Ask Dr. BILLINGSGATE

BILLINGSGATE JOURNAL (Dateline San Diego)

Dear Dr. BILLINGSGATE,

Regarding your story, "Risky Sex in the City," I find it hypocritical of you that you condemn a man for not remembering some of his sexual partners, even though he pointed out that he was on crystal meth during most of the hundreds of encounters he had in the previous weeks. I doubt if you can remember the names of all of your sexual partners while you were in the Navy in the Phillipines, and I'm just talking about the human ones.....Murph, King of the Earth

Dear Murph,

I usually don't respond to subhumans, but since I know you personally I will make an exception. Luckily, my Doctorate in Divinity helps me sail through personal assaults on my integrity without faltering.

Being a graduate of Fordham University, a Jesuit institution of higher learning, you should be well versed in Thomistic Philosophy and therefore be familiar with the Summa Theologica. In the Summa, the question is asked, "Can the irascible and concupiscible powers be the subject of virtue?" The answer being that they cannot be, for those powers are common to us and dumb animals.

It follows then that there is an absolute and moral distinction between having sex with a consenting primate as long as the primate is more intelligent than a meth head who satisfies his concupiscible appetite by having group sex with hundreds of his diseased ridden, anonymous friends.

Ergo, even though the chickens may sometimes come home to roost, their irascible and concupiscible powers cannot be the subject of virtue. Therefore, your specious accusations, although cunning, contribute nothing according to the Summa.

The Doctor has once again spoken.