Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, July 5, 2011
Hetero / LGBTQITSLFA Redefining Marriage: Straight People Beat Us To It, Ross
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:15 AM
Regular readers won't be shocked by anything in Mark Oppenheimer's piece about me and non-monogamous relationships in this weekend's New York Times Magazine. To recap: I think monogamy is fine, if that's what you want, but monogamy makes some people miserable, men are bad at it and women aren't much better, and in certain cases a little latitude, a little understanding about a degree of outside sexual contact, can save a marriage. Also: people should be honest about their desires, spouses in monogamous relationships need to be GGG, and a one-off infidelity is a blow that an otherwise solid marriage should be able to withstand. Oh, and my big gay marriage isn't monogamous. It's monogamish. Here's a chunk:
Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.
“I acknowledge the advantages of monogamy,” Savage told me, “when it comes to sexual safety, infections, emotional safety, paternity assurances. But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.”
Oppenheimer's piece set conservative NYT columnist Ross Douthat's hands to wringing. Reflecting on marriage equality coming to New York, Douthat wonders whether marriage is going to change gay people, making us more conservative, or if gay people are going to change marriage, making it more radical or de-centered or something. Then Ross brings up another possibility...
[There’s] a third vision that’s worth pondering—neither conservative nor liberationist, but a little bit of both. This vision embraces the institution of marriage, rather than seeking to overthrow it. But it also hints that the example of same-sex unions might partially transform marriage from within, creating greater institutional flexibility—particularly sexual flexibility—for straight and gay spouses alike. This idea is most prominently associated with Dan Savage, the prolific author, activist and sex columnist who was profiled in Sunday’s Times Magazine. Savage is strongly pro-marriage, but he thinks the institution is weighed down by unrealistic cultural expectations about monogamy. Better, he suggests, to define marriage simply as a pact of mutual love and care, and leave all the other rules to be negotiated depending on the couple.
The potential new definition of marriage that you fear, Ross, has been the operational definition of marriage for decades now. A commitment to love and care for each other, other details to be hammered out—that's how straight people currently define marriage. Well, that's how straight people define marriage for themselves. Things that are optional when straight couples marry—monogamy, children, religion, "one man, one woman, for life"—suddenly become a marriage's defining characteristics when same-sex couples want to marry.
The real reason gay marriage makes so many social conservatives uncomfortable? Because it forces them to admit that marriage has already changed and that it was straight people who changed it.
1
Give poor Ross a break, he's only 4 years into his first marriage. He's still starry-eyed and idealistic.
2
At this point, I wonder how many republican politicians are secretly hoping for the legalization of gay marriage, just so the gay vote won't be as reflexively democrat.
3
The whole beginning of xtianity was a man marrying a pregnant lady he didn't knock up, and they've been defensively and irrationally screaming about other people's marriages ever since.
5
no, sorry, straight people have not changed the IDEAL that monogamy should be monogamy. in practice, it is imperfect, and they will admit this, but they/we still strive for that ideal.
you are wrong. they have not overall changed the marriage ideal.
and btw, i think your NYT piece was ill-timed. i admire what you are doing, but way to scare the pants off of conservatives right at the time that gay marriage was legalized in new york. they can point straight to your piece and say "SEE, right HERE he says he wants to redefine marriage."
shoulda waited to do that.
you are wrong. they have not overall changed the marriage ideal.
and btw, i think your NYT piece was ill-timed. i admire what you are doing, but way to scare the pants off of conservatives right at the time that gay marriage was legalized in new york. they can point straight to your piece and say "SEE, right HERE he says he wants to redefine marriage."
shoulda waited to do that.
6
Was just listening to a piece on "Talk of the Nation" about genetic vs. emotional family trees.
I realized with a shock that despite my support for marriage equality and adoption, I am still a biolog-ist (undue reverence for an act of conceiving as opposed to lifetimes and lineages of influence). Granted, knowing your genetic background is valuable in a number of ways, when it's possible.
I realized with a shock that despite my support for marriage equality and adoption, I am still a biolog-ist (undue reverence for an act of conceiving as opposed to lifetimes and lineages of influence). Granted, knowing your genetic background is valuable in a number of ways, when it's possible.
7
There's been so much hand-wringing over the Times piece. Hand-wringing and gross misunderstanding. Like here: http://blogs.forbes.com/kayhymowitz/2011…
Some people seem to think Dan's advocating a libertine, free sex, all-access pass or something. Communication and negotiation between the couple involved seems to be too crazy radical for some folks.
Some people seem to think Dan's advocating a libertine, free sex, all-access pass or something. Communication and negotiation between the couple involved seems to be too crazy radical for some folks.
8
@5 - He's right, Dan. Best keep all your opinions to yourself until all the problems of the world go away, or your enemies might misinterpret them and use them against you.
9
> The real reason gay marriage makes so many social conservatives uncomfortable?
> Because it forces them to admit that marriage has already changed and that it was straight people who changed it.
Dan is right that straight people have redefined marriage already, but WRONG that admitting it is what makes social conservatives uncomfortable with gay marriage.
First reason -- Social conservatives want to keep marriage traditional, because many of their marriages are weak relationships. Many of the men in them are quite bad mates -- and their marriages would end without the constraints posed by "traditional" marriage and the power conferred on males in "traditional" marriage. Alternative relationships built on equality indirectly threaten weak relationships, by providing other models, so they cling to wanting to keep out alternative models.
Second reason -- political maneuvering, it gets the votes out.
Third reason -- people can change attitudes, but more often that not, we continue to believe the attitudes we grew up with. Evolution may well have predisposed us to this. Anything tinged with morality is especially resilient to change. Education helps -- probably why social liberalism is greater among those who have been to college, and why the insularity of home schooling and bible-colleges are a serious threat to the education of future Americans.
> Because it forces them to admit that marriage has already changed and that it was straight people who changed it.
Dan is right that straight people have redefined marriage already, but WRONG that admitting it is what makes social conservatives uncomfortable with gay marriage.
First reason -- Social conservatives want to keep marriage traditional, because many of their marriages are weak relationships. Many of the men in them are quite bad mates -- and their marriages would end without the constraints posed by "traditional" marriage and the power conferred on males in "traditional" marriage. Alternative relationships built on equality indirectly threaten weak relationships, by providing other models, so they cling to wanting to keep out alternative models.
Second reason -- political maneuvering, it gets the votes out.
Third reason -- people can change attitudes, but more often that not, we continue to believe the attitudes we grew up with. Evolution may well have predisposed us to this. Anything tinged with morality is especially resilient to change. Education helps -- probably why social liberalism is greater among those who have been to college, and why the insularity of home schooling and bible-colleges are a serious threat to the education of future Americans.
10
@8
No. The commenter was genuinely concerned. Savage let the cat out of the bag and he's worried.
After all, you folks want people to believe your lies about just wanting to expand marriage to gays, don't you? You can't destroy marriage by that perverse redefinition if they don't after all! You wouldn't want them to realize that the end goal of despicable things like Little Danny Boy the Savage is the destruction of marriage, not greater inclusion, would you?
No. The commenter was genuinely concerned. Savage let the cat out of the bag and he's worried.
After all, you folks want people to believe your lies about just wanting to expand marriage to gays, don't you? You can't destroy marriage by that perverse redefinition if they don't after all! You wouldn't want them to realize that the end goal of despicable things like Little Danny Boy the Savage is the destruction of marriage, not greater inclusion, would you?
13
Straight men have had their mistresses with their wives quiet acquiescence for centuries. You can't blame gay people for that.
14
Mr. Douthat claims that greater tolerance for marital infidelity inevitably leads to weaker marriages. He says back in the '70s respectable people experimented with swinging and open relationships, but stopped when they realized broken homes were the inevitable result. I wonder if that is so.
15
"Some people need more than one partner"
Really?
Danny,
what legal framework exists
for people like that
to have stable longterm legally recognized relationships
with more than one partner?
Do people who need more than one partner
deserve the same right to marry
whom they love
that you and Terri share?
Why not?
Really?
Danny,
what legal framework exists
for people like that
to have stable longterm legally recognized relationships
with more than one partner?
Do people who need more than one partner
deserve the same right to marry
whom they love
that you and Terri share?
Why not?
17
@11-- Yes and no. All of the straight people throwing in with us and the media championing the cause (whether for ratings or otherwise) are quite decisive factors. It's not really about getting the gay vote, it's about appearing more progressive than the other guy.
18
A correction of two errors in the Savage post is in order, after which it's far too nice a day to be in my office.
Little Danny Boy the Savage, you aren't married, at least no legally in your own country.
And 'social conservatives' love marriage as a key social institution. They really do just hate the idea of destroying it by a redifinition so broad as to be meaningless.
Keep telling yourself lies though, if it helps you sleep at night.
Little Danny Boy the Savage, you aren't married, at least no legally in your own country.
And 'social conservatives' love marriage as a key social institution. They really do just hate the idea of destroying it by a redifinition so broad as to be meaningless.
Keep telling yourself lies though, if it helps you sleep at night.
19
If one believes that some people need more than one partner, and that Marriage Equality means people should be able to marry whom they love, then logic demands that that person support legalized polygamy.
Unless that person is a bigoted douchewipe who thinks Marriage Equality is only for them and their boyfriend and people just like them.
Unless that person actually supports polygamy but is too cowardly to voice the support.
In which case they are just like prominent figures in society who are homosexual but remain in the closet for their own political/professional advantage.
In which case it would be monumentally hypocritical to critisize those folks for being traitors to the cause.
Is Danny a bigoted douchewipe?
Is Danny a hypocritical closeted polygamy supporter?
A and B?
someone make a poll......
Unless that person is a bigoted douchewipe who thinks Marriage Equality is only for them and their boyfriend and people just like them.
Unless that person actually supports polygamy but is too cowardly to voice the support.
In which case they are just like prominent figures in society who are homosexual but remain in the closet for their own political/professional advantage.
In which case it would be monumentally hypocritical to critisize those folks for being traitors to the cause.
Is Danny a bigoted douchewipe?
Is Danny a hypocritical closeted polygamy supporter?
A and B?
someone make a poll......
20
I didn't take Douthat to be referring to swinging or open marriage per se--rather, it was simply that fewer people claimed that infidelity was wrong. And for whatever reason, this is correlated with the rising divorce rate. I suspect the cause is rather complicated, but the overall point is that a looser attitude towards infidelity doesn't necessarily help marital stability in general, in the way that Savage and others often suggest.
I think it's incredibly disingenuous for Dan to keep claiming he's fine with monogamy, for those who choose it, when he goes on to accuse monogamy of all kinds of problems (sexual death? etc), and is loath to encourage or recommend it. Just in this week's column, the moment someone has a problem with his boyfriend's failure to meet all sexual needs, Dan's first response is to go outside the relationship. Never mind that the guy was only asking for ways to encourage his partner. Dan also blasts the guy who doesn't want to visit a dominatrix without his wife of 19 yrs. accompanying him, even though she was the one who suggested the visit.
I don't think Dan "gets it" when it comes to monogamy, and he also seems to think that our relationships need to mirror all biological impulses. You know, he says men are "bad at" monogamy--just like they're "bad at" cleaning up their dirty socks and shedding those unwanted extra pounds around the middle. When people systematically struggle with something, it doesn't mean that something must be a bad idea! And of course, it's so handy that this works out better for men than for women. Even though Dan acknowledges that women are also bad at monogamy and should have the same freedoms in relationships, the reality is that women tend to fare much worse economically when relationships fail. Why would we act like this has nothing to do with people's choices about fidelity, and either maintaining it or excusing the failure to?
More...
I think it's incredibly disingenuous for Dan to keep claiming he's fine with monogamy, for those who choose it, when he goes on to accuse monogamy of all kinds of problems (sexual death? etc), and is loath to encourage or recommend it. Just in this week's column, the moment someone has a problem with his boyfriend's failure to meet all sexual needs, Dan's first response is to go outside the relationship. Never mind that the guy was only asking for ways to encourage his partner. Dan also blasts the guy who doesn't want to visit a dominatrix without his wife of 19 yrs. accompanying him, even though she was the one who suggested the visit.
I don't think Dan "gets it" when it comes to monogamy, and he also seems to think that our relationships need to mirror all biological impulses. You know, he says men are "bad at" monogamy--just like they're "bad at" cleaning up their dirty socks and shedding those unwanted extra pounds around the middle. When people systematically struggle with something, it doesn't mean that something must be a bad idea! And of course, it's so handy that this works out better for men than for women. Even though Dan acknowledges that women are also bad at monogamy and should have the same freedoms in relationships, the reality is that women tend to fare much worse economically when relationships fail. Why would we act like this has nothing to do with people's choices about fidelity, and either maintaining it or excusing the failure to?
21
@10 Straight people destroyed marriage, given the high divorce rates. You're just jealous because in all likelihood we'll do a far better job with it then you ever did.
22
Marriage has been changing since it began. If you're a fan of free will, women's rights, education, and capitalism, these changes have generally been positive. (Think honor killings, arranged marriages, getting pregnant from adolescence until childbirth kills you, allowing women into the workforce, Jacob marrying 4 sisters (ew!) , etc.)
23
18, In the prior to the 60s, your biracial marriage would not have been recognized in your own country.
Back then 'social conservatives' loved marriage as a key social institution. They really did just hate the idea of folks like you and your spouse of another race destroying it by a redefinition so broad as to be meaningless.
I know you lay awake at night obsessing on the gays. You never stop thinking about two guys getting it on, do you?
Back then 'social conservatives' loved marriage as a key social institution. They really did just hate the idea of folks like you and your spouse of another race destroying it by a redefinition so broad as to be meaningless.
I know you lay awake at night obsessing on the gays. You never stop thinking about two guys getting it on, do you?
24
One thing that never gets brought up is how the anti-marriage social conservatives have their own redefinition of marriage going on, and it's just as radical as expanding marriage to same-sex couples.
They are seeking to redefine marriage as an institution whose sole purpose is the procreation of children (note: not even the rearing of children, but the procreation of children).
Note the complete absence of any reference to children in traditional wedding vows. Note also that, traditionally, failing to produce children in marriage was not grounds for annulment (although failure to consummate the marriage, i.e. perform sexually, was).
They are seeking to redefine marriage as an institution whose sole purpose is the procreation of children (note: not even the rearing of children, but the procreation of children).
Note the complete absence of any reference to children in traditional wedding vows. Note also that, traditionally, failing to produce children in marriage was not grounds for annulment (although failure to consummate the marriage, i.e. perform sexually, was).
25
@ 18, why do you insist on using insulting language toward others? Referring to Dan as 'little Danny Boy the Savage' is not really making any point, and I can't fathom why you would do so.
Further, I ask again, what damage do you see befalling society if gays are allowed to marry? Specifically, and in simple cause and effect terms. I can't see how allowing 3-5% of the country to marry will have that huge an impact on society at large. And hey, not even all gay people will want to marry, just as not all straight people do.
I hope you have a lovely day out of the office.
Further, I ask again, what damage do you see befalling society if gays are allowed to marry? Specifically, and in simple cause and effect terms. I can't see how allowing 3-5% of the country to marry will have that huge an impact on society at large. And hey, not even all gay people will want to marry, just as not all straight people do.
I hope you have a lovely day out of the office.
26
clashfan, these "marriage-defender" screamers always go silent when you ask for specifics. it's because their irrational little brains just go blank when required to come up with an itemized list of real ills that will come of including gays into the marriage club.
28
@25 SB uses insulting language to get people like you riled up. It's called trolling.
I think an intelligent conservative would admit that allowing gays to marry would not dramatically change society. It would be one more example of the type of permissiveness that they believe leads to social instability. Opponents of marriage equality almost always oppose abortion rights. This because opposition to gay rights isn't just about gays, it is part of a crusade against all forms recreational sex.
I think an intelligent conservative would admit that allowing gays to marry would not dramatically change society. It would be one more example of the type of permissiveness that they believe leads to social instability. Opponents of marriage equality almost always oppose abortion rights. This because opposition to gay rights isn't just about gays, it is part of a crusade against all forms recreational sex.
29
Oh, I'm very familiar with SB and his stances. Over the last few weeks, we've actually made some progress.
30
What I think is awfully sweet about SeattleBlues is that he thinks that calling a nice Irish Catholic lad "Danny Boy" is going to insult him. It might cause his relatives of a certain age to burst into tears on hearing the words, but it ain't gonna bother Savage.
This might.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCbuRA_D3…
This might.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCbuRA_D3…
31
I only partially agree with your conclusion, Dan. The people opposed to marriage equality are more likely motivated by homophobia or their interpretation of their religious beliefs or by cynical political calculation. Granted, some of the opponents are motivated by their fear or dislike or discomfort with social change, and therefore would fall under the umbrella you propose.
To play devil's advocate, I think Douthat knows that the terms of individual marriages have long been open to negotiation. What's new to him is the notion that this can be openly part of the public conversation, and that non-monogamous and 'monogamish' relationships don't have to be limited to weird subcultures like 1970's-style swingers or Big Love-style polygamists.
To play devil's advocate, I think Douthat knows that the terms of individual marriages have long been open to negotiation. What's new to him is the notion that this can be openly part of the public conversation, and that non-monogamous and 'monogamish' relationships don't have to be limited to weird subcultures like 1970's-style swingers or Big Love-style polygamists.
33
"I think it's incredibly disingenuous for Dan to keep claiming he's fine with monogamy, for those who choose it, when he goes on to accuse monogamy of all kinds of problems (sexual death? etc), and is loath to encourage or recommend it."
It is really no different than talking about certain types of aircraft, isn't it? They're fine aircraft if one realizes that a passing small number of pilots can fly them without at least one crash, no matter how much the pilots loves the plane. (Hello Sopwith Camel.) There's a difference between disliking something on the one hand and honestly admitting it that most people can't handle it in the intended fashion on the other.
It is really no different than talking about certain types of aircraft, isn't it? They're fine aircraft if one realizes that a passing small number of pilots can fly them without at least one crash, no matter how much the pilots loves the plane. (Hello Sopwith Camel.) There's a difference between disliking something on the one hand and honestly admitting it that most people can't handle it in the intended fashion on the other.
35
Dan,
Your modesty is admirable, but your non-NYT-reading readers ought to know that you were the cover story of the NYT Magazine. Congratulations!
Your modesty is admirable, but your non-NYT-reading readers ought to know that you were the cover story of the NYT Magazine. Congratulations!
37
25
Allowing homosexuals to "marry" sends the message that homosexual pairings are just as good, just as benefitial to society and the individuals involved, as heterosexual marriages.
They are not and it would be very wrong to lie to impressionable children about this.
It is not only the number of homosexuals who might "marry" that is at issue.
More important would be for society to buy the dumbing down (or the perverting down...) of the definition of marriage that is relevant.
Allowing homosexuals to "marry" sends the message that homosexual pairings are just as good, just as benefitial to society and the individuals involved, as heterosexual marriages.
They are not and it would be very wrong to lie to impressionable children about this.
It is not only the number of homosexuals who might "marry" that is at issue.
More important would be for society to buy the dumbing down (or the perverting down...) of the definition of marriage that is relevant.
38
37, In the 60's they said things like:
Allowing different races to "marry" sends the message that biracial pairings are just as good, just as benefitial to society and the individuals involved, as single race marriages.
They are not and it would be very wrong to lie to impressionable children about this.
It is not only the number of interracial people who might "marry" that is at issue.
More important would be for society to buy the dumbing down (or the perverting down...) of the definition of marriage that is relevant.
Allowing different races to "marry" sends the message that biracial pairings are just as good, just as benefitial to society and the individuals involved, as single race marriages.
They are not and it would be very wrong to lie to impressionable children about this.
It is not only the number of interracial people who might "marry" that is at issue.
More important would be for society to buy the dumbing down (or the perverting down...) of the definition of marriage that is relevant.
39
@10- You live in a reality where the 70s never happened?
Just another glaring hole in your grasp of history.
Just another glaring hole in your grasp of history.
40
I'm glad that my comments are hidden... but I have to admit each time I see a troll say "danny" all the irritation in my gut come to surface, especially when it happens as often as this. It's reallyhard not to feed these trolls! :(
I am all for intelligent discourse, but actually I am starting to find their name calling a form of harassment. Dan might be able to tolerate it, but reading it so often is making me edgy.
I am all for intelligent discourse, but actually I am starting to find their name calling a form of harassment. Dan might be able to tolerate it, but reading it so often is making me edgy.
41
Ross Douthat never fails to insult me. As someone who is getting (straight) married soon, he can fucking shove presumption of what promises and realities and commitments we create in our own personal marriages. Fuck you, Douthat.
42
@38 To be fair it could be that the bigots were wrong about interracial marriage but that they are right about same-sex marriage.
43
@42 It could be that tomorrow I'll start shitting 24 karat gold and all my money troubles will be over. You know, I think that might be more likely than what you just said.
44
@20
do you lack basic comprehension skills? Dan associates these issues with monogamy because as an advice columnist, he's had to deal with them for two fucking decades. sure, he's also one of the people out there who aren't exactly wired for monogamy, so it would only make sense that he be a vocal advocate for couples having serious discussions about long term monogamy and it's importance in a relationship. where does everyone get this "Dan Savage wants all partners to cheat on their spouses" idea from? is merely the fact that a person comes out in favor of honesty to a default between two people who plan on spending the rest of their lives together that much of an inflammatory concept? wouldn't you like to have a partner who you are on the same page with when it comes to screwing around? I would prefer someone tell me early on in a relationship "hey! I've messed up a lot in the past and it's very possible I might with you too" so I can make up my own mind in the here and now whether this seems like a compatible partnership, rather than be blindsided years down the road.
and what the hell does "Even though Dan acknowledges that women are also bad at monogamy and should have the same freedoms in relationships, the reality is that women tend to fare much worse economically when relationships fail," have to do with any of this? so women never do anything wrong in relationship, because they'll be destitute if it ends? do you mean to imply that no man for any reason should leave his wife/long-term girlfriend because of their potential financial ruin? do you mean to imply the backwards idea that women can't take care of themselves and need a man to hold their lives together? most of the woman I've dated have been better off than me financially and I don't see your point here at all. it just seems like a lot of muddled excuses used to somehow make Dan's ideas seem less than female-friendly, which while there might be some decent arguments to support the notion, you fail to show them here.
More...
do you lack basic comprehension skills? Dan associates these issues with monogamy because as an advice columnist, he's had to deal with them for two fucking decades. sure, he's also one of the people out there who aren't exactly wired for monogamy, so it would only make sense that he be a vocal advocate for couples having serious discussions about long term monogamy and it's importance in a relationship. where does everyone get this "Dan Savage wants all partners to cheat on their spouses" idea from? is merely the fact that a person comes out in favor of honesty to a default between two people who plan on spending the rest of their lives together that much of an inflammatory concept? wouldn't you like to have a partner who you are on the same page with when it comes to screwing around? I would prefer someone tell me early on in a relationship "hey! I've messed up a lot in the past and it's very possible I might with you too" so I can make up my own mind in the here and now whether this seems like a compatible partnership, rather than be blindsided years down the road.
and what the hell does "Even though Dan acknowledges that women are also bad at monogamy and should have the same freedoms in relationships, the reality is that women tend to fare much worse economically when relationships fail," have to do with any of this? so women never do anything wrong in relationship, because they'll be destitute if it ends? do you mean to imply that no man for any reason should leave his wife/long-term girlfriend because of their potential financial ruin? do you mean to imply the backwards idea that women can't take care of themselves and need a man to hold their lives together? most of the woman I've dated have been better off than me financially and I don't see your point here at all. it just seems like a lot of muddled excuses used to somehow make Dan's ideas seem less than female-friendly, which while there might be some decent arguments to support the notion, you fail to show them here.
45
@42
agreed, this will surely be the straw that breaks the camel's back. not desegregation and miscegenation, not woman's suffrage, not freeing slaves, not de-emphasis on a monarch's divine right to rule, not Christianity breaking away from the Catholic Church, not movable type in order to print volumes easier and make literacy possible for the serfs, not admitting the Earth revolves around the sun, not Rome abandoning polytheism.....but marriage extended to a percentage of a percentage of our population will certainly be Ragnarok. bummer.
agreed, this will surely be the straw that breaks the camel's back. not desegregation and miscegenation, not woman's suffrage, not freeing slaves, not de-emphasis on a monarch's divine right to rule, not Christianity breaking away from the Catholic Church, not movable type in order to print volumes easier and make literacy possible for the serfs, not admitting the Earth revolves around the sun, not Rome abandoning polytheism.....but marriage extended to a percentage of a percentage of our population will certainly be Ragnarok. bummer.
46
I've always had a rule that if you need to lie or distort to me then I shouldn't care too much about your views. Exhibit A:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmu…
Notice that the good rabbi treats non-monogamy as the same as infidelity, a false premise. Note, too that here aren't poly people in the rabbi's world, only CPOSs who are talking poly but just plain ol' cheating on the spouses they make miserable. Any man (note the tabbi's choice of gender) who isn't sexually exclusive with his wife is uncivilized, a "brute", and such men are essentially frivolous and "who want to act like boys".
If I have to choose between someone who says, "hey, monogamy is good but hard and probably won't work de facto for most people" and someone who says that anyone who doesn't agree that monogamy is the only moral and civilized choice is "catastrophically wrong" and a fit target for condescending insults I think I'll go with the former.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmu…
Notice that the good rabbi treats non-monogamy as the same as infidelity, a false premise. Note, too that here aren't poly people in the rabbi's world, only CPOSs who are talking poly but just plain ol' cheating on the spouses they make miserable. Any man (note the tabbi's choice of gender) who isn't sexually exclusive with his wife is uncivilized, a "brute", and such men are essentially frivolous and "who want to act like boys".
If I have to choose between someone who says, "hey, monogamy is good but hard and probably won't work de facto for most people" and someone who says that anyone who doesn't agree that monogamy is the only moral and civilized choice is "catastrophically wrong" and a fit target for condescending insults I think I'll go with the former.
47
Dan always says that him and Terry came to the decision mutually. This is the big lie of open relationships. if you were a part of a monogamous relationship before the open relationship topic was approach that statement can't ever be factual. ONE of you approach the topic. one of you needed something more. One of you was sick and tired of screwing the person infront of you. is not about me being against open relationships, but about being honest about the manipulative way you got to this point. And The position you place your partner in, and the compromise they have to make to keep a spouse.
48
my fundamental problem with Dan is that he did not place an ad in the newspaper or online looking for an open relationship. he had to manipulate his husband Terry to do this once they had been monogamous for years. Terry had to listen to this proposal by the man he loved and was the sole breadwinner of the home. I think all of this was about the time they adopted a kid. I bet it was Terry's Idea.
Terry Miller:"Dan has taught me to be more realistic about that kind of stuff".....Sad.
Terry Miller:"Dan has taught me to be more realistic about that kind of stuff".....Sad.
49
This wasn't what Terry signed up for, and now he's been convinced by Dan that expecting a monogamous husband is "unrealistic." Well, Terry, should you ever read this: It's not.
50
Sorry, but i find Dan Savage when it come to this issue less then credible. Look at his own relationship. Dan Savage was the one the force the issue on Terry (his husband). what was terry option.... he had to go along with it, so Dan wouldn't live him or cheat on him, anyway. Terry was not given the choice of monogamy.
I love the way Dan Savage justify his behavior; emotionally & economically(sole breadwinner) blackmailing Terry into going a long with infidelity.
Dan savage is only playing his little game of MADMEN.... wife at home taking care of the kids while he goes on business trips doing other men..... and the best part is that after years of monogamous marriage he emotionally and economically coerce Terry into thinking his infidelity was ok as long as he tell him all about it when he gets home.
I love the way Dan Savage justify his behavior; emotionally & economically(sole breadwinner) blackmailing Terry into going a long with infidelity.
Dan savage is only playing his little game of MADMEN.... wife at home taking care of the kids while he goes on business trips doing other men..... and the best part is that after years of monogamous marriage he emotionally and economically coerce Terry into thinking his infidelity was ok as long as he tell him all about it when he gets home.
51
Lee, obviously I haven't said that Dan wants everyone to cheat. My point is that even when people write in who ARE in monogamous relationships, or prefer that situation, he still goes on encouraging them to open up the relationship or go outside of it. It's more important to him that people satisfy their kinks than it is that they maintain a monogamous relationship that is otherwise bringing them happiness. Obviously I also haven't said anything against open and honest communication. However, if people want monogamy, why on earth should they have to admit that this carries drawbacks like "boredom" and "sexual death"? It may for those who don't enjoy monogamy, sure, but I'm talking about people who choose it because they like it, not because they're somehow pressured into it or not being honest with themselves.
Regarding women, the point is that men are more likely to cheat, and women are more likely to be worse off financially if a long term relationship ends. You may have anecdotal, personal experience dating financially successful women, but this is not the rule, and if you were with them for the long term, in many cases your relative prospects would shift if you decided to have kids. So, you may feel free to continue coming up with straw men that are no part of my argument here, but the point is that Dan's position on monogamy and the method of opening a relationship is a lot more convenient for men, but I have yet to see him acknowledge or defend this. If I want an open relationship and bring that to my husband, he's more likely to go for it and he's more likely to survive financially if that becomes a conflict that ends our relationship. The opposite is true if we switch those roles. Not in every case, obviously, but in general. This is a problem. Deny if you like.
More...
Regarding women, the point is that men are more likely to cheat, and women are more likely to be worse off financially if a long term relationship ends. You may have anecdotal, personal experience dating financially successful women, but this is not the rule, and if you were with them for the long term, in many cases your relative prospects would shift if you decided to have kids. So, you may feel free to continue coming up with straw men that are no part of my argument here, but the point is that Dan's position on monogamy and the method of opening a relationship is a lot more convenient for men, but I have yet to see him acknowledge or defend this. If I want an open relationship and bring that to my husband, he's more likely to go for it and he's more likely to survive financially if that becomes a conflict that ends our relationship. The opposite is true if we switch those roles. Not in every case, obviously, but in general. This is a problem. Deny if you like.
52
“Its not about having three-ways with somebody or having an open relationship. It is just sort of like, Dan has always said if you have different tastes, you have to be good, giving and game, and if you are not G.G.G. for those tastes, then you have to give your partner the out. It took me a while to get down with that.”’ Terry MIller.
Regardless of whether Terry was on board or not, if he hadn't been on board, it would be "his fault" for not being "open" to or "accepting" of what Dan wanted. And provably dumped.
monogamy was never an option for Terry... yes I know they have been together forever.... But, a relationship always last when one person holds all the cards.
Regardless of whether Terry was on board or not, if he hadn't been on board, it would be "his fault" for not being "open" to or "accepting" of what Dan wanted. And provably dumped.
monogamy was never an option for Terry... yes I know they have been together forever.... But, a relationship always last when one person holds all the cards.
53
@47 et al: You need to look up 'mutual' in the dictionary. And stop obsessing about what is going on in other people's relationships. Jeez.
55
Poor SeattleBlues. So insecure in his own marriage, if his wife even really exists, that he feels compelled to come here and poke people smarter than he is and then run away.
58
47-52 ftw
Dan is the breadwinner, Terri the financially dependent and vulnerable stay-at-home mom.
They share a kid.
Dan has made their relationship (at Terri's discomfort) a very public showcase of the virtues of The Gay and The Gay Parenting and The Gay "Marriage".
Terri is trapped in the relationship, whatever he may really feel about Danny's affairs.
Danny is famously a first rate abusive asshole-
look at how obsessively Danny is set about to stalk and harass Santorum.
If Danny will go all psycho on a political rival imagine the treatment he would dish on the man who broke up his Fairy Tale marriage and held him up to scorn and ridicule by Maggie et,al.
One shudders.
Terri is trapped.
Cheaters hurt those who have the misfortune to care about them.
Always.
Dan is the breadwinner, Terri the financially dependent and vulnerable stay-at-home mom.
They share a kid.
Dan has made their relationship (at Terri's discomfort) a very public showcase of the virtues of The Gay and The Gay Parenting and The Gay "Marriage".
Terri is trapped in the relationship, whatever he may really feel about Danny's affairs.
Danny is famously a first rate abusive asshole-
look at how obsessively Danny is set about to stalk and harass Santorum.
If Danny will go all psycho on a political rival imagine the treatment he would dish on the man who broke up his Fairy Tale marriage and held him up to scorn and ridicule by Maggie et,al.
One shudders.
Terri is trapped.
Cheaters hurt those who have the misfortune to care about them.
Always.
59
Us, why do you refer to Terry as 'Terri'? You've done it more than once, so it cant be a simple typo. Are you trying to insult a gay man by feminizing his name? I think it's more insulting to call someone by a name that is not theirs, myself. Point is, why are you trying to insult the guy? What's he done to you?
60
I remember during the Lewinsky scandal that some perceptive fellow said, "no person knows the truth of another's marriage". That doesn't seem to apply here where people are utterly certain of the nature of Dan-Terry's marriage even though they don't know them personally.
Generally, the likelihood of obstinate certainty goes up in tandem with ideological fervour. I don't claim to know anything about Savage's marriage. Hell, for all I know the haters are right and Terry is miserably accepting infidelity wearing a fashionable party hat.* I do know, though, that the folks who so ferociously slag it here wouldn't change their minds even if Terry was standing in front of them proving they were wrong with videotapes and polygraphs.
* - Note that Terry's comments don't speak to Dan changing his mind about Dan's activities, he speaks of taking time to accept Dan's views on activities. For all we know Terry is the one who was frustrated by monogamy but needed Dan to convince him that it was okay to have sex outside the primary relationship. And I believe strongly that Savage should go back to his old rule of never discussing his own relationship, otherwise it's just an invitation for the pigs to come into the parlour.
Generally, the likelihood of obstinate certainty goes up in tandem with ideological fervour. I don't claim to know anything about Savage's marriage. Hell, for all I know the haters are right and Terry is miserably accepting infidelity wearing a fashionable party hat.* I do know, though, that the folks who so ferociously slag it here wouldn't change their minds even if Terry was standing in front of them proving they were wrong with videotapes and polygraphs.
* - Note that Terry's comments don't speak to Dan changing his mind about Dan's activities, he speaks of taking time to accept Dan's views on activities. For all we know Terry is the one who was frustrated by monogamy but needed Dan to convince him that it was okay to have sex outside the primary relationship. And I believe strongly that Savage should go back to his old rule of never discussing his own relationship, otherwise it's just an invitation for the pigs to come into the parlour.
62
@47 "One of you was sick and tired of screwing the person in front of you."
I agree with you, artsenyc, that when a monogamous relationship gets opened up, usually one person was proposing the change, and the other person was going along with it, for their own reasons.
But that doesn't mean that Person A was "sick and tired" of sex with Person B. It could mean Person A has a higher sex drive, or that Person A wants more variety, or that Person A wants a kind of sex that doesn't excite Person B.
And when Person B stays around, it doesn't mean they feel trapped. It could be that they are fine with it. It could be that they see this as a trade-off for getting certain things Person B wants. It could be that the stories about outside sex bring sexual excitement back in. From the outside, we don't know why people stay together, but it's their choice.
I agree with you, artsenyc, that when a monogamous relationship gets opened up, usually one person was proposing the change, and the other person was going along with it, for their own reasons.
But that doesn't mean that Person A was "sick and tired" of sex with Person B. It could mean Person A has a higher sex drive, or that Person A wants more variety, or that Person A wants a kind of sex that doesn't excite Person B.
And when Person B stays around, it doesn't mean they feel trapped. It could be that they are fine with it. It could be that they see this as a trade-off for getting certain things Person B wants. It could be that the stories about outside sex bring sexual excitement back in. From the outside, we don't know why people stay together, but it's their choice.
63
@62 I'm sure Dan's fame and wealth gave him leverage when negotiating the terms of his relationship with Terry. Still props to Mr. Savage for striking a mutual acceptable bargain with his significant other instead of doing what he wanted on the sly like Tiger Woods and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
64
@33: I believe there are more people capable of flying this rare monogamy craft than you seem to suggest, or than Dan generally suggests. If non-monogamy is so powerfully natural and the alternative is so darn difficult, don't you think it's a bit astounding that so many people manage to accomplish it? If people choose non-monogamy, that's fine, but I think it's even more difficult in our culture to fly THAT plane successfully. So the culture should change to accommodate this perfectly reasonable choice--yes. However, having the level of trust and communication necessary to make either of these choices work is hard to come by, so I don't think we can say either that monogamy or non-monogamy is the easier or better option for most people. And I certainly don't think we should advise people who have already chosen one or the other to rethink their choices, or make them feel that they aren't giving enough importance to some of their desires.
65
Suzy @64, I'd guess that poly is far harder than monogamy, truth be told, so on that note we agree. But the problem with the debate is that people race to assumptions and extremes rather than trying to find the middle. (See the Rabbi's column that I linked to above.)
That said, "I certainly don't think we should advise people who have already chosen one or the other to rethink their choices, or make them feel that they aren't giving enough importance to some of their desires". Why not, if it's true and/or necessary and/or good for both parties? It's that "you're in and THAT'S IT YOU'RE TRAPPED! BWAHAHAHA" [;)] attitude that Savage is often talking about.
That said, "I certainly don't think we should advise people who have already chosen one or the other to rethink their choices, or make them feel that they aren't giving enough importance to some of their desires". Why not, if it's true and/or necessary and/or good for both parties? It's that "you're in and THAT'S IT YOU'RE TRAPPED! BWAHAHAHA" [;)] attitude that Savage is often talking about.
66
59
Dan's mom said she loved Terri like a daughter.
Dan called him his wife. before he didn't.
Who are we to argue with them?
Dan's mom said she loved Terri like a daughter.
Dan called him his wife. before he didn't.
Who are we to argue with them?
68
Gay marriage-great, but civil unions-even better, because they can offer more flexibility (bi, poly), are more likely to get passed in all 50 states, and lack the religious b.s. expectations that marriage often entails in our society.
But Dan is way wrong about the expectations of marriage changing. Monogamy is expected, and being nonmonogamous can ruin careers in a lot of fields (politics especially). Adultery, whether it's negotiated ahead of time or not, is a leading cause of divorce. It would be interesting to see Dan's reaction if his spouse filed for divorce and demanded 100% child custody based on Dan's nonmonogamy. A good divorce lawyer would be remiss not to try to use that for a client.
Why not marriage (straight and gay) for those who expect monogamy, and civil unions for those who don't? Best of both worlds.
But Dan is way wrong about the expectations of marriage changing. Monogamy is expected, and being nonmonogamous can ruin careers in a lot of fields (politics especially). Adultery, whether it's negotiated ahead of time or not, is a leading cause of divorce. It would be interesting to see Dan's reaction if his spouse filed for divorce and demanded 100% child custody based on Dan's nonmonogamy. A good divorce lawyer would be remiss not to try to use that for a client.
Why not marriage (straight and gay) for those who expect monogamy, and civil unions for those who don't? Best of both worlds.
69
@63 - why assume that it's Dan's fame and wealth (wealth? Really?) that gives him leverage to ask for what he wants, rather than his many years being a warm and considerate partner?
Are warm and considerate partners so easy to come by, that people should routinely kick them out the door if they ask to modify the terms of the relationship?
Are warm and considerate partners so easy to come by, that people should routinely kick them out the door if they ask to modify the terms of the relationship?
70
It seems to me Savage is trying out a red herring.
Absolutely we all define our primary relationships on the terms agreeable to the participants in the relationship. My brother and his wife view their respective roles as spouse differently than my parents do, or I do. A friend will likely view his responsibilities as a father differently than I do.
Those are the individual adjustments we make. Socially we define terms like marriage and family though, and that's different from those individual negotiations. I could, for instance, insist that the dogs are my children, and constitute a part of our family as such. I have every right to behave that way individually. It's when I ask for a tax break for the dogs as dependants, or financial aid in vet bills that this right to individual interpretation stops.
Similarly, an individual has every right to pretend they're being faithful to their spouse by cheating on them. It's when they ask society to accomodate them that this right stops.
And it's true with marriage as well. Savage has every right to call his boyfriend a husband. He has every right to behave as though he is, procure the necessary legal forms for inheritance and hospital visitation and so on, send out Christmas cards representing he, his boyfriend and the child they adopted as a family. They have no right whatever to any expectation on how this behavior will be seen by others. And they have no right to redefine marriage for the convenience of a tiny minority of citizens.
Absolutely we all define our primary relationships on the terms agreeable to the participants in the relationship. My brother and his wife view their respective roles as spouse differently than my parents do, or I do. A friend will likely view his responsibilities as a father differently than I do.
Those are the individual adjustments we make. Socially we define terms like marriage and family though, and that's different from those individual negotiations. I could, for instance, insist that the dogs are my children, and constitute a part of our family as such. I have every right to behave that way individually. It's when I ask for a tax break for the dogs as dependants, or financial aid in vet bills that this right to individual interpretation stops.
Similarly, an individual has every right to pretend they're being faithful to their spouse by cheating on them. It's when they ask society to accomodate them that this right stops.
And it's true with marriage as well. Savage has every right to call his boyfriend a husband. He has every right to behave as though he is, procure the necessary legal forms for inheritance and hospital visitation and so on, send out Christmas cards representing he, his boyfriend and the child they adopted as a family. They have no right whatever to any expectation on how this behavior will be seen by others. And they have no right to redefine marriage for the convenience of a tiny minority of citizens.
71
70, You mean the way folks like you and your spouse redefined marriage to include biracial sex and couples? You seem to want to expect others to recognize your union. A union that was illegal until the 60s.
72
@25 I dunno... I seem to recall that Henry the VIII was pretty set on getting himself a son. I think getting oneself an heir has been long recognized as an aim of marriage. That said, I completely agree with those pointing out that marriage is an ever changing institution.
I'd love to see it die out completely and be replaced by a secular form (much as France is doing right now) but that will take a while. In the meantime, I think the vast constellation of legal benefits that marriage confers should be available to any pair of people wishing to have them. (Do you know how *expensive* it is to go thru and obtain legal equivalences for all the items one can typically get just by getting hitched for $25 in some locales? Not to mention lengthy? Not to mention some still being unattainable (such as the designation of some federal benefits to survivors)?)
Anyhoo...
I'd love to see it die out completely and be replaced by a secular form (much as France is doing right now) but that will take a while. In the meantime, I think the vast constellation of legal benefits that marriage confers should be available to any pair of people wishing to have them. (Do you know how *expensive* it is to go thru and obtain legal equivalences for all the items one can typically get just by getting hitched for $25 in some locales? Not to mention lengthy? Not to mention some still being unattainable (such as the designation of some federal benefits to survivors)?)
Anyhoo...
73
@ 67: All right, Y'all, as you wish. How about answering my question?
@ 70: You have yet to answer my questions about the harm society will face from allowing gay folks to legally marry. Just what downfall do you see occurring because maybe 3% or so of the population will get married when they couldn't before?
Also, I call hogwash on your 4th paragraph. What do you mean by 'pretend they're being faithful to their spouse by cheating'? Each couple decides their rules. If the rules aren't broken, there's no cheating. What public accommodation are non-monogamous couples asking for, anyway?
@ 70: You have yet to answer my questions about the harm society will face from allowing gay folks to legally marry. Just what downfall do you see occurring because maybe 3% or so of the population will get married when they couldn't before?
Also, I call hogwash on your 4th paragraph. What do you mean by 'pretend they're being faithful to their spouse by cheating'? Each couple decides their rules. If the rules aren't broken, there's no cheating. What public accommodation are non-monogamous couples asking for, anyway?
74
@51: Is it actually true that men are more likely to cheat?
Since it's more difficult now for women to be financially independent, yes, women are at a disadvantage, in almost everything, which is why we should all work for equality. And structures that grant benefits and take time and energy to destroy, like marriage and civil unions, will in general tend to benefit those at a financial disadvantage (since it's harder to end them, and there's alimony and community property and so forth). Which means that if a couple has to choose between an open relationship and breaking up, they're more likely to not break up if they have some legal ties, like marriage. Doesn't this option benefit those at a financial disadvantage (generally women) because it allows a way to keep the relationship even without monogamy?
What you seem to miss is that monogamy can also become a conflict that can destroy a relationship. But I do agree that starting out with a good idea of the type of relationship you want, open or closed, makes things more stable, as opposed to trying to change mid-stream.
Since it's more difficult now for women to be financially independent, yes, women are at a disadvantage, in almost everything, which is why we should all work for equality. And structures that grant benefits and take time and energy to destroy, like marriage and civil unions, will in general tend to benefit those at a financial disadvantage (since it's harder to end them, and there's alimony and community property and so forth). Which means that if a couple has to choose between an open relationship and breaking up, they're more likely to not break up if they have some legal ties, like marriage. Doesn't this option benefit those at a financial disadvantage (generally women) because it allows a way to keep the relationship even without monogamy?
What you seem to miss is that monogamy can also become a conflict that can destroy a relationship. But I do agree that starting out with a good idea of the type of relationship you want, open or closed, makes things more stable, as opposed to trying to change mid-stream.
75
@74 - if you marry in your 20s, and stay married for 50 some years, it would be surprising if there weren't some significant changes along the way.
76
The most interesting part of that article to me was its introduction of Dan. It was something like:" Dan Savage, best know for his "It gets better project...." I was all "really?"
77
@51
deny.
I was gonna say more, but found better things to do. maybe I was just annoyed you pointed out my straw man argument when giving a personal anecdote about my experiences (and let me tell you, that's not even half the story. I have a child and was once married as well, so don't assume I take any of this shit lightly). had I known calling you out for being so inarticulate would have actually required me to back up my statements, I would have linked to some dumb article I read in the evil WSJ about men in their 20's being in a state of arrested development whereas women of comparable age are actually succeeding at life. but that's not really what you're even talking about, so what's the point?
instead all I will say is, obviously people my age, your age, older...whatever, are going to have problems with this kind of frame of mind because it challenges everything we've been told growing up. it challenges our very notion of feeling secure in our most personal relationship. but a lot of younger people read Dan's writing these days, and maybe if these are the ideas they are coming around to early on, maybe people can learn to be more honest about commitment rather than heap ridiculous expectations on each other and be crestfallen when things don't go according to plan. personally, I think that's a positive change. there are certainly going to be problems, but it's better than leaving the broken Cadillac propped up on cinderblocks in the front yard for another 50 years.
deny.
I was gonna say more, but found better things to do. maybe I was just annoyed you pointed out my straw man argument when giving a personal anecdote about my experiences (and let me tell you, that's not even half the story. I have a child and was once married as well, so don't assume I take any of this shit lightly). had I known calling you out for being so inarticulate would have actually required me to back up my statements, I would have linked to some dumb article I read in the evil WSJ about men in their 20's being in a state of arrested development whereas women of comparable age are actually succeeding at life. but that's not really what you're even talking about, so what's the point?
instead all I will say is, obviously people my age, your age, older...whatever, are going to have problems with this kind of frame of mind because it challenges everything we've been told growing up. it challenges our very notion of feeling secure in our most personal relationship. but a lot of younger people read Dan's writing these days, and maybe if these are the ideas they are coming around to early on, maybe people can learn to be more honest about commitment rather than heap ridiculous expectations on each other and be crestfallen when things don't go according to plan. personally, I think that's a positive change. there are certainly going to be problems, but it's better than leaving the broken Cadillac propped up on cinderblocks in the front yard for another 50 years.
79
Seattleblues@70 You keep talking about those who want to "redefine marriage for the convenience of a tiny minority of citizens", but that's not an argument against same-sex marriage. Have you got an argument, or are you going to keep repeating the same comment over and over again in the hopes that people will eventually fall for it?
And don't use terms like "red herring" unless you know what they mean. You're ignoring the fact that heterosexuals have redefined marriage. The only red herring here is your whining about losing your right to decide who's good enough for marriage and who isn't.
And don't use terms like "red herring" unless you know what they mean. You're ignoring the fact that heterosexuals have redefined marriage. The only red herring here is your whining about losing your right to decide who's good enough for marriage and who isn't.
81
@62 I don't care if people have open relationship or not. But please be honest about the reason why. This just sounds like one big rationalization. Again if you were in a monogamist relationship for year after this topic was approach... equality when out the window and the dominant partner wins!!!! in this case, "sugar daddy", "top" Dan. not to mention famous.
82
@63 "Mr. Savage for striking a mutual acceptable bargain with his significant other instead of doing what he wanted on the sly"
Do you know how many things are wrong with the statement.
So we are really congratulating Dan for not cheating on his husband? the restrain, he is a hero.
Again, What about Terry? he never had the option of monogamy if he wanted to stay with the man he loves... is pure selfishness on Dan's part. Because he getting his rocks off with other people is more important then the man... i can say loves, but let say: he shares a house and a kid with.
Do you know how many things are wrong with the statement.
So we are really congratulating Dan for not cheating on his husband? the restrain, he is a hero.
Again, What about Terry? he never had the option of monogamy if he wanted to stay with the man he loves... is pure selfishness on Dan's part. Because he getting his rocks off with other people is more important then the man... i can say loves, but let say: he shares a house and a kid with.
83
@81, maybe the year was to talk through fears, to get used to the idea. People actually do change viewpoints, on this subject as well as others. I changed my mind about strict monogamy a dozen years ago, and now I'm very happy with it.
Let's put it this way: For one reason and another, my partner and I went through a long stretch with little to no sex. It was very painful for me. If I hadn't had a girlfriend to be sexual and passionate with, I don't know what I would have done.
I don't think I am the dominant partner in my relationship. The house is in her name, she handles all our financial stuff. If she threw me out, I'd be lost. So, yeah, I took a risk by saying I wanted to sleep with someone else, and being specific about it.
Let's put it this way: For one reason and another, my partner and I went through a long stretch with little to no sex. It was very painful for me. If I hadn't had a girlfriend to be sexual and passionate with, I don't know what I would have done.
I don't think I am the dominant partner in my relationship. The house is in her name, she handles all our financial stuff. If she threw me out, I'd be lost. So, yeah, I took a risk by saying I wanted to sleep with someone else, and being specific about it.
84
@artsenyc: Why are you so sure that in of the nine times that Dan and Terry have had partners out side their primary relationship that it has always been Dan that has done so?
85
Another question for artsenyc: why do you apparently assume that Dan's spouse is incapable of functioning like an adult and ending his relationship, if he's really getting such the short end of the stick? I guess we don't really know what lurks in his heart, but if he's staying married my guess is that he likes staying married, and he's not being held hostage at gunpoint or something.
86
I'm a 50 year old married woman. My husband and I have been married 25 years. When we first got together we agreed that monogamy wasn't a huge issue for either of us. I don't remember if we read anything that promoted a non-monogamous marriage at that time, but I grew up with my parent's marriage blowing apart when I was 16 over my Dad's infidelity and I think that may have influenced me.
It's not always been easy, and like Dan and his husband we are monogamous-ish. Mostly we don't stray, but it's not the end of the world if we do. And yes, it's not always easy. But our marriage is solid and we've weathered many storms together. We have 2 boys, 10 and 12, and for now, we are both doubly committed because I HATE divorces when kids are involved. I know they sometimes need to happen, but I don't have to like it.
Thanks Dan, for all your support of marriage, gay and straight, and your work on the "It gets better" project. Great article in the Times. --Joy in MN
It's not always been easy, and like Dan and his husband we are monogamous-ish. Mostly we don't stray, but it's not the end of the world if we do. And yes, it's not always easy. But our marriage is solid and we've weathered many storms together. We have 2 boys, 10 and 12, and for now, we are both doubly committed because I HATE divorces when kids are involved. I know they sometimes need to happen, but I don't have to like it.
Thanks Dan, for all your support of marriage, gay and straight, and your work on the "It gets better" project. Great article in the Times. --Joy in MN
87
85
Because he is financially dependent on Savage?
Because he cares about a stable home for his son?
Because he fears becoming the next "Santorum" if he crosses a psycho asshole like Danny?
Dear child, there are many many reasons why 'adults' choose to remain in abusive relationships...
Because he is financially dependent on Savage?
Because he cares about a stable home for his son?
Because he fears becoming the next "Santorum" if he crosses a psycho asshole like Danny?
Dear child, there are many many reasons why 'adults' choose to remain in abusive relationships...
88
@84 How much you want to bet?
But that is not my point. again, my problem with Dan relationship is the situation he placed his partner after being in a monogamous relationship for years. And Terry reluctance to be in one.
But that is not my point. again, my problem with Dan relationship is the situation he placed his partner after being in a monogamous relationship for years. And Terry reluctance to be in one.
89
@85 Dan took monogamy of the table... period. I know Terry could had left. But here is the decision so many people and specially housewives had been place in for generations: loose the life you built, the man you love or let your man screw around. Have most of him instead of none of him. The sick thing is that Dan needed the psychological excuse of Terry is giving me permission to be able screw around.
I wasn't holding her/him at gun point. Are you really giving me the abusive husband defense?. I hate using this but, LOL.
But at the end, I mean, it's brilliant, I have to say. He gets to play one of the misogynistic husbands from MADMEN with permission.
I wasn't holding her/him at gun point. Are you really giving me the abusive husband defense?. I hate using this but, LOL.
But at the end, I mean, it's brilliant, I have to say. He gets to play one of the misogynistic husbands from MADMEN with permission.
90
@83 if you were that unhappy, why didn't you just jump on the girlfriend you actually have the passion with an left what sounds like one icicle of a marriage? Was it the economical situation?
Clashfan. I believe an emotional fulfillment is as important as sexual fulfillment... and you most work on it and try and try again. But at the end of the day, if nothing is happening with one or both thing is time to go. Life is short. Here is to you finding someone that satisfies you sexually, as well as emotionally.
But, on like you, Dan tells people that he has a great satisfying sex life with Terry.... What I like to say is, that if he had one, he wouldn't be screwing other men. But, Dan is such a narcissist that I suspect for all he says about it, that is not about lack of sexual satisfaction, but pure and simply about wanting to screw other men.
Clashfan. I believe an emotional fulfillment is as important as sexual fulfillment... and you most work on it and try and try again. But at the end of the day, if nothing is happening with one or both thing is time to go. Life is short. Here is to you finding someone that satisfies you sexually, as well as emotionally.
But, on like you, Dan tells people that he has a great satisfying sex life with Terry.... What I like to say is, that if he had one, he wouldn't be screwing other men. But, Dan is such a narcissist that I suspect for all he says about it, that is not about lack of sexual satisfaction, but pure and simply about wanting to screw other men.
91
87, I have no evidence their relationship is abusive, and one can provide a stable home for children without remaining together as a couple. There's no one answer about what's best for kids when the parental relationship is troubled. I know nothing about their finances; however:
89, this risk-reward problem is why I think Dan's advocacy of non-monogamy is often done with sexist blinders on. I have no problem with freely chosen open relationships. However, since women are much more likely to suffer financially when a long-term relationship ends, they have more at stake in agreeing to open a relationship even if they aren't happy with it. Our society is also still much more permissive of male philandering than female. Obviously, this isn't true in every case, but it has been the "more likely" trend up until now.
Just because this is true in general, though, making the terms of non-monogamy more difficult for females as a whole, doesn't mean that's so for any particular couple. It also doesn't mean that any financial imbalance between the parties results in an unfair choice about non-monogamy, as artsenyc suggests about Dan and spouse. What concerns me more about Dan's argument that monogamy is harder for men is that he never seems to wise up to the fact that, if he were correct, this means monogamy is NOT as hard for women. What then, if women tend to prefer it because it's less difficult? Dan just assumes the men should get their way.
89, this risk-reward problem is why I think Dan's advocacy of non-monogamy is often done with sexist blinders on. I have no problem with freely chosen open relationships. However, since women are much more likely to suffer financially when a long-term relationship ends, they have more at stake in agreeing to open a relationship even if they aren't happy with it. Our society is also still much more permissive of male philandering than female. Obviously, this isn't true in every case, but it has been the "more likely" trend up until now.
Just because this is true in general, though, making the terms of non-monogamy more difficult for females as a whole, doesn't mean that's so for any particular couple. It also doesn't mean that any financial imbalance between the parties results in an unfair choice about non-monogamy, as artsenyc suggests about Dan and spouse. What concerns me more about Dan's argument that monogamy is harder for men is that he never seems to wise up to the fact that, if he were correct, this means monogamy is NOT as hard for women. What then, if women tend to prefer it because it's less difficult? Dan just assumes the men should get their way.
92
Can't really find that post (seems my eyes are missing it) but whoever said that home schooling is isolation has it wrong. Those that are home schooled are not isolated, although some can. I have some friends who have preferred that route of education and they are more articulate, more patient, and at times see, more intelligent that my public school friends.
93
@88-90: I don’t know, but it sounds an awful lot like you’re projecting. You do know that Terry isn’t a housewife right? He’s a DJ. A smoking hot DJ. A smoking hot DJ in gay clubs. That is, if you think about it, a pretty promising set of variables for hooking up. It’s not like he’s sitting home knitting. Unless he knows how to knit, which he may, but you get my point.
And again, @90 you seem to have a personal animus toward Dan, and are assuming a whole lot about him, not to mention you seem to be suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding about poly/open relationships.
Being poly doesn’t mean being dissatisfied with your partner. I have an extremely satisfying sex life with my boyfriend. And with my other boyfriend, and occasionally with other people as well. It’s not for everybody obviously, and monogamy is certainly easier logistically, (oh the scheduling! )but it works for me, and many, many others, Dan and Terry apparently included.
And again, @90 you seem to have a personal animus toward Dan, and are assuming a whole lot about him, not to mention you seem to be suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding about poly/open relationships.
Being poly doesn’t mean being dissatisfied with your partner. I have an extremely satisfying sex life with my boyfriend. And with my other boyfriend, and occasionally with other people as well. It’s not for everybody obviously, and monogamy is certainly easier logistically, (oh the scheduling! )but it works for me, and many, many others, Dan and Terry apparently included.
94
@91 the one thing I disagree on is the financial in-valance. the amount of people that don't leave a relationship because of economics, no matter how they are treated, are not one our two. Also Dan seem to argue that men don't want or can't sustain monogamous relationships, even though he is married to a man that wanted it.
@87gwt35 you seem to have more of a political agenda then an actual disagreement with Dan.
I love most of the advice he gives, but when it comes to monogamy, most of it sounds like he is trying to hard to justified his own relationship. Even before I knew about him and Terry it just sounded like a person rationalizing something he didn't think was right. The Lady Doth Protest too Much.
@87gwt35 you seem to have more of a political agenda then an actual disagreement with Dan.
I love most of the advice he gives, but when it comes to monogamy, most of it sounds like he is trying to hard to justified his own relationship. Even before I knew about him and Terry it just sounded like a person rationalizing something he didn't think was right. The Lady Doth Protest too Much.
95
93
Terri is financially dependent on Danny.
Danny has repeated mentioned that when Terri protests his discomfort about invasions of the family privacy that Danny brings upon them Danny reminds him that his advocacy is what supports the 'family'. It seems poor Terri must endure a great deal that makes him unhappy for the good of the group.....
A promising set of variables for snagging another sugar daddy?
Being poly, by definition, means being dissatisfied with your partner.
If your needs and wants were being met by your partner you wouldn't go elsewhere.
Perhaps 'satisfied' doesn't mean what you imagine it does.....
Terri is financially dependent on Danny.
Danny has repeated mentioned that when Terri protests his discomfort about invasions of the family privacy that Danny brings upon them Danny reminds him that his advocacy is what supports the 'family'. It seems poor Terri must endure a great deal that makes him unhappy for the good of the group.....
A promising set of variables for snagging another sugar daddy?
Being poly, by definition, means being dissatisfied with your partner.
If your needs and wants were being met by your partner you wouldn't go elsewhere.
Perhaps 'satisfied' doesn't mean what you imagine it does.....
96
@93 I don't have an animus towards Dan I just disagree when it comes to this Issue. and I 'm concern that he being a national figure it is going to be uses against us on the war against gay Marriage.
Polyamory Is just away to keep a foot out the door of your relationship. Is call commitment phobic. LOL, But, seriously as long as you were honest with your partner from the get go and didn't spring it on him years into a monogamous relationship, Knock yourself out.
Lissa if you really had this extremely satisfying relationship with your partner you wouldn't be screwing other people. And I only say this because Dan himself had said that one person can be everything, so you have to satisfied your kinks somewhere else. Lissa here is to you finding someone that satisfied you emotionally as well as sexually.
Polyamory Is just away to keep a foot out the door of your relationship. Is call commitment phobic. LOL, But, seriously as long as you were honest with your partner from the get go and didn't spring it on him years into a monogamous relationship, Knock yourself out.
Lissa if you really had this extremely satisfying relationship with your partner you wouldn't be screwing other people. And I only say this because Dan himself had said that one person can be everything, so you have to satisfied your kinks somewhere else. Lissa here is to you finding someone that satisfied you emotionally as well as sexually.
97
@96: Or, you know, maybe Lissa just likes having extremely satisfying relationships and/or sex with more than one person.
Polyamory involves making commitments to more than one person, so it's the opposite of commitment-phobia.
Polyamory involves making commitments to more than one person, so it's the opposite of commitment-phobia.
98
97 the relationship is not my point. the unethical way you get in to a Relationship is. I just think you should be upfront about what your needs are before hand.
99
@96&98: Yes, we are all above board with in our relationship map. Boyfriend #1 was the one who encouraged me to start dating Boyfriend#2, because he felt that different things would be brought to the table for me by Boyfriend #2, and indeed for the last 4 and half years that has been the case. Just as I bring a different flavor of relationship to Boyfriend #2 than what he has with his other girlfriend (of 15 years) and what he gives to her that is different from the relationship with her husband of 20 years. Each relationship is unique, and doesn’t detract from the others. And we all love our partners. I mean, really. 20 years? 15 years? Through illness, and financial disasters, unemployment and family drama? That doesn’t sound like people with a foot out the door does it?
But like I said, it isn’t for everybody, and some people do find everything in one package, and good for them. I found a lot of love too. Just in more than one place.
But like I said, it isn’t for everybody, and some people do find everything in one package, and good for them. I found a lot of love too. Just in more than one place.
100
@94: What makes you think Terry wants to be monogamous? Or that Terry feels at all upset about their less-than-once-a-year threesomes? I just don't know where you're getting this stuff.
101
99
Different things, that he can't provide and that you 'need' to be 'satisfied', brought to the table?
Isn't that what we said?
Different things, that he can't provide and that you 'need' to be 'satisfied', brought to the table?
Isn't that what we said?
103
@102: Well, the article says Terry was initially opposed to it. It doesn't say he's unhappy with it now. Or that he was pressured into it. Or that he feels trapped. Or anything like that.
104
@103: I guess artsenyc feels that Terry never did actually change his mind, or that if he did it was under duress. artsenyc also assumes that any activity outside of their primary relationship has been by Dan, and Dan alone.
How you doing by the way?
How you doing by the way?
105
@104: Good, thanks, busy studying. How bout you, feeling better? Hope you're having fun with your boyfriends :)
Yeah, that seems to be what artsenyc is thinking but I don't see why. Also I remember Dan saying that they mostly had three-ways together, not just Dan alone. So that part isn't right.
Yeah, that seems to be what artsenyc is thinking but I don't see why. Also I remember Dan saying that they mostly had three-ways together, not just Dan alone. So that part isn't right.
106
@95, 96, 101 - people who love their spouses still find time to have close relationships with their friends, family, colleagues.
Similarly, a marriage can be very happy, and one or both people can still want to find other partners, for variety. Conversation with me provides a lot of intellectual stimulation for my husband, but I'm not surprised he also enjoys talking to other people from time to time!
Similarly, a marriage can be very happy, and one or both people can still want to find other partners, for variety. Conversation with me provides a lot of intellectual stimulation for my husband, but I'm not surprised he also enjoys talking to other people from time to time!
107
@104 and @105 Lissa, Blackrose my info is not just the article , have you been paying attention to dan pod-cast, and writings.... Dan is always advocating for people to manipulate partners into doing what they want... Sexual needs are always above anything else, even the partner.
Dan force the relationship to be open 4 years into a monogamous relationship. Dan says that 3 year in to the relationship is when you should have all the card on the table . Why 3 years?because that is when he drop the bomb on Terry who didn't want it. all of his open relationship argument are a pathetic attempt to justified what his did to Terry. I wouldn't be surprise if he cheated on Terry before then.
Ps. why do you think they had a kid around the same time?
Dan force the relationship to be open 4 years into a monogamous relationship. Dan says that 3 year in to the relationship is when you should have all the card on the table . Why 3 years?because that is when he drop the bomb on Terry who didn't want it. all of his open relationship argument are a pathetic attempt to justified what his did to Terry. I wouldn't be surprise if he cheated on Terry before then.
Ps. why do you think they had a kid around the same time?
108
@105 Again, that Dan bring another man in to the bed or Tery does, is not the point. The point is that it wasn't Terry's choice to begin with, if he wanted to stay with his husband.
109
@107: Links to Dan's podcasts and writings where he talks about that? I've never hear him advocate manipulating partners, unless by manipulate you mean communicate about what you're willing to deal with and what you're not.
What does adopting a kid around then have to do with anything? If you read his book, it took time for them to decide to adopt one and find a birthmother.
What does adopting a kid around then have to do with anything? If you read his book, it took time for them to decide to adopt one and find a birthmother.
110
109 blackrose ... Communication - Manipulation.... one does not exclude the other. Actually, you need it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (110) RSS