But "getting shafted" isn't always a bad thing.

All male-female couples and presumably most of them nominally monogamous. Read Dan Savage and do your "traditional" relationship right!

@3 - And after that sentence you quote comes this:

"But as a scientist myself, I’m going to go out on a limb and pronounce the term “sexual transformations” to be the nerdier first cousin to the slightly cooler third G in the trifecta: “being game for anything – within reason.”"

Oh poor troll. When will you learn to read past the first half of the fourth paragraph?

@3,

Respond to @4 dumb shit.

Thanks dumbshit.

Someone here has a serious anonymous crush on you, Dan!

@6: Time for someone to bring the science.
First, you assert that the people in charge of the study work for Dan. The two scientists in question, Tricia J. Burke and Valerie J. Young, do not appear to have any connection to Dan Savage. Burke is a communication scholar currently teaching at the University of Puget Sound; her specialty is interpersonal communication, especially among couples and families. Young appears to be affiliated (as a student or as faculty) with the University of Arizona's Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, and Families.
I could find no record of either having collaborated with or worked for Dan Savage, and a Google search for either of their names in conjunction with his comes up empty. If you have evidence in support of your claim, you better show it now.
That settles your false accusation of bias. I'll get to the actual CONTENT of the study in a bit.

@6: (cont)
The focus of the study was on the interactions between three factors in a romantic relationship: relationship satisfaction, intimate behavior, and sexual transformations. (Respectively: how good you feel about your relationship, how much kissing/cuddling/sex you get done with your significant other, and how you've altered your sex life to please your S.O.) When you consider that the first and third in that list could be seen from the perspective of either partner, the total number of factors in play grows to five. Now, let's look at the abstract:

To understand the association between sexual transformations (i.e., changes in sexual behavior for the partner), intimate behaviors, and relationship quality among couples in romantic relationships, this study used Actor Partner Interdependence Models to examine frequency of sexual transformations, feelings about sexual transformations, and intimate behaviors as predictors of relationship satisfaction among 96 couples (N = 192). Sexual transformations were also examined as a moderator of the association between intimate behavior and relationship satisfaction. Results indicated that relationship satisfaction was positively associated with partners’ frequent sexual transformations, actors’ positive feelings about sexual transformations, and intimate behavior from the partner. Further, in less intimate relationships, relationship satisfaction was greater when partners reported making more sexual transformations.

Yes, it's well-known that intimate behavior correlates strongly to relationship satisfaction; that wasn't the main point in the study or the article. The big news, the scientific support for Dan's "GGG" concept, is that sexual transformations made by one partner correlate strongly to the relationship satisfaction of the OTHER partner.
In layman's terms: indulging your lover's sexual preferences/desires tends to mean a happier relationship. That sounds an awful lot like GGG. Any further questions?

@12: She's not the one who did the research. Why does it matter if she might have a bias in favor of Dan? She had nothing to do with the study, and therefore her personal allegiances mean nothing.
Is that the best you have?

That seems to have shut him up.

@15: Again, she didn't have anything to do with the research. Objectively, the study supports Dan's "GGG" concept. WHY does it matter if the person writing the article might have been biased? The research, which is what really demonstrates the effect, is perfectly valid.
You still haven't responded to my point in #11. What you've already said really is the best you have, and that's quite sad.

@18: Okay then, looks like you don't know what you're talking about, but for whatever reason just want to hate on Dan whenever possible. You really need a hobby.

I count 8 posts from someone who got upset that a friend of Dan's read some research and thought it supported his GGG concept. I blame the unemployment rate for providing this nimrod with so much free time.

oh my - we've been arguing with a child ... or a lazy asshole ... are you too young to work, or just lazy?