in rendering these two groups as abnormal and unworthy. Heterosexual marriage is not to be questioned. It is the foundation of most societies. Further, people who don’t subscribe to marriage values are considered the “other” and eccentric.

Why after all of the discussion here would gay people want to partake in an institution that is unfair, elitist, and emotionally damaging, because of its lofty ideals and exclusiveness? Gay marriage should not exist based on a heterosexual model. By getting rid of the “marriage system”, the playing field is evened out. How one should exist as a couple or a single person would no longer need to be defined or measured by “marriage.” No sexual identity should be normative and therefore no group of people should be seen as normative and have any more special rights than any other group. Marriage rights are denied to all people who cannot or wish to not engage in the institution of marriage. Moreover, single people of any sexual stripe should not be seen as damaged or lacking somehow if they are not married. Gay people should not be encouraged to participate in an unfair system. If gays and lesbians want true equality, they should work to dismantle the institution of marriage and never should they encourage gay marriage. They should encourage other ideas such as civil unions and move away from wanting to reproduce traditional heterosexual marriage.




What Naomi Wolf can Teach Lumberjack Lesbians

Dear Tad,

I’ve noticed since tuning into Naomi Wolf’s arguments about the end of America and the very real possibility of fascism creeping in, that there’s been quite a bit written of her views on feminism. To tell the truth, I’ve not read all of the exchanges between Naomi and Camille Paglia during those tumultuous years, when Naomi found herself backed against the fence. Knowing Camille though, and her bitingly brilliant, but savage wit, I’m probably missing scores of entertaining stuff. Nonetheless, I’m here to defend Naomi. And I, for one, a lesbian woman-of-color, can appreciate Naomi’s brand of feminism.

Some people think Naomi has no right to speak about a possible beauty myth when she herself is perfectly quaffed and quite statuesque – you know, she’s hot. Truly, truly hot if I may say so myself (I got your back, girl, don’t worry—my ex went to Harvard and I have a thing for short, smart Jewish girls). But what’s wrong with a feminist being attractive? It’s like saying lesbians can’t be attractive, because they aren’t dolling themselves up for men. BS! I can really appreciate a beautiful woman.

There’s nothing wrong with being beautiful. Tad, we all know that some lesbians are not well-known for their forays into high fashion. I mean, come on, there’s got to be an answer to flannel and Doc Martins, and you lesbians in the audience know what I’m talking about! I lived and loved in Paris for nearly two years and I can tell you that physical beauty is OK, and that Naomi need not feel at all bad for being gorgeous; so everyone should just give her a break. Further, the myriad problems with women on this planet have not vanished with modernism and women’s lib. Very serious issues remain and I appreciate a woman who is willing to still talk about the need for women’s issues to be put on the table and look smokin’ hot while doing it, too.

Thank you, Naomi. In your case, beauty is definitely not a myth. If you had been dressed in flannel with a mullet, I’m ashamed to say that I probably would not have looked so intensely into your work this time around. Thank the goddess Aphrodite, I did.