It is Monday, and I know who I fucked today: F, for a couple of delightful hours starting at noon. I know also who I fucked yesterday: D, in a couple of half-hour sessions in the back of her car, one from 6.30 - 7.00 in the evening, and the other from 9.00 - 9.30.
Before that? Nothing on Saturday. Friday - well, perhaps I had an intra-marital fuck that day. One day last week I fucked F and then D, and another day I failed to fuck Z because I just couldn't stay hard once I donned a condom, though I thought we had a very good time considering. But I don't think that was all the week's activities, as I saw both D and F a couple of times.
In other words, I forget. And if I forget the fucking, the fucking must be forgettable rather than unforgettable. While it is happening it feels unforgettable, but that is an illusion, or anyway misleading. Like intense pain, intense pleasure cannot be remembered. Better, then, to say that the sex is so good that it is instantly forgotten.
Forgetting the fucking is one thing, forgetting who I fuck another. Part of the point of a blog is to log, and I am no more responsible a blogger than I am a husband. For mere record-keeping, Google Calendar will do - A keeps track of her sexual antics that way, and I did for a while, but was too lazy to maintain it. But there is no pleasure at all to be had that way. I am too lazy to blog, as well, and so I forget.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I realize this is childish of me, but I would like to raise hackles over something other than grammar. Yes, of course it should be "I know whom I fucked" - but if I were inclined to follow rules, I would not be fucking anyone but my wife in the first place, would I?
ReplyDeleteI realize you'd like to be outrageous at something other than a grammatical level. That was why i commented only about grammar. As for how outrageous you are- hmmm, a man lying and fucking lots of women as part of his midlife crisis, and writing about it? Did you mean that to be outrageous? You surely can't believe that fucking lots of women and lying about it is original? Now if you loved them all, really loved them all, that would be both outrageous and original. But, sadly. . .that kind of metaphysical daring. . .well, it doesn't really seem to exist in anyone, does it? And so i comment about correct use of the objective case. You understand now I would guess?
ReplyDelete