home authors guest shorts graphical shorts
My girlfriend was sick with cancer. Her tumors were hardening and she was woozy from the drugs. I felt so helpless. The radiation and chemotherapy were slowly destroying her body. The tumors were everywhere.
I started thinking about something I had thought about a lot before: that I had a lot of energy stored in my cock. I mean, I could whack it every day, sometimes two, three times. Maybe I could harness that energy and masturbate her cancer away. Worth a try. I mean my girlfriend was out from the drugs; it's not like she would see.
I straddled her with my hand on her forehead and took my joint out. Uggghhh – she wasn’t much to look at, all skin and bones. I closed my eyes and thought about Francis, my previous, super-hot girlfriend, the way she fingered my ass while going down on me - oh man! Instantly there was some action in my cock. I cranked my shaft and moved my other hand from the tumor on her forehead to the tumor under her chin. I figured I could dissolve two tumors per wank – I didn’t want to overdo it and spread the energy thin.
Funny thing is I usually thought about other women during sex even when my girlfriend was healthy. So the whole thing seemed regular although I did feel that slight tinge of guilt I always felt when thinking about other women during sex, like in an indirect way I was cheating, or not totally present in the moment, not in synch with our love.
Whoa. That whole line of thinking was distracting me from jerking off so I imagined Francis lowering her sphincter onto my massive shaft and that did it. I blew it all over my girlfriend’s face. One shot went in her mouth but she was too drugged to swallow and choked to death on my sperm. Oh well.
The following week at the wake I noticed the tumors were still the same size and was disappointed to learn that my idea didn't even sort of work.
Date Written: February 07, 2005Comments:
Author: John Slocum
Average Vote: 3.5556
02/15/2005 The Rid (5): Yeah.
02/15/2005 qualcomm: frances
02/15/2005 Will Disney: this guy sounds like a real jerk. how could he *mentally* cheat on her like that? i'm sure no one around here has actually ever tried that!
02/15/2005 Phony Millions (2): Dark, gratuitious, not funny. Sorry.
02/15/2005 John Slocum (4): Dark Disney?
02/15/2005 Streifenbeuteldachs (4): This is classic Disney! I like how it was so matter-of-fact.
02/15/2005 qualcomm: i like some of the ideas explored here, but the execution feels kind of flat to me.
02/15/2005 John Slocum: Evil Disney? Horrid, self-absorbed, back-stabbing, limping Disney?
02/15/2005 Streifenbeuteldachs: My favourite part was how the narrator blithely assumed that "energy" is able to cure cancer. Also, I think I would have fived this if the narrator had exhibited a self-righteous feeling of personal sacrifice for the heavy, heavy burden he bore.
02/15/2005 TheBuyer: This could have almost worked the same with the last three graphs cut out entirely. Also, I had no idea it was even possible to think about a different person in the sack, that just sounds like something you made up. Pshaw, sir.
02/15/2005 anonymous: TheBuyer = TheLiar
02/15/2005 TheBuyer (4): Okay, just don't say anything. 3.5
02/15/2005 anonymous: *Thanks* TheBuyer!
02/15/2005 Litcube (4):
02/15/2005 Mr. Pony (4): The way I see it, that "Oh well" hurts this thing like you wouldn't believe! Otherwise, a lot of fun.
02/15/2005 anonymous: maybe it should have been *darn*, or *drat*.
02/15/2005 TheBuyer: Or the F word - fuck
02/15/2005 Jon Matza (3): The choking to death bit seemed bogus, even in the demented world of this short. Could a person, even an unconscious one really choke on sperm? Could the guy really not flip her over or something? In any case I think it'd've been funnier if he just jizzed on her, then became disappointed when it didn't work. Writing here's a four plus but I'm detracting for the above, plus the calculated shock type premise. Uggghhh!
02/15/2005 Mr. Pony: *Hmmm*
02/15/2005 qualcomm: author, was your inspiration michael jackson's molestation of a cancer patient?
02/16/2005 Will Disney: Nice smokescreen!
02/16/2005 cuntry (2): mean and dull. sorry. grafs 1 and 2 had the rumblings of something good but then it took a turn for the worse.
02/16/2005 John Slocum: Matza: totally agree with you about the choking to death bit. Wish I had done it the way you suggested.
Qually: my inspiration was when I molested you.
Disney: Smokescreen was because this was an hommage to Disney! Inspired by (or, if you're QC, ripped off from) your raft/masturbation short ('...first thing I did was masturbate...'
02/16/2005 Streifenbeuteldachs: Slocum? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.
02/16/2005 John Slocum: Cuntry, apologies for dullness, but what do you mean by 'mean.' Many shorts are mean. Why pick on this one for it.
02/16/2005 Dylan Danko (4):
02/16/2005 qualcomm: not sure what to rate this. in my opinion, its content is too premeditatedly shocking. that'd be all right if being crassly shocking were the conceit of the short, as in my fetus-fucking one, but it didn't feel that well thought out. furthermore, author, i'm assuming that your intention with this short was that this guy was simply very horny, and he came up with the "my semen can cure cancer" idea as a justification for jacking off in his unconscious girlfriend's face. if that is in fact the case, i feel like that self-delusion should have been underlined more. and if it isn't the case, it should have been, for that would have greatly redeemed the shock error, and it would just be funnier than a crazy guy who comes up with a wacky idea. no?
02/16/2005 Phony Millions: Well for the measuredeness of your reply, Qualcomm, I would think at least a three.
02/16/2005 John Slocum: QC: my 'intention' with this short was more to paint the guy not so much horny as shallow and self absorbed, so much so that he's more into his dumb idea than the fact that the girlfriend is dying. Again, Matza (and Brad with 'gratuitous' comment and Cuntry with 'mean' comment) is right about the choking part, would have been better just to end with an orgasm and the tumors (obviously) remaining the same size. Also, I was attempting to ape Disney's style, a style I much enjoy and admire, where a character deals lightly with dire circumstances.
02/16/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: I can't even rate this now.
02/16/2005 John Slocum: I put 'intention' in 'quotes' because I'm never altogether sure what my intention is with a short. Most times I come up with a funny first line that might suggest a plot/idea/absurd scenario worth mining/etc. without having an idea of where it's going. I don't know if this is the best approach, but I'm not very good at conceptualizing a short and then making it happen (and so have a difficult time discussing my intentions). Sometimes this is very successful like in the iodine short, or the ramps short, and sometimes it's not so successful, like in the jock-itch short or the tiger yitzak short. I feel like you, QC, and Pony and Matza and snow, for examples, probably write shorts with at least some idea of how the whole thing is going to go ahead of time. My guess is you, Brad, probably feel your way through, more like I'm saying I do it. I'm kind of curious about this stuff. Matza, please make a joke.
02/16/2005 qualcomm: i didn't realize you were imitating dis' style. you obviously care too much. i mean have you ever looked into disney's eyes? pure muppety nonempathy. he's just experiencing each moment without judgment. anyway, your more normal judgmental outlook leaks through right from the get-go. here's how disney woulda written the first graf:
My girlfriend was sick with cancer! Her tumors were hardening and she seemed kind of out of it. The radiation and chemotherapy were killing her even faster than the cancer. I sure had to hand it to that cancer: its tumors were everywhere.
02/16/2005 John Slocum: yah, nice one.
02/16/2005 Phony Millions: That's good, Qualcomm. Yeah Disney is even more in a certain direction I suppose. I feel my way through, definitely, Slocum, like you say, with making shorts. I mean, I thought my word 'gratuitious' sounded a little Siskel and Ebert in my comment on this one after I wrote it - maybe too much gravity. But it just hit me that way. In general, I've noticed that I don't go in as much for the cruelty shorts whereas other people really get a kick out of them. I remember when Resevoir Dogs came out and I watched it with my ex- she was cracking up when the cop got his ear cut off and Mr. whoever is singing into it and I was looking at her like, what the fuck is so funny?
02/16/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: I'm one o'those, too, BE. Usually I try to ignore that impulse and vote accordingly, but it's not so easy. Often I end up not voting at all.
02/16/2005 Phony Millions: Yeah ditto - that's one way around it.
02/16/2005 John Slocum: jimson: how do you square what you just wrote with your lust for drinking fresh human blood?
02/16/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: Uh...I only drink my own blood.
02/16/2005 qualcomm: yeah, and why come you gave my fetus fuck short a one?? jerk.
02/16/2005 John Slocum: as if your own blood isn't fresh human blood.
02/16/2005 John Slocum: as if your own blood isn't fresh human blood.
02/16/2005 Phony Millions: I think what Jimson and I are saying, you philistine midgets, is that we are not as easily swayed by mere cruelty - it must have a raison d'etre, a justifying cause.
02/16/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: yeah, see. I shouldnt've voted on that one. Sorry, Qually.
02/16/2005 qualcomm: brad, the reason you should laugh when mr. blonde cuts the cop's ear off is that he's laughing about, enjoying it, and he's such a winning, charming fella that you empathize with his sociopathic nonempathy. your giggles are then heightened by your conscience telling you that you shouldn't be laughing. it's the same reason one chuckles when alex beats the fuck out of that bum in clockwork orange.
02/16/2005 Phony Millions: the reason why I laugh when alex whacks everybody is because Burgess is a great writer. Tarantino (sp.) is pretty damn good too though, and when I saw the film again, I got it and smiled, uneasily.
02/16/2005 qualcomm: i disagree, evans. when cruelty has a cause, it's not necessarily funny, just understandable. causeless cruelty, on the other hand, can be funny. it's like, the very basis of comedy, isn't it? when moe pokes larry in the eyes, it's funny because it's so mean and pointless.
02/16/2005 Mr. Joshua: QC: Stop pontificating like Alan Alda's character in "Crimes and Misdemeanors".
02/16/2005 Phony Millions: I wasn't clear dashing off that point. I meant that the author has to have a 'reason' - bad word, stupid french joke - to use the cruelty. Which is a bas-ackwards way of saying 'it has to be funny'. The Burgess is funny for a lot of reasons besides the meaningless cruelty: It's funny because of the huge irony that Alex listens to Beethoven 9 while he does his deeds, it's funny because the other people are caricatured as well - the modern artist and his woman with his phallic sculptures, the weird cockney vernacular is funny. Without Burgess' imaginative skill, it would not be funny, no? On the contrary, the meaninglessness of the cruelty and violence for me in the book are not funny in and of themselves. Burgess and Kubrick are using the violence to make a bigger, more serious point - about fascism, etc...- the fact that there is a more serious theme to the movie keeps the comedy from being gratuitious and raises it up to art.
02/16/2005 Phony Millions: I was never a big Three Stooges fan either. I'm just too fucking thin-skinned. I'm going to go jump in a bath of lye and build some character.
02/16/2005 Mr. Pony: Lye is also a key ingredient in making pi-dan, or "Thousand-Year-Old Duck Eggs", as they are called.
02/16/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: Malcom McDowell's performance is pretty key, right? His characterization is just so completely silly. So I guess that would back up your point, QC. And then there's the score, too. But I had to watch it twice to really, really appreciate the humor. The first time there was some laughing, but a lot of wincing, too.
02/16/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: If it bends....
02/16/2005 cuntry: Slocum - just reread and can't quite put my finger on why i was into grafs 1 and 2 and not the rest. The "saving the cancer-stricken girlfriend through masturbation" angle was funny to me - original, nasty, out of bounds. I felt like if it been more of his valiant totally self-serving efforts to save her that might have worked but it became all about him in a less iinteresting way that just felt empty.
02/16/2005 Jon Matza: Disney's a cold-blooded bastard all right. I wonder what happens to someone to make them that way?
02/16/2005 John Slocum: A great education and fantastic judgement!