Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, April 6, 2011
Savage Love Dan Savage Is Coming For—For! Not On!—Your Children!
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:48 PM
Maggie Gallagher, head of the National Organization for Marriage, isn't pleased about my upcoming show on MTV:
Renowned sex columnist Dan Savage, who is an openly gay man, will be taking his popular sex and relationship advice column to MTV in a show appropriately called "Savage U" where he intends to educate your college student about the importance of honesty over just about anything else, including fidelity.... Savage, who for all his experience, does not know what women are like, advises [one recent correspondent] to tell [his girlfriend] openly and honestly what he wants, because otherwise the young man will just cheat on her.... The possibility of taming one's sexual desire for the sake of another, or of a vow, is not in the Savage moral imagination. Libido will have out, and honesty about that is the best policy. He brings, in other words, the best of gay sexual ethics and experience to a straight audience, with potentially disastrous results.
Gallagher, who once had a child out of wedlock, speaks for the fidelity-over-anything-else crowd (fidelity over reality, statistics, biology, ability, etc.). Now some people are capable of abstaining before marriage and being faithful to one partner for life—some people, but not Maggie—but these people represent a tiny minority of all sexually active adults. And while those who make this aberrant lifestyle choice should not be discriminated against, the rest of us—the majority of all sexually active adults—should be free to engage in grownup conversations about sex and desire and the reality-friendly ways in which we define and practice fidelity without being shouted down by the monogamously correct. Fidelity, after all, can mean so much more than just "you never get to see anyone else naked ever again."
Moving on to some of Maggie's specific objections...
I do not intend to "educate your college students," Maggie. Your college students—the offspring of NOM supporters—are being "educated" at Brigham Young, Liberty University, Bob Jones, Seattle Pacific University, and other Christianist madrassas. My college tours typically take me to secular institutions of higher learning where the kids were hooking up and having sex long before my visit to campus.
I know what women are like. I may not know what women taste like—I've never gone down on one—but I do know what women are like. My mother was a woman, my sister is a woman, my aunts are women, my favorite bartender is a woman, lots of my friends, neighbors, and coworkers are women. And as someone who sleeps with men and is a long-term relationship with a man, I know what (straight) women have to put up with. I'm not the first gay man that women have turned to for advice about love and sex, Maggie, and I won't be the last. And aren't you a practicing Catholic? Not knowing what women are like (or taste like) has never stopped the Pope from offering his unsolicited advice to women—no birth control, no abortions, no oral, no anal, no handjobs—and it's hypocritical of you to suggest that I'm not qualified to advise women, since I won't fuck 'em, without first telling that old fag in Rome to STFU already.
The possibility of taming one's sexual desire for the sake of another most definitely exists within the Savage moral imagination. I frequently discuss the "price of admission," that is, the personal sacrifices, small and large, that make long-term relationships possible. For some the price of admission—what it costs to ride a particular ride—includes "taming one's sexual desire for the sake of another." If anal sex is something you enjoy but you're in love with someone who doesn't do anal, then going without anal is the price of admission. If you're not into monogamy but you're in love with someone who insists on it, then monogamy is the price of admission. Settling down requires settling for, as I've said time and again, and on the sexual front many of us settle for less because we regard our partners are worth the price of admission.
Yes, libido will have out—but "libido will have out" doesn't translate into "Savage says anything and everything goes." Two people in a long-term, committed, loving relationship should be able to open and honest with each other about their sexual interests, turnons, drives, etc., because, yes, libido will have out. Meaning sexual compatibility and sexual satisfaction have a huge impact on the health of our relationships and marriages, Maggie, particularly if your spouse is your sole source of sexual satisfaction and release. People who are open and honest with their partners about their sexual interests—whether the relationship is monogamous or not—are likelier to have their needs met and likelier to meet their partners' needs. And when needs are being met, people are happy, people are less likely to cheat, people are likelier to stay married, children don't wind up being shunted from mom's house to dad's house every other week. (Think of the children, Maggie!)
Openness and honesty don't automatically translate into everyone gets everything everyone wants. Not all needs can be met. But sometimes just having the sacrifices we've made for the good of our marriages acknowledged, getting a receipt after paying the price of admission, is enough. To be given credit for, say, going without anal—along with the green light to jerk off to anal porn now and then—can make going without anal easier. Indeed, it can make going without anal virtuous, something that speaks well to the going-without-anal partner's character and priorities.
But there are times when monogamy—its pressures, discontents, and unquestioned acceptance—can destroy an otherwise decent marriage. Some of these marriages could be saved if both partners were encouraged to come to a reasonable, mutually-agreeable accommodation. Only those who are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy degree place a higher value preserving monogamy within a particular marriage over saving that particular marriage itself. (Think of the children, Maggie!)
These are my sexual ethics and I don't think there's anything particularly gay about them. Openness and honesty and realism, along with a willingness to make sacrifices and accommodations, all work just as well in straight relationships as they do in gay ones.
1
Well done. I suspect now that you're about to be a basic cable fixture there's about to be really - really really this time - no such thing as negative publicity.
2
Dan, again, you are making way too much sense, Maggie will never accept anything you say unless God herself whispers in her ear.
Hi Gus! (just following canuck's lead)
Hi Gus! (just following canuck's lead)
5
wisepunk, hola!
(I would follow Canuck's lead more often myself, but she actually goes out and works with kids in the schools where they're being bullied. Such a bother. I'd rather sit here in a hotel staring out the window and thinking about room service....;-)
(I would follow Canuck's lead more often myself, but she actually goes out and works with kids in the schools where they're being bullied. Such a bother. I'd rather sit here in a hotel staring out the window and thinking about room service....;-)
6
@3 - She makes a lot of money doing what she does because enough people are scared of the godless and gays, and they take her seriously.
7
@2 you think if God himself appeared in the sky over Jeruselem at noon on Christmas Day and said "be kind and accepting of all men and women, regardless of race, religion or sexuality" so that every last person on Earth heard it at once in every language and KNEW it was God, that some of these people would change? Please.
8
I got stuck right off the bat...
Gallagher, who once had a child out of wedlockUGH! Someone fucked that thing and it spawned brood? That's the real abomination.
9
I hope you've sent this to her. Not that she'll care ... she gets mileage out of her irrationality.
10
Gus, I have 5 glooooooooorius days of vacation starting tomorrow...room service is on my mind too!
11
Wait - you mean there's going to be disgusting, perverted shit on MTV now? What's the world coming to?
13
@6 - That's why approximately 15 people showed up to each of the stops on their anti-marriage tour a few months ago. I'd call that pretty close to nobody. I think she just happens to have a few crazy followers with a good deal of money. Enough to keep her spouting her crazy all over the place.
14
I'm curious. When you write columns like this for SLOG, do you forward it or send a link to the instigator? Or are you just preaching to the choir? (Not that this choir member minds, of course)
18
Why is it that the women who preach the "fidelity above all else" line look like they'd rather suck on a lemon than have sex? And I'm just guessing, but I'd think their own husbands would probably love to follow Dan's example, open-relationship-wise, anyway.
And hola to youse two, gus and wisepunk! (gus, if you ever met me, you'd realize that my hanging out with gay kids is probably doing them more harm than good, owing to my predilection for 70s disco and pointing out bacon flowchart websites...)
And hola to youse two, gus and wisepunk! (gus, if you ever met me, you'd realize that my hanging out with gay kids is probably doing them more harm than good, owing to my predilection for 70s disco and pointing out bacon flowchart websites...)
21
If they want to boycott MTV, let them, the only people who care about that channel are pre-teens and MTV employees.
Then again, to have a group protest you, is more or less a badge of honor, but one often worn proud by stand up comedians.
Then again, to have a group protest you, is more or less a badge of honor, but one often worn proud by stand up comedians.
22
I miss the days when Savage sacrificed thoughtfulness for brevity. I guess we just have to accept these sorts of posts now that he's all famous and shit.
23
That "openly gay" is starting to look a little dated, don't you think? It always sounds a little bit like "and he's not even ASHAMED, the filthy pervert" is being appended to it.
24
Canuck, that's just what these kids today need, and i'm glad you're there with the disco knowledge. Here's a treat for you along those lines, from David Schmader's beloved fourfour: among other tidbits here, we must remember to go back to calling worked-out pecs by their proper name of "disco tits".
http://fourfour.typepad.com/fourfour/201…
I find myself in literally the trashiest part of Hollywood today, so will do my best to spot someone we'd recognize from dlisted: maybe the Lucite Princess Shauna Sand, or if I'm truly lucky, the glorious chicken cutlets of Phoebe Price! I'll keep you posted.
http://fourfour.typepad.com/fourfour/201…
I find myself in literally the trashiest part of Hollywood today, so will do my best to spot someone we'd recognize from dlisted: maybe the Lucite Princess Shauna Sand, or if I'm truly lucky, the glorious chicken cutlets of Phoebe Price! I'll keep you posted.
27
I love that you made reference to anal sex around five times. I can only imagine her reading this and losing her shit. Kudos for taking the time to make such an effort to respond. Not that it's going to undo her craziness!
28
Naw, those sexual ethics are TOTALLY gay, using "gay" here in a disparaging sense to mean "not manly" (manly sexual ethics being along the lines of "you exist to please me, woman"). Real Men™ don't make accommodations, and Real Women™ don't ask for them.
29
Beautifully said, Dan.
But I'm very conflicted about this upcoming show being on MTV. I hate MTV, for all the stupid reality programming but especially for the whole glorification-of-trashy-teen-mom idea. I've sworn to never watch that channel again, and Dan Savage is one of the very few people who could make me change my mind.
But I'm very conflicted about this upcoming show being on MTV. I hate MTV, for all the stupid reality programming but especially for the whole glorification-of-trashy-teen-mom idea. I've sworn to never watch that channel again, and Dan Savage is one of the very few people who could make me change my mind.
30
Congratulations. You are becoming A Voice of Consequence in this debate, and Gallagher can't stand it. If anything, she is trying to piggyback her message on your name recognition. The downside is that you are now marked as a target for her perpetual distortions. Or maybe that isn't a downside. Just keep hitting them out of the park like you did today, and she can't help but look like a complete idiot (or cynical liar) by comparison.
31
Maybe this will give Maggie the encouragement she needs to be honest with her husband about her desire to blow Bill Donahue of the Catholic League.
33
@29: The whole show is built around me getting a time machine and going back in time and talking to the teen moms about using birth control and getting abortions. You're going to love it!
35
@23 Maggie says "openly" gay to distinguish Dan from her colleagues in the fundamentalist anti-sex business.
39
All valid points, of course, but since Gallagher doesn't read your column, she wouldn't actually know any of this.
However, it is FAR EASIER for her to beat up some straw man she made up in her imagination and then go read your most recent article for a quote and/or factual basis to avoid libel charges. If she can find something to roast you about in said article, all the better.
Your entire argument could be shortened to "I know more about women than the Pope knows, yet you still let him give advice".
However, it is FAR EASIER for her to beat up some straw man she made up in her imagination and then go read your most recent article for a quote and/or factual basis to avoid libel charges. If she can find something to roast you about in said article, all the better.
Your entire argument could be shortened to "I know more about women than the Pope knows, yet you still let him give advice".
42
Isn't it obvious that Maggie Gallagher has a crush on Dan Savage? And her dreams are crushed by the Gay Agenda.
43
Fellow Savages, I realize Maggie's an easy target for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which she's just really small and mean, but might I suggest we do as Dan did, avoid the easy insults, coolly take the high road and call her on her righteous bullshittean indignation. Class act, Dan. You hit this one out of the park.
44
I wish I could staple this entire post onto the foreheads of a number of pointy heads out there ... !
@4, I know, right!?!!
If anything deserves a "that's SO gay" response, it's Maggie's bullshit... (if nothing else, I'd like to see her pointy head explode at that).
I do thank you for not posting her pic. JMG has a tendency to traumatize me in that regard...
@4, I know, right!?!!
If anything deserves a "that's SO gay" response, it's Maggie's bullshit... (if nothing else, I'd like to see her pointy head explode at that).
I do thank you for not posting her pic. JMG has a tendency to traumatize me in that regard...
45
Gosh Dan, why are you being so modest?
Tell Maggie you've had sex with females before-
that will shut her up.....
Tell Maggie you've had sex with females before-
that will shut her up.....
46
The "does not know what women are like" comment actually reflects one of my biggest frustrations with Savage Love, in that Dan lays out the rational, fair answer describing what the person should do and how that should be received, and straight men everywhere palm their foreheads because they know how things will *actually* be received. I would say, though, that in that disconnect the problem does not lie in the advice itself.
47
"Only those who are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy degree place a higher value preserving monogamy within a particular marriage over saving that particularly marriage itself."
Whoa, Dan - might want to proofread that sentence.. The rest of the post itself, of course, is classic Dan, well-phrased, and a much-needed beatdown to that witch Maggie Gallagher. Bravo as usual.
Whoa, Dan - might want to proofread that sentence.. The rest of the post itself, of course, is classic Dan, well-phrased, and a much-needed beatdown to that witch Maggie Gallagher. Bravo as usual.
48
Oh gus, I'm jealous, keep your eyes peeled for our favourites! And thanks for the book tip...brings back memories of wishing I was old enough to go to Studio 54 back in 1978...and I remember watching MTV when it first came on, oy, we're getting old.
49
Should the tiny minority of adults who make responsible diet and exercise choices just STFU about healthy lifestyle choices and let the diabetic sedate obese heart diseased majority gorge in peace?
50
"my favorite bartender is a woman"
God Dan, can't you find your way to a gay bar at least once in a while?
God Dan, can't you find your way to a gay bar at least once in a while?
51
"The whole show is built around me getting a time machine and going back in time and talking to the teen moms about using birth control and getting abortions. You're going to love it!"
Would the title of the show be Time Tunnel or maybe Star Gate: Gomorrah?
Would the title of the show be Time Tunnel or maybe Star Gate: Gomorrah?
53
Dan, we all admire your work saving marriages through cheating.
Perhaps if you cite some statistics showing how many marriages are saved by cheating, comparted to how many are destroyed by infidelity, it will shut Maggie up.
Please Dan, what are those numbers?...
Perhaps if you cite some statistics showing how many marriages are saved by cheating, comparted to how many are destroyed by infidelity, it will shut Maggie up.
Please Dan, what are those numbers?...
54
Awesome as always, Dan.
"I may not know what women taste like..."
I've heard they taste a lot like chicken. Doesn't everything taste like chicken?
"I may not know what women taste like..."
I've heard they taste a lot like chicken. Doesn't everything taste like chicken?
55
And that is what a Verbal Beatdown looks like ladies and gentlemen who like the ladies.
Give her a good ol' "Rusty Venture". That'll clean the cobwebs out of her...
Give her a good ol' "Rusty Venture". That'll clean the cobwebs out of her...
56
"...without being shouted down by the monogamously correct."
What- Is the CDC getting under youir skin, Danny?
What- Is the CDC getting under youir skin, Danny?
57
@53: I really don't think anyone collects statistics on either of those. Crawl back under your rock.
59
@55:
According to my sources performing a "Rusty Venture" doesn't require the presence of a woman.
According to my sources performing a "Rusty Venture" doesn't require the presence of a woman.
60
Wow, El Trollo Magnifico, if ignorance was a disease, you would be dead by now. Wake up and smell the cappucino. If the people in the arrangement have talked it out and agreed to the terms, it isn't cheating. But then again, understanding the obvious has never been your strong point.
62
That whole part with the Pope had me in hysterics, particurlarly the "old fag in Rome" piece. Good stuff.
64
Why do you keep replying to folks who link to the Washington Monthly article, but you don't reply to that article?
65
Hey Dan, you may already be dealing with this but it just occurred to me that you are about to become much more of a public figure and more widely heard espousing views that run counter to those held by the American taliban. Be careful out there!
66
@65, I worry too - I read a celeb moaning somewhere how it's easy to sell off your privacy but impossible to buy it back. At the time I thought, oh who cares, go cry to your bank manager, but since now it's "our" Dan's family facing the prospect I do hope it turns out okay...
68
That was actually my first thought too. (Yeah, to be honest, my second thought was "holy shit, I'd love to have that paycheck.) But yeah, Dan's lost his privacy, probably forever. And there are a lot of haters in the world.
69
People, don't be jinxy! Dan wears the armour of righteousness and glitter unicorns...be positive!
70
@46 "Dan lays out the rational, fair answer describing what the person should do and how that should be received, and straight men everywhere palm their foreheads because they know how things will *actually* be received."
Assuming you aren't just being flip...
Cultural change is slow and hard. You think feminists or civil rights workers or gay activists gave up the first million times they were laughed at ? Get all progressive men to join forces and be honest and above-board about their porn, their masturbation, and, yes, their desire for other women. Force women to understand what men want, just as feminists forced men to acknowledge what (many) women want.
Assuming you aren't just being flip...
Cultural change is slow and hard. You think feminists or civil rights workers or gay activists gave up the first million times they were laughed at ? Get all progressive men to join forces and be honest and above-board about their porn, their masturbation, and, yes, their desire for other women. Force women to understand what men want, just as feminists forced men to acknowledge what (many) women want.
71
MTV is the porta potty of pop culture. Your show will be a huge failure that will last less than one season and I greatly look forward to the day of its cancelation and the massive amount of shit talking trolling I will be doing.
72
This woman is a perfect nemesis for Dan to feud with. And it will only boost the ratings for his new show, which will infuriate her more. It's perfect!
73
I was trying to be anti-jinxy, actually - I come from that dirt-farming Irish ancestry that insists on naming the devil to scare him away. Now Dan will be safe.
Yes, Canuck, safe in his "armour of righteousness and glitter unicorns", i.e., the purple IGBP shirt over his disco tits. Maybe now and then with a button-down over it, when invited by Obama, say. Or maybe for a formal dinner with his new channelmates Snooki, J-Woww and The Situation...on camera....as a new cross-promotional stunt...
Yes, Canuck, safe in his "armour of righteousness and glitter unicorns", i.e., the purple IGBP shirt over his disco tits. Maybe now and then with a button-down over it, when invited by Obama, say. Or maybe for a formal dinner with his new channelmates Snooki, J-Woww and The Situation...on camera....as a new cross-promotional stunt...
74
@71 If your so smart why don't you go tell the folks at MTV what kind of shows people want to watch? I'm sure they would be glad to hear from you.
75
Geez Canuck, don't spring that 'armor of righteousness' stuff on people without warning. I nearly choked on my coffee in startled laughter at the notion of Savage as righteous. It's like calling a baseball square. The two things are mutually exclusive. Funny stuff though, thanks for the laugh.
Though, it isn't that he's immoral exactly, just that he's on the same level as my dog or a gorilla with regard to morals. Morality requires thought, you see. It requires being human. A thing like Savage renounced humanity for immediate gratification of whatever urge strikes it. All a bit sickening and depressing that a human being could so lower himself to the level of an animal. Oh well, possibly with time and a good psychologist he'll recover.
Though, it isn't that he's immoral exactly, just that he's on the same level as my dog or a gorilla with regard to morals. Morality requires thought, you see. It requires being human. A thing like Savage renounced humanity for immediate gratification of whatever urge strikes it. All a bit sickening and depressing that a human being could so lower himself to the level of an animal. Oh well, possibly with time and a good psychologist he'll recover.
77
Seattleblues, you said: "Morality requires thought, you see. It requires being human."
Yeah, it does. You might want to try it sometime. But somehow, I think you are more of a 'My way or the Highway' kind of guy.
Somehow, I think that little leap is beyond you.
Yeah, it does. You might want to try it sometime. But somehow, I think you are more of a 'My way or the Highway' kind of guy.
Somehow, I think that little leap is beyond you.
78
@75: I think you mean a baseball DIAMOND. It's in the shape of a square, but it's called a diamond. Also,
>implying that apes other than humans are incapable of morality
>implying that apes other than humans are incapable of morality
79
SeattleBlues, if you think Dan Savage is subhuman and incapable of thought or morality, then why are you here? If your take is that he can't learn, then why do you bother to read and comment? If your goal is to win the hearts and minds of other readers, I don't think you're going to get very far by being so insulting to Mssr. Savage.
80
@75
exactly how full of shit are you? the fuck-you-I've-got-mine socio-economic outlook you tirade on and on about in every thread not pertaining to human sexuality is perhaps one of the basest examples of humanity giving into the gratification of one's self above all others. your life is a success story! you are your own boss! you look down on your employees like they were ants because they decided to work for you instead of being an entrepreneur! self-made man! "I pay for my own health care, so clearly no one else should need assistance"! clinging to traditions because the human animal doesn't have the capacity to learn anything better! ...and you have the nerve to imply that a person who is better in touch with sexuality than you, who might consider it a bigger priority than you do (because we all know that for you, its about power and procreation, right?) is somehow subhuman? righteous, man...
exactly how full of shit are you? the fuck-you-I've-got-mine socio-economic outlook you tirade on and on about in every thread not pertaining to human sexuality is perhaps one of the basest examples of humanity giving into the gratification of one's self above all others. your life is a success story! you are your own boss! you look down on your employees like they were ants because they decided to work for you instead of being an entrepreneur! self-made man! "I pay for my own health care, so clearly no one else should need assistance"! clinging to traditions because the human animal doesn't have the capacity to learn anything better! ...and you have the nerve to imply that a person who is better in touch with sexuality than you, who might consider it a bigger priority than you do (because we all know that for you, its about power and procreation, right?) is somehow subhuman? righteous, man...
81
Seattleblues shows up to bash someone he disapproves of and to let everyone be made aware of his supposed moral superiority. You see, Seattleblues is right, and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. Why? Because he is! He said so! And so did his magic book! It doesn’t matter how you live your life, or care for your loved ones or donate to your community. If you are not one of the people just like him, you are evil, and must be destroyed, because you will never be as good as he is.
Sad, really, watching a mind go off the rails like that.
Sad, really, watching a mind go off the rails like that.
83
Oh dear....is it time to come up with a new definition for "Gallagher" like we did for "Santorum"? Because I believe Maggie deserves a "Google Problem"....
84
Seattleblues is still under the illusion that anyone under any circumstance has to answer to him and his vile little book. The days when lesbians and gay have to answer to Christians are in the past. Christians simply no longer call the shots in this nation and secularism is getting a deeper hold all the time. Seattleblues take your stinking bible and shove it where the sun don't shine.
85
Seattleblues is still under the illusion that anyone under any circumstance has to answer to him and his vile little book. The days when lesbians and gays have to answer to Christians are in the past. Christians simply no longer call the shots in this nation and secularism is getting a deeper hold all the time. Seattleblues take your stinking bible and shove it where the sun don't shine.
87
gus! I'm Irish too, a whole 1/32....woot! (That percentage doesn't stop me from doing appalling step-dancing and drinking Guinness, though.) Hope your Big Hollywood Adventure is affording you a ringside seat with the trout-pout/restylane crowd!
Oh Seattleblues, I see we're in our drunk/manic mode tonight, eh? What's the matter, no support call from Exodus this week? Monthly sex with the missus not doing it for you? Just felt drawn to this sex-ay crowd again? Got your keyboard cleaned up from the last visit? You know what you have to promise me, though? You need to stop thinking about all the guys on this thread, just sitting in front of their computers--STOP!--think about Mrs. Seattleblues in her burka, doing the dishes, not all the people who have no doubt just taken a five minute break from all the deviant, perverse sex they've been having, and will no doubt go right back to having as soon as they finish commenting--STOP thinking about it! Right now!
Oh Seattleblues, I see we're in our drunk/manic mode tonight, eh? What's the matter, no support call from Exodus this week? Monthly sex with the missus not doing it for you? Just felt drawn to this sex-ay crowd again? Got your keyboard cleaned up from the last visit? You know what you have to promise me, though? You need to stop thinking about all the guys on this thread, just sitting in front of their computers--STOP!--think about Mrs. Seattleblues in her burka, doing the dishes, not all the people who have no doubt just taken a five minute break from all the deviant, perverse sex they've been having, and will no doubt go right back to having as soon as they finish commenting--STOP thinking about it! Right now!
88
@81
I mention my faith only in response to comments like yours, never as a justification for any political or moral stance. This isn't because I'm ashamed of it, but because to preserve my religious liberty requires that I grant others the same license.
Yet there seem to be two standard responses to any comment about the deviant Savage, or indeed any topic.
The most common is that I'm a repressed homosexual. This of course assumes that calling me gay is insulting, and undermines everything your clay messiahs on the left have to say about 'nothing wrong with it.' The very fact that even homosexuals find calling a man homosexual insulting is very telling indeed. Additionally, it's perfectly consistent to condemn behavior without being subject to it. I have no diffuculty condemning the abuse of dogs, or bar-fighting without feeling the slightest urge to do either, for instance. I can recognize that doing ecstasy or cocaine is not good for a person without ever having used the stuff, as another example.
The second is the standard Dawkins/Hitchens modeled response. According to you folks, everything I believe is filtered through Pat Robertson or the Pope. Homosexuality isn't wrong for the obvious reason that it's so clear a violation of human sexuality in form and function, but because I read it in a book or was told it in a sermon. I don't dislike socialism as the ethically dodgy and stupidly infeasible system it is, but because my pastor/priest/televangelist said so. And so on, ad infinitum.
You might consider, just because liberals move in lockstep and take all their talking points from a few entertainers like Maddow or Hartmann or Schultz or Huffington Post doesn't mean thinking people do so as well.
More...
I mention my faith only in response to comments like yours, never as a justification for any political or moral stance. This isn't because I'm ashamed of it, but because to preserve my religious liberty requires that I grant others the same license.
Yet there seem to be two standard responses to any comment about the deviant Savage, or indeed any topic.
The most common is that I'm a repressed homosexual. This of course assumes that calling me gay is insulting, and undermines everything your clay messiahs on the left have to say about 'nothing wrong with it.' The very fact that even homosexuals find calling a man homosexual insulting is very telling indeed. Additionally, it's perfectly consistent to condemn behavior without being subject to it. I have no diffuculty condemning the abuse of dogs, or bar-fighting without feeling the slightest urge to do either, for instance. I can recognize that doing ecstasy or cocaine is not good for a person without ever having used the stuff, as another example.
The second is the standard Dawkins/Hitchens modeled response. According to you folks, everything I believe is filtered through Pat Robertson or the Pope. Homosexuality isn't wrong for the obvious reason that it's so clear a violation of human sexuality in form and function, but because I read it in a book or was told it in a sermon. I don't dislike socialism as the ethically dodgy and stupidly infeasible system it is, but because my pastor/priest/televangelist said so. And so on, ad infinitum.
You might consider, just because liberals move in lockstep and take all their talking points from a few entertainers like Maddow or Hartmann or Schultz or Huffington Post doesn't mean thinking people do so as well.
89
Canuck, you are too good to me! And you are very kind to be so thoughtful toward poor SB, cursed as he is with the conviction that he knows all he'll ever need to.
90
@Seattleblues: Dodged the Ferrari I see. Spine still intact? Pity.
It certainly seems to burn your bacon that Dan and Terry are a happy, healthy family. You never miss an opportunity to cast aspersions. Your envy is palpable.
Dan is respected, and you are not.
Dan is beloved by his friends and family, and thousands upon thousands of readers, and viewers, and listeners, and you are not.
Dan got invited to the White House in honor of all he’s done fighting bullies and homophobes, and people who can’t be happy unless others are miserable.
People. Like. You.
You will never be half the man, nor half the human being that Dan Savage is, and, in that festering boil you have in lieu of a heart, you know it.
Must make you want to eat your liver.
And now in keeping with tradition:
Here’s hoping someone feeds it to you without benefit of a nice Chianti.
It certainly seems to burn your bacon that Dan and Terry are a happy, healthy family. You never miss an opportunity to cast aspersions. Your envy is palpable.
Dan is respected, and you are not.
Dan is beloved by his friends and family, and thousands upon thousands of readers, and viewers, and listeners, and you are not.
Dan got invited to the White House in honor of all he’s done fighting bullies and homophobes, and people who can’t be happy unless others are miserable.
People. Like. You.
You will never be half the man, nor half the human being that Dan Savage is, and, in that festering boil you have in lieu of a heart, you know it.
Must make you want to eat your liver.
And now in keeping with tradition:
Here’s hoping someone feeds it to you without benefit of a nice Chianti.
91
@87
Sorry, forgot the Canuck response-
'You don't get sufficient sex with your wife AND you're gay.' How both are supposed to be true isn't exactly clear, but then, neither is Ms. Canuck. I mean, she isn't even aware of the distinctions between an Islamic tradition in female dress and a Christian one. Calling herself a Canadian and constantly gloating about her status living there, she still bristles at any questioning of her American-ness. Oh, and random vulgar comments indicative of exactly how little class she has, rather than hiding that embarassing fact. Weird.
@85
Again, didn't mention the Bible, Quran, Vedas or any other sacred text as support for a single position on politics or sexuality. Sorry for what must have been a traumatic experience with Christianity, but your rank hatred of the faith tells much more about you than about Christianity/Christians.
Sorry, forgot the Canuck response-
'You don't get sufficient sex with your wife AND you're gay.' How both are supposed to be true isn't exactly clear, but then, neither is Ms. Canuck. I mean, she isn't even aware of the distinctions between an Islamic tradition in female dress and a Christian one. Calling herself a Canadian and constantly gloating about her status living there, she still bristles at any questioning of her American-ness. Oh, and random vulgar comments indicative of exactly how little class she has, rather than hiding that embarassing fact. Weird.
@85
Again, didn't mention the Bible, Quran, Vedas or any other sacred text as support for a single position on politics or sexuality. Sorry for what must have been a traumatic experience with Christianity, but your rank hatred of the faith tells much more about you than about Christianity/Christians.
92
Seattleblues: there may not be research to answer your exact question, there is research to show that swingers, who are by definition not monogamous, are happier in their marriages:
"According to ABC News reporter John Stossel, who conducted an investigation in the Swinglifestyle. Stossel reported several Americans are swingers, according to estimates by the Kinsey Institute and other researchers. Stossel cited Terry Gould's research, which concluded that "couples swing in order to not cheat on their partners." When Stossel asked swinging couples whether they worry their spouse will "find they like someone else better", one male replied, "People in the swinging community swing for a reason. They don't swing to go out and find a new wife;" a woman asserted, "It makes women more confident - that they are the ones in charge." Stossel interviewed 12 marriage counselors. According to Stossel, "not one of them said don't do it", though some said "getting sexual thrills outside of marriage can threaten a marriage". Swingers that Stossel interviewed claimed "their marriages are stronger because they don't have affairs and they don't lie to each other. 12 of 12 marriage counselors do not have a problem with swinging.
Also:
http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.h…
"According to ABC News reporter John Stossel, who conducted an investigation in the Swinglifestyle. Stossel reported several Americans are swingers, according to estimates by the Kinsey Institute and other researchers. Stossel cited Terry Gould's research, which concluded that "couples swing in order to not cheat on their partners." When Stossel asked swinging couples whether they worry their spouse will "find they like someone else better", one male replied, "People in the swinging community swing for a reason. They don't swing to go out and find a new wife;" a woman asserted, "It makes women more confident - that they are the ones in charge." Stossel interviewed 12 marriage counselors. According to Stossel, "not one of them said don't do it", though some said "getting sexual thrills outside of marriage can threaten a marriage". Swingers that Stossel interviewed claimed "their marriages are stronger because they don't have affairs and they don't lie to each other. 12 of 12 marriage counselors do not have a problem with swinging.
Also:
http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.h…
93
@75 Based on his appearance I'd say Mr Savage hits the gym pretty regularly. Staying fit at his age takes self-discpline and a sence of purpose. If Dan lacked impulse control and couldn't understand the consequences of his actions he wouldn't look good in a T-shirt.
94
This is eloquence! Well, vulgar and small spirited eloquence, but you're trying! Good job!
Still wishing for my kids to watch me die in an accident? How kind.
Dan and Terry and the supremely unfortunate young man they are raising are not a family. Nor is he respected, except by a tiny minority of left wing oddballs. He's a freak show people get to watch for free. He's Justin Beiber, or Paris Hilton.
Being invited to the White House by Obama isn't a complement. It's an insult.
As for respect/love et al, I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. I have a close immediate family, a large extended family, friends in various countries, professional colleagues and clients and employees who seem fine with me. You personally wishing me dead is something I can live with.
Still wishing for my kids to watch me die in an accident? How kind.
Dan and Terry and the supremely unfortunate young man they are raising are not a family. Nor is he respected, except by a tiny minority of left wing oddballs. He's a freak show people get to watch for free. He's Justin Beiber, or Paris Hilton.
Being invited to the White House by Obama isn't a complement. It's an insult.
As for respect/love et al, I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. I have a close immediate family, a large extended family, friends in various countries, professional colleagues and clients and employees who seem fine with me. You personally wishing me dead is something I can live with.
95
@88: Ah how quickly you forget! Try a third response on for size Seattleblues. Remember, I don’t think you are driven by religious conviction. I don’t think you are a closet case, and I can’t even grant you the mitigation that mental illness might afford your putrid sputterings.I believe you to be a genuinely bad person, motivated by greed, envy, and hatred, who uses the cloak of conservatism in a vain attempt to disguise your leprous soul. Kisses!
96
@95 My current theory about SoB is that he is actually one of Dan's side-kicks spewing crazy-talk to keep the discussion going, but who knows.
97
Mr. Mehlman,
Sorry to burst your bubble on two fronts-
In my view people like Mr. Savage are the barbarians at the gate, attempting to destroy what Western culture has built up at so great an expense. They don't even have the excuse of doing this for societal good. They do it for self justification or out of simple spite. I would no more side with him than with Karl Marx, though at least Marx thought his positions out.
And it's possible to be addicted to working out, just as it's possible to be addicted to alchohol or coffee. What Savage looks like in a t-shirt may not be conclusive evidence of his Calivinist work ethic.
Sorry to burst your bubble on two fronts-
In my view people like Mr. Savage are the barbarians at the gate, attempting to destroy what Western culture has built up at so great an expense. They don't even have the excuse of doing this for societal good. They do it for self justification or out of simple spite. I would no more side with him than with Karl Marx, though at least Marx thought his positions out.
And it's possible to be addicted to working out, just as it's possible to be addicted to alchohol or coffee. What Savage looks like in a t-shirt may not be conclusive evidence of his Calivinist work ethic.
98
gus, I'm thinking Seattleblues could use a--wait for it--fappuchino right about now, heh. And you have to promise me you'll dance around your hotel room tonight singing "I Can Do That"...just because. And now, because I really don't want to go back downstairs to watch the hockey game:
Seattleblues:
1.Call us crazy here (yes, I know, you do that already, but work with me), but most of the men we see in the news who are the most aggressively homophobic, the most bent on passing anti-gay legislation, are also self-loathing closeted guys, it seems to go hand in hand, which is why some of us leap to the not so far-fetched conclusion that it may be a valid reason for your spending SO much time on this gay blog talking about gay guys having gay sex...just sayin'.
2. It is a known fact that people who have regular orgasms are happier and more chilled out than those who don't. Case in point: You. Wife. Not happening with regularity.
3. Yes, I'm thrilled to live in an awesome country like Canada that will allow my kids to marry if any of them happen to be gay, and that has universal health care like every other developed nation except for the States. I also have a long family history in the States, which I find interesting, genealogy-wise, although I'm rather less proud about it in recent years.
3. Burka was figurative, doofus. I could've said Christian caftan, I suppose.
4. Class? Oh, honey, people who worry about class never had it to begin with.
Seattleblues:
1.Call us crazy here (yes, I know, you do that already, but work with me), but most of the men we see in the news who are the most aggressively homophobic, the most bent on passing anti-gay legislation, are also self-loathing closeted guys, it seems to go hand in hand, which is why some of us leap to the not so far-fetched conclusion that it may be a valid reason for your spending SO much time on this gay blog talking about gay guys having gay sex...just sayin'.
2. It is a known fact that people who have regular orgasms are happier and more chilled out than those who don't. Case in point: You. Wife. Not happening with regularity.
3. Yes, I'm thrilled to live in an awesome country like Canada that will allow my kids to marry if any of them happen to be gay, and that has universal health care like every other developed nation except for the States. I also have a long family history in the States, which I find interesting, genealogy-wise, although I'm rather less proud about it in recent years.
3. Burka was figurative, doofus. I could've said Christian caftan, I suppose.
4. Class? Oh, honey, people who worry about class never had it to begin with.
99
@94: Ah yes a tiny minority is all it takes to get a book on the New York Times best sellers list! If that is the case, considering the vast and international following of which you boast, where, pray tell, are your published works upon that list? Your podcast? Nationally syndicated column? How many videos have people both famous and ordinary contributed to your historic social project? Why have we been denied the benefit of your wisdom on CNN, or MSNBC or even Fox? Hmmmm?
And as far as an invite to the White House goes, your display of sour grapes makes me laugh and laugh. You are a bad person eaten alive by envy of your betters. And we all see you.
And as far as an invite to the White House goes, your display of sour grapes makes me laugh and laugh. You are a bad person eaten alive by envy of your betters. And we all see you.
100
@98
Gay blog? Hmm. I thought it was a political blog. Since, you know, most of the staff postings are about things other than homosexuality. I might ask why a heterosexual happily married woman is so concerned with what she considers a gay blog, but don't really care about the answer.
And I repeat, Savage is a barbarian at the gates of my culture. A culture I might add, which unlike you I actually enjoy. He is one of those who must destroy but couldn't actually build anything socially. That he's gay is his business, so long as he doesn't ask me to treat that as my obligation. But you see, he does. Always. Having chosen a lifestyle, he won't accept the consequences of the choice, and that honestly offends me.
My relations with my wife are really our business, but I thank you for the concern.
What the dickens is a 'Christian caftan?' I admit to being blissfully ignorant about womens styles (though not the credit card bills associated with them) but that one got by me.
Gay blog? Hmm. I thought it was a political blog. Since, you know, most of the staff postings are about things other than homosexuality. I might ask why a heterosexual happily married woman is so concerned with what she considers a gay blog, but don't really care about the answer.
And I repeat, Savage is a barbarian at the gates of my culture. A culture I might add, which unlike you I actually enjoy. He is one of those who must destroy but couldn't actually build anything socially. That he's gay is his business, so long as he doesn't ask me to treat that as my obligation. But you see, he does. Always. Having chosen a lifestyle, he won't accept the consequences of the choice, and that honestly offends me.
My relations with my wife are really our business, but I thank you for the concern.
What the dickens is a 'Christian caftan?' I admit to being blissfully ignorant about womens styles (though not the credit card bills associated with them) but that one got by me.
101
Seattleblues @88:
How nice for you that you don't bring it up. That hasn't stopped you from using it as a crutch to support your beliefs. An example: A Jew who doesn't tell anyone he is Jewish is no less Jewish. And bigoted homophobes who use religion as the basis for their reasoning, but don't tell anyone what that religion is, makes them no less a bible-thumping bigoted homophobe.
Glad I could spell that one out for ya.
And I just love that you know who is a deviant, what is and isn't a family, and what is moral and good in this world and what isn't. Why, I am surprised that a man of your obviously staggering intellect and moral rectitude isn't the leader of the free world and a paragon of virtue for the whole world to emulate!
Wait, no I'm not. Because you wouldn't know a deviant if it fell on you. But you might see one if you looked in a mirror. The only proof you have to your positions is your conviction that you are right and everyone who doesn't follow that path is wrong. You want your freedom of religion, but won't let anyone else have freedom of conviction if it doesn't align with your own. That, in itself, is a myopic, self-centered, judgmental view of people who disagree with you.
"In my view people like Mr. Savage are the barbarians at the gate, attempting to destroy what Western culture has built up at so great an expense. They don't even have the excuse of doing this for societal good. "
Care to provide any proof of this? Or are you just espousing an opinion?
How nice for you that you don't bring it up. That hasn't stopped you from using it as a crutch to support your beliefs. An example: A Jew who doesn't tell anyone he is Jewish is no less Jewish. And bigoted homophobes who use religion as the basis for their reasoning, but don't tell anyone what that religion is, makes them no less a bible-thumping bigoted homophobe.
Glad I could spell that one out for ya.
And I just love that you know who is a deviant, what is and isn't a family, and what is moral and good in this world and what isn't. Why, I am surprised that a man of your obviously staggering intellect and moral rectitude isn't the leader of the free world and a paragon of virtue for the whole world to emulate!
Wait, no I'm not. Because you wouldn't know a deviant if it fell on you. But you might see one if you looked in a mirror. The only proof you have to your positions is your conviction that you are right and everyone who doesn't follow that path is wrong. You want your freedom of religion, but won't let anyone else have freedom of conviction if it doesn't align with your own. That, in itself, is a myopic, self-centered, judgmental view of people who disagree with you.
"In my view people like Mr. Savage are the barbarians at the gate, attempting to destroy what Western culture has built up at so great an expense. They don't even have the excuse of doing this for societal good. "
Care to provide any proof of this? Or are you just espousing an opinion?
102
@99
I don't recall boasting about an international following. Having spent a lot of time travelling and living abroad I've made friends... well...abroad. Personally I don't find that too surprising. Sorry that you do.
Nor am I jealous of Mr. Savage. I've been moderately lucky and am very content with my own life.
Yes, heterosexuals are supposed to wear the hair shirt with regard to gays right now, so boys kissing on television or gay oriented books sell to people who don't know any better. It's a little like all the husbands/boyfriends who read Chicken Soup for the Soul years ago. You ladies didn't actually think we LIKED that crap, did you. Really? Huh! Actually, it's more like the old pop commercial which told the viewer to be different and all rush out and buy that brand of soda.
Without placing him on the same level as Savage, more on a continuum from the banal evil to the overtly evil, Hitler and Genghis Khan had followings too. Didn't make them good men, in my opinion.
@101
Yes, I was espousing an opinion. Hence the preface 'in my view.' The very notion of a barbarian in modern context implies an opinion.
I don't recall boasting about an international following. Having spent a lot of time travelling and living abroad I've made friends... well...abroad. Personally I don't find that too surprising. Sorry that you do.
Nor am I jealous of Mr. Savage. I've been moderately lucky and am very content with my own life.
Yes, heterosexuals are supposed to wear the hair shirt with regard to gays right now, so boys kissing on television or gay oriented books sell to people who don't know any better. It's a little like all the husbands/boyfriends who read Chicken Soup for the Soul years ago. You ladies didn't actually think we LIKED that crap, did you. Really? Huh! Actually, it's more like the old pop commercial which told the viewer to be different and all rush out and buy that brand of soda.
Without placing him on the same level as Savage, more on a continuum from the banal evil to the overtly evil, Hitler and Genghis Khan had followings too. Didn't make them good men, in my opinion.
@101
Yes, I was espousing an opinion. Hence the preface 'in my view.' The very notion of a barbarian in modern context implies an opinion.
103
I guess what's interesting to me is that Gallagher's initial comment reads, to any sane, rationally-thinking, inquisitive person, as a direct endorsement of Dan's thinking/argument, and an obvious rebuttal of her own organization's rhetoric. Is the religious right really so oblivious as to ignore this and just think "well, she said she doesn't like Dan Savage, so, I don't either"?
I love Dan Savage.
I love Dan Savage.
105
@104 Ooooo! I can answer! (I have a Masters in Seattleblues) "Because buttsex caused the fall of Rome." Or something...
106
Ms Canuck - No, no, no, no, PLEASE no!!! Seattleblues is the Zeroest of Kinsey zeroes who ever drew breath. Think of how you would feel if someone else posted that he secretly dreams night after night after hot Italian night of being dominated by you and Ms Kim and Ms Erica and many of the other female luminaries here until he doesn't know which end of himself is up.
We'll take Richard III instead if that makes you feel any better - I always thought a competent cross-examiner could have gotten him off the Princicide charge and everything else crumbles away if that falls.
We'll take Richard III instead if that makes you feel any better - I always thought a competent cross-examiner could have gotten him off the Princicide charge and everything else crumbles away if that falls.
107
Oh - and about the straight audience. Have I missed something, and is the whole premise of the program to be that it is designed for an entirely straight audience? In that case, it would depress me too much and I'll pass; it would be just like that fashionable equestrian all over again. Or is there some sort of ridiculous presumption on the part of the other side that nobody with a Kinsey score of 1 or higher watches MTV or attends university?
108
For all the talk about how monogamy is fine for the few who prefer it, I find that Savage frequently disparages monogamy. I don't understand why that is okay, any more than it is okay for the monogamous to disparage those who make a different choice. Aberrant? Since gays are a smaller percentage of the whole, would it be okay with Dan if we called them aberrant too? I mean, I think that's obviously insulting, so why does he call monogamy "aberrant"? It's also based on a lot of confusion about what biology actually tells us. Anyway, here's another example:
"Only those who are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy degree place a higher value preserving monogamy within a particular marriage over saving that particular marriage itself."
This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what people may value about monogamy. It's not the sex per se; it's the uniqueness of this bond, the special intimacy created, the deep trust based on the assumption that both people have honestly declared that they prefer this arrangement. When that's violated, it's not a problem because the monogamous person is too obsessed with sex!
It amazes me that I have to say this to an audience that seems largely progressive, but could we take difference seriously for a moment and try to have tolerance for the Other? Imagine what it's like: Say you've had a long-term relationship based on a mutual agreement to be non-monogamous. You value the uniqueness of that relationship, not just because you're enjoying the non-monogamous sex, but because of all that you share with your partner. Now, your partner suddenly decides that non-monogamy is no longer okay, and refuses to give you a choice in that matter. Do you feel betrayed or upset? Is your concern primarily based on your unhealthy obsession with sex? I'd say no. It's about the whole relationship, which you cannot separate so neatly from the choices made about sexuality.
Why, then, insist that this is what monogamous people are doing, when they value a certain way of having a relationship with another person? That's how I best experience love, and deep trust, and better understanding of someone. Okay, but it's "aberrant" and based on unhealthy obsession with sex? That's absurd.
More...
"Only those who are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy degree place a higher value preserving monogamy within a particular marriage over saving that particular marriage itself."
This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what people may value about monogamy. It's not the sex per se; it's the uniqueness of this bond, the special intimacy created, the deep trust based on the assumption that both people have honestly declared that they prefer this arrangement. When that's violated, it's not a problem because the monogamous person is too obsessed with sex!
It amazes me that I have to say this to an audience that seems largely progressive, but could we take difference seriously for a moment and try to have tolerance for the Other? Imagine what it's like: Say you've had a long-term relationship based on a mutual agreement to be non-monogamous. You value the uniqueness of that relationship, not just because you're enjoying the non-monogamous sex, but because of all that you share with your partner. Now, your partner suddenly decides that non-monogamy is no longer okay, and refuses to give you a choice in that matter. Do you feel betrayed or upset? Is your concern primarily based on your unhealthy obsession with sex? I'd say no. It's about the whole relationship, which you cannot separate so neatly from the choices made about sexuality.
Why, then, insist that this is what monogamous people are doing, when they value a certain way of having a relationship with another person? That's how I best experience love, and deep trust, and better understanding of someone. Okay, but it's "aberrant" and based on unhealthy obsession with sex? That's absurd.
109
vennominon, I most humbly beg your pardon, that comparison, which caused a delay in posting while I manually bleached my brain, is so utterly appalling that I will withdraw my former claim. The thing is, though, I don't really want him in my straight tribe, either...what can we do? (Maybe the invertebrates will have him, they're such small-brained sluts.)
Richard III? Well, if you must, but I'm not forcing you...and how odd that his soliloquy is still lodged in my pea brain from 10th grade drama, derp.
Richard III? Well, if you must, but I'm not forcing you...and how odd that his soliloquy is still lodged in my pea brain from 10th grade drama, derp.
110
"Why is it that the women who preach the "fidelity above all else" line look like they'd rather suck on a lemon than have sex? And I'm just guessing, but I'd think their own husbands would probably love to follow Dan's example, open-relationship-wise, anyway."
Is this how we're supposed to react to people who take pleasure in different ways from us, who prefer different kinds of relationship from us? Because sometimes I hear guys comment on the ugliness of dykes, and it always struck me as a pretty stupid, offensive way to treat people.
Is this how we're supposed to react to people who take pleasure in different ways from us, who prefer different kinds of relationship from us? Because sometimes I hear guys comment on the ugliness of dykes, and it always struck me as a pretty stupid, offensive way to treat people.
111
@100: " That he's gay is his business, so long as he doesn't ask me to treat that as my obligation. But you see, he does."
How? Seriously, explain to me exactly how you are being asked to "treat [Dan's homosexuality] as [your] obligation?"
"Having chosen a lifestyle, he won't accept the consequences of the choice, and that honestly offends me."
He won't accept being treated like a second-class citizen. And that offends you? Hm. I'd appreciate your take on the Civil Rights Movement then.
How? Seriously, explain to me exactly how you are being asked to "treat [Dan's homosexuality] as [your] obligation?"
"Having chosen a lifestyle, he won't accept the consequences of the choice, and that honestly offends me."
He won't accept being treated like a second-class citizen. And that offends you? Hm. I'd appreciate your take on the Civil Rights Movement then.
112
@92, most swingers are white, republican, conservative and middle aged? does that sound like anyone on here? nah.
113
@ Seattleblues
Could you please outline the 'Morals' that seperate us Humans from the Animals like Dan Savage?
Could you please outline the 'Morals' that seperate us Humans from the Animals like Dan Savage?
114
@Suzy Personally I don't value sexual gratification quite as much as Mr. Savage does. I don't always agree with him but I like his stuff because he is consistently clever and interesting and doesn't seem to take himself too seriously.
115
@94: "Being invited to the White House by Obama isn't a complement. It's an insult."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/06…
Come at me bro.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/06…
Come at me bro.
116
Well, Suzy, first off, you make it sound as though people like Maggie Gallagher are just happily living their monogamous lives, and mopping up the tears caused by bad Dan and his naughty band of "monogamish" followers...but that's not the case. Maggie Gallagher and the other sour lemon ladies like her have made it their mission to cause untold harm via their opposition to same-sex marriage, and adoption, and ENDA, etc., etc. Maggie Gallagher doesn't just "prefer a different kind of relationship," as you so sweetly suggest, she is actively hurting people. If someone like Dan, whose family is constantly denigrated by people like Gallagher, who can't marry his "boyfriend in America" because of people like Gallagher, who could, ostensibly, be fired because of people like Gallagher, then I'd say he's entitled to a little hyperbole. But think about this, Suzy: With over 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, maybe it's not as much hyperbole as you'd think.
117
Since Seattleblues seems to think that the only thing that matters in this world is money, it does my heart a world of good to know that, with this new deal, Dan will be making fabulously more than Seattleblues could ever imagine in his wildest dreams.
Suck it, bitch.
Suck it, bitch.
118
I'm usually willing to let your rants slip by with amusement, Seattleblues. I'm more than happy watch you dig yourself deeper. I find your insistence that you don't talk about your faith amusing. Fact is you've brought it up numerous times, here's a few dates curtesy of my photographic-ish memory (Nov. 27, 2010; January 3, 2011; March 20, 2011). I'm amused when you attempt a moral high ground and ignore your own slips into vulgarity (Nov. 23, 2019; Dec. 14, 2010; Dec. 15, 2010). I find your continued praise of your Italian home, village life, affluent schools a bore, though. I'm more than happy to let you be the poster child for Jesus and his church. So keep up the good work.
Let's get one thing straight you will cease attacking Dan's son. Slog history will easily reveal that Slog was created by Dan, that this his blog. You are attacking his son, by slandering his family and you will stop it. You would not like your own children reading about their family being attacked on your own blog.
I will trust Dan to speak for himself. But make no mistake your continued attacks and slander are evidence of your own poverty. Righteous, moral, and ethical people do not slander people they don't know nor do they have memory laps about their proclamations of faith, etc.
You, of course, may continue with your opinion of Dan. But, those if us here who have socialized with him in person can disagree with you. It is a free country.
Leave the minor child out of your rants. No-one likes a bully, especially one that picks on children.
It appears it is time for more pain medication, so I'm going to return to hibernation as I recover from surgery.
Do us all a favor, please. Bring out the good in yourself and leave Dan's son and his family alone. School yard bullies are more than enough for any child to deal with, and don't be a blog bully.
More...
Let's get one thing straight you will cease attacking Dan's son. Slog history will easily reveal that Slog was created by Dan, that this his blog. You are attacking his son, by slandering his family and you will stop it. You would not like your own children reading about their family being attacked on your own blog.
I will trust Dan to speak for himself. But make no mistake your continued attacks and slander are evidence of your own poverty. Righteous, moral, and ethical people do not slander people they don't know nor do they have memory laps about their proclamations of faith, etc.
You, of course, may continue with your opinion of Dan. But, those if us here who have socialized with him in person can disagree with you. It is a free country.
Leave the minor child out of your rants. No-one likes a bully, especially one that picks on children.
It appears it is time for more pain medication, so I'm going to return to hibernation as I recover from surgery.
Do us all a favor, please. Bring out the good in yourself and leave Dan's son and his family alone. School yard bullies are more than enough for any child to deal with, and don't be a blog bully.
119
So what makes these "sour lemon ladies" so sour, other than "fidelity above all else"? Because your first comment makes it sound like their commitment to fidelity is the problem, and not just their damaging actions towards others. If your point is that women who are trying to restrict other people's relationships and harm them are doing bad, then great, I totally agree with you. Though I would still think it wrong to speculate about what their husband actually prefer.
Nevertheless, I value fidelity very highly, and I'm not getting the impression that's okay, especially when you seem to assign significant blame for the 50% marriage rate to this issue. My understanding is that money problems are lot bigger than sex problems in causing divorce, and not all sex problems are fidelity problems.
Nevertheless, I value fidelity very highly, and I'm not getting the impression that's okay, especially when you seem to assign significant blame for the 50% marriage rate to this issue. My understanding is that money problems are lot bigger than sex problems in causing divorce, and not all sex problems are fidelity problems.
120
Yep, Kimmie's right, jackass - family's off limits in any civilized discussion. Attack Dan (or me, if that makes you happy) all you want, but only a piece of shit with no morals attacks someone's family.
121
@Seattleblues
Could you tell me how all of these animals behavior is unnatural? And many of these listed are revered in Christianity for being touch by God, such as the Lamb and Dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ani…
And I love that you learned a slight lesson from me pointing out your bigotry in another thread. April 2, http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
Could you tell me how all of these animals behavior is unnatural? And many of these listed are revered in Christianity for being touch by God, such as the Lamb and Dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ani…
And I love that you learned a slight lesson from me pointing out your bigotry in another thread. April 2, http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
122
@Suzy, you seem sincere in thinking that Dan disparages monogamy. But most of what he writes, particularly "this aberrant lifestyle choice" and "unhealthy obsession with sex", is satire. You know, like a play on straight haters saying that the "gay lifestyle choice" is aberrant, and caused by an "unhealthy obsession with sex"?
"This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what people may value about monogamy. It's not the sex per se; it's the uniqueness of this bond, the special intimacy created, the deep trust based on the assumption that both people have honestly declared that they prefer this arrangement." So you're saying the best thing about monogamy is....honesty? Isn't that what Dan himself preaches? All he's saying is, monogamy shouldn't come *before* honesty. If you truly take offense to that, you're lying to yourself about why monogamy is so great.
And I think Canuck was just trying to say that you may be taking the tone of Dan (or Slog in general) the wrong way and judging unfairly because it. We're a rowdy, vulgar, sarcastic bunch here, and we like it that way. But really, nobody is attacking you, your lifestyle, or the social acceptance and legal rights accorded to you and that lifestyle. So...just relax, really. And stick around, our brand of humor may grow on you.
"This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what people may value about monogamy. It's not the sex per se; it's the uniqueness of this bond, the special intimacy created, the deep trust based on the assumption that both people have honestly declared that they prefer this arrangement." So you're saying the best thing about monogamy is....honesty? Isn't that what Dan himself preaches? All he's saying is, monogamy shouldn't come *before* honesty. If you truly take offense to that, you're lying to yourself about why monogamy is so great.
And I think Canuck was just trying to say that you may be taking the tone of Dan (or Slog in general) the wrong way and judging unfairly because it. We're a rowdy, vulgar, sarcastic bunch here, and we like it that way. But really, nobody is attacking you, your lifestyle, or the social acceptance and legal rights accorded to you and that lifestyle. So...just relax, really. And stick around, our brand of humor may grow on you.
123
@119 "So what makes these "sour lemon ladies" so sour, other than "fidelity above all else
Gallagher has many problems, of which her commitment to fidelity, and the belief that it is the only way to achieve a happy marriage, is one (for that very reason.)
And you need to spend a little more time reading through Dan's archives. He may be exercising a bit of dramatic liberty in this post, but in general, he makes it clear that if both partners favour monogamy and exclusivity, then that's great. The problem is that he gets an awful lot of letters from people who are ending marriages because of an affair 15 years in, rather than acknowledging that 100% monogamy doesn't happen for everyone, no matter how hard they try. He advocates for honesty about that, rather than the "all or nothing" approach.
And okay, I'm going to be a complete catty bitch here and suggest that yes, I truly believe that Maggie Gallagher's husband has thought about having sex with someone else. Sue me.
Gallagher has many problems, of which her commitment to fidelity, and the belief that it is the only way to achieve a happy marriage, is one (for that very reason.)
And you need to spend a little more time reading through Dan's archives. He may be exercising a bit of dramatic liberty in this post, but in general, he makes it clear that if both partners favour monogamy and exclusivity, then that's great. The problem is that he gets an awful lot of letters from people who are ending marriages because of an affair 15 years in, rather than acknowledging that 100% monogamy doesn't happen for everyone, no matter how hard they try. He advocates for honesty about that, rather than the "all or nothing" approach.
And okay, I'm going to be a complete catty bitch here and suggest that yes, I truly believe that Maggie Gallagher's husband has thought about having sex with someone else. Sue me.
125
@SB, You're fending the barbarians from the gates of Western Culture? That's funny. See, a lot of us barbarians are Westerners driven by Western ideas with roots thousands of years deep.
Kind of like how you don't have a monopoly on what it means to be an American, you don't have a monopoly on what constitutes Western Culture. Your understanding of our tradition is highly selective and exclusive, and seems to have hit 1914 and ossified. But have no fear, Western Culture will continue to grow and change, with or without you. Likely without you.
As far as a means of defending your idea of Western Culture from the barbarians, talking trash on Slog with us dogs and gorillas is one of the most ineffective methods conceivable. If anything you provide a handy lathe upon which we can sharpen our rhetorical knives. You're a punching bag, dummy.
Kind of like how you don't have a monopoly on what it means to be an American, you don't have a monopoly on what constitutes Western Culture. Your understanding of our tradition is highly selective and exclusive, and seems to have hit 1914 and ossified. But have no fear, Western Culture will continue to grow and change, with or without you. Likely without you.
As far as a means of defending your idea of Western Culture from the barbarians, talking trash on Slog with us dogs and gorillas is one of the most ineffective methods conceivable. If anything you provide a handy lathe upon which we can sharpen our rhetorical knives. You're a punching bag, dummy.
126
@118
I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his boyfriend. Not once. Never. I don't know anything about him except that two men adopted him through no fault of his own. Nor except very rarely in passing have I mentioned Savages boyfriend. You can tell yourselves I did if it makes you happy, but it simply isn't true.
However, words do have meaning. Mr. Savage is not married. The word does not legally apply to him in the United States, the nation in which he lives and whose laws apply to him. It just doesn't. You can wish it did, and work for a time when it will, and I'll respectfully disagree with the wish. I'll respectfully fight the attempt to demean marriage with everything I can muster. But I won't call a thing what it isn't. Mr Savage isn't married, and the relationship between him, his boyfriend and the boy is not what any definition I know calls a family.
And I would imagine you all had the same outrage when Bristol Palin was being run through the media mill, called a slut and so on because her mother ran for president, yes? No? Interesting.
Second, whatever your photographic-ish memory tells you I don't use my faith as a justification for positions. When others bring it up by falsely claiming I am using the Bible as a justification, I respond. When others make claims about Christianity that simply aren't factual, I occasionally respond. I have yet to quote a scripture about homosexuality or taxation or anything else except in such a response. However, Christianity informs a lot of my beliefs, as whatever you were raised believing or not believing informs yours. And?
I admit to slipping into exasperation and even occasional vulgarity. It isn't seemly, it isn't Christian and it isn't very adult. Mea Culpa.
Though it will mean nothing from a stranger, I do wish you the best of luck in your recovery.
More...
I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his boyfriend. Not once. Never. I don't know anything about him except that two men adopted him through no fault of his own. Nor except very rarely in passing have I mentioned Savages boyfriend. You can tell yourselves I did if it makes you happy, but it simply isn't true.
However, words do have meaning. Mr. Savage is not married. The word does not legally apply to him in the United States, the nation in which he lives and whose laws apply to him. It just doesn't. You can wish it did, and work for a time when it will, and I'll respectfully disagree with the wish. I'll respectfully fight the attempt to demean marriage with everything I can muster. But I won't call a thing what it isn't. Mr Savage isn't married, and the relationship between him, his boyfriend and the boy is not what any definition I know calls a family.
And I would imagine you all had the same outrage when Bristol Palin was being run through the media mill, called a slut and so on because her mother ran for president, yes? No? Interesting.
Second, whatever your photographic-ish memory tells you I don't use my faith as a justification for positions. When others bring it up by falsely claiming I am using the Bible as a justification, I respond. When others make claims about Christianity that simply aren't factual, I occasionally respond. I have yet to quote a scripture about homosexuality or taxation or anything else except in such a response. However, Christianity informs a lot of my beliefs, as whatever you were raised believing or not believing informs yours. And?
I admit to slipping into exasperation and even occasional vulgarity. It isn't seemly, it isn't Christian and it isn't very adult. Mea Culpa.
Though it will mean nothing from a stranger, I do wish you the best of luck in your recovery.
127
"However, Christianity informs a lot of my beliefs, as whatever you were raised believing or not believing informs yours. And?"
No, your neurotic resistance to your own sexual feelings informs your belief, Seattleblues, but you just claim it is "Christianity".
But we see through you. You are not fooling anybody.
No, your neurotic resistance to your own sexual feelings informs your belief, Seattleblues, but you just claim it is "Christianity".
But we see through you. You are not fooling anybody.
129
@126, Kangaroos are not native to North America. If a Kangaroo enters the US, does it cease to be a kangaroo? Kangaroos are kangaroos in Canada.
130
e. ebullient...I do like to share my saucer of milk whenever possible... :)
gus! Where are you? Oot and aboot?
Good night, then...zzz.
gus! Where are you? Oot and aboot?
Good night, then...zzz.
132
Seattleblues? Your handle gives a bad name to Seattle. And that offends me.
"Dan and Terry and the supremely unfortunate young man they are raising are not a family. Nor is he respected, except by a tiny minority of left wing oddballs."
How many millions of readers does your weekly syndicated column attract, ***blues? When did you come to the party and discover that Dan was influential? Last week?
As for your comment about Dan's family, and my family, and all the many other families out there that don't partake of your crabbed definition of "family," I can only say that I feel sorry for you and your narrowness. I hope you have happiness in your life. I have no idea how you could, with that disease of the heart and brain that you show off here. Pathetic.
"Dan and Terry and the supremely unfortunate young man they are raising are not a family. Nor is he respected, except by a tiny minority of left wing oddballs."
How many millions of readers does your weekly syndicated column attract, ***blues? When did you come to the party and discover that Dan was influential? Last week?
As for your comment about Dan's family, and my family, and all the many other families out there that don't partake of your crabbed definition of "family," I can only say that I feel sorry for you and your narrowness. I hope you have happiness in your life. I have no idea how you could, with that disease of the heart and brain that you show off here. Pathetic.
133
Perhaps you should re-read your comment today on another thread today, Seattleblues. Because, you most certainly attacked Dan's son by calling his fathers perverts. And, you attacked their family in January.
I did not say that you used your faith to justify your rants. I only pointed out that you personally announced that you were a devout Protestant Christian (look it up, you said it on January 3). Despite your labeling yourself, you get defensive when others bring it up. What do you expect, you present yourself as some kind of moral authority. You slander people you do not know and attack their families.
I get you don't like the fact that the word marriage has been redefined to include same-sex couples. Take it up with Merriam-Webster, etc., because they have changed the definition. And, no-one has appointed you king. You do not own the word marriage or family.
As to attacking the younger Ms. Palin, you are putting words in my mouth.
Thank you for your kind words towards my recovery. I wish you
success. You are always welcome to your opinion, just leave the child and his family (that includes his fathers) out. Think what you want, but keep it private. You are a better man than that. You love your children, and would not want your son reading someone calling you: mentally ill, deviant, pervert... No-one wants to hear their family slammed, even I don't and I grew up in a physically abusive one. Leave him and his family alone, please.
I did not say that you used your faith to justify your rants. I only pointed out that you personally announced that you were a devout Protestant Christian (look it up, you said it on January 3). Despite your labeling yourself, you get defensive when others bring it up. What do you expect, you present yourself as some kind of moral authority. You slander people you do not know and attack their families.
I get you don't like the fact that the word marriage has been redefined to include same-sex couples. Take it up with Merriam-Webster, etc., because they have changed the definition. And, no-one has appointed you king. You do not own the word marriage or family.
As to attacking the younger Ms. Palin, you are putting words in my mouth.
Thank you for your kind words towards my recovery. I wish you
success. You are always welcome to your opinion, just leave the child and his family (that includes his fathers) out. Think what you want, but keep it private. You are a better man than that. You love your children, and would not want your son reading someone calling you: mentally ill, deviant, pervert... No-one wants to hear their family slammed, even I don't and I grew up in a physically abusive one. Leave him and his family alone, please.
134
xo, Canuck. It went well, but I'm not ready to be back here yet. I just felt that I had to say something on DJ's behalf. No child should have to read his family being bullied, his father(s) being called names. And, I'm one who thinks family should be off limit, always. All families, mine, your's, Dan's, Palin's, Seattleblues'....
135
empty words, SB,empty words. full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. you have changed no minds, nor gained allies. Sloggers, as we have been affectionately dubbed, are a family of sorts, and have been since Slog's beginning. and, like a family, we are fiercely loyal to each other, and an attack on one is an attack on all. so spew all the bile you want, and hurl invective 'til you climax. it matters not to us. we will go on with our lives, loving and laughing, enjoying each other's company (quite a few of us are good pals in real life) toasting our triumphs, celebrating victories, giving out love and compassion in great measure, mourning lives lost, and most of all, LIVING, not merely existing. your vitriol affects us not.
137
"But most of what he writes, particularly "this aberrant lifestyle choice" and "unhealthy obsession with sex", is satire."
That makes sense and could be true, and if so, I missed it. I started reading Savage based on links from Andrew Sullivan, back when "Sex at Dawn" was being debated by various people, and most of what I read from Savage seemed pretty hostile to monogamy. My sense is that he does think it's aberrant, and US culture pressures people, who are mostly non-monogamous, to conform to a false and ill-fitting ideal of monogamy. I don't believe monogamy is as unusual or weird or difficult as he seems to think. I often notice that he says things indicating a basic bias against monogamy or fidelity, and I don't see why that's helpful or necessary. Isn't it about people's personal choice?
"So you're saying the best thing about monogamy is....honesty?"
Honesty is foundational for the good stuff, but the best thing is the special relationship achieved after a long practice of (willing!) monogamy with your partner. I don't take any offense to the idea that honesty should come before monogamy--indeed, that seems essential! However, I read Dan to be saying more than this: that if honesty happens to come after monogamy, as it often does, then the monogamous person is going to have to accept the short end of the deal because, after all, monogamy is the unnatural choice that's being imposed on the more normal person. The assumption seems to be that the monogamous person is restrictive and uptight--by definition, closed to possibilities that most people would want.
"But really, nobody is attacking you, your lifestyle, or the social acceptance and legal rights accorded to you and that lifestyle."
I don't know about that. It seems to be a popular view that faithful monogamy is terribly difficult, somehow contrary to our biology, that people are depriving themselves of something very important if they choose it, and that slip-ups are normal and should be better tolerated. Someone like Douthat (with whom I don't generally agree) who defends monogamy seems like the outlier nowadays, the old fuddy-duddy who needs to get a grip on reality.
As far as legal rights, I don't know of any legal rights I have that a non-monogamous couple wouldn't also have, unless you mean someone who wants to marry a plural group. I also doubt that monogamy enjoys more than a thin veneer of social acceptance. I'm married and people often hit on me or my spouse even though they know we're married. When people cheat, the dishonesty involved causes at least much problem as the violation of social standards favoring monogamy. People don't seem particularly surprised when they hear of someone's partner cheating--again, the underlying assumption seems to be that most people don't really want to be monogamous and have to struggle to do it, so expecting fidelity is just courting trouble. If we took the same approach towards, say, same-sex attraction, it would be completely condescending and offensive.
More...
That makes sense and could be true, and if so, I missed it. I started reading Savage based on links from Andrew Sullivan, back when "Sex at Dawn" was being debated by various people, and most of what I read from Savage seemed pretty hostile to monogamy. My sense is that he does think it's aberrant, and US culture pressures people, who are mostly non-monogamous, to conform to a false and ill-fitting ideal of monogamy. I don't believe monogamy is as unusual or weird or difficult as he seems to think. I often notice that he says things indicating a basic bias against monogamy or fidelity, and I don't see why that's helpful or necessary. Isn't it about people's personal choice?
"So you're saying the best thing about monogamy is....honesty?"
Honesty is foundational for the good stuff, but the best thing is the special relationship achieved after a long practice of (willing!) monogamy with your partner. I don't take any offense to the idea that honesty should come before monogamy--indeed, that seems essential! However, I read Dan to be saying more than this: that if honesty happens to come after monogamy, as it often does, then the monogamous person is going to have to accept the short end of the deal because, after all, monogamy is the unnatural choice that's being imposed on the more normal person. The assumption seems to be that the monogamous person is restrictive and uptight--by definition, closed to possibilities that most people would want.
"But really, nobody is attacking you, your lifestyle, or the social acceptance and legal rights accorded to you and that lifestyle."
I don't know about that. It seems to be a popular view that faithful monogamy is terribly difficult, somehow contrary to our biology, that people are depriving themselves of something very important if they choose it, and that slip-ups are normal and should be better tolerated. Someone like Douthat (with whom I don't generally agree) who defends monogamy seems like the outlier nowadays, the old fuddy-duddy who needs to get a grip on reality.
As far as legal rights, I don't know of any legal rights I have that a non-monogamous couple wouldn't also have, unless you mean someone who wants to marry a plural group. I also doubt that monogamy enjoys more than a thin veneer of social acceptance. I'm married and people often hit on me or my spouse even though they know we're married. When people cheat, the dishonesty involved causes at least much problem as the violation of social standards favoring monogamy. People don't seem particularly surprised when they hear of someone's partner cheating--again, the underlying assumption seems to be that most people don't really want to be monogamous and have to struggle to do it, so expecting fidelity is just courting trouble. If we took the same approach towards, say, same-sex attraction, it would be completely condescending and offensive.
138
Seattleblues @ 126:
"I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his boyfriend. Not once. Never."
Wake up, you dunderhead! You just did! In your own post claiming you didn't!
Wow. Just...wow.
You ignorance of your own failings is nothing short of historic! Monumental! Staggering in it's range and pomposity!
You called that young man unfortunate. How 'KIND' of you!
He went from being the child of a young, unwed mother who could probably sustain him to a life with people who cared for him and gave him a gift of travel, experience, food, shelter, and, it seems, endless snowboarding. If that's 'unfortunate', I wonder how many children across the world would give their left arm to be so 'unfortunate'! But I guess it is better to be raised by a straight married couple who beat you regularly and starve you than to be raised by those 'icky' gays!
Let's play a word game!
"I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his 'Jew wife'.
That wouldn't be an attack? Denigrating the relationship they share, and the devotion they have to their child?
That's not an attack?
Seriously?
"I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his mulatto wife."
Wow. Not much different when we change a few words.
You are a pedantic, inveterate liar. While I wish it upon no one, the world will not mourn the passing of your kind from this earth.
Poozer.
"I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his boyfriend. Not once. Never."
Wake up, you dunderhead! You just did! In your own post claiming you didn't!
Wow. Just...wow.
You ignorance of your own failings is nothing short of historic! Monumental! Staggering in it's range and pomposity!
You called that young man unfortunate. How 'KIND' of you!
He went from being the child of a young, unwed mother who could probably sustain him to a life with people who cared for him and gave him a gift of travel, experience, food, shelter, and, it seems, endless snowboarding. If that's 'unfortunate', I wonder how many children across the world would give their left arm to be so 'unfortunate'! But I guess it is better to be raised by a straight married couple who beat you regularly and starve you than to be raised by those 'icky' gays!
Let's play a word game!
"I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his 'Jew wife'.
That wouldn't be an attack? Denigrating the relationship they share, and the devotion they have to their child?
That's not an attack?
Seriously?
"I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his mulatto wife."
Wow. Not much different when we change a few words.
You are a pedantic, inveterate liar. While I wish it upon no one, the world will not mourn the passing of your kind from this earth.
Poozer.
139
As is compulsory for anything even remotely gay related, an asshole christian will leave asshole comments. While doing so, they will claim moral superiority and at the same time be massively hypocritical. Surprise to no one, Seattle Blues.
140
MirrorMan @101 "A Jew who doesn't tell anyone he is Jewish is no less Jewish."
MirrorMan @138: ""I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his 'Jew wife'. That wouldn't be an attack?"
Are you Jewish? I am, and your examples make for pretty odd reading. I'm not taking offense, yet, but if you keep on using Jew/Jewish as an example of something insulting... I'm going to start taking offense.
MirrorMan @138: ""I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his 'Jew wife'. That wouldn't be an attack?"
Are you Jewish? I am, and your examples make for pretty odd reading. I'm not taking offense, yet, but if you keep on using Jew/Jewish as an example of something insulting... I'm going to start taking offense.
142
@71:
A part of your post was cut off. You forgot to put the details of what network your show is on, and the title and time.
---
Also, libido *will* out.
A part of your post was cut off. You forgot to put the details of what network your show is on, and the title and time.
---
Also, libido *will* out.
143
God bless Kim and her wisdom and compassion. Seattleblues, if I thought you capable, I'd direct you to learn from her example. Because, you vicious piece of crap, she is more a Christian than you can ever hope to be, and calling that into question with your snide little "whatever you were raised believing or not believing" comment, considering how knowledgeable she has demonstrated herself to be regarding her faith and the book upon which it is based, shows just how morally bankrupt and mendacious you are. You owe her an apology.
And one more time you horrible, horrible, man:
Every time you attempt to negate DJ's family, every time you refer to him as unfortunate, or the "unluckiest boy in the world", you are being a bully and you are hurting a child. I mean, you live in Seattle, why don't you just go over to his house and spit on him?
I second Kim and 5280.
Shut the fuck up about DJ's family
Oh, and as far as the banality of evil goes? Look in the mirror.
And one more time you horrible, horrible, man:
Every time you attempt to negate DJ's family, every time you refer to him as unfortunate, or the "unluckiest boy in the world", you are being a bully and you are hurting a child. I mean, you live in Seattle, why don't you just go over to his house and spit on him?
I second Kim and 5280.
Shut the fuck up about DJ's family
Oh, and as far as the banality of evil goes? Look in the mirror.
145
I'm one of those rare people that has only had one partner. We've been together for 14 years. I also happen to be gay. My relationship has outlasted every one of straight friends' marriages. I'm aware it's rare, even among straight people.
I consider it to be as much a matter of chance as choice. Considering the chances of finding a person you're highly compatible when you're limited to maybe 2% of the population to begin with, it's like finding a needle in a haystack. I've placed such a high value on that find, that I feel no need to look for anyone else.
But I get that this is rare...to "hit the jackpot" so to speak so soon out of the gate. I'd never advise someone to stick with someone they're not really compatible with for the sake of maintaining some tradition. People shouldn't make sacrifices that make them miserable. People should make sacrifices when the payoff is bigger than the sacrifice...sacrifices that make them happier than they would be if they didn't sacrifice.
I consider it to be as much a matter of chance as choice. Considering the chances of finding a person you're highly compatible when you're limited to maybe 2% of the population to begin with, it's like finding a needle in a haystack. I've placed such a high value on that find, that I feel no need to look for anyone else.
But I get that this is rare...to "hit the jackpot" so to speak so soon out of the gate. I'd never advise someone to stick with someone they're not really compatible with for the sake of maintaining some tradition. People shouldn't make sacrifices that make them miserable. People should make sacrifices when the payoff is bigger than the sacrifice...sacrifices that make them happier than they would be if they didn't sacrifice.
148
I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his boyfriend. Not once. Never. I don't know anything about him except that two men adopted him through no fault of his own. Nor except very rarely in passing have I mentioned Savages boyfriend.
Seattleblues, read what you yourself have written. Maybe you don't think repeatedly calling Dan and Terry's son "unfortunate" is an attack, but you have no evidence to back up your belief that he's "unfortunate".
Is there nothing in your faith that says it's wrong to bear false witness?
149
Dan only upsets and offends people who need to be upset and offended. I love how some folks who say they hate Dan, cling to every word he says. I've never posted a thing on any of Maggie Gallagher's sites. I don't think I've ever bothered to look at them, yet people who hate Dan spend hours a day obsessing on everything he says.
151
@126: Bristol Palin campaigned for her mother. She put herself into the public sphere, and was soundly called out on her bullshit. I have yet to hear of The Kid stumping for Dan's latest book.
@150: Yeah, but that was OUT OF WEDLOCK.
@150: Yeah, but that was OUT OF WEDLOCK.
152
While Maggie Ghallager has mischaracterized Mr. Savage's views, it is true that he has biases and blind spots. Take the endorsement of Sex at Dawn for an example. If an anti-gay or pro-monogamy book had come out with reasoning that shaky, he would've either ignored it or ripped it a new one, but SaD, however clumsily, supported his preconceptions, so he recommended it.
153
@5280, KiP, & Lissa I respect what your saying about not attacking The Kid, but I would still like to hear SB's explanation for why he thinks DJ's fate is so horrible. Would The Kid have been better off growing up with his mother on the street? Or if he had been shuffled from one foster home to another for the last 13 yrs?
BTW What's up with your housing situation Lissa?
BTW What's up with your housing situation Lissa?
154
maggie is just mad because the only thing ppl want her for is to show gross clips of her looking like cathy bates in misery saying the most nonsensical things while the activists on our side get tv shows.Maggie go take out your frustrations on the hostess isle at the supermarket maybe once and while say your husbands name aloud without being afraid someone finds out he's indian
155
@153: I believe your question is an excellent one, but Seattleblues will never answer it, of it he does it won’t be in good faith. Instead of addressing the likely outcome of Dj’s situation had he not been adopted, Seattleblues will focus on some scenario in which the circumstances leading to his birth would never have occurred had his mother been sufficiently god fearing and/or bootstrappy. This of course would be hypocritical on the part of Seattleblues, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
As far as my personal circumstances go, thank you so much for asking after me! It has indeed been a cluster. Starting Monday they will be tearing out almost the entire ceiling in the entire unit, pulling up the floors in the living room, dining room , and kitchen, as well as pulling out most of the dry wall and the fire place. All my belongings are being packed to go into storage, and I will be staying mostly for the next 6 weeks at least with Boyfriend#2, since Boyfriend#1 lives in Portland, and that’s a bit of a commute. My cat will be staying with my parents. They offered to shelter me as well, but at 48, moving home, much as I love my parents, is something which I am disinclined to do.
All in all, it could be worse, and it will end up costing me some money I’m sure, with one thing and another. But I have wonderful people in my life who will pat my head and say there, there, and make sure I don’t end up living in a cardboard box. And I have Sloggers in my corner to cheer me on!
As far as my personal circumstances go, thank you so much for asking after me! It has indeed been a cluster. Starting Monday they will be tearing out almost the entire ceiling in the entire unit, pulling up the floors in the living room, dining room , and kitchen, as well as pulling out most of the dry wall and the fire place. All my belongings are being packed to go into storage, and I will be staying mostly for the next 6 weeks at least with Boyfriend#2, since Boyfriend#1 lives in Portland, and that’s a bit of a commute. My cat will be staying with my parents. They offered to shelter me as well, but at 48, moving home, much as I love my parents, is something which I am disinclined to do.
All in all, it could be worse, and it will end up costing me some money I’m sure, with one thing and another. But I have wonderful people in my life who will pat my head and say there, there, and make sure I don’t end up living in a cardboard box. And I have Sloggers in my corner to cheer me on!
156
Lissa, at least your spring cleaning will be taken care of...
Seriously, good luck, unexpected renos are a complete pain, glad you have a spot to hang out!
Seriously, good luck, unexpected renos are a complete pain, glad you have a spot to hang out!
157
I remember Lovechild claims of being superior parent without equal, then she let it slip that she would beat her children with a belt. Well it's what the Bible says to do!
158
Doesn't understand women or know what they're like? Heh.
Am I the only one who noticed that Dan Savage gets exactly this shit from ideological feminists like the Shakesville crowd? He doesn't follow the party line on either extreme (i.e. what people are supposed to accept as Holy Unquestionable Writ, independent of what folks are actually like) and so gets dissed from both sides. They both have an agenda (women are always This and men are always That, with varying Thisses and Thats between 'em) and they both HATE being called on their bullshit more than they hate anything else.
Am I the only one who noticed that Dan Savage gets exactly this shit from ideological feminists like the Shakesville crowd? He doesn't follow the party line on either extreme (i.e. what people are supposed to accept as Holy Unquestionable Writ, independent of what folks are actually like) and so gets dissed from both sides. They both have an agenda (women are always This and men are always That, with varying Thisses and Thats between 'em) and they both HATE being called on their bullshit more than they hate anything else.
159
@ 156: His place is on Capitol Hill, a few blocks from the offices of the Stranger, and close to everything I love to do, so the situation has it's upside. As a matter of fact his Girlfriend#2 and I will be attending the Stranger fashion show, Worn Out, together tomorrow evening. I'm stoked!
160
Here is some more good news. The Arkansas Supreme Court just upheld the rights of same sex couples to adopt children.
http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/…
http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/…
161
@159 BeYOTCH! (Sorry, sorry! That just slipped out before I could stop it...) What I meant was, have fun, mingle, and report back asap!
162
Why are you folks wasting time with SB? Didn't the "Don't Feed The Troll" memo reach you?
Look, there's nothing wrong with debating somebody who disagrees with you completely, that's fun. There's nothing wrong with teasing somebody who claims to be a moral arbiter and always right; that's often fun. But to actually debate with somebody who's the internet equivalent of the obsessive conspiracy theorist on the subway whose sole response to facts or reason or differing views is to switch to Preprogrammed Answer Number Eight with an audible click behind their way-too-intense unblinking eyes is a collosal waste of time.
Look, there's nothing wrong with debating somebody who disagrees with you completely, that's fun. There's nothing wrong with teasing somebody who claims to be a moral arbiter and always right; that's often fun. But to actually debate with somebody who's the internet equivalent of the obsessive conspiracy theorist on the subway whose sole response to facts or reason or differing views is to switch to Preprogrammed Answer Number Eight with an audible click behind their way-too-intense unblinking eyes is a collosal waste of time.
163
You're right, of course, seeker6079...but it's like that bag of M&Ms in the back of the cupboard, sometimes my willpower to resist just isn't strong enough. I guess he's so comprehensively outrageous in his views that it begs a response, but he crosses a line when he starts talking about Dan and Terry's son, and for that reason alone, I think, should be avoided. (I will try to remember this... :)
166
I'm (jokingly) disappointed in you, Canuck. With our election going on I had hoped that your taste for ceaseless moroninity (new word for today!) was sated. *sigh*
167
@152, Have you read Sex at Dawn? Its an examination of, among other things, how people remain attached to the institution of marriage and the notion that monogamy is our natural condition even as divorce and infidelity rates are at 50% or more. Its really an attack on cognitive dissonance.
168
My taste for moroninity (good one!) is rarely sated, seeker6079, humble donut-eating Canadian slut that I am...I do feel guilty, though, for encouraging SB...knowing what a big turn-on these debates are for him...ew, now I need a mental shower and flossing... :)
169
"humble donut-eating Canadian slut"
I am walking away from this keyboard right now.
I am going to put this on a t-shirt.
I will then wear the t-shirt.
Often.
And accurately.
(blows kisses)
I am walking away from this keyboard right now.
I am going to put this on a t-shirt.
I will then wear the t-shirt.
Often.
And accurately.
(blows kisses)
170
Shoot, am I too late on the crazy train to pose more mini-slash?
** **
"I just think," venomslash continued, slowly rocking his hips, "that you would be a lot happier if you came out of the closet."
Seattleblues clutched the pillow tighter. "But I'm no--OH GOD YES! DEEPER! I'm not g--mmmm... gay..."
** **
"I just think," venomslash continued, slowly rocking his hips, "that you would be a lot happier if you came out of the closet."
Seattleblues clutched the pillow tighter. "But I'm no--OH GOD YES! DEEPER! I'm not g--mmmm... gay..."
171
@158 I think a large part of Dan's professional success is based on his understanding of male sexuality. I think saying he understand men better than women is a fair criticism and I can understand why lesbians might not have much use for Savage Love. I don't think Dan Savage is the second coming but I buy his books and listen to his podcasts because he is often right and never boring.
173
@ Seattleblues:
Barbarians rape and pillage by right of force, because they have no appreciation for autonomy, personal, or property rights.
Social liberals, like Dan Savage, DO respect autonomy and personal rights. (Property rights are not a factor in this discussion.) He can only get people to pass through your "gate" via persuasion, in fact. Rational discourse, emotional appeal, both well-recognized, civilized, non-barbarian tactics. Anyone who joins him does so because they believe that that way of life is better.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, feel that convention or tradition is the best determinant of social relationships. People do freely join them as well.
It's all very civilized, isn't it?
*[I agree with the above poster, that social-liberal culture is just as Western as your version of Western culture. Small changes accumulate over time, and as a result cultures diverge...but are still part of the same root stock, just different traditions thereof.]
Barbarians rape and pillage by right of force, because they have no appreciation for autonomy, personal, or property rights.
Social liberals, like Dan Savage, DO respect autonomy and personal rights. (Property rights are not a factor in this discussion.) He can only get people to pass through your "gate" via persuasion, in fact. Rational discourse, emotional appeal, both well-recognized, civilized, non-barbarian tactics. Anyone who joins him does so because they believe that that way of life is better.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, feel that convention or tradition is the best determinant of social relationships. People do freely join them as well.
It's all very civilized, isn't it?
*[I agree with the above poster, that social-liberal culture is just as Western as your version of Western culture. Small changes accumulate over time, and as a result cultures diverge...but are still part of the same root stock, just different traditions thereof.]
174
I've never bought one of Dan's books. I made it through 10 minutes of exactly one podcast. But I've known the guy for quite a while and usually get a fairly speedy response to e-mails (often with an "xo" at the end).
I can't say I know Dan well, but I think we see eye-to-eye on a fair amount of things. I agree that Dan's advice is more for guys than women, and that sometimes he blows it by a pretty wide margin (canned ham, anyone?). But he's still a good guy, and someone I consider a friend, and at his worst, he's done more to advance an open discussion of sexuality than anyone I know. Nothin' wrong with that.
I can't say I know Dan well, but I think we see eye-to-eye on a fair amount of things. I agree that Dan's advice is more for guys than women, and that sometimes he blows it by a pretty wide margin (canned ham, anyone?). But he's still a good guy, and someone I consider a friend, and at his worst, he's done more to advance an open discussion of sexuality than anyone I know. Nothin' wrong with that.
175
@ seeker6079, you are right. But that metaphor irks me.
And @ Canuck, Kim in Portland, Gloomy Gus, and jenesasquatch -
As a longtime reader of Savage Love, but infrequent poster, I would like to say that you seem to be awesome people. Hi Gus! Speedy recovery, Kim! All the best to you, jenesasquatch. And Canuck, I imagine you have a veritable aegis of glitter unicorns. :)
And @ Canuck, Kim in Portland, Gloomy Gus, and jenesasquatch -
As a longtime reader of Savage Love, but infrequent poster, I would like to say that you seem to be awesome people. Hi Gus! Speedy recovery, Kim! All the best to you, jenesasquatch. And Canuck, I imagine you have a veritable aegis of glitter unicorns. :)
176
@161: A) if I can find my camera, and B) if I can figure out how to get a picture in a comment, I will post a shot of my out fit for this event, and of any Stranger celebs I might meet, just for you!
Now I go to do battle in the swamp that was once my condo. Love ya!
Now I go to do battle in the swamp that was once my condo. Love ya!
177
I think that the goal in these exchanges--as is the goal in any political movement--is to win the middle. If we can get everyone to "show up" (that's a whole other bag of worms), then the side that wins and energizes the middle wins the fight.
Dan's followers don't count. Maggie and her followers don't count. Exchanges like this are for everyone else, IMO. Believe it or not, there are some reasonably good hearted people out there who needed to hear Dan explain how he understands women after Maggie "accused the gay guy of not getting women."
Dan's followers don't count. Maggie and her followers don't count. Exchanges like this are for everyone else, IMO. Believe it or not, there are some reasonably good hearted people out there who needed to hear Dan explain how he understands women after Maggie "accused the gay guy of not getting women."
178
I think that the goal in these exchanges--as is the goal in any political movement--is to win the middle. If we can get everyone to "show up" (that's a whole other bag of worms), then the side that wins and energizes the middle wins the fight.
Dan's followers don't count. Maggie and her followers don't count. Exchanges like this are for everyone else, IMO. Believe it or not, there are some reasonably good hearted people out there who needed to hear Dan explain how he understands women after Maggie "accused the gay guy of not getting women."
Dan's followers don't count. Maggie and her followers don't count. Exchanges like this are for everyone else, IMO. Believe it or not, there are some reasonably good hearted people out there who needed to hear Dan explain how he understands women after Maggie "accused the gay guy of not getting women."
179
@175: So what am I feliquid? Chopped liver? I see how you are (sniffles into hanky). But I agree with your assessment of the posters you mentioned whole heartedly. They are all indeed awesome people. Sloggers make me happy!
182
The last time I made a bet, I had to eat the tequila worm...so be kind...okay, email on the way...!
183
Ms Canuck - I appreciate your problem, and I must say you are an excellent sport. When your brain has been sufficiently bleached, I shall award you a virtual prize - perhaps you like shoes?
I suppose all the teams have enough problematic ones claiming admission without having even more heaped upon us from the others. The other way around is much more enjoyable, discussing which team gets to draft (just off the top of my head) Alexander the Great, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf or Iris Murdoch.
I suppose all the teams have enough problematic ones claiming admission without having even more heaped upon us from the others. The other way around is much more enjoyable, discussing which team gets to draft (just off the top of my head) Alexander the Great, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf or Iris Murdoch.
184
Oh yeah, vennominon, way to salt the entries...of course those people are on your team, sheesh! No fair. But perhaps we could set about designing a sufficiently boring, beige limbo for the undecideds whom neither of us want, like SB and Tom Cruise?
And shoes?! Of course I like shoes!! My biggest superficial regret in life, besides not taking a picture of my ass from when I was 17, is passing up a pair of Betsey Johnson 5" silver glitter ankle strap heels....sigh.
And shoes?! Of course I like shoes!! My biggest superficial regret in life, besides not taking a picture of my ass from when I was 17, is passing up a pair of Betsey Johnson 5" silver glitter ankle strap heels....sigh.
186
@ Lissa - You are most definitely not chopped liver! You're awesome. And I'm one of those Sloggers cheering you on while you wait for your "new" old apartment.
@ Canuck - I did want a pony when I was little, but that unicorn is way better!
And to all the others I forgot: You're awesome!
To those with whom I disagree, I find our honestly-held differences awesome. There must be other things we could bond over, like the weather or spring crocuses.
Finally, to those trolls out there who only take joy in being disruptive rather than engaging in sincere exploration, you are NOT AWESOME.
Back to work!
@ Canuck - I did want a pony when I was little, but that unicorn is way better!
And to all the others I forgot: You're awesome!
To those with whom I disagree, I find our honestly-held differences awesome. There must be other things we could bond over, like the weather or spring crocuses.
Finally, to those trolls out there who only take joy in being disruptive rather than engaging in sincere exploration, you are NOT AWESOME.
Back to work!
187
Maggie Gallagher has a son named Patrick who is involved in NYC's music theatre community.
I wonder if Maggie is aware of how much harder it is for children with notably anti-gay parents to Come Out?
Does she think she has provided a safe environment for her son, where he knows his mother loves him no matter what? That he'd feel confident in Coming Out to her, knowing that she spends her time and energy toward, and is indeed the very face of, America's current anti-gay movement?
I wonder....
I wonder if Maggie is aware of how much harder it is for children with notably anti-gay parents to Come Out?
Does she think she has provided a safe environment for her son, where he knows his mother loves him no matter what? That he'd feel confident in Coming Out to her, knowing that she spends her time and energy toward, and is indeed the very face of, America's current anti-gay movement?
I wonder....
188
I read this article, somehow linked through "The Frisky." It's not only college students that really really need Dan's help.
http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/1181…
http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/1181…
189
Yeah, um, WTF is a "moral imagination"? Things you imagine while you're being especially virtuous? Novel morals that you imagine?
190
Can Dan and Maggie CO-HOST a program? They could be like Siskel & Ebert, Hannily & Colmes, etc. Wouldn't THAT be fun to watch every week??
191
This response hits the nail on the head. It bothers me that the right wing has a monopoly on the term "moral" when you could argue that it's just as, if not more "moral" to acknowledge and work with people's inherent failings than it is to hold them to an unattainable standard. If leaders like Ms. Gallagher can't even keep it in their pants, then how do they expect everyone else to follow along?
And what child would rather have divorced parents than parents in a stable relationship who sometimes messed around on the dl? Not that I think kids would want or need to know about what mommy and daddy (or mom and mommy or dad and daddy) get up to in their spare time, but I reckon there are very few kids out there who want split families.
That said, I'm not too bothered by trolls like Seattleblues. What concerns me more is the casual misogyny thrown out in #46: "Dan lays out the rational, fair answer describing what the person should do and how that should be received, and straight men everywhere palm their foreheads because they know how things will *actually* be received. I would say, though, that in that disconnect the problem does not lie in the advice itself."
So the problem, then, is that women are all crazy, irrational bitches?
And what child would rather have divorced parents than parents in a stable relationship who sometimes messed around on the dl? Not that I think kids would want or need to know about what mommy and daddy (or mom and mommy or dad and daddy) get up to in their spare time, but I reckon there are very few kids out there who want split families.
That said, I'm not too bothered by trolls like Seattleblues. What concerns me more is the casual misogyny thrown out in #46: "Dan lays out the rational, fair answer describing what the person should do and how that should be received, and straight men everywhere palm their foreheads because they know how things will *actually* be received. I would say, though, that in that disconnect the problem does not lie in the advice itself."
So the problem, then, is that women are all crazy, irrational bitches?
192
Ms Canuck - Then let it be a virtual pair of Betsey Johnson 5" silver glitter ankle strap heels.
I am reminded of one of my old jokes, that I was relatively indifferent to footwear but that I did like Shoes. (For anyone who recalls the children's television program ZOOM, a sort of reverse Fannee Doolee.) I'm not sure if I'd want to meet Gary Klebe now, though. It would be sad if he's aged badly.
I suspect you could probably trade Tom Cruise to someone who hadn't been paying much attention for a couple of decades or so...
I am reminded of one of my old jokes, that I was relatively indifferent to footwear but that I did like Shoes. (For anyone who recalls the children's television program ZOOM, a sort of reverse Fannee Doolee.) I'm not sure if I'd want to meet Gary Klebe now, though. It would be sad if he's aged badly.
I suspect you could probably trade Tom Cruise to someone who hadn't been paying much attention for a couple of decades or so...
193
@191 - I wasn't the poster @46 but I kinda get what he is saying and I don't think its is calling all bitches irrational.
What I think he is saying, and I concur, is that Dan gives great advice that we need to be honest and realistic about monogamous relationships because "libido will have out." And while that makes perfect sense to us, what @46 is saying is that message is often not received well by men's female partners. Even something as relatively harmless as porn consumption or occasional strip club attendance sets some people off the deep end. To paraphrase: "If he is with me he should only want to look at me naked."
If you think we are making up a straw man, click on the link @188 and see the lunacy for yourself.
What I think he is saying, and I concur, is that Dan gives great advice that we need to be honest and realistic about monogamous relationships because "libido will have out." And while that makes perfect sense to us, what @46 is saying is that message is often not received well by men's female partners. Even something as relatively harmless as porn consumption or occasional strip club attendance sets some people off the deep end. To paraphrase: "If he is with me he should only want to look at me naked."
If you think we are making up a straw man, click on the link @188 and see the lunacy for yourself.
195
@193 - I'll repeat to you what I said to @46:
Cultural change is slow and hard. Get progressive men to join forces and be honest and above-board about their porn, their masturbation, and, yes, their desire for other women. Push women to understand what (many) men want, just as feminists pushed men to acknowledge what (many) women want. You guys want the world to change for you. Doesn't work that way - ya gotta change it yourself.
Cultural change is slow and hard. Get progressive men to join forces and be honest and above-board about their porn, their masturbation, and, yes, their desire for other women. Push women to understand what (many) men want, just as feminists pushed men to acknowledge what (many) women want. You guys want the world to change for you. Doesn't work that way - ya gotta change it yourself.
197
@193: Thanks for the props! And I do concede that you bring up a good point with regards to porn/masturbation/strip clubs; Dan gets a LOT of letters from insecure wives/girlfriends and their boyfriends about that very topic. However, what bothered me about the comment @46 was that his comment wasn't framed around the great porn debate. He just mentioned "rational, fair" advice in general.
And I do think even bringing up the porn thing is making an unfair generalization. For every lady who feels threatened by porn, there are dozens who realize that dudes watch porn and that's not changing, and even some who watch porn themselves. Yeah, the link at @188 is a little cray, but more than half of the comments are from women who have no problem with strip clubs, and a few even posted about positive experiences they had going to clubs with their manfriends.
And I do think even bringing up the porn thing is making an unfair generalization. For every lady who feels threatened by porn, there are dozens who realize that dudes watch porn and that's not changing, and even some who watch porn themselves. Yeah, the link at @188 is a little cray, but more than half of the comments are from women who have no problem with strip clubs, and a few even posted about positive experiences they had going to clubs with their manfriends.
198
fierce!!!!! i'm so sick of this lady... when did she decide what's best for everyone else, when did we vote her as our thought police... enuff maggie, give it a break...
199
One thing you've got to remember, Dan-and I know you know this--is that this kind of Catholic, this kind of Christian--believes in "fidelity" for the sake of fidelity. They believe that chastity within a marriage is a virtue, and that the unhappiness it causes is a sort of mitzvah to please God. I am almost certain that they actually believe that a sexless marriage that ends in death is a successful and godly marriage.
Not that they actually DO that. Otherwise, their marriages would end in death a little more often (death by natural causes).
There is value, for so many people in our culture, in suffering. Righteousness. I think partly it's for the giant eternal orgasm they're supposed to get after their pretend deprivations on earth. I may believe them some day, if they weren't so fat.
Not that they actually DO that. Otherwise, their marriages would end in death a little more often (death by natural causes).
There is value, for so many people in our culture, in suffering. Righteousness. I think partly it's for the giant eternal orgasm they're supposed to get after their pretend deprivations on earth. I may believe them some day, if they weren't so fat.
200
Dan, did you ever think of doing a book about your sexual ethics? I mean, a huge amount of people already agree that you give awesome sexual education -- via podcasts, columns, and personal talks -- but have you considered a textbook format?
For example, I often recommend you to people, and to do that I had to compile a list of your YouTube videos, which was not easy to do. It would be much easier if I could just point them to a book.
For example, I often recommend you to people, and to do that I had to compile a list of your YouTube videos, which was not easy to do. It would be much easier if I could just point them to a book.
201
Gluttony Gallagher makes the hysterical claim on her NOM (National Organization for Morons) site that Dan Savage is obsessed with her when CLEARLY she follows EVERY word Dan utters.
Who's obsessed with who?!
Who's obsessed with who?!
202
Oh. My. God. Dan! Have you read this article on Maggie Gallagher?
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/the_maki…
About halfway down, in reference to the elder of her two sons:
"Patrick, now 31, a New York University graduate and aspiring musical-theater librettist, would not be interviewed."
I'm sure you know where I'm going with this... might Maggie's son be a closet case? Not all theater people are fags, but the numbers are so much higher than the general populace. More research is in order...
Ah, from this article:
http://talkaboutequality.wordpress.com/2…
"Patrick is now a young adult, writing musicals in New York City. He identifies as straight, and given his chosen occupation, he spends a great deal of time with LGBT people. We offered Patrick the opportunity to tell his side of things, but given the obvious personal conflict he feels about the situation, he declined. Though Patrick doesn’t want to comment directly, it has become clear that his views differ from his mother’s. According to Patrick, Maggie has been very supportive of his career and has not obstructed her son’s goals and dreams – like a mother should. One thing Patrick did say, which I don’t think he’d mind sharing is “Maybe one day I’ll write a hell of a musical about this.” Patrick’s a good guy who doesn’t deserve to be in the middle of this – but we feel that his and Maggie’s story is an important one that demonstrates the strength of a “non-traditional” family."
I don't recall seeing you mention this before, perhaps it warrants a little something.
More...
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/the_maki…
About halfway down, in reference to the elder of her two sons:
"Patrick, now 31, a New York University graduate and aspiring musical-theater librettist, would not be interviewed."
I'm sure you know where I'm going with this... might Maggie's son be a closet case? Not all theater people are fags, but the numbers are so much higher than the general populace. More research is in order...
Ah, from this article:
http://talkaboutequality.wordpress.com/2…
"Patrick is now a young adult, writing musicals in New York City. He identifies as straight, and given his chosen occupation, he spends a great deal of time with LGBT people. We offered Patrick the opportunity to tell his side of things, but given the obvious personal conflict he feels about the situation, he declined. Though Patrick doesn’t want to comment directly, it has become clear that his views differ from his mother’s. According to Patrick, Maggie has been very supportive of his career and has not obstructed her son’s goals and dreams – like a mother should. One thing Patrick did say, which I don’t think he’d mind sharing is “Maybe one day I’ll write a hell of a musical about this.” Patrick’s a good guy who doesn’t deserve to be in the middle of this – but we feel that his and Maggie’s story is an important one that demonstrates the strength of a “non-traditional” family."
I don't recall seeing you mention this before, perhaps it warrants a little something.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (202) RSS