Monday, January 14, 2008

How I Came to Give Up Hook-Ups

Yes, you read the title correctly. I have decided to give up hook-ups. For all of 2008. This decision was not some ill-conceived New Year's resolution: it represents a fundamental shift in my world view, and perhaps an explanation is in order.

This may have been coming for a long while, but I can tell you with certainty exactly when I decided to abandon hook-ups. It happened on January 10, 2008, at approximately 9:28 in the morning.

I had been having an email exchange about certain grammatical questions with one of my favorite writers, and as an afterthought to that exchange, I wrote the following:

In French, for example, you would clearly make the verb agree with "qui," and I'm really not sure what one should always do in contemporary English.

Oh you, whoever you are, rash knight, who comes to answer my craigslist ad.
Oh you, whoever you are, rash knight, who come to answer my craigslist ad.

I'm guessing that you've already thought the matter through and that the latter is correct, but the former sounds better to me. (Or my analysis misses the point.) I suppose this means I'll never be able to use either of those sentences in an email exchange with a prospective fuck, but as armor is really not one of my turn-ons (Here again I am thwarted. I replaced either "hook-up" or "hook up" with "fuck" to avoid dealing with the hyphen only to have no alternative in the very next clause. I am really not as bad a person as the universe appears to imply.), I reckon I'll get by.

My correspondent, who is never wrong about such matters, replied -- after explaining that my analysis about rash knights did indeed miss the point -- that, in his opinion, the correct choices were "hookup" and "turn-on." As all my readers doubtless know, there is a common practice in English whereby two words which come together to represent a single concept sometimes morph into a single word. In the process, there is often the intermediate step of a hyphenated form. "Hare brained," for example, becomes "hare-brained" and then "harebrained."

I was left with several unappetizing choices. I could adopt the suggestion of my correspondent, who is never wrong about such matters. I could continue the use of "hook-up," thereby disagreeing with my correspondent, who is never wrong about such matters. Or I could discontinue hook up/hook-up/hookup altogether.

I find that I cannot bring myself to use "hookup." And since my correspondent, who is never mistaken about such matters, is never mistaken about such matters, I can't very well ignore his advice. So I have to give up hook-ups.

I am not, however, an entirely irredeemable prescriptivist. If a change in usage or orthography is inevitable, I will, eventually, accept it. It just takes me a little longer than other people. When 2009 rolls around, I will be ready to accept hookups.

Fortunately, the verb form (to hook up) remains firmly in the discrete-words category, so I don't have to give up hooking up. This is an especially fortuitous turn of events in that I hooked up with another married submissive on Thursday evening.

Choir practice was moved from Thursday to Wednesday this week, and b&c had to attend his monthly homeowners' association meeting. I hadn't really considered this combination of events until late Thursday afternoon; fortunately, that was plenty of time to put an ad on craigslist and collect and screen responses. I did that, and I arranged for a guy to show up at 8, which is when the meeting starts.

Unfortunately, I didn't get out of the office until after 7, and traffic being what it is, I was still on my way home at 7:45 when the guy called me to say that he had just driven by my house. I told him that I still needed to get home and that b&c was likely still inside. I also told him that I'd call him back when the coast was clear. I managed to get home and showered by about 7:55. Because the meeting was only about three houses away, b&c still hadn't left. I called the guy back around 7:58 saying that the coast was clear. B&c laughed and wished me a good time. He was walking down the driveway when the guy drove up.

The guy was clearly very eager, and I figured he didn't have all night, so when he walked in, I grabbed him and started to kiss him. (You'll notice that all of my assignations begin that way, so it's probably misleading to say I grabbed him and kissed him because he didn't have a lot of time, but he still appreciated it.) He did seem to be in a hurry to get up the stairs, so I pointed the way and then grabbed his ass and groped him all the way to the bedroom. He got out of his clothes quickly. He was short and balding, but with a very fit body and an especially firm ass. Yum. I pushed him backwards onto the bed, climbed on, and resumed kissing. He had an unusual technique. He pretty much stuck his tongue out the whole time we were kissing. This is not the ideal way to kiss, of course, but the continuously stuck-out tongue turns out to be far preferable to the jabbing tongue, which keeps poking you. Plus, it was a nice tongue, and he had nice lips to boot, and when I worked my way around the tongue to suck on his lower lip, he responded with considerable avidity.

We made out for ten or fifteen minutes. He might have wanted to move onto other activities more quickly, but most subs won't speak up about that sort of thing, and he certainly seemed to be having a good time. Or at least his pencil dick stayed hard the whole time. He certainly could have said something if he'd wanted: I spent plenty of time with my mouth on his nipples.

Anyway, I eventually pushed him down to my cock, and he went right to work on it. I could hear him getting more and more excited as he took more and more of it inside his mouth. I had thought about turning him around and rimming him while he went down on me, but even though he'd seemed pretty clean while I was fingering his asshole, he'd just come from work, so it was hard to imagine that he was rimmably clean. Anyway, he didn't seem to care as long as he had my cock to suck on. (He was really good at it, too.) When I finally pulled him off my cock to kiss me again, he had worked himself up into a bit of a frenzy.

After a bit, I pushed him down onto his stomach and lay on his back, with my cock in his crack. I was licking and nibbling on his ears, and when my cock nudged up close to his hole, he asked whether I had any lube for him "because I've never had anything up my ass." Oh dear. I got the lube out (I had intended to wait a few more minutes before going for the condom and lube) and worked on his ass with a couple of fingers, but he was really tight, and I decided that his ass had better remain virgin for a while longer. This is always a no-win situation. The guy clearly wanted me to fuck him, even though he wouldn't say so, so he'll be disappointed that I didn't just put it in him. But if I had penetrated him, he would have been very traumatized (not to mention sore) over having finally been fucked. Either way, I don't see him again. Not that that's a tremendous concern, given the apparently infinite supply of married submissives.

I rolled him back over, kissed him some more, jerked myself most of the way to the orgasm, and then put his hand back on my cock to finish me off. He was very impressed with the volume of my semen, but while I had cum pretty hard, I hadn't really shot very much. I guess he didn't have much to compare it to. I jerked him off, and he came very quickly. Here again, he came pretty hard, but the amount of ejaculate was significantly smaller even than my own. Go figure.

We chatted a bit, then he got dressed, kissed me goodbye, and left. I wasn't at all disappointed about not having fucked him until I realized the linguistic implications. I had been planning to replace "hook-up" with "fuck," but can I really call it a fuck if there was no buttsex? I think I could, but I'm not sure I want to. I could probably get away with "shag," even though it really means the same thing, so there wasn't any actual shagging going on. Still, it's a British term, so I wouldn't mind expanding the usage a bit. Cthulhu knows there are plenty of other words I can use, but I want something short. I considered calling the non-shag a Berber, but a) some people might -- rightfully -- call me a wag, and b) I'm not sure about the capitalization in this context.

Anyway, I'll be sure to keep you informed. Both about my sexual activities and whether 2008 will become the year of the Berber.


Will said...

Oh you, whoever you are, rash knight, who comes to answer my craigslist ad.
Oh you, whoever you are, rash knight, who come to answer my craigslist ad.

Let's take a look at the second one first. Drop the two intermediate phrases and it reads "Oh you who come to answer": "you come" is the correct form but when you add the "who", isn't there a "he" understood before it, modifying the "you"? Oh you, whoever you are, rash knight, [he] who comes to answer my craigslist ad.

As to hook-up versus hookup, etc. I read recently that a number of newly revised dictionaries are beginning to allow alternative spelling of words as English continues to evolve at breakneck speed. There's no English or American equivalent of the Academie Francaise (which the vast majority of French laugh at anyway), so English is free to lurch at will into whatever new developments the pop culture dictates.

I mean, like, enuf, dude.

The Neighbors Will Hear said...

Will, I'm afraid that I didn't give the entire context of the discussion over those two sentences. The upshot, however, is that first choice is correct in contemporary English, while the second choice (suitably amended to use "thou" instead of "you" and to avoid references to craigslist) would have been correct in early modern English. The rules changed at some point.

I don't want to get into a discussion about American dictionaries because I'm likely to lose my temper. They're pretty much run by descriptivist assmonkeys who care nothing for the language and would prefer to hasten its decline. I mean that in the nicest way possible, of course.

Who knew that anyone actually read the text on this blog?

Soul Seared Dreamer said...

Quite the dilemma you have there Ted.

Use the word 'fun' (come over for some fun).. it implies more and less whatever you want it to.. does sounder rather amateurish, in more ways than one, but you can't win every battle.

And yes you do make it quite hard to actually read the text, with all your very colourful pictures. It wasn't helped by the fact that one of them looks very much like someone I know (my lips are sealed - just in case it is him)

Canberrabiker said...

Hi Ted, I agree with SSD - "fun" seems apt, or maybe "fool around" .

Can I have the guy in picture 5 please?

Will said...

Hey, I read the text all the time. It's equally as racy as the pictures, and the normal cliches of written porn are almost entirely missing, replaced with wit and irony.


Tork said...

In terms of the photos...#5 is definitely the all american clean cut hot jock type most of us aspire to, but #2 gets my kudos too. I thought #9 was a girl with a dick at first glance (and at second glance too). The photos of guys holding cameras are always amusing too, but it is hard to find someone who knows you well enough to see you naked but not so well as to be offended by you looking for sex with someone else. The hook-up or hookup dilemna.