Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, May 30, 2009
Life / TV "You are a piece of shit media WHORE who will do ANYTHING to get on TV and you brutally exploit the child you adopted to cash in."
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:49 AM
That's from an email I got the last time I was on the teevee and mentioned the relevant-to-the-convo fact that I was a parent. It was an unpaid teevee appearance—CNN, I think—which makes the "cashing in" charge a bit ludicrous. Making it more ludicrous is the fact that I've twice passed up the opportunity to really cash in on my family.
I was reminded of the "cash in" email this morning while reading Gail Collins' column in the NYT about “Jon & Kate Plus Eight," the reality/horror show that's drawing its bigger audiences ever as Jon & Kate's marriage teeters on the verge of collapse. "Once science made it so much easier for people to have six, seven, eight babies at a time, it seems right that the world would come up with some occupation that would allow the parents to make a living without leaving the nursery," Collins writes. The Gosselins get $50,000 per episode, a windfall that has allowed to move themselves, their kids, and TLC's camera crews into a big house on 24 acres. What the family needs most right now is privacy but the show is now their only source of income, so... it continues. "Reality shows about the day-to-day lives of any family that is not headed by an aging rock star" are one of the worst ideas of the new millennium, writes Collins.
I've been following the Jon & Kate saga via old issues of People while I get my haircut and I have to say... something petty and defensive. Twice I've been offered—twice—a "reality show" about my family life. One was for the same fee Jon & Kate are getting: 50K per episode. All we'd have to do is allow camera crews into our home, allow them to follow the kid around, allow them to follow me around at work and Terry at home. "Insanely permissive sex columnist by day," went one of the pitches, "strictly traditional dad by night." I didn't have to ask the boyfriend: I turned both offers down flat. A reality show? I wouldn't do that to my boyfriend, I wouldn't do that to our kid, I wouldn't do that to myself. And if I had been tempted by the offers—it was a lot of money—just the look on my boyfriend's face when I told him about the first offer—an offer I'd already turned down—made it clear that my saying "yes" to a reality show meant saying "hello" to his Canadian divorce lawyer.
Anyway, I do write about my life a bit—two books, some regular radio stuff—and the kid comes up. So I suppose on some level I have exploited him. But cashing in on him? I had the chance, twice, and said no. Because unlike Jon & Kate Gosselin I'm not bat & shit crazy.
2
Dan, the worst part of that show (and I recommend you watch one of the episodes when the sextups were 3-ish) is the clear impression ot me that at least two of the boys could be gay. When Colin wanted to play with his sisters stuff, Kate told him he had to play with 'boys toys' instead. And one of the others is referred to in negative terms as 'introspective' and 'the scientist' and clearly not doing the rough and tumble 'expected' boy behaviors.
While I dont think all us queerosexuals exhibited our queerness at 3 years old, I think there is a decent segment that sure as hell pings the gaydar at a young age. everyone who is reading this can probably recall someone...
I fear for these kids, all of them... but those two boys really make me worry for their future
While I dont think all us queerosexuals exhibited our queerness at 3 years old, I think there is a decent segment that sure as hell pings the gaydar at a young age. everyone who is reading this can probably recall someone...
I fear for these kids, all of them... but those two boys really make me worry for their future
3
Dan, I've gotta say, after reading all of your books and following your column for years, that you'd be _terrible_ reality show material. Other than the fact that you're gay, proud of it, well-spoken, literate, well matched with your mate and child, etc., there isn't anything really interesting about your life. Where's the relatives that hate your hubby? Where are the co-worker harpies that want to seduce you? Where is the societal disapproval and prurient interest in how you could possibly live the life you have?
I don't see it. And that is just another piece of evidence that, as you say, we're winning.
I don't see it. And that is just another piece of evidence that, as you say, we're winning.
4
What would be really funny is if you did one of those "wife swap" shows where you or Terry gets switched into the home of some super religious family or something and the wife gets switched to yours for like two weeks or whatever it is.
Well, maybe it wouldn't be funny for you guys. But I'd pay to see it.
Well, maybe it wouldn't be funny for you guys. But I'd pay to see it.
5
This family looks like a total nightmare. Having a million kids doesn't make you interesting. Quite the opposite, actually.
If they had the kids' best interests at heart, they would never let them be on a "reality" show.
If they had the kids' best interests at heart, they would never let them be on a "reality" show.
6
There is nothing wrong with you mentioning your son. It sounds to me the person who wrote the comment was just being a homophobic jerk. You almost can't think of any hetrosexual parent who hasn't mentioned their child, so why should you not. You keep doing what your doing Dan.
7
But about the comment about one of the Goslin 6 being gay, there being a television show wouldn't change how Kate acts. Also many parents don't do the boys play with cars and girls with dalls thing on purpose. I think your taking to much out of the situation.
8
I would have loved having you as a father: bright, funny, successful.
What I want to know is - what kind of fucked-up, lost-in-the-19th-Century mentality gets a kick out of watching breeders who can't quit? When did we start celebrating large families again?
What I want to know is - what kind of fucked-up, lost-in-the-19th-Century mentality gets a kick out of watching breeders who can't quit? When did we start celebrating large families again?
9
Although I'd seen their names around a bit, I had no fucking idea who Jon and Kate were until I read this post. I'm not sure that my cultural literacy is considerably expanded by the information, but at least I can sleep easier tonight.
10
How is it that Dan is "well matched" with his partner if he has to continually and permissively go outside the relationship to find sexual gratification? (3)?
I don't think that's a match at all.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
"monogamy?... I don't believe it's right for me"
I don't think that's a match at all.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
"monogamy?... I don't believe it's right for me"
11
I've been a regular Stranger reader since it was first published, been a Slogger pretty much from day one, and have read all of your books.
While you are quite open about your advice and opinions (even when you're wrong), I'd say you show remarkable restraint in sharing private details about Terry and DJ. I've met you periodically at events around town, but I've never seen Terry or the DJ at any of them. Other than their names, I know almost nothing about Terry or DJ. I feel like I know more about your dog. You've posted pics of the backs of their heads a couple of times, but I have no idea what either of them looks like (although I'll assume from your mustache tirade that Terry is usually clean shaven). Overall, you seem to do a pretty good job keeping Terry and DJ's private lives separate from your very public life.
The claims that you cash in on their private lives is ludicrous, and the rantings of angry people you've pissed off with your opinions.
While you are quite open about your advice and opinions (even when you're wrong), I'd say you show remarkable restraint in sharing private details about Terry and DJ. I've met you periodically at events around town, but I've never seen Terry or the DJ at any of them. Other than their names, I know almost nothing about Terry or DJ. I feel like I know more about your dog. You've posted pics of the backs of their heads a couple of times, but I have no idea what either of them looks like (although I'll assume from your mustache tirade that Terry is usually clean shaven). Overall, you seem to do a pretty good job keeping Terry and DJ's private lives separate from your very public life.
The claims that you cash in on their private lives is ludicrous, and the rantings of angry people you've pissed off with your opinions.
12
Good choice, Dan. Remember the Loud family? That one ended in divorce, too. And The Farmer's Wife. Nobody could pay me enough to let cameras into my life.
13
In other news, the Octomom just inked a reality-show deal:
http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/Octo-Mo…
http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/Octo-Mo…
14
Dan,
Sorry, you are guilty as charged. Comparing yourself to an extreme example of child exploitation doesn't get you off the hook that you routinely detail stuff about a minor to fill you columns and elevate yourself.
The bigger question is whether the unnamed one will every get to write about his dad as a sex columnist and giggling publicist of a porno fest. You better hope he takes up anything but writing because if he brings your attitude towards journalism, everyone's a jackass and everything's a joke. So go lick a door knob.
Prefers the Weekly
Sorry, you are guilty as charged. Comparing yourself to an extreme example of child exploitation doesn't get you off the hook that you routinely detail stuff about a minor to fill you columns and elevate yourself.
The bigger question is whether the unnamed one will every get to write about his dad as a sex columnist and giggling publicist of a porno fest. You better hope he takes up anything but writing because if he brings your attitude towards journalism, everyone's a jackass and everything's a joke. So go lick a door knob.
Prefers the Weekly
15
I am under the impression Dad is very strict and a very middle class mainstream guy as a Dad.
Just my impression, but, I had a very open laid back family, worked fine, and so I get a bit troubled when I think there are lot of silly rules and the old kids as suitcases authority games from and mom or dad.
After years at in, Dan gives god sex advice. His relationship advice is akin to gay men cruising bars - as he often says just throw him back and go get another.
A reality show might work IF it included several dozen in and out people who are getting fucked as the added value cock to the relationship. The public would be shocked, fags and older single women would get into it greatly.
Sex and Dan, with tons of raunch and men - or - THE OPEN QUEER, RELATIONSHIP.
Just my impression, but, I had a very open laid back family, worked fine, and so I get a bit troubled when I think there are lot of silly rules and the old kids as suitcases authority games from and mom or dad.
After years at in, Dan gives god sex advice. His relationship advice is akin to gay men cruising bars - as he often says just throw him back and go get another.
A reality show might work IF it included several dozen in and out people who are getting fucked as the added value cock to the relationship. The public would be shocked, fags and older single women would get into it greatly.
Sex and Dan, with tons of raunch and men - or - THE OPEN QUEER, RELATIONSHIP.
16
Personally, I'd much prefer to see a slightly fictionalized version of your family in a Broadway musical anyway. It won't make you much money, but it will be a zillion times gayer and a zillion times more entertaining (if and when)--no offense intended re: the scintillating prospect of watching you make cookies, read emails, draft blog postings, taunt the tech-savvy at risk youth and be eye-rolled by your kid.
17
@10 That sounds like a perfect match to me - if that's what both partners want, they're on the same page about it, and they're safe and honest about their practices. All of which are true for Dan and his partner, from what we've heard.
Remember, YOUR rules are not what applies to another couple when it comes to issues of open and closed relationships. What works is what works for THEM. And that applies equally whether the couple is gay, straight, what have you.
Remember, YOUR rules are not what applies to another couple when it comes to issues of open and closed relationships. What works is what works for THEM. And that applies equally whether the couple is gay, straight, what have you.
18
@2 Seriously? You read all of that from a 3 year old? Plenty of mother and fathers do the "boys don't play with dolls" thing. If the kid is gay, playing with GI Joe ain't gonna stop it.
19
I was thinking the same thing as #11. I don't even know what Terry looks like, and only have an impression of what he acts like from little mentions in the column, the slog, and from reading The Kid. Dan's always kept a healthy separation between his public and private lives.
Though I would totally watch the Dan Savage reality show. Jes sayin'.
Though I would totally watch the Dan Savage reality show. Jes sayin'.
20
I've got to say, when this show first came about I didn't think it was a horrible idea. I'm not really into that sorta tv, but there does seem to be an audience for it and the impression I always had was that the show was mostly about the whole "Damn, 8 f'ing kids under six! How the hell do you deal with that on a regular basis?" thing and that in and of itself isn't a bad thing. Especially when you consider the answer to that question is in part "you have a reality show so you can afford to raise them". These were not people like Octomom who were just addicted to having kids, they had twin daughters and wanted one or maybe two more. The fact the six embryos took and that they decided they could not in their hearts selectively reduce doesn't make them bad people or insane. The situation as it stands now is not good and J&K are being irresponsible and exploitive if they don't decide that they need to end the show to save their family. Plus, at $50,000 an ep. they should already have more than enough saved...
21
17 - What Dan has isn't a partner, it's a best friend.
His son will learn that daddy and daddy slept around with other men and he will resent them for it.
Imagine finding out that your mom and dad had an open relationship all the while. Would you be down? No, you would think it is nasty, and it would call into question your parents love for eachother.
They aren't my rules. They are rules of love and decency.
You kid is going to think/confirm that his dads are sluts when he learns about this, and he will be right.
I kinda pity him.
His son will learn that daddy and daddy slept around with other men and he will resent them for it.
Imagine finding out that your mom and dad had an open relationship all the while. Would you be down? No, you would think it is nasty, and it would call into question your parents love for eachother.
They aren't my rules. They are rules of love and decency.
You kid is going to think/confirm that his dads are sluts when he learns about this, and he will be right.
I kinda pity him.
22
A relationship can be open just a crack or it can be open like the Great Plains. Anyone who thinks that my life is an endless parade of new partners is nuts. Even if I were interested in bedding hundreds of men -- and I'm not -- just logistically that degree of foolin' around would be an impossibility. And if I were out there cutting a swath through town... wouldn't everyone know someone -- or two or three someones -- that I'd done? Where are all of my alleged tricks? Under the floorboards?
When a straight couple admits to a degree of openness no one presumes that they're engaged in 1970s-style, Mineshaft-era, cast-of-thousands promiscuity. A gay couple that's honest about a small degree of openness is automatically rounded up to thousands-of-partners per year. It's BS.
For the record: 99.99% of the sex that I have is with Terry and vice-versa. And it's awesome, not lacking in any way.
Eat your heart out, StillNon.
23
You're projecting, Dan. I mocked you as being a slut because you can't keep it with one man nor can you keep quiet about not being able to keep it with one man.
He'll learn about it, and time will tell how that affects you. You and Terry might agree on the terms of your relationship, but how about your child?
Your defensiveness confirms my point. Maybe it's sinking in that he won't always be ignorant to the lives of his guardians.
He'll learn about it, and time will tell how that affects you. You and Terry might agree on the terms of your relationship, but how about your child?
Your defensiveness confirms my point. Maybe it's sinking in that he won't always be ignorant to the lives of his guardians.
24
My wife is my best friend, we sleep together, and sometimes we sleep with other people. If my kids find out about this in the future, who cares? I'm going to do my best to raise them as open minded, and understanding individuals. I hope they will understand that conforming to societies biases is not the only way to make decisions, and that diversity in all things is to be treasured.
25
@21: I'd be upset knowing anything about my mom and dad's sex life, honestly, but open-ness wouldn't be more traumatizing than anything else. Some things I don't need to hear about.
26
StillNon, you are such a boring twat. My parents had an open relationship when I was in my teens. It made no difference to me. They are still happily married. Fuck you.
27
StillNon,
What happened, did you get turned down by Dan because you looked too much like Limbaugh's ingrown asshair?
And it wouldn't matter if a relationship is open or not, single parent, or group - NO kid wants to think of their parents engaging in ANY KIND OF SEXUAL RELATIONS. Remember when some kid on the playground told you that the stork didn't bring you, that you probably went 'Not true! my parents never did icky things!'
I know I was a little squicked when I accidentally found my mother's porn when she sent me to find a specific credit card (to her credit, she forgot she put it in THAT drawer), and I was an adult.
What happened, did you get turned down by Dan because you looked too much like Limbaugh's ingrown asshair?
And it wouldn't matter if a relationship is open or not, single parent, or group - NO kid wants to think of their parents engaging in ANY KIND OF SEXUAL RELATIONS. Remember when some kid on the playground told you that the stork didn't bring you, that you probably went 'Not true! my parents never did icky things!'
I know I was a little squicked when I accidentally found my mother's porn when she sent me to find a specific credit card (to her credit, she forgot she put it in THAT drawer), and I was an adult.
28
StillNon, Dan certainly doesn't need defending....but your entire argument is based on the assumption that the Kid will be raised with the same kind of shame that you have and the same kind of world view about relationships that you have. While your frame of reference may be common to many, I feel you are mistaken in assuming it is so widespread that it will necessarily result in the Kid being damaged in some way.
I have little doubt he has grown up secure in the knowledge that his parents love him and one another and are always there for him. He's getting as good a view of what commitment and love mean as anyone else, as far as we can tell.
I have little doubt he has grown up secure in the knowledge that his parents love him and one another and are always there for him. He's getting as good a view of what commitment and love mean as anyone else, as far as we can tell.
32
I'm not defending Dan (I disagree with some of his remarks but that's not here and there), but it ticks me off to see someone who presumes they can be better parents then the parents, or tell them how to raise their kids.
And I honestly didn't see until now about that his own relationship is open, so I'm pretty damn sure that he's being just as discreet about it in the home.
And I honestly didn't see until now about that his own relationship is open, so I'm pretty damn sure that he's being just as discreet about it in the home.
33
@30: Aren't we whores in some fashion or another? Media Whores, Attention Whores, Gaming Whores, Trolling Whores :D?
34
28: what shame do you think that I have?
I'm all about "to each his/her own". Do whatever you want, who cares.
But for Dan to feign fatherly righteousness because he didn't do a reality show, yet still maintains behaviors like sleeping with other men then BLOGGING ABOUT IT AND WRITING ABOUT IT, give me a fucking breeeeeeeeeeak.
I'm not going to try to shout down the sexual progressives. What I will do is point out that everything that has been written by Dan, will be written by Dan, and is currently being written by Dan, is within the domain of typing his name into Google and pressing enter.
So, Dan, you "wouldn't do that to [your] kid", huh? But you will leave him with a legacy of writings about sex? I refer back to Shini's point at 27: NO kid wants to think of their parents engaging in ANY KIND OF SEXUAL RELATIONS.
When the Kid realizes this and begins his quest to read everything....................just.....wow.
Glad I'm not him. And that's just me.
I'm all about "to each his/her own". Do whatever you want, who cares.
But for Dan to feign fatherly righteousness because he didn't do a reality show, yet still maintains behaviors like sleeping with other men then BLOGGING ABOUT IT AND WRITING ABOUT IT, give me a fucking breeeeeeeeeeak.
I'm not going to try to shout down the sexual progressives. What I will do is point out that everything that has been written by Dan, will be written by Dan, and is currently being written by Dan, is within the domain of typing his name into Google and pressing enter.
So, Dan, you "wouldn't do that to [your] kid", huh? But you will leave him with a legacy of writings about sex? I refer back to Shini's point at 27: NO kid wants to think of their parents engaging in ANY KIND OF SEXUAL RELATIONS.
When the Kid realizes this and begins his quest to read everything....................just.....wow.
Glad I'm not him. And that's just me.
35
What #1 and your other supporters say. As usual your critics are meanies, dummies and bullies. #21 in particular, what a know it all. "They aren't my rules. They are rules of love and decency." Thanks Captain Fact for your informative truth-filled facts. Did you learn these facts in a university or are you a self-taught factwad?
36
I think you should hire some circus freaks to act as your family. Sonny is lobster boy. Boyfriend is bearded lady. In-laws eat fire and twist into knots. You all run a restaurant under a barber shop where you serve meat pies.
37
Hey Dan
What about how you exploit your siblings, your great-grandparents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, old friends, neighbors and everyone else you write about? Shit.
What about how you exploit your siblings, your great-grandparents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, old friends, neighbors and everyone else you write about? Shit.
38
The 'rules' of love and decency have proven to be some of the most variable, most flexible, 'rules' imaginable throughout human history. Pick up a book exploring the family model as expressed in different (perhaps even, GASP, non Judeo-Christian) cultures.
And moreover, is every single parent who dates a ‘slut’ worthy of their children’s contempt and your self righteously endowed pity? The only way Dan’s adult sex life will impact his relationship with his son is if his some becomes as narrow-minded and judgmental as you.
And moreover, is every single parent who dates a ‘slut’ worthy of their children’s contempt and your self righteously endowed pity? The only way Dan’s adult sex life will impact his relationship with his son is if his some becomes as narrow-minded and judgmental as you.
39
I'm trying to honestly assess how I would feel if I found out my parents had an open relationship. I think that I found out that one of them had an affair, I would be traumatized, but, if an open relationship is what works for them, then fine. Maybe I would be a traumatized if they were the 100s of partners kind of open, but normal, every once in a while open-ness wouldn't bother me, I don't think...
Anyways, I've been reading Dan's columns for a long time now and Slog for a year or two. Though I haven't read his books, the sum total of what I know about his son is that his name is DJ and he likes snowboarding. And he's maybe around 10-ish (though I'm a little fuzzy on that). As writers/columnists go, that's literally almost nothing (I'm thinking of Dave Barry, for example).
Anyways, I've been reading Dan's columns for a long time now and Slog for a year or two. Though I haven't read his books, the sum total of what I know about his son is that his name is DJ and he likes snowboarding. And he's maybe around 10-ish (though I'm a little fuzzy on that). As writers/columnists go, that's literally almost nothing (I'm thinking of Dave Barry, for example).
40
Oh and for the record: Not wanting to think about your parents having (with each other or with others, or with each other and others, with leather, or whatever) is perfectly normal. Not acknowledging that your parents had sex, have sex, and are human/sexual beings is pathological. Seek therapy
41
#2 - Little boys play with "girls' toys" and vice versa because they haven't yet learned dumb traditional rules about strict gender roles. It has nothing to do with being gay. Neither does not being "rough and tumble" - gay boys have slightly more testosterone and aggression than hetrero boys. It's only when gay girls and boys grow older that some start identifying with traditionally gay activities (theater, etc),
If a little girl or boy does strongly resist their assigned gender role, it's that their gender biologically doesn't match the one being assigned to them. It has nothing to do with being gay.
If a little girl or boy does strongly resist their assigned gender role, it's that their gender biologically doesn't match the one being assigned to them. It has nothing to do with being gay.
42
Having read Dan's books, columns, comments, and listening to his podcasts and interviews, I am always impressed at and admire his ability to balance his professional live which is quite public and the private lives of both his immediate and extended family.
Anyone who has read or listened to the body of Dan's work would know that the accusations made by the writer of the titular email as well as those made by posters like StillNon and others are based on projections, assumptions, and biases that they have about Dan. Resulting in them extracting their own interpretation to statements that Dan may have made on Slog, in the press, in SL, or in his books.
Dan has been very protective of the privacy of Terry and DJ.
And as for being a "media whore" - I'm sure that Dan turns down more offers than he accepts.
Anyone who has read or listened to the body of Dan's work would know that the accusations made by the writer of the titular email as well as those made by posters like StillNon and others are based on projections, assumptions, and biases that they have about Dan. Resulting in them extracting their own interpretation to statements that Dan may have made on Slog, in the press, in SL, or in his books.
Dan has been very protective of the privacy of Terry and DJ.
And as for being a "media whore" - I'm sure that Dan turns down more offers than he accepts.
43
When I read the title I thought it was going to be another article about Jenny McCarthy and her vaccine = autism crap.
44
@36
YES! That would be the best reality show ever!
Incidentally, so far I've only read the book about events leading to the Great Canada Elope, and Dan's family seems a LOT more functional than even mine. And mine's full of righteous right-wing heterosexuals in monogamous relationships. And one bisexual sister, but she and I never did fit in. :P
I found out my mother was sleeping with a married man several years ago. Yes, I was freaked out, as I was still in junior high and had not yet learned to think for myself. As an adult, I understand she was lonely. She kept it discreet (only found out because my sister came home from school early one day and nearly caught them). I don't think I ever met her boyfriend. But I wasn't traumatized.
YES! That would be the best reality show ever!
Incidentally, so far I've only read the book about events leading to the Great Canada Elope, and Dan's family seems a LOT more functional than even mine. And mine's full of righteous right-wing heterosexuals in monogamous relationships. And one bisexual sister, but she and I never did fit in. :P
I found out my mother was sleeping with a married man several years ago. Yes, I was freaked out, as I was still in junior high and had not yet learned to think for myself. As an adult, I understand she was lonely. She kept it discreet (only found out because my sister came home from school early one day and nearly caught them). I don't think I ever met her boyfriend. But I wasn't traumatized.
45
I love how some people fume and emit so much bile about the fact that Dan, or anyone else, chooses to live his life according to his his own rules and standards, rather than adhere to someone else's tired old ethic.
46
Parents talk about their children once and awhile. Therefore, I don't think Dan's son is being exploited. I think he does a good job of keeping his private family life separate from his public persona.
As to the well matched/open relationship discussion. I think that isn't really any of our business. Only Dan and Terry know if they are well matched, although going on 15 years indicative that they are content and thus well matched.
As to kids and their parents sex lives. I don't think any of us initially feel comfortable knowing that our parents are sexual beings. I'm pretty convinced that my two children would like to believe that their father and I have only been intimate twice. I think children would prefer to think of their parents as asexual, and as they age they can become more comfortable about that side of their parents humanity.
I'm not buying the idea that learning your parents have an open relationship will automatically make a child think that their parents don't love one another. Especially, in regard to Dan's son. He knows that his parents are commited couple in a country that doesn't value their relationship. Their devotion to each other is evident in their daily lives, and their determination to have their family recognized as fully legitimate. I don't think I'm assuming to much to say that their son is aware of the fight for full marriage equality, as my son, who has two straight parents, and is but a few days older is aware of the situation.
As to the well matched/open relationship discussion. I think that isn't really any of our business. Only Dan and Terry know if they are well matched, although going on 15 years indicative that they are content and thus well matched.
As to kids and their parents sex lives. I don't think any of us initially feel comfortable knowing that our parents are sexual beings. I'm pretty convinced that my two children would like to believe that their father and I have only been intimate twice. I think children would prefer to think of their parents as asexual, and as they age they can become more comfortable about that side of their parents humanity.
I'm not buying the idea that learning your parents have an open relationship will automatically make a child think that their parents don't love one another. Especially, in regard to Dan's son. He knows that his parents are commited couple in a country that doesn't value their relationship. Their devotion to each other is evident in their daily lives, and their determination to have their family recognized as fully legitimate. I don't think I'm assuming to much to say that their son is aware of the fight for full marriage equality, as my son, who has two straight parents, and is but a few days older is aware of the situation.
47
HEY JIMMY! NEWS FLASH!
Dan was fuming and emitting bile about how Jon and Kate choose to live their lives "according to [their] own rules and standards, rather than adhere to someone else's tired old ethic."
Soooooo....can you expound further on your point of how Dan is a hypocrite please?
Also: Pwned.
Dan was fuming and emitting bile about how Jon and Kate choose to live their lives "according to [their] own rules and standards, rather than adhere to someone else's tired old ethic."
Soooooo....can you expound further on your point of how Dan is a hypocrite please?
Also: Pwned.
48
StillNon --
No exact parallel to anything, but I'm reminded of local family in my small town.
Mom, Dad, and four daughters under the age of ten. As happens with many marriages, the relationship went south. Dad moved out, found a girlfriend, and found an apartment in the next small town down the road.
Their arrangement was open and not discreet in the slightest, but they never divorced. As Mom put it, "We're staying together for the children."
Priceless, really.
No exact parallel to anything, but I'm reminded of local family in my small town.
Mom, Dad, and four daughters under the age of ten. As happens with many marriages, the relationship went south. Dad moved out, found a girlfriend, and found an apartment in the next small town down the road.
Their arrangement was open and not discreet in the slightest, but they never divorced. As Mom put it, "We're staying together for the children."
Priceless, really.
49
Got a newsflash for all those posting judgmental and self-righteous crap here: Dan Savage is a writer. Guess what writers do? They use their life experiences, people they know, and places they've been, and incorporate it into their writing. It doesn't matter if it is fictionalized or not, writers always "use" those they know to create their work. Do you know how FUCKING BORING all writing (books, articles, tv, movies, plays, etc.) would be if writers didn't pull from their own lives and who they are? The challenge writers face is balancing what they reveal and what they don't about their lives and the people in them, to their audience. It isn't easy, but nothing worth while ever is.
I think in Dan's case, he does it perfectly. I'd like to see how any of you who accuse Dan of "exploiting" his family would be able to write anything remotely sincere, honest, or relevant without relating it to your own life in some way. But I doubt you'll bother to try. It is so much easier to bitch about how someone else is doing something wrong than to demonstrate how you you could do it better.
I'm just glad there are so many talented writers in the world like Dan who don't let this sort of bullshit stop them from writing. Thanks Dan
I think in Dan's case, he does it perfectly. I'd like to see how any of you who accuse Dan of "exploiting" his family would be able to write anything remotely sincere, honest, or relevant without relating it to your own life in some way. But I doubt you'll bother to try. It is so much easier to bitch about how someone else is doing something wrong than to demonstrate how you you could do it better.
I'm just glad there are so many talented writers in the world like Dan who don't let this sort of bullshit stop them from writing. Thanks Dan
50
I cannot believe anybody watches that show, I watched about 5 minutes of it once before I was so stressed out I had to turn the tv off.
51
You humans and your ability to project everything evil on people you disagree with never ceases to amaze me.
52
@10:
Just for the record you boring twat, nobody cares what you think.
@26:
Thank you. From here on out, whenever I reference a comment by StillNon, I will be sure to include the phrase, "boring twat" (see above).
Just for the record you boring twat, nobody cares what you think.
@26:
Thank you. From here on out, whenever I reference a comment by StillNon, I will be sure to include the phrase, "boring twat" (see above).
53
And just so we're clear on this issue: the exploitation of children and families isn't some sort of freakishly aberrant behavior, it's a fucking American Tradition.
From politicians arranging campaign photo ops with the wife and kiddies, to stage mom's vaingloriously pushing their reluctant offspring into show business, to corporate executives parading "the trophy wife" at the company Christmas party, this nation has a long and venerable history of people shoving their spouses and progeny into the public limelight for profit and career advancement.
The truth is, couples like the Gosselins, or our beloved pink "Octomom" aren't the exceptions, they're the norm. Most people in this country would sell their parents, children, and whatever small shred of dignity they still possessed for $50,000 per episode and a chance for their 42 minutes of fame each week. Hell, screw the money, most of them would do it just to be on TV. The success of trailer-trash exploiting talk show hosts from Morton Downey, Jr. to Jerry Springer should be all the evidence one needs to come to the inescapable conclusion that, when it comes to selling out ones own for a bit of filthy lucre, nobody does it than the American Family.
In comparison, Dan is positively the model of restraint and discretion.
From politicians arranging campaign photo ops with the wife and kiddies, to stage mom's vaingloriously pushing their reluctant offspring into show business, to corporate executives parading "the trophy wife" at the company Christmas party, this nation has a long and venerable history of people shoving their spouses and progeny into the public limelight for profit and career advancement.
The truth is, couples like the Gosselins, or our beloved pink "Octomom" aren't the exceptions, they're the norm. Most people in this country would sell their parents, children, and whatever small shred of dignity they still possessed for $50,000 per episode and a chance for their 42 minutes of fame each week. Hell, screw the money, most of them would do it just to be on TV. The success of trailer-trash exploiting talk show hosts from Morton Downey, Jr. to Jerry Springer should be all the evidence one needs to come to the inescapable conclusion that, when it comes to selling out ones own for a bit of filthy lucre, nobody does it than the American Family.
In comparison, Dan is positively the model of restraint and discretion.
54
Dan, I've been reading your column for years, and you've always been pretty private about your boyfriend/husband and even more about your son.
Saying that you have a son in an interview or two--and even telling a few short anecdotes--isn't exploiting him.
Saying that you have a son in an interview or two--and even telling a few short anecdotes--isn't exploiting him.
55
Dan, you're more of a media call girl, rather than an out and out whore. Those reality TV people are more of the crack whore variety. It's all on a continuum, honey.
56
it is NOT an open relationship. that's for people who are into that polyamory shit. if you'd read "The Commitment", you boring twat, you'd know that the only time dan has sex with another man is when terry is with him. in other words, three-ways, and usually in other countries, or when the kid is visiting his grandparents in ANOTHER STATE. to me, that doesn't sound like an open relationship. it sounds like a relationship where sex with other people is only done under certain restrictive conditions.
where has he blogged about fucking other men outside his relationship? hmm? HMMM?? you got proof, you limp dick asshole?
in the end, you don't know Dan, and you never will, and THANK GOD FOR THAT.
where has he blogged about fucking other men outside his relationship? hmm? HMMM?? you got proof, you limp dick asshole?
in the end, you don't know Dan, and you never will, and THANK GOD FOR THAT.
57
Dan,
I disagree that you have at some level exploited your son, based off of what I've read or heard you say. I don't think you discuss your kid anymore than any other parent, especially those who earns a living as a writer and an advice columnist.
ex⋅ploit /ɪkˈsplɔɪt/ [ik-sploit]
–verb (used with object) 1. to utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.
2. to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers.
3. to advance or further through exploitation; promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances.
Of course, that is just my $.02.
I disagree that you have at some level exploited your son, based off of what I've read or heard you say. I don't think you discuss your kid anymore than any other parent, especially those who earns a living as a writer and an advice columnist.
ex⋅ploit /ɪkˈsplɔɪt/ [ik-sploit]
–verb (used with object) 1. to utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.
2. to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers.
3. to advance or further through exploitation; promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances.
Of course, that is just my $.02.
58
Okay, when I heard about the whole "pimp your litter out to reality TV" idea I thought "Well, what the hell is somebody with 8, 9, 10, or bazillion kids going to do to support their family" and "Well, they could be collecting welfare for their broods like other people do..." But $50,000 per episode? In a year you could make enough money to support your spawn till they were 18...if you didn't live like a rich person. Seriously, letting camera men film your litter spawn for a few hours every day when they're drooling and in diapers probably isn't going to ruin their lives...until they're teenagers and dating and all the embarrassing crap they did while potty training/learning to walk and talk pops up on re-run episodes. But seriously, who the hell thinks it's a good idea for your kids and family to be on TV all the damn time? An absolute loon and a real media whore. (I'm looking at you, Nadya Suleman!)
Dan Savage maybe relates an anecdote of his family (parents/son/Husband/siblings/aunts/uncles) every other month in a column. Big deal. So what if he has an open relationship? Other people in a closed relationship (monogamous) are open about that and nobody is shocked or traumatized. So why would it shock and traumatize anyone by saying the opposite? Because it's not the norm? Really? You think it's the norm to be in a closed relationship with the same person all the time? Really? Infidelity for straight married couples is 45-60% and divorce rates are about the same. The average number of sex partners an adult Americans has in their lifetime is 13. Oh, and do you know the percentage of straight married couples who describe their marriage as non-traditional? 45% That would indicate to me that marrying one person and only having sex with that one person for your entire adult life is certainly not normal.
More...
Dan Savage maybe relates an anecdote of his family (parents/son/Husband/siblings/aunts/uncles) every other month in a column. Big deal. So what if he has an open relationship? Other people in a closed relationship (monogamous) are open about that and nobody is shocked or traumatized. So why would it shock and traumatize anyone by saying the opposite? Because it's not the norm? Really? You think it's the norm to be in a closed relationship with the same person all the time? Really? Infidelity for straight married couples is 45-60% and divorce rates are about the same. The average number of sex partners an adult Americans has in their lifetime is 13. Oh, and do you know the percentage of straight married couples who describe their marriage as non-traditional? 45% That would indicate to me that marrying one person and only having sex with that one person for your entire adult life is certainly not normal.
59
Eh I know it's immature, and probably won't help change your mind, but fuck you, StillNon. Shut the fuck up and go away. You're such a dumbfuck hater.
Ok. Feelin good. Got it out of my system.
Ok. Feelin good. Got it out of my system.
60
congratulations on resisting the easy fame and money of reality shows. those do seem several degrees worse than books, stories for beloved public radio programs, and off-broadway musical adaptations about your family.
62
Scary Tyler Moore @ 56: FTW.
Very well put. Nice to see that there are more than a few of us who read Dan and actually pay attention to what he's saying.
Also I very much agree with your assessment of his detractors.
Very well put. Nice to see that there are more than a few of us who read Dan and actually pay attention to what he's saying.
Also I very much agree with your assessment of his detractors.
63
StillNon, remember: Dan isn't teaching his kid that monogamy is the only pure, healthy, and decent way to a successful relationship. So DJ probably won't think a thing about it.
Most of us were raised to believe that open relationships--on any level--are lacking in love and doomed to failure. So of course we're going to be upset to learn that our parents weren't monogamous. We don't know any other way.
DJ won't have that baggage. He's being taught that commitment to a partnership isn't dependent on fidelity, and that non-monogamy and commitment are not mutually exclusive. Lucky kid. He'll be fine.
Most of us were raised to believe that open relationships--on any level--are lacking in love and doomed to failure. So of course we're going to be upset to learn that our parents weren't monogamous. We don't know any other way.
DJ won't have that baggage. He's being taught that commitment to a partnership isn't dependent on fidelity, and that non-monogamy and commitment are not mutually exclusive. Lucky kid. He'll be fine.
64
Humorists and comedians, which are just another form of writers, typically reference their personal lives in their crafts, and people aren't up in arms about that. The e-mail was just a hater, pure and simple.
The exploitation of reality shows is indicative of our human curiosity and social nature running amok and turning into crass voyeurism and schadenfreude. Dan was right not to take on a reality show. That would have screwed up his kid more than being raised by two dads.
I imagine that in 10 or so years when not just the +8 but all reality show kids grow up, we're going to have an epidemic of Diff'rent Strokes disasters in the vein of Dana Plato, Todd Bridges, and whatever mess Gary Coleman is into now.
The exploitation of reality shows is indicative of our human curiosity and social nature running amok and turning into crass voyeurism and schadenfreude. Dan was right not to take on a reality show. That would have screwed up his kid more than being raised by two dads.
I imagine that in 10 or so years when not just the +8 but all reality show kids grow up, we're going to have an epidemic of Diff'rent Strokes disasters in the vein of Dana Plato, Todd Bridges, and whatever mess Gary Coleman is into now.
65
Hey 47,
Don't be such a cunt.
I don't read anything in Dan's post that trashes the Gosselins or their decisions. I do think they have cashed in and exploited their kids. Dan does make the observation that things seem to be going horribly wrong for them as far as their marriage goes. But he does this solely to draw comparison so that the person who accused him of exploiting his child can see what real exploitation looks like. Maybe the Gosselins' whole agenda was to cash in, marriage be damned.
But what I really want to know is....why are you such a cunt?
Don't be such a cunt.
I don't read anything in Dan's post that trashes the Gosselins or their decisions. I do think they have cashed in and exploited their kids. Dan does make the observation that things seem to be going horribly wrong for them as far as their marriage goes. But he does this solely to draw comparison so that the person who accused him of exploiting his child can see what real exploitation looks like. Maybe the Gosselins' whole agenda was to cash in, marriage be damned.
But what I really want to know is....why are you such a cunt?
66
ALL writers exploit their family & friends to some degree. They write about their lives..their family & friends are in their lives..there ya go. I've cheerfully told my pals many times that they are grist for my mill.
When you become a parent it changes your world. You have a young life that's 100% dependent on you. Your schedule changes, your time changes, everything changes. How could you not talk about it once in awhile?
Perhaps Dan's son will resent Dan's job briefly as puberty/parental squick thoughts set in. But since his dad's job probably provides him w/ a comfy home & education, I think that period will be short-lived.
Dan might be kinda narcissistic, but again: writers are - & on the scale of media whore-dom 1- 10, w/ say Nadya Suleman at the whacko 10 end, I don't think Dan makes it even to a solid 6.
Though the idea of having a business card that reads simply:
DAN SAVAGE: MEDIA WHORE
is pretty funny.
When you become a parent it changes your world. You have a young life that's 100% dependent on you. Your schedule changes, your time changes, everything changes. How could you not talk about it once in awhile?
Perhaps Dan's son will resent Dan's job briefly as puberty/parental squick thoughts set in. But since his dad's job probably provides him w/ a comfy home & education, I think that period will be short-lived.
Dan might be kinda narcissistic, but again: writers are - & on the scale of media whore-dom 1- 10, w/ say Nadya Suleman at the whacko 10 end, I don't think Dan makes it even to a solid 6.
Though the idea of having a business card that reads simply:
DAN SAVAGE: MEDIA WHORE
is pretty funny.
67
"about how Jon and Kate choose to live their lives 'according to [their] own rules and standards, rather than adhere to someone else's tired old ethic.'"
If anyone thinks that raising kids "according to your own rules" is somehow sacred, I hope that they're sterilized, lobotomized, and never left alone with a child. Peoples' "own rules" lead to kids being prayed for while they die, rather than receiving medicine. Kids being beaten or raped. Kids being left to do whatever they want because their parents didn't count on actually having to BE parents. Or kids being recorded all day because mommy and daddy want that paycheck while their marriage implodes. There are a lot of stupid people out there, and if someone starts pretending that it's OK to victimize someone else just because they're offspring, then that parent needs to be taken out of that situation.
My first real-life experience with an "open relationship" was my in-laws (ex-in-laws? Whatever, the reason for the sarcasm quotes will be obvious in a moment to anyone who knows anything about an open relationship.). Mother, it seems, had taken a lover who had moved in with them and sired a kid with her. Dad couldn't leave her, so was forced to deal with it. And being unable to take a stand against the new man, since that might well mean she'd be leaving with him, created a situation where it was Mommy, Daddy and the other guy vs. the original 2 kids. The new guy didn't give a shit about the kids that weren't his, and since none of the 'adults' in this scenario would stand up to him that meant that to any one adult, any other adult was more important than either of the original children of the relationship. That is not hyperbole - I believe the exact words were "I chose to marry her - you just happened." I'm sure you can imagine that this didn't create a positive impression of that lifestyle for anyone involved.
That's what happens when one halfway intelligent person with no self-respect and two people without functioning brains decide they're going to live according to their own rules.
However, none of the criticism of Dan (with whom I disagree about a number of things, this article not being one of them) is well-founded. Point-by-point?
"You write about having an open relationship, so your child will hate you for it."
Hundreds of authors do that. Not everyone is a sexually-repressed prude who will forget decades of love and support 'cause their parent or parents didn't have a traditional lifestyle sexually.
"You write about sex - period - and some day your kid will find that out and hate you."
OK, now THOUSANDS of authors do that, and many more graphically than Dan (at least in the first-person). Would the kid be a little grossed-out? Quite possibly. Hate Dan for it? Only if he's got some pretty severe mental issues to start with. But those sorts of problems usually start with a ridiculously repressed upbringing, so no worries there. Might wanna watch out for yours, though.
"Kids don't wanna think about their parents having sex, but you write about it, including your own experiences, and he'll hate you for that!"
See above.
And finally, the dumbest of them all - the 'exploitation' argument:
"You've mentioned your child in the context of works that have garnered you money and/or fame - thus you're exploiting him to some degree!"
I would like you, now, to spend the rest of your lives repeating that to every writer, actor, politician, public speaker, teacher or blogger who has ever used the fact that issues that happen in their family might relate to other people - or that issues that other people are discussing might have an effect on their families personally. I doubt that would happen, though. More fun to troll blogs and then apply a standard that doesn't have anything in common with the definition of the word to annoy other people.
To exploit is: "use or manipulate to one's advantage". Getting your lesbian daughter to agree to a photo op while campaigning against gay marriage is exploitation. To mention an anecdote regarding one's family in order to segue into a topic to show that it has a personal effect on you is just a common conversational technique.
If you happen to have an IQ under 90, here's a quick way you can tell them apart. If you actually have to get someone to do something, whether or not they would personally want to, it's exploitation. If the person isn't even involved other than as a subject of conversation, it's not.
So, "mentioning you have a son, and that you think you're a good dad": not exploitation (note that the kid didn't have to do anything, it's sort of key, there, since it's impossible to use or manipulate someone who's not even freaking present)*.
Putting your kid on TV so you can make $50,000/episode: exploitation.
Getting your kids to go out and publicly apologize for you: exploitation.
Bringing your kids up on stage when you're publicly disgraced in an attempt to get sympathy: exploitation.
Are ya spotting the differences yet? Now, if Dan IS guilty of exploitation (which isn't impossible, I'm open to that) then unlike what anyone's said here, it's quite possibly part of the most cunning, long-ranged and diabolical plan EVER - to exploit not the child (which is pretty much impossible, as pointed out above), but to exploit the entire system that allows for homosexual couples to adopt. The plot involving adopting a child, refusing to either put him out in public just to show off or force him to perform like a trained seal, and then BY BEING GOOD FATHERS, point out how much better they were than some heterosexuals.
And no doubt when the kid is older, we'll all applaud the foresight of those who called it when the kid rebels, saying, "Curse you for being kind, loving and supportive of me, for not using me for your own gain when you had the chance and for letting me grow up in a nurturing environment where I could become the person I was truly meant to be! It was all part of your elaborate gay charade; you kept me from becoming a repressed, small-minded, bigoted, superficial, celebrity-worshiping moron by giving me real adults, real parents to aspire to, to admire and emulate, rather than famous faces on TV and in the movies! And all so that you could point out that you were such great fathers - not by actually trotting me out like a show dog so you could let everyone see, but by doing the exact opposite. I'll show you, dad(s)!"
SO DEVIOUS! To have exploited the entire system of adoption by being great parents! What right have they?!
Yes, when that day comes, you all can say, "Ha, ha! I knew it!" but until then, all you've got are incredibly stupid premises for incredibly stupid arguments.
. . .
Oh, wait! No, I get it. How obtuse of me! It's a code, right? He's 'exploiting' the child, because he's gay . . . but when Nancy Grace can't shut the fuck up about her kids while trying to incite her followers into a frenzy about killing someone who hasn't even been on trial yet (that's about 90% of her episodes, isn't it?) - that's just so we know where she's coming from, right? OK, OK, I got it now. Duh! Gosh, sorry. I missed the memo on "that's how we're going to mask our homophobia TODAY." Sorry, my bad.
* Lest someone pull the stupidest argument of all out "To exploit is to use or manipulate? Well, there you are, then! He IS using the child - as an example of the adopted children of homosexuals! That's using him!" the definition of 'use' in that context is: "exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage". Again, impossible to 'exploit' someone who isn't even a party to the exploitation.
More...
If anyone thinks that raising kids "according to your own rules" is somehow sacred, I hope that they're sterilized, lobotomized, and never left alone with a child. Peoples' "own rules" lead to kids being prayed for while they die, rather than receiving medicine. Kids being beaten or raped. Kids being left to do whatever they want because their parents didn't count on actually having to BE parents. Or kids being recorded all day because mommy and daddy want that paycheck while their marriage implodes. There are a lot of stupid people out there, and if someone starts pretending that it's OK to victimize someone else just because they're offspring, then that parent needs to be taken out of that situation.
My first real-life experience with an "open relationship" was my in-laws (ex-in-laws? Whatever, the reason for the sarcasm quotes will be obvious in a moment to anyone who knows anything about an open relationship.). Mother, it seems, had taken a lover who had moved in with them and sired a kid with her. Dad couldn't leave her, so was forced to deal with it. And being unable to take a stand against the new man, since that might well mean she'd be leaving with him, created a situation where it was Mommy, Daddy and the other guy vs. the original 2 kids. The new guy didn't give a shit about the kids that weren't his, and since none of the 'adults' in this scenario would stand up to him that meant that to any one adult, any other adult was more important than either of the original children of the relationship. That is not hyperbole - I believe the exact words were "I chose to marry her - you just happened." I'm sure you can imagine that this didn't create a positive impression of that lifestyle for anyone involved.
That's what happens when one halfway intelligent person with no self-respect and two people without functioning brains decide they're going to live according to their own rules.
However, none of the criticism of Dan (with whom I disagree about a number of things, this article not being one of them) is well-founded. Point-by-point?
"You write about having an open relationship, so your child will hate you for it."
Hundreds of authors do that. Not everyone is a sexually-repressed prude who will forget decades of love and support 'cause their parent or parents didn't have a traditional lifestyle sexually.
"You write about sex - period - and some day your kid will find that out and hate you."
OK, now THOUSANDS of authors do that, and many more graphically than Dan (at least in the first-person). Would the kid be a little grossed-out? Quite possibly. Hate Dan for it? Only if he's got some pretty severe mental issues to start with. But those sorts of problems usually start with a ridiculously repressed upbringing, so no worries there. Might wanna watch out for yours, though.
"Kids don't wanna think about their parents having sex, but you write about it, including your own experiences, and he'll hate you for that!"
See above.
And finally, the dumbest of them all - the 'exploitation' argument:
"You've mentioned your child in the context of works that have garnered you money and/or fame - thus you're exploiting him to some degree!"
I would like you, now, to spend the rest of your lives repeating that to every writer, actor, politician, public speaker, teacher or blogger who has ever used the fact that issues that happen in their family might relate to other people - or that issues that other people are discussing might have an effect on their families personally. I doubt that would happen, though. More fun to troll blogs and then apply a standard that doesn't have anything in common with the definition of the word to annoy other people.
To exploit is: "use or manipulate to one's advantage". Getting your lesbian daughter to agree to a photo op while campaigning against gay marriage is exploitation. To mention an anecdote regarding one's family in order to segue into a topic to show that it has a personal effect on you is just a common conversational technique.
If you happen to have an IQ under 90, here's a quick way you can tell them apart. If you actually have to get someone to do something, whether or not they would personally want to, it's exploitation. If the person isn't even involved other than as a subject of conversation, it's not.
So, "mentioning you have a son, and that you think you're a good dad": not exploitation (note that the kid didn't have to do anything, it's sort of key, there, since it's impossible to use or manipulate someone who's not even freaking present)*.
Putting your kid on TV so you can make $50,000/episode: exploitation.
Getting your kids to go out and publicly apologize for you: exploitation.
Bringing your kids up on stage when you're publicly disgraced in an attempt to get sympathy: exploitation.
Are ya spotting the differences yet? Now, if Dan IS guilty of exploitation (which isn't impossible, I'm open to that) then unlike what anyone's said here, it's quite possibly part of the most cunning, long-ranged and diabolical plan EVER - to exploit not the child (which is pretty much impossible, as pointed out above), but to exploit the entire system that allows for homosexual couples to adopt. The plot involving adopting a child, refusing to either put him out in public just to show off or force him to perform like a trained seal, and then BY BEING GOOD FATHERS, point out how much better they were than some heterosexuals.
And no doubt when the kid is older, we'll all applaud the foresight of those who called it when the kid rebels, saying, "Curse you for being kind, loving and supportive of me, for not using me for your own gain when you had the chance and for letting me grow up in a nurturing environment where I could become the person I was truly meant to be! It was all part of your elaborate gay charade; you kept me from becoming a repressed, small-minded, bigoted, superficial, celebrity-worshiping moron by giving me real adults, real parents to aspire to, to admire and emulate, rather than famous faces on TV and in the movies! And all so that you could point out that you were such great fathers - not by actually trotting me out like a show dog so you could let everyone see, but by doing the exact opposite. I'll show you, dad(s)!"
SO DEVIOUS! To have exploited the entire system of adoption by being great parents! What right have they?!
Yes, when that day comes, you all can say, "Ha, ha! I knew it!" but until then, all you've got are incredibly stupid premises for incredibly stupid arguments.
. . .
Oh, wait! No, I get it. How obtuse of me! It's a code, right? He's 'exploiting' the child, because he's gay . . . but when Nancy Grace can't shut the fuck up about her kids while trying to incite her followers into a frenzy about killing someone who hasn't even been on trial yet (that's about 90% of her episodes, isn't it?) - that's just so we know where she's coming from, right? OK, OK, I got it now. Duh! Gosh, sorry. I missed the memo on "that's how we're going to mask our homophobia TODAY." Sorry, my bad.
* Lest someone pull the stupidest argument of all out "To exploit is to use or manipulate? Well, there you are, then! He IS using the child - as an example of the adopted children of homosexuals! That's using him!" the definition of 'use' in that context is: "exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage". Again, impossible to 'exploit' someone who isn't even a party to the exploitation.
68
StillNon: My parents were sexually adventurous, and kept it somewhat discreet—there's only so much you can hide from children; kids are much savvier and wiser than adults usually think—while also raising me to respect myself and my body. I was embarrassed when I snooped in their bedroom and found some small toys, but even at 8 or 9 knew that was my own fucking fault for being a snoop.
My point is that if you raise your kids to not feel shame about sexuality, they're not going to freak out when they find out that their parents are sexual people, with their own unique sexual preferences. Sure, I don't LOVE thinking about my parents as sexual beings, but christ, I'd be an ass if I tried to pretend they aren't and then get angry when I found out they had beyond-vanilla sex. Even as a young kid I had the sense to understand that much, and as an adult that concept is beyond obvious.
Judging peoples private lives (beyond murder, rape, etc) is an act of self-loathing, and no happiness will come of it. I respect that Dan is honest about who he is and what he belives. Beyond the doorknobs incident, I think he's been an honest and upfront writer and activist. He has an articulate, interesting and unique point of view; he should be making money off of it!
My point is that if you raise your kids to not feel shame about sexuality, they're not going to freak out when they find out that their parents are sexual people, with their own unique sexual preferences. Sure, I don't LOVE thinking about my parents as sexual beings, but christ, I'd be an ass if I tried to pretend they aren't and then get angry when I found out they had beyond-vanilla sex. Even as a young kid I had the sense to understand that much, and as an adult that concept is beyond obvious.
Judging peoples private lives (beyond murder, rape, etc) is an act of self-loathing, and no happiness will come of it. I respect that Dan is honest about who he is and what he belives. Beyond the doorknobs incident, I think he's been an honest and upfront writer and activist. He has an articulate, interesting and unique point of view; he should be making money off of it!
69
from Steven Blum's blog:
The season concludes with "The Kid," a musical based on Dan Savage's book "The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant," with book by Michael Zam, music by Andy Monroe and lyrics by Jack Lechner. New Group Artistic Director Scott Elliott directs this world premiere. The authors were honored with the 2009 BMI Foundation Jerry Bock Award for Best New Musical. This marks The New Group's return to musical theatre after producing "Avenue Q," which received the Tony Award for Best New Musical in 2004.
70
Honestly, there is nothing wrong about sharing life stories--it's all about the touch you bring to the telling. Throughout history we've learned a lot from writers bringing real and different perspectives to the public because they have shared some aspects of their lives. It's how we learn and empathize and understand others. It's one way through which we learn to put ourselves in another's shoes. You can't compare that to the reality show, where the entertainment is in the hurt and embarrassment and ackwardness of the participants. There may even be some thoughtful ways some reality show might be constructed that is about learning rather than only about cheap entertainment -- documentaries do that--but for the most part they are nothing at all comparable to what Dan does. I love that Dan has shared some aspects of his family life. His book, The Commitment, changed minds of some people I know. A funny book, but his family wasn't played just for laughs. Nothing was done at their expense
So yeah, what others have said. THe haters are afraid of you, Dan. There isn't any comparison. People love to bring up what is the same about two things, but you have to also bring up what is different.
What you write is thoughtful and obviously your family concerns are first. I'm glad you are out in the media. We don't require straight people to shut up about their families or criticize them for their jobs as public personas.
All that is pretty obvious I would think.
So yeah, what others have said. THe haters are afraid of you, Dan. There isn't any comparison. People love to bring up what is the same about two things, but you have to also bring up what is different.
What you write is thoughtful and obviously your family concerns are first. I'm glad you are out in the media. We don't require straight people to shut up about their families or criticize them for their jobs as public personas.
All that is pretty obvious I would think.
72
StillNon: My parents split up when I was fourteen. I don't know to this day whether either was unfaithful to the other (it didn't come up during the divorce proceedings) but I saw them say and do things to each other that were far worse. And my mother is more than happy to tell me stories that date back to before I was born. (My father, to his credit, has never returned the favor).
Part of maturity is being able to love one's parents even though they aren't perfect. I can at age 47 forgive my parents for the mistakes they made with each other and with me and my siblings--something I couldn't do when I was, say, 22. Dan's son will no doubt go through a time in his late adolescence when he won't listen to a single thing either of his parents say to him. It would be unusual for anyone that age to do otherwise. But my guess is he will grow out of it. I don't think he will be permanently damaged at the thought that his parents weren't 100% monogamous.
Part of maturity is being able to love one's parents even though they aren't perfect. I can at age 47 forgive my parents for the mistakes they made with each other and with me and my siblings--something I couldn't do when I was, say, 22. Dan's son will no doubt go through a time in his late adolescence when he won't listen to a single thing either of his parents say to him. It would be unusual for anyone that age to do otherwise. But my guess is he will grow out of it. I don't think he will be permanently damaged at the thought that his parents weren't 100% monogamous.
73
Dan,
thank you for posting about this mean fictitious straw-man emailer and giving us a chance to reaffirm our Ass-Kissing Worship...
thank you for posting about this mean fictitious straw-man emailer and giving us a chance to reaffirm our Ass-Kissing Worship...
74
34:
You guys know why he calls himself StillNon, right?
Well...
...it's because he likes to write aNONymous letters. To Dan, in Slog comments, to about a dozen capitol hill bars...
... oops. We weren't supposed to figure that out, right?
You guys know why he calls himself StillNon, right?
Well...
...it's because he likes to write aNONymous letters. To Dan, in Slog comments, to about a dozen capitol hill bars...
... oops. We weren't supposed to figure that out, right?
75
69 That pretty much wipes Mr Savage's defenssive comment at 22.
It's not really Mr Savage's nor the other surrogate's fault, I don't believe that they or others like them intend to harm these kids. Blame needs to be placed on the agencies and laissez faire state laws the don't take into account first the pros - cons that allowing gays to adopt have, (same with reproductive technological aid). The unique intricacies that the gay lifestyle has need to be inspected more closely before they make such decisions. As you indirectly stated those agencies and states Would do well in seeing ahead into the future to how those kids are going to feel and look at the way they were brought up once they become adults.
It's not really Mr Savage's nor the other surrogate's fault, I don't believe that they or others like them intend to harm these kids. Blame needs to be placed on the agencies and laissez faire state laws the don't take into account first the pros - cons that allowing gays to adopt have, (same with reproductive technological aid). The unique intricacies that the gay lifestyle has need to be inspected more closely before they make such decisions. As you indirectly stated those agencies and states Would do well in seeing ahead into the future to how those kids are going to feel and look at the way they were brought up once they become adults.
76
11, 42 & 54 - I agree with you all 100%. I still need to read Dan's books though.
14 - You're wrong. Dan has maintained a respectful separation between his private and professional life and regular readers like myself who aren't nosy can appreciate that.
21 - I guess you didn't consider the slight possibility that Dan is waiting until his son becomes the proper age to reveal details of him and his husband's sex lives that could POSSIBLY make his son feel uncomfortable if he's confronted on it or reads about it publicly. 90% of Dan's advice is rooted in common sense - I don't realistically expect that the upbringing of his child is any different.
68 - Your point (in your 2nd paragraph) is 100% spot on. Dan's child is the direct product of his husband, who loves Dan, so I think it's fair to assume that IF the openness is ever discussed with their son, he will understand - especially if they're still together after their son leaves the nest.
14 - You're wrong. Dan has maintained a respectful separation between his private and professional life and regular readers like myself who aren't nosy can appreciate that.
21 - I guess you didn't consider the slight possibility that Dan is waiting until his son becomes the proper age to reveal details of him and his husband's sex lives that could POSSIBLY make his son feel uncomfortable if he's confronted on it or reads about it publicly. 90% of Dan's advice is rooted in common sense - I don't realistically expect that the upbringing of his child is any different.
68 - Your point (in your 2nd paragraph) is 100% spot on. Dan's child is the direct product of his husband, who loves Dan, so I think it's fair to assume that IF the openness is ever discussed with their son, he will understand - especially if they're still together after their son leaves the nest.
77
@75:
I don't get what you think your point is.
Probably, some kids raised by gay couples will turn out fucked up. As it happens, we already know that some kids raised by straight couples will turn out fucked up.
What more than that is your theoretical witch hunt inspection going to discover?
I don't get what you think your point is.
Probably, some kids raised by gay couples will turn out fucked up. As it happens, we already know that some kids raised by straight couples will turn out fucked up.
What more than that is your theoretical witch hunt inspection going to discover?
78
75
I don't get your point either.
What agencies are you talking about? Your words: "As you indirectly stated those agencies and states Would do well in seeing ahead into the future to how those kids are going to feel and look at the way they were brought up once they become adults"
It wouldn't be those esteemed academic journels such as Pediatrics or Child Development. They're in agreement that children raised by gay couples grow up to happy, well adjusted adults just like their peers raised by heterosexual couples.
Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025 -1042.
Reviews research on the personal and social development of children of gay or lesbian parents (CGLP). Beginning with estimates of the numbers of such children, sociocultural, theoretical, and legal reasons for attention to their development are then outlined. In this context, studies on sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships among these children are reviewed. Evidence does not show that the development of CGLP is compromised significantly relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in comparable situations. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052- 1069.
Presents an overview of research on the family lives of lesbians and gay men. It is noted that the family lives of lesbian and gay people have been a source of controversy during the past decade. Despite prejudice and discrimination, lesbians and gay men have often succeeded in creating and sustaining family relationships. Research on same-gender couple relationships, parent-child relationships, and other family relationships are reviewed here. In general, the picture of lesbian and gay relationships emerging from this body of work is one of positive adjustment, even in the face of stressful conditions. Research is also beginning to address questions about individual differences among the family relationships of lesbians and gay men. It is concluded that future work in this area has the potential to affect lesbian and gay lives, influence developmental and family theory, and inform public policies. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
There are no surrogates, there is one child being raised by two dads.
More...
I don't get your point either.
What agencies are you talking about? Your words: "As you indirectly stated those agencies and states Would do well in seeing ahead into the future to how those kids are going to feel and look at the way they were brought up once they become adults"
It wouldn't be those esteemed academic journels such as Pediatrics or Child Development. They're in agreement that children raised by gay couples grow up to happy, well adjusted adults just like their peers raised by heterosexual couples.
Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025 -1042.
Reviews research on the personal and social development of children of gay or lesbian parents (CGLP). Beginning with estimates of the numbers of such children, sociocultural, theoretical, and legal reasons for attention to their development are then outlined. In this context, studies on sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships among these children are reviewed. Evidence does not show that the development of CGLP is compromised significantly relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in comparable situations. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341-344.
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052- 1069.
Presents an overview of research on the family lives of lesbians and gay men. It is noted that the family lives of lesbian and gay people have been a source of controversy during the past decade. Despite prejudice and discrimination, lesbians and gay men have often succeeded in creating and sustaining family relationships. Research on same-gender couple relationships, parent-child relationships, and other family relationships are reviewed here. In general, the picture of lesbian and gay relationships emerging from this body of work is one of positive adjustment, even in the face of stressful conditions. Research is also beginning to address questions about individual differences among the family relationships of lesbians and gay men. It is concluded that future work in this area has the potential to affect lesbian and gay lives, influence developmental and family theory, and inform public policies. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)
There are no surrogates, there is one child being raised by two dads.
79
78 I don't believe that those studies you cited took into account the common practice amongst same sex pairings of 'open relationships', I doubt that any Child Development specialist would side or believe that having multiple partners is something good for children to exposed to. Not only for the bad example of lack of commitment to one partner that such examples give to the child but also for the danger (to the child) to being exposed to potential strangers who might harbor child molesting tendencies. Mr Savage is an avowed advocate for plural relationships and sadly his type of advocacy is a very acceptable behavior amongst gays and lesbians alike.
80
79,
I can see your point in a general sense, but I think you are mistaken if you don't realize that heterosexual couples also have 'open relationships'. And, would also harbor a guess that the sources I cited did not take into account the 'open relationships' amongst heterosexuals either.
So, your concern for children being exposed to bad examples of lack of commitment and possible exposure to potential strangers that may actually be child molesters is applicable to both groups. Thus, you can't punish one group for lack of fidelity that other group is also guilty of.
Affairs are very common in heterosexual relationships. And, if you wish to make fidelity an issue in adoption it must be applied equally to both heterosexuals and gays.
Tell me Loveschild, do you actually know Dan Savage? Have you met him? Have you ever talked to him on the phone? Have you had any real conversation with him? Have you even read any of his books? Because, if you did, you would know that his son isn't at risk of being exposed to a child molester anymore than your children would be at risk if there father brought home a stranger to meet you all. Not to mention that most children are molested by people their family has an intimate relationship with.
You really shouldn't judge him.
I can see your point in a general sense, but I think you are mistaken if you don't realize that heterosexual couples also have 'open relationships'. And, would also harbor a guess that the sources I cited did not take into account the 'open relationships' amongst heterosexuals either.
So, your concern for children being exposed to bad examples of lack of commitment and possible exposure to potential strangers that may actually be child molesters is applicable to both groups. Thus, you can't punish one group for lack of fidelity that other group is also guilty of.
Affairs are very common in heterosexual relationships. And, if you wish to make fidelity an issue in adoption it must be applied equally to both heterosexuals and gays.
Tell me Loveschild, do you actually know Dan Savage? Have you met him? Have you ever talked to him on the phone? Have you had any real conversation with him? Have you even read any of his books? Because, if you did, you would know that his son isn't at risk of being exposed to a child molester anymore than your children would be at risk if there father brought home a stranger to meet you all. Not to mention that most children are molested by people their family has an intimate relationship with.
You really shouldn't judge him.
81
StillNon can't come without thinking of Dan sitting at his desk in the Stranger offices. It's weird how fetishes get so specific.
84
loveschild, get the FUCK OUT OF THESE COMMENTS, and DON'T COME BACK until you've read Dan's books 'The Kid' and 'The Commitment'. until you have, anything you say about dan is a fucking lie. please don't attack someone i know, socialize with, respect and read. oops, i forgot you're a troll and don't respond to comments such as mine. well, get the fuck out anyway.
85
I have to agree with #53 - straight people pimp out their kids so much it's ridiculous.
I will admit that I'm on the defensive side of things, being a straight female who likes sex with men and yet *gasp* doesn't want to bear anyone's kids whatsoever! I'm very well aware of my reasons for not having a kid (and they go back to when I was a kid and kept on getting shitty fucking baby dolls rather than the art supplies I kept asking for for my birthday - who says we don't train girls young?) and quite aware of every reason under the sun that people have given (and tried to guilt me with) for having kids. And let's be honest, most of them revolve around THE PERSON HAVING THE KID. They do actually want a mini-me - as much as people who breed deny it. They also want the kid to magically change things - with their life, their relationship, their feelings about themselves (and hey, lots of parents use their kids as an opportunity to be smug assholes to everyone else)etc. It's a lot to put on children.
"What I want to know is - what kind of fucked-up, lost-in-the-19th-Century mentality gets a kick out of watching breeders who can't quit? When did we start celebrating large families again?"
When women's rights haven't made progress in a long while?
Hey where's my equal pay? Oh I'm supposed to be content with trying to "ahve it all"? Fuck you society. Seriously. I'm in charge of what comes in and goes out of my vagina.
To get back on track. Dan, I don't think that you're exploiting your family or kid in the way that J&K are - nowhere close. You're a writer. You write your life. It's amusing to read, well written and thoughful. I enjoy your essays on This American Life too, especially about your mother.
Fuck the naysayers. Keep on writing!
More...
I will admit that I'm on the defensive side of things, being a straight female who likes sex with men and yet *gasp* doesn't want to bear anyone's kids whatsoever! I'm very well aware of my reasons for not having a kid (and they go back to when I was a kid and kept on getting shitty fucking baby dolls rather than the art supplies I kept asking for for my birthday - who says we don't train girls young?) and quite aware of every reason under the sun that people have given (and tried to guilt me with) for having kids. And let's be honest, most of them revolve around THE PERSON HAVING THE KID. They do actually want a mini-me - as much as people who breed deny it. They also want the kid to magically change things - with their life, their relationship, their feelings about themselves (and hey, lots of parents use their kids as an opportunity to be smug assholes to everyone else)etc. It's a lot to put on children.
"What I want to know is - what kind of fucked-up, lost-in-the-19th-Century mentality gets a kick out of watching breeders who can't quit? When did we start celebrating large families again?"
When women's rights haven't made progress in a long while?
Hey where's my equal pay? Oh I'm supposed to be content with trying to "ahve it all"? Fuck you society. Seriously. I'm in charge of what comes in and goes out of my vagina.
To get back on track. Dan, I don't think that you're exploiting your family or kid in the way that J&K are - nowhere close. You're a writer. You write your life. It's amusing to read, well written and thoughful. I enjoy your essays on This American Life too, especially about your mother.
Fuck the naysayers. Keep on writing!
86
The premise that "exploiting" a child is inherently immoral is false. Depending on the circumstances it could be immoral or evil, but not in Dan's case.
Exploiting kids is the traditional American way. Americans used to have large families to help run the farm. The children were used as hands to earn a profit (this is good!). Today, it still occurs, look at Tiger Woods, his dad exploited him to the nth degree. Doesn't look like he's suffering from that.
If Dan sold his child or rented him to pedophiles, I'd see a major problem. Simply writing about his parenthood is in no way exploitation that is immoral.
Exploiting kids is the traditional American way. Americans used to have large families to help run the farm. The children were used as hands to earn a profit (this is good!). Today, it still occurs, look at Tiger Woods, his dad exploited him to the nth degree. Doesn't look like he's suffering from that.
If Dan sold his child or rented him to pedophiles, I'd see a major problem. Simply writing about his parenthood is in no way exploitation that is immoral.
87
@79
Having an open relationship doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of commitment. Are you less committed to your first child if you have a second one? No, you've just got an additional commitment.
All an open relationship indicates is a lack of monogamy. Any other assumptions you make are likely to be false for at least some people.
Having an open relationship doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of commitment. Are you less committed to your first child if you have a second one? No, you've just got an additional commitment.
All an open relationship indicates is a lack of monogamy. Any other assumptions you make are likely to be false for at least some people.
88
Wow - Just read the dumb comment from the person with love in their name. Follow her logic and lets prevent pro-athletes, actors, TV preachers (same thing), and musicians from adopting kids.
89
"...seeing ahead into the future to how those kids are going to feel and look at the way they were brought up once they become adults."
Well, Loveschild, at least you begin to hint at something that might actually change your mind: evidence.
So, then, are you willing to live by evidence, even if it isn't what you expected or hoped for? In other words, if these kids turn out no better or worse than kids from straight families, are you willing to change your mind? I would pick objective criteria to measure such as mental hospitalizations, criminal convictions, number of divorces, and suicide rates. Those simple measurements should be quite easy to track.
My point is this: anyone can make tendentious predictions about what the evidence will show. Very few people have the character to admit it when the evidence flies in the face of their most deeply held beliefs, and even fewer have the courage to try and change their outlook.
Without knowing the outcome for certain, I promise to try and change my position if the evidence suggests that children of gay parents end up more screwed up than the children of straight parents. I hope you'll make the same promise regarding your own position.
Well, Loveschild, at least you begin to hint at something that might actually change your mind: evidence.
So, then, are you willing to live by evidence, even if it isn't what you expected or hoped for? In other words, if these kids turn out no better or worse than kids from straight families, are you willing to change your mind? I would pick objective criteria to measure such as mental hospitalizations, criminal convictions, number of divorces, and suicide rates. Those simple measurements should be quite easy to track.
My point is this: anyone can make tendentious predictions about what the evidence will show. Very few people have the character to admit it when the evidence flies in the face of their most deeply held beliefs, and even fewer have the courage to try and change their outlook.
Without knowing the outcome for certain, I promise to try and change my position if the evidence suggests that children of gay parents end up more screwed up than the children of straight parents. I hope you'll make the same promise regarding your own position.
90
egads, this post really brought out the simplistic moralizers. usually those trolls are busy telling feminists to 'get over it' - meaning, i guess, women as a whole have to forget they're people with rights to our own bodies and ridiculous fiction like that. thanks, dan. there may be a couple fewer loonies like that attacking feminists tonight while they spew bile on you, instead.
the sneering, 'i wouldn't want *my* parents to be known for their opinions!' is especially choice. 'cause famous parents are totally the only ones that simplistic moralizers attack. they never sneer at the non-famous poor moms who buy cookies and soda pop with their food stamps, or the hippie moms who give birth at home, or the homeschoolers, or - oh wait, yes they do.
well never mind then. i guess all parents, everywhere, are totally fucking up their kids. it must not matter, then.
the sneering, 'i wouldn't want *my* parents to be known for their opinions!' is especially choice. 'cause famous parents are totally the only ones that simplistic moralizers attack. they never sneer at the non-famous poor moms who buy cookies and soda pop with their food stamps, or the hippie moms who give birth at home, or the homeschoolers, or - oh wait, yes they do.
well never mind then. i guess all parents, everywhere, are totally fucking up their kids. it must not matter, then.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (90) RSS