Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« "Hooray! Let's Make Some Bacon... | "AFA Protest, Emails and Hallm... »

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on August 28 at 11:21 AM

My husband has decided NOT to vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama which is the first time in his life he is not voting for a Democrat. I am stumped, flumoxxed, flabbergasted, shocked, disappointed and more. My question is, what can I do? Should I withhold sex until the election is over? Propose a little election day bondage and leave him handcuffed to the headboard for the day? HELP!

Dreaming Of Obama

Instead of telling your husband that you’re gonna cut him off until after the election, DOO, tell him that you’ll have plenty of sex with him between now and the electionóbut that you’ll be wearing a Ruth Bader Ginsberg mask every time. Why do that? Because you want your husband think about the Supreme Fucking Court while he’s fucking you, and the damage that two or three more Bush/McCain appointees will do to our democracy should McCain wind up winning the fucking election.

And if your husband votes for McCain and McCain wins the election, warn your husband that you’ll be wearing a John Paul Stevens mask to bed every night for the duration of the McCain administration.

RSS icon Comments

1

DTMFA

Posted by AMB | August 28, 2008 11:26 AM
2

Don't dump him. Republicans are way better in bed. When all is said in done, that's all that really matters about your/a relationship.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 28, 2008 11:28 AM
3

Fist that motherfucker already.

Posted by Ziggity | August 28, 2008 11:31 AM
4

@2:

That's total nonsense.

Posted by AMB | August 28, 2008 11:31 AM
5

This might just be the laid back guy in me talking but isn't the marriage already kinda stupid if the political leanings of a spouse can lead to loss of sex ultimatums?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 28, 2008 11:34 AM
6

Good lord. Does that mean The Jew is one? I take back any and all hitting on him I may or may not have done.

Posted by leek | August 28, 2008 11:34 AM
7

@4

No it isn't.

Posted by You gonna cry? You gonna cryyy libeewal?! | August 28, 2008 11:35 AM
8

She should tell him she doesn't want to be married to a racist.

Posted by LDP | August 28, 2008 11:35 AM
9

@2 are you sure the ones you fucked weren't just trying harder because they spent most of their lives as repressed closet cases?

Posted by Hernandez | August 28, 2008 11:41 AM
10

I agree, dump him.

Or at least withhold sex.

Since we use printed absentee ballots, you can check to make sure who he votes for, by the way.

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 28, 2008 11:44 AM
11

what kind of shrewish,petty, cunt of a wife would withhold sex over voting? what kind of sham of a marriage can't withstand political differences?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 28, 2008 11:48 AM
12

@Hernandez

Maybe. But that doesn't matter, now does it?

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 28, 2008 11:48 AM
13

I would withhold sex under the circumstances, Bellevue, because I don't have sex with the mentally ill as a general rule. They've suffered enough, I figure.

Posted by Dan Savage | August 28, 2008 11:51 AM
14

uh, yeah, WHY isn't he voting for Obama if he's a longterm Democrat? If he honestly has idealogical differences that's one thing...if it's because he won't vote for a black man, then DTMFA; who the hell needs to be married to a fucking racist?

And, WHO is he voting for? Or is he declining to vote at all?

Posted by michael strangeways | August 28, 2008 11:52 AM
15

@Bellevue

We're talking about a woman here. I'm surprised she hasn't already filed for a divorce and robbed him of more than half of his worth. She never payed for anything and spent her day watching Oprah and reading Jezebel, but that doesn't matter. It's "not about the money."

Posted by enjoying anonymous comments while they're here | August 28, 2008 11:53 AM
16

Dear Dreaming --

Don't withhold sex. Withhold judgment.

When your infatuation with the imaginary messiah wears off, you may come to appreciate his point of view.

He hasn't changed his orientation; you have changed yours ... and you think he deserves punishment for that?

Posted by RonK, Seattle | August 28, 2008 11:57 AM
17

@16: There's actually no indication that she's changed her position on anything. Get off your high PUMA and over yourself.

Posted by Ziggity | August 28, 2008 11:59 AM
18

Dan, you also wouldn't sleep with the mentally ill to begin with nor marry them. "If your partner becomes mentally ill, you might be justified in withholding sex." Wouldnt your spouse going mentally ill have bigger implications on the marriage itself than just sex and isn't that merit more discussion?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 28, 2008 12:03 PM
19

dan, why you dissing stevens? he's fairly liberal. surely, if mccain wins, she should wear a scalia mask! he's a fat, ugly conservative fuck!

Posted by glen k | August 28, 2008 12:11 PM
20

Have more sex. More TLC for the mentally ill. You have 67 days to lift the fog.

Posted by chicagogaydude | August 28, 2008 12:15 PM
21

Friends don't let friends fuck Republicans.

Posted by Fnarf | August 28, 2008 12:19 PM
22

If one's spouse/life-partner makes a philosophical change radical enough to alter his/her worldview one has to re-evaluate one's entire relationship. If I were in a relationship with an agnostic or atheist who became born-again and began worrying about my soul I would leave him, fast. If my partner became an arch- conservative I would leave him, because I would consider him to be working against my own self-interests and why would I want to be with someone who does that?

@2 I have never had sex with a Republican who was demonstrably better than any other political party. In fact, I'd have to argue that people who come out late or who usually engage in furtive quickies due to political or religious persuasion have less practice and therefore aren't as good as early adopters.

Posted by inkweary | August 28, 2008 12:21 PM
23

@6 You were hitting on me? Cute. I'm so clueless when it comes to girls hitting on me. Buy me a drink and rub my leg next time, then I'll know for sure. But don't rub too much or I'll probably barf. Cute boys can rub as much as they want, or until Mr. Poe causes a ruckus.

Posted by Born a rich Reformed Juif kid in L.A. A republican, Psssh! | August 28, 2008 12:23 PM
24

@22

Don't rain on my parade, bitch.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 28, 2008 12:28 PM
25

Yeah, what kind of shrewish, petty cunt would refuse to have sex with a guy who demonstrably doesn't give a shit about her reproductive rights. Women!

Posted by Darcy | August 28, 2008 12:29 PM
26

I am appalled that people would stoop to coercing their loved ones into voting their way. It's wrong. I don't care how "right" you feel you are about your position, democracy isn't about suppressing people who disagree with you.

I am proud to live in a country where people are allowed to disagree with each other and where people are still allowed to vote their conscience, no matter how fucked up and stupid and wrong that conscience is.

I'm sure you all will rake me over the coals, but that's how I feel so goddammit, call me Frank Capra but I still believe in the stupid democratic process.

Posted by PopTart | August 28, 2008 12:30 PM
27

@21 for the win!

Posted by J | August 28, 2008 12:33 PM
28

Darcy, do you see relationships and politics in black and white? or do women like you only vote and act with your ovaries, consequences be damned?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 28, 2008 12:46 PM
29

@24 I will rain when and where I like. If you're not dressed for it you'll get wet little man.

Posted by inkweary | August 28, 2008 12:47 PM
30

It's on.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 28, 2008 12:50 PM
31

not enough information. WHY won't he vote for BHO if he's a democrat? because his widdle feewings are still hurt over hillary? or he is so pig ignorant he buys the "mulsim" BS? perhaps he feels that obama is "not qualified", even though abraham lincoln was a 1-term congressman before becoming president?

Posted by max solomon | August 28, 2008 12:53 PM
32

I say she should read Lysistrata, then decide what she's going to do. Wait, is her husband wearing a giant leather phallus? This is an important consideration.

Posted by Greg | August 28, 2008 1:22 PM
33

Max, I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking it's because he's black. They don't call it the White House because of the paint job.

Posted by Charm | August 28, 2008 1:23 PM
34

@28: Oh, Jesus, calm down. Do you see Slog comments as deathly serious, or are you just generally opposed to gradations of facetiousness? "Women like you," that's cute.

Posted by Darcy | August 28, 2008 1:28 PM
35

The Internet is serious business Darcy. Thousands of slash fiction writers are a testament to that fact.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 28, 2008 1:30 PM
36

way to go, @27!

This just in: McCain announced his VP nom - it's Satan!

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 28, 2008 1:44 PM
37

If this letter and these responses don't constitute irrefutable evidence of Bush Derangement Syndrome, I don't know what could.

Posted by David Wright | August 28, 2008 2:00 PM
38

David, while you and I might be libertarian at our cores, I can't dismiss the fact that he's pissed off so many people of every political stripe as simply being the fault of the people. He's been bad for almost everyone in the United States independent of ideology.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 28, 2008 2:07 PM
39

Why is everyone just ASSUMING that if he's not voting for Obama that means he is voting for McCain? It could be that he is voting for a third party candidate.

Posted by Slain | August 28, 2008 2:13 PM
40

My spouse and me are split over Nader vs. McKinney.

Posted by Leo | August 28, 2008 2:14 PM
41

DTMFA

Posted by Sirkowski | August 28, 2008 2:19 PM
42

22 is right. Abandoning Obama (and the entire Democratic Party) and becoming a McCain supporter is right up there with becoming a born again Christian. They are both deal breakers in my book. If her husband has switched on her like that then clearly witholding sex won't fix things, they need to re-evaluate the relationship. If on the other hand he's just not going to vote because he's still upset about Hillary then perhaps a witholding is in order!

Posted by clarity | August 28, 2008 2:20 PM
43

Clarity: Being a born-again-Christian is something that takes a large fraction of your life and affects many aspects of your behavior. Voting for a presidential candidate takes 2 minutes of coloring in circles on a piece of paper. If your whole identity is bound up in your political party affiliation, you are just as over-the-top as a born-again-Christian.

Posted by David Wright | August 28, 2008 2:44 PM
44

David Wright, I am not an over-the-top political idealogue. However political affiliation is more than just a 2 minute deal in a voting booth. It is a reflection of my core values and if a significant other no longer shares my values (the right to choose, equality, social justice, etc.) then yes we do have major issues.

Posted by clarity | August 28, 2008 2:51 PM
45

Clarity: Those values are fine and good, but are mostly rather abstract and debatable. Take those you named...

Abortion: Any reasonable person should be able to admit that there are intellectual merits to both sides of this argument. And in the event that Roe v. Wade wwere overturned, the ultimate impact on the 99% of the population that could, in extremis, get themselves to another state, would be nil.

Equality and Social Justice: Those are pretty nebulous words (it's news to me that Republicans oppose "equality"), but presumably they mostly have to do with wealth transfer. Realistically, the difference in the targeted size of government between very-right-wing Republicans and very-left-wind Democrats a factor of 2-3. Suppose you donate 3% of your income to charity. If your partner prefers to donate 1% or 9% to charity, is that really a deal-breaker difference?

Posted by David Wright | August 28, 2008 3:21 PM
46

@ 45 "the ultimate impact on the 99% of the population that could, in extremis, get themselves to another state, would be nil."

Yes, because terrified, knocked-up fifteen-year-olds always have the resources to drive to another state for an abortion. And no woman with an unwanted pregnancy has a rigorous work schedule that prevents her from travel. And no married woman frightened of the financial and emotional burden of having another child ever has to hide an abortion from a controlling husband.

99%. Really.

Posted by lymerae | August 28, 2008 3:36 PM
47

@45

You are an ignorant piece of shit. You think the Republicans wouldn't make it a federal crime to cross state lines or transport someone across state lines to get an abortion? They'd do it in a heartbeat, just like they'd vote down any proposal to provide adequate pre-natal care to the mother and adequate healthcare for the child if and when it is born. They want to ban vaccines that prevent cancer because they claim they will encourage promiscuity. And there are many of them who would like to see birth control totally banned.

What percentage of people would those changes affect, assface?

Posted by Ivan | August 28, 2008 4:06 PM
48
Any reasonable person should be able to admit that there are intellectual merits to both sides of this argument.

And what are those pray tell? And what "argument"? The argument that women don't have a right to control their own bodies or the argument that there's no right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution? Someone taking the latter stance might be acceptable to me, but there's no way I would marry or stay married to someone who believed the latter. I am no one's baby factory.

99 percent? Cute. Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't give a fuck if *only* 1 percent of a group is inconvenienced. If that were the case there would be no such thing as minority rights in this country.

You are really a smug son of a bitch.

Posted by keshmeshi | August 28, 2008 4:06 PM
49

Keshmeshi: Yes, the constitutional law argument over whether the constitution really creates a right to privacy, and what its limits are, is a good one. Perhaps more fundamental is the fact that the distinction between fetus-without-rights and human-with-rights is ultimately essentially arbitrary. The authors of the Row v. Wade decision understood that, which is why the right-to-abortion that decision established gradually fades over the course of the second trimester. Roe v. Wade does not, in fact, establish the absolute right to bodily control that its proponents sometimes espouse.

Posted by David Wright | August 28, 2008 4:18 PM
50

Oh, and Keshmesi, one other thing: Political arguments are fundamentally about how the government should regulate the lives of others. It's perfectly possible for you to partner with a person who has radically different ideas about how the government should regulate abortion, without you becomming a "baby factory".

That's really fundamentally why I don't understand all the vitrol here. Which political party wins the presidency will have a very small impact on most of us, and a very big impact only on a very tiny fraction of us (those sent to Guantanamo and who get ambasadorships, for example).

Posted by David Wright | August 28, 2008 4:27 PM
51

the 1% thing is pure bullshit though considering the process and medical implications of a chemical abortion.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 28, 2008 4:31 PM
52

As far as fucking by political affiliation, everyone knows that Chinese Communists are the best lovers...until you find out they're really 12.

Posted by michael strangeways | August 28, 2008 4:41 PM
53

Hello my friend, your site is very good! http://rclcwrpxdf.com

Posted by yecsgqeasg | August 28, 2008 6:29 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.