Still looking for a choice Christmas gift? Or just something to do with the relatives at the family Christmas dinner? (Okay, less that one.) Recently a copy of Canadian-designed "sexy party game" called Who'd You Rather showed up in the blogTO offices (okay, at Tim's house). Your friendly Tn'O staffers sent out the all-call for some willing test-players, and Jerrold, Tim, Katherine and I convened at Future's Bakery last Sunday to give Who'd You Rather a test fly.

Rule number one of sexy party games: do not play them at Future's Bakery.

At one point I needed to do something sexual to the food I was eating to win money; I ended up going down on my frothy hot chocolate. Which, admittedly, I enjoyed, but probably looked like... a grown man eating out a mug of hot chocolate, actually.

Who'd You Rather is essentially a betting game with funny money, where the goal is to get to a million funny dollars by correctly betting on the sexual proclivities of your other players. Each player is offered a "Who'd You Rather" choice in turn (with the general gist of that question being "who'd you rather get with"), often between two equally-undesirable opposites. The other players all bet on what they think the first player will choose.

(For example, would he rather be with a skeezy old geezer in a nursing uniform, or a skeezy old geezer librarian. Or would she rather be with a butt-ugly guy whose body is sublime, or a brilliantly handsome fat man.)

The first player reveals his or her choice, and the betting players either reap the rewards... or pay off their debt.

Rule number two of sexy party games: bet conservatively. I got pantsed playing this game. Katherine leaned on the fact that if you guess the player's "Who'd You Rather" choice successfully, you get $50,000 funny bucks regardless of whether or not you bet, so really, you don't have to risk much to get ahead.

I, on the other hand, dropped two hundred G's on the question of whether or not Jerrold would enjoy being wrapped in cellophane.

We all have our share of experience with sexy game play, from the old standby of Spin the Bottle (my first encounter with which ended with me alone in a closet with a girl whose name I can't remember, where we both stared at each other without speaking for seven long minutes) to strip poker, dirty Rumoli, and Hide the Kumquat. The key in all of these cases, though, were twofold:

1. Drunkenness
2. Sexual tension with the people I was playing with

All platonic friendly-feelings to my blogTO co-writers, but finding out vague sexual "secrets" about them didn't quite have the frisson of delving into the turn-ons of a girl I'm into. "This is so not titillating," Katherine said at one point, and I have to agree.

Who'd You Rather is dumb fun and would probably be good in the right circumstances, but we were too befuddled by the shotgun-style rules card and the lacklustre questions to really get into it (although I spent a couple days in a fug for being forced to admit that I'd choose Lindsay Lohan over Janet Jackson).

Points, though, to the game designers, for putting together a game that treats men and women, straight and queer, with equal objectivity (and objectification). There's an "I like boys" and an "I like girls" box of Rathers to choose from.

Tn'O GIVEAWAY!! If you would like to have our sample copy of Who'd You Rather, only played once and otherwise in pristine condition, please send an e-mail to matt (at) (this blog dot com) with your selection in the following choice:

Who'd you rather:

Someone who says "I love it when you get rough and right down to business"

Or says "Lick me all over, lover!"

The first respondent by e-mail (not comments) wins! (Obvious rules: you must live in Toronto, and be willing and able to meet me somewhere midtownish to pick up the game. I say this only because of the surprising number of Halifax readers who keep turning up in my comments.)

If you don't win the contest and would still like to get Who'd You Rather, it's available for $34.99 at the Condom Shack, Aren't We Naughty?, and Shopper's Drug Mart for some reason.