Feeling Marv's pain
by Matt Worley

The whole Marv Albert trial sure did bring back memories. I don't mean memories of Marv Albert's distinctive announcing style, although I did keep hearing his trademark "Yess!" in my head every time I read an accuser's description of Marv's fetishes. That was inevitable. What I actually remembered was rolling around with this girl I met when I was 18. Before 18, I really didn't have a lot of experience in the sex area, so anything different was kinda cool. Well, this girl liked to bite.

The first time was quite surprising. I wasn't even sure where her head was when I felt this sharp pain in my stomach. A few seconds later, I was bleeding and she was grinning. The fact that there were three other people in the room was kind of an afterthought. The first thing in my mind was, "Wow, I didn't know we could do that."

Since that girl, I've gone out with many different types of women. Every one had different wants, needs and quirks. Razor blades, cigarettes, headbands, photography, magic markers, and the always-crowd-pleasing clothing pins on the nipples. I took them all in stride, and the only quirks I didn't appreciate as much were the girls who swore they knew how to kiss, but their idea of kissing was to close their eyes and lick their lips. I'm not always the best teacher at such things. I get a little impatient with those who cannot improvise from standard procedure. This is probably not a nice thing to say. People don't like to be told they don't know how to do certain things--especially in the area of human sexuality. If you try something they don't understand, they think you're just screwing around. I don't know how many times I've fallen off the bed trying something different only to be met with, "I don't think that's going to work."

And sure, there are some things that cannot be done in a single bed. Not enough floor space is the best way to describe the problem. But I'm not writing the Kama Sutra sequel here. I'm just trying to paint a picture. How about this: do you remember the first time you had sex? If that was all you ever did (whatever it was, I'm sure you didn't run through the whole book), would you have a satisfying sex life?

So we have Marv Albert in white panties and a garter belt asking for a "boy" and the opportunity to bite. I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with this kind of behavior. Of course asking and forcing are two different things, and forcing is certainly wrong. Marv didn't get the boy, and apparently he didn't get too many bites either. He actually got a lot more than he was bargaining for.

Every picture I saw of Marv coming and going from his trial, he was accompanied by his fiancee. I'm sure they had discussions about the incident (and what eventually came out as a series of incidents) in private. Probably the discussions occurred after the incident became public, but I'm sure there was some talking involved. I have to ask this: Why didn't Marv feel he could do these kinds of things with his fiancee? Why go outside his romantic circle to provide him with a boy and biting?

The fact that consensual sexual acts of any kind is a crime is just a bit preposterous. In many states of the union, sodomy (which is anything other than regular missionary sex, by the way) is a crime. This means that millions of people are breaking the law everyday. Why haven't these stupid laws been taken off the books? Because the priority of most states is to create more laws, not void those they wrote many years earlier.

I don't condone Marv's actions. Sex of any kind requires consent. More over, I think you should be able to talk to the person you love (I always give fiancee-ed people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to love) about sex. Because if you can't talk to your lover, how is this need ever going to get resolved? Maybe Marv did try to convince his fiancee to bring in a boy and accept a few bites on the ass. Maybe all the couple really needs is a nice box of accessories for their wedding (assuming it is still going to happen).

It's sad that Marv had to lose his job because of unfulfilled sexual fantasies. It seems like such a petty crime. I think the real crime here is lack of communication. And charging a play-by-play announcer with lack of communication is not only ironic, but it's also sad. I'm sure he could have clearly and concisely detailed the planned sexual play quickly and efficiently if he'd just taken the time. Maybe he didn't feel like it while wearing the white panties and garter belt--his mind must have been elsewhere.

Matt Worley is proud of the fact he didn't use this column to talk about the strange phenomena of "groupies" in the entertainment world. No sense in getting everyone pissed off.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page