Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, November 25, 2009
Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: Suck On This
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 3:08 PM
From your column this week: "...what do you think the chances are that a guy who blows strangers he meets online has an STI?"
Very low, if that individual cares enough about himself to go get tested regularly. I give blow jobs to guys I meet on-line, in line (supermarket, movies) and any place else I can meet them. I go to my doctor four times a year. I'm very honest about my activities and I am tested for everything. I take care of my health. Do not smoke, use drugs or drink alcohol. I go to the gym 4-5 times a week. So knock off the judgmental characterizations, fuck wad. I'm really sick of your holier-than-thou stance. God forbid you present all sides of an issue. Better to do just your usual job of offering one-dimensional cardboard advice.For once you actually do a column with gay questions (soooooo tired of hearing straight people whine)... and what do you do? Piss me off. Fuck you, Dan, you self-righteous prick.
Stupid Dan Thing Sucks
My response after the jump...
Sorry, SDTS, but SFMi wanted to know if he should go in for a full STI screening after accepting a blowjob—a brief one—from an anonymous sex partner that he met online. There's no judgment in my response; I didn't say he was wrong to seek that blowjob online; I didn't say that the man who blew him was wrong to offer his services online. I'm pro-blowjobs generally and not overly concerned about the provenance of each and every blowjob. The world needs more blowjobs. But facts are facts: the more sex partners someone has, the higher the odds that that someone has an STI. Anonymous internet hookups also correlate positively with higher rates of STIs. SFMi needs to take those facts into account as he contemplates getting himself tested.
And testing is great and everyone should get tested regularly and you're to be commended for getting tested and being open with your doctor about why you're getting tested, SDTS. But regular STI screenings do not confer immunity. Not smoking, not using drugs, not drinking—good for your health, SDTS, and good for you for abstaining, if I may use that word. But non-smoking, non-drug-using, non-drinking men with lots of sex partners, anonymous or otherwise, are at higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections than men with fewer sex partners. Facts are facts.
And come on, SDTS You want to be praised for taking care of your health and getting regular STI screenings. But the reason your actions are commendable—the reason you deserve praise—is because you're aware that your chances of contracting a sexually transmitted infection are above average. You're being realistic about your elevated STI risk and doing the right thing by your sex partners by testing regularly. Praiseworthy! But why shouldn't your sex partners—men like SFMi—be made aware that they too are at greater risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection when they engage in similar behaviors?
2
Bravo Dan, a well reasoned argument, and I really appreciate it since you reach so many people! As you know regular STI screenings are great (and hopefully a habit) for those of us who are sexually active with multiple partners. These screenings help control STI's from spreading, and help people make informed sexual decisions. Obviously, not everyone is a careful and well informed as SDTS. But then again, not everyone is as much of a dick either.
And btw SDTS, his previous article to SFMi wasn't "holier then thou" just honest and forthright. Don't be an prick just because you're having a bad day; you're the guy ruining my day with random acts of being a asshole.
And btw SDTS, his previous article to SFMi wasn't "holier then thou" just honest and forthright. Don't be an prick just because you're having a bad day; you're the guy ruining my day with random acts of being a asshole.
4
Holy crap. You must read a different column to me STDS. Ever considered that maybe you're protesting a bit too much? I don't think Dan has a problem with your online-arranged BJs. Do you?
Next time you're at the doctor getting tested for STIs, ask for a psych referral. You're mad as a cut snake.
Next time you're at the doctor getting tested for STIs, ask for a psych referral. You're mad as a cut snake.
6
Agreed. I didn't think the advice to SFMi was judgmental. He gets tested regularly because he knows his multiple sexual encounters have put his health at risk for STDs. You can contract and pass several STDs through oral-genital contact (herpes, anyone?). It's nothing for people to get personally offended about. Generally speaking, you cannot trust someone else to take care of your sexual health and not put you at risk for contracting something, particularly some random, anonymous hook-up.
7
This is an honest question here: Is STI the preferred term now, or is it basically interchangeable with STD? Or do the two have different meanings that I'm otherwise unaware of?
8
"Fuck wad?" Jesus, this guy's an idiot.
And yeah, he's at higher risk. The risk is really, really, really, really small, but it's still there. So if anybody's a 'fuck wad," it's this bozo.
And yeah, he's at higher risk. The risk is really, really, really, really small, but it's still there. So if anybody's a 'fuck wad," it's this bozo.
9
STDS, appears to be having a crap day. Sorry dude, but not an excuse. No judgement was made, on either STDS or SFMi. Just keep being mature responsible adults and get your arses into be tested on a regular basis. Maybe, you could try a flavored condom? Your the only you that this world has, so take care of yourself. Oh, and knock of the cranky pants act, too.
10
@7 I believe that STI is the preferred term now. The only difference is disease versus infection. Disease just sounds so horrible when really, they are just infections.
11
Infections don't always lead to disease, but frequently do.
Especially silent ones like chlamydia and HPV.
Especially silent ones like chlamydia and HPV.
12
SDTS, where do you live? I've never seen anyone getting a blow job in line at the supermarket or at movies. I must not frequent the cool establishments!
13
@2, I thought it said "dick eater", but then I re-read it.
The holiday madness must be setting in early for me.
The holiday madness must be setting in early for me.
14
#1, don't forget the bisexuals and transgendered!
So here's a guy who fucks around so much that he feels it necessary to get tested four times a year, and he's mad at Dan for saying that people who fuck around a lot should get tested regularly? He's not making any sense.
And, I'm glad he gets tested regularly, especially since he clearly thinks that smoking and drinking somehow lead to getting STDs. And that exercise can ward them off. (??)
Also, am I the only one who looked at his signature and thought his attempt at an "STDS" acronym turned out to be a Fail?
So here's a guy who fucks around so much that he feels it necessary to get tested four times a year, and he's mad at Dan for saying that people who fuck around a lot should get tested regularly? He's not making any sense.
And, I'm glad he gets tested regularly, especially since he clearly thinks that smoking and drinking somehow lead to getting STDs. And that exercise can ward them off. (??)
Also, am I the only one who looked at his signature and thought his attempt at an "STDS" acronym turned out to be a Fail?
15
Screening is great and people need to know their status, but the results are only meaningful until your next session of unprotected or sloppy safer sex. Quarterly screening for someone having daily anonymous sex (as it sounds like STDS is) is a sure-fire way of deluding yourself and your sex partners into thinking you are being responsible. You're not.
16
Yeah, I think this guy needs to chill. If you're taking Dan's non-judgemental, practical advice to STMi that personally, maybe it touched a nerve. It sounds like STDS is the one who has issues with his (slightly) higher-risk lifestyle, not Dan.
Am I the only one who was a little put off by STDS' "finally answer gay questions" and "sick of hearing straight people whine" comments? Does that mean that gay people are more worthy of having their questions answered? Is it because of the discrimination gay people often face in society? I don't think it's fair to say or imply that one person is better or more entitled to something than I am, just because they have hardships in their life which I may not have. I don't mean to minimize the atrocious discrimination often leveled against gays and lesbians. I just think this guy sounds like he has a bit of a persecution complex. Should we really be reinforcing the "gays versus straights" mentality? Food for thought, I guess.
Am I the only one who was a little put off by STDS' "finally answer gay questions" and "sick of hearing straight people whine" comments? Does that mean that gay people are more worthy of having their questions answered? Is it because of the discrimination gay people often face in society? I don't think it's fair to say or imply that one person is better or more entitled to something than I am, just because they have hardships in their life which I may not have. I don't mean to minimize the atrocious discrimination often leveled against gays and lesbians. I just think this guy sounds like he has a bit of a persecution complex. Should we really be reinforcing the "gays versus straights" mentality? Food for thought, I guess.
17
@16, I don't think it was a gay vs. straight thing. I think he's just feeling that there are relatively few gay orientated or gay friendly publications around, and when he finds one, he doesn't want it usurped by straight people. I can understand that feeling.
I personally think gay rights is the pre-eminent human rights issue of today (in the developed world). Accordingly I feel it's important to be actively involved, even though I'm not gay myself. I equate it with white civil rights activists campaigning in the 60's. You didn't have to be black then to fight for the rights of blacks, and you don't have to be gay now to fight for the rights of gays.
Having said that, I am sensitive to the fact that, when you're part of a discriminated and marginalised group, one of the only things you have left is solidarity. I can understand the we-band-of-brothers mentality, and I'm not offended by it. In fact, I frequently worry that I might be trespassing where I'm not welcome. (Actually, now that I articulate that worry, I'd be interested in hearing some gay perspectives on it....)
I personally think gay rights is the pre-eminent human rights issue of today (in the developed world). Accordingly I feel it's important to be actively involved, even though I'm not gay myself. I equate it with white civil rights activists campaigning in the 60's. You didn't have to be black then to fight for the rights of blacks, and you don't have to be gay now to fight for the rights of gays.
Having said that, I am sensitive to the fact that, when you're part of a discriminated and marginalised group, one of the only things you have left is solidarity. I can understand the we-band-of-brothers mentality, and I'm not offended by it. In fact, I frequently worry that I might be trespassing where I'm not welcome. (Actually, now that I articulate that worry, I'd be interested in hearing some gay perspectives on it....)
18
@7 STIs become STDs... a "disease" has symptoms and physiological effects. An infection means you just have a virus/bacteria in you. For example, contracting HIV through sexual acts classifies it as a STI. It is a virus and has no overt symptoms. On the other hand, when it starts to affect your immune system it is then called AIDS, which is a STD. When you talk about general prevention, both are used since you're usually talking about both.
19
And I'd like to know where he's reading his Savage Love that he finds the gay questions so disproportionately represented!!?? Christ, I actually find myself wishing Dan would answer more straight questions! (though it also seems that -- and I'm sure this isn't coincidental -- a lot of his answers can be taken constructively regardless of orientation.)
Granted, I'm a fan of question of the day, and not sure if maybe he does more gay oriented questions here, but I would absolutely guarantee that he answers gay questions at a larger clip than gays are represented demographically. Yeah, that guys a freakin' membrane to be sure -- can't believe Dan even dignified the misguided assertion with a reply.
Granted, I'm a fan of question of the day, and not sure if maybe he does more gay oriented questions here, but I would absolutely guarantee that he answers gay questions at a larger clip than gays are represented demographically. Yeah, that guys a freakin' membrane to be sure -- can't believe Dan even dignified the misguided assertion with a reply.
20
#17, I've always had the idea that Dan first intended his column to be for straight people, mostly straight men.
I may be wrong in my interpretation of what he said in the linked interview, but even if I am, there's no way that Savage Love would be internationally syndicated (and renowned) if Dan's audience was only (or even mostly) gay people. He just wouldn't have the volume and variety of questions. And it wouldn't be as continuously and unfailingly interesting.
I may be wrong in my interpretation of what he said in the linked interview, but even if I am, there's no way that Savage Love would be internationally syndicated (and renowned) if Dan's audience was only (or even mostly) gay people. He just wouldn't have the volume and variety of questions. And it wouldn't be as continuously and unfailingly interesting.
21
I'm sorry. Here's the part of the interview that I'm referring to:
I just thought it would be funny for once if there was an advice column written by a gay person where straight people had to get slapped around or treated with contempt. That was the agenda at first—I was just gonna be obnoxious and contemptuous about straight sex and straight relationships. That humor vein lasted about a year, and then I realized that I was gonna actually have to give advice and learn a little about heterosexual life.
22
Ems @ 16,
I am guessing that the last line could also be his expressed displeasure of breeder sex. Or, as Steve @ 17, said he doesn't want straights usurping the beauty that is Savage Love. I'll admit, that I am more inclined to believe that STDS is in a bad mood, and finds information/questions from breeders annoying. I think so because Savage Love has always addressed breeder sex.
"We stood at the counter, ignored the frat boys, and brainstormed up a sex advice column for the '90s. A man should write it- too many advice columns are written by women. And it should be written by someone young- too many advice columns are written by septuagenarians. And, it should be written by a fag- too many advice columns are written by straights. But unlike the few fag-generated advice columns out there, this one would be written by a fag for breeders, about breeder sex." -Dan Savage (http://www.powells.com/biblio/7-97804522…)
I think, Steve @ 17, brings up an interesting question. Are straights, such as myself, trespassing on the solidarity of brotherhood of our GLBTQ brothers and sisters? I can't answer that one, I think that it will differ with individuals. I do know that if we want to bring change, then we must stand together. And, I hope in those instances when someone feels that I am trespassing, that I'll have the grace to keep standing and find away to redirect my efforts in a less disruptive manner that will allow the solidarity of brotherhood to flourish.
I am guessing that the last line could also be his expressed displeasure of breeder sex. Or, as Steve @ 17, said he doesn't want straights usurping the beauty that is Savage Love. I'll admit, that I am more inclined to believe that STDS is in a bad mood, and finds information/questions from breeders annoying. I think so because Savage Love has always addressed breeder sex.
"We stood at the counter, ignored the frat boys, and brainstormed up a sex advice column for the '90s. A man should write it- too many advice columns are written by women. And it should be written by someone young- too many advice columns are written by septuagenarians. And, it should be written by a fag- too many advice columns are written by straights. But unlike the few fag-generated advice columns out there, this one would be written by a fag for breeders, about breeder sex." -Dan Savage (http://www.powells.com/biblio/7-97804522…)
I think, Steve @ 17, brings up an interesting question. Are straights, such as myself, trespassing on the solidarity of brotherhood of our GLBTQ brothers and sisters? I can't answer that one, I think that it will differ with individuals. I do know that if we want to bring change, then we must stand together. And, I hope in those instances when someone feels that I am trespassing, that I'll have the grace to keep standing and find away to redirect my efforts in a less disruptive manner that will allow the solidarity of brotherhood to flourish.
24
I guess my trouble is that I don't tend to see people so much in terms of gay, or straight, or whatever. Maybe it's because I hang out with a lot of people who identify as bisexual or generally fluid in their sexual preferences. So, sometimes I'm taken aback by some gays or lesbians who seem to espouse an "it's us against the breeders" mentality. I'm sure, as Aussie Steve says, that this is a natural reaction to being a member of a marginalized group. And I can totally understand it, even if I don't like it much. That said, I do hope we can move past it as time goes on, because I think people of all sexual orientations need to stand together to combat the attacks on our privacy and sexual rights that we see every day.
25
This is what's to be expected when social taboos and norms are done away with. When you go about telling people that certain behaviors (be it with strangers or otherwise) are "normal" then is it really that shocking when they call you out for berating similar extremities that you perhaps don't engage in yourself? Once you start okaying certain things and becoming an advocate for them you really have no much credibility or authority to counsel other people to dissuade against other actions along the same line.
28
haha, aww, Kim. Not "much" faster. Only by three minutes. And your quote is more specific than mine.
Happy Thanksgiving to you. I envy your whiskey pecan pie.
Happy Thanksgiving to you. I envy your whiskey pecan pie.
33
Wait, I thought that only the guys offering blowjobs should get STI tests, and that the guys accepting them should just count on the blowjob giver to have been tested regularly, so as not to be judgmental. You also can't get an STI within 3 months of a doctor's visit, so going 4 times a year takes away the need for condoms!
Also, going to the gym gives you immunity to STIs. The viruses and bacteria will see your biceps and get so intimidated that they'll swim right back into the other guy.
What a fuckwit.
Also, going to the gym gives you immunity to STIs. The viruses and bacteria will see your biceps and get so intimidated that they'll swim right back into the other guy.
What a fuckwit.
36
I'll be generous; it's Thanksgiving.
Loveschild, I envy you. If only to live in a world where right and wrong is obvious and absolute. Where all things easily separate (like oil and water) into good and evil, and the evil folks are nice enough to put giant "I am evil" signs on their person. To know that only the righteous have righteous sex, and all opposing fantasies, acts and orientations exist merely to contrast and therefore legitimate your own righteousness and world order.
Ah, to live in a fairy tale world where every lesson is simple and organized to reaffirm your prejudices, calm your fears, and satisfy your subconscious and sadist need for hierarchy and order.
I envy that you don't live in the world the rest of us do and yet authorize yourself to tell us how to live in the first place.
Enjoy your turkey.
Loveschild, I envy you. If only to live in a world where right and wrong is obvious and absolute. Where all things easily separate (like oil and water) into good and evil, and the evil folks are nice enough to put giant "I am evil" signs on their person. To know that only the righteous have righteous sex, and all opposing fantasies, acts and orientations exist merely to contrast and therefore legitimate your own righteousness and world order.
Ah, to live in a fairy tale world where every lesson is simple and organized to reaffirm your prejudices, calm your fears, and satisfy your subconscious and sadist need for hierarchy and order.
I envy that you don't live in the world the rest of us do and yet authorize yourself to tell us how to live in the first place.
Enjoy your turkey.
37
I think I understand where this guy is coming from...I like Dan (usually) and I like the majority of his advice in Savage Love and I appreciate his role as a gay rights advocate and commentator but for a liberal, gay sex columnist I sometimes find him to be a bit of an Old Auntie when it comes towards his attitude toward gay, single, non-monogamous, sexually active men. His advice tends to be very much pro-couple/partnered and subtly negative toward the non-partnered whether it's by choice or not. Not every gay man WANTS to be in a committed relationship and for those who are open to it, obtaining a relationship is easier said than done, (well, for some; it seems a lot of gay, (and straight) people have the ability to bounce from one relationship to another...I've never understood that but maybe I'm too picky and not that desperate...some of us don't freak out if we're "alone" but not lonely.)
38
I love Dan. I think Dan is a force for good in the world. He is what America needs.
But Dan used to be "hey faggot" and now he is married dad. There's a difference.
But Dan used to be "hey faggot" and now he is married dad. There's a difference.
39
@33 Bonefish - I agree! Also, you can just tell those pesky bacteria that you don't drink or smoke. They will realize they have the wrong guy, and move on to find the person who also gives blow jobs to stranger, but likes to sit on the couch and smoke weed afterward.
40
OK. And many infections take a while to show up. So as many times as you get tested, doesn't mean the timing will be right. You can be clean for months and suddenly something will show up from a partner you had a long time ago. No one is condemning frequent blowjobs. But the more blowjobs you give to different partners, the more likely it is you'll get something. That's just how it is. It blows (pun intended), but that's why you have to be careful.
I went through my phase fucking around with many people, and I contracted something. Someone can fuck around with only ONE PERSON and get something. That's how it is. Get over it.
I went through my phase fucking around with many people, and I contracted something. Someone can fuck around with only ONE PERSON and get something. That's how it is. Get over it.
41
I think the writer is confusing an accusation of "having an elevated risk of contracting STIs" with "being evil." It's obviously a prevalent view in mainstream culture, but he needs to come to terms with what he bases his moral judgments on before he contracts something. Maybe he thinks the good kharma he gets from doing the right thing and getting tested means he is a good person and therefore immune?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS