http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/bonus_letter_to We got a letter that we're not going to print in the paper because we haven't been able to confirm the identity of its author. Still, Charles wrote a smart little response, which should see the light of day:EDITOR: Charles Mudede got his fundamental facts right ["The Animal in You,” Feb 23], but in the body of his article he repeatedly got one fundamental fact wrong, when he referred over and over again to "horse fucking” and "horse fuckers.” My unfortunate late nonconformist buddy Ken did not fuck horses, at least as far as I know: The stallion he and... Copyright 2007 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:33:16 -0800 Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:54:21 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss fuckin' right.

]]> bill http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/bonus_letter_to#c031541 http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/bonus_letter_to#c031541 Arts Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:42:45 -0800 what about "pegging?"

]]> donte http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/bonus_letter_to#c031590 http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/bonus_letter_to#c031590 Arts Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:25:43 -0800 The construction is not sexist, and frankly, it's sexist for Mudede to assume that it is. Women are perfectly capable of "fucking," as the phenomenon of "bend-over boyfriends" makes clear.

]]> Timothy Hulsey http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/bonus_letter_to#c031760 http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/bonus_letter_to#c031760 Arts Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:54:21 -0800