Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, June 20, 2012
Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: Do Monogamous Gay Couples Exist?
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM
A few years ago I saw a video on Youtube of you talking about monogamy and open relationships. I find your stance on the subject very unappealing. Before that video I knew nothing about you. After watching it I despised you.
I’ve just recently come out of the closet to my mom and the rest of my family. Now that I am out I will soon be looking for a relationship. But what bothers me most about the gay community is the amount couple who are in open relationships. You have a major voice in the gay community, Mr. Savage, and I have come to respect you. I hope one day to have make a difference, as you have. I have watched countless “It Gets Better” videos, and they are a big part of the reason wy I'm still alive today. So thank you for that.
But I still have issues with you about monogamy. When I watched that one YouTube, it seemed like you were making monogamy out to be joke. You seemed to suggest that monogamy was only for heterosexual people. I understand that are a lot of people who share your view. But when you're a public figure, such as yourself, and you promote open relationships to the gay community, you open up a door. Gay men who look at a video like that are going to say, "Well, Dan says it's okay, so I'm going to have an open relationship.” It rubs me the wrong way because, as a community, gay people are still fighting for our rights. And with the amount of promiscuity in the gay community already I would hope someone like you would be more careful about what you say publicly.
Frankly, Dan, it's the acceptance of open relationships in the gay community that makes me not want to connect with the gay community AT ALL. Because now I have to wonder if my future partner is going to leave me because I don't want to “swing,” or if I will never find a partner because I want a closed relationship.
The one thing I never heard you talk about in that video is self control. Do you ever tell a person, “You should say no. You shouldn’t accept every offer for sex.” I don't see any loyalty in open relationships. Far to often I hear about relationships where one partner wants an open relationship and the other doesn't. What kind of relationship is that?
I believe that all open relationships are superficial. Self control is all about knowing you can do something and deciding you won’t do it. Why you don’t promote that message, Dan, instead of promoting open relationships?
I would appreciate a response.
Sent From My Color NOOK
I could respond to your letter by my lonesome, SFMCN, taking pains to reassure you that, yes, there are gay men out there in successful, long-term, monogamous relationships. But I think hearing from one of those gay men directly would be more valuable. So I passed your letter on to Jeremy Hooper, a writer, author, and LGBT rights advocate. Hooper regularly breaks news at Good As You, his must-read blog, and his first book, If It’s a Choice, My Zygote Chose Balls: Making Sense of Senseless Controversy, was released earlier this month. Hooper is married and he and his husband are monogamous. Hooper's response is after the jump.
·······················
I've been with my husband for nine years. The last time I so much as intimately kissed anyone else? Nine years ago. So yes, my friend—monogamy does happen within the gay community. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
But let's actually back up to where you now are in life. If you are aspiring to be in a loving, exclusive marriage, then you are worlds away from where I was in my teens and very early twenties. When I was a teenager, I didn't give even a passing thought to monogamy and how it might apply to my life. Don't get me wrong—I wasn't anti-monogamy. But I wasn't pro-monogamy either. I wasn't anything. Coming from the kind of non-accepting background that I did, all I could think about was getting to a place where I could live as an out and proud gay man, not what form that outward pride might take in a relationship.
That's one of the great positives of the growing awareness within our culture and the vivid focus the past decade has placed on marriage equality: current and future generations of young people get to think about being LGBT in a way that the younger versions of Dan and I did not. With these increased freedoms comes an increased consciousness—one that allows people like you to see your dating and mating possibilities with a much more focused, down-the-road goals in mind. That's awesome!
Personally it wasn't until I actually began dating seriously that I allowed myself to think about how such a coupling needed to look for me. Again, I didn't go into this figuring-it-out process with any concrete visions of weddings or, "Hi honey, I'm home!" refrains, so I didn't really need to make my relationships match any sort of perfect picture. I had no reason to lead the witness, as it were. Nevertheless, it took me about a millisecond of dating time to realize that I was, in fact, a monogamist, and that such would be the course for me and any potential mate.
The first time I remember making a clearly defined commitment towards monogamy actually happened in a weird way. It was at the end of my first same-sex relationship, actually. I had been dating a total sweetheart for several months and we had fun together. But I was so young and very green and it was clear that he, being a few years older and vastly more experienced, was much more focused on the longterm than I was. It had also become clear that another guy, a friend whose conversation I was finding more interesting by the day, was a better match for me. This all playing out only in my mind, until one night, hanging out with this friend while still in a relationship with my first boyfriend, I felt a need to make a move—one step onto a new romantic path and one step away from my fading relationship.
But not simultaneous steps. Ya see, I had made a monogamous commitment to my boyfriend—the first monogamous commitment I had made to any boyfriend—and I wasn't going to break it. Instead, I picked up the phone and broke off the relationship before planting a smooch on my friend-turning-lover. Looking back, it actually might've been nicer and more sensitive of me to have put off the breakup until we could get together for a face-to-face conversation, even if that would've meant a one-night overlap. But what can I say? My commitment to fidelity was stronger than my capacity to craft a tactful exit strategy.
As the years passed and other relationships ebbed and flowed, that commitment remained unchanged. I did give the other ideas the old college try, allowing my mind to consider an open relationship or flexible setup. I was certainly open to the possibility. The experimentation just never worked for me.
When I met my husband, the whole thing went to an even more clarified place. Andrew and I made a vow to not only be partners for life, but to be on the tightest of teams in every way. In the kitchen, this might mean nothing more than him opening the wine while I bring the water to a boil. In the living room, it can be as simple as instinctively pausing the DVR when the other needs to pee. But in the bedroom? It means knowing that you have a physical and emotional awareness of one another that no one else in the world possesses, and knowing that you share a truly unique space that you both regard as sacrosanct.
Some have other takes, and I am completely respectful of the different views. I'm confident that Dan and Terry, for instance, have a fantastic relationship and are as committed to being a team. But just as there are different ways of viewing just about any element within a relationship (e.g. parental decisions, financial setups, prenups, views on divorce, etc.), there are different ways of defining a team. I tell you my story, young'un, because I want you to see that there are many of us gay monogamists out there and to know that what you seem to want is 100% obtainable. Dan tells you his take, because he feels strongly about cutting through the sort of landscape where people greet monogamish couples like his with immediate skepticism or questions of loyalty. The great thing is that neither of us will define your life and relationships—you get to do that all by yourself, with no one to answer to but yourself and your mate(s).—Jeremy Hooper
I wanna thank Jeremy and I wanna encourage "Savage Love" readers to check out his new book.
And I wanna encourage you, SFMCN, to get out there and meet some other gay men. Some of the gay men you'll meet will be in or wanna be in monogamous relationships; some of the gay men you'll meet will be in or wanna be in non-monogamous relationships; some of the gay men you'll meet will be happily single and wanna stay that way. Some of the gay men you meet in non-monogamous relationships will have been in monogamous relationships in the past because that's what they used to think they wanted; some of the gay men you'll meet in monogamous relationships will have been non-monogamous relationships in the past because that's what they used to think they wanted.
Once you start meeting other gay men you'll see that there are lots of options and lots of relationship models, SFMCN, and you'll see that the gay community is not a monolith. You'll also see that all gay men in successful, healthy, loving, long-term relationships—monogamous or not—place a high value loyalty, trust, commitment, and, yes, self-control. (Being in an open relationship does not mean accepting every offer of sex!) And you'll see that there's nothing "superficial" about non-monogamous relationships.
As for this question...
Far to often I hear about relationships where one partner wants an open relationship and the other doesn't. What kind of relationship is that?
That's the kind of relationship that probably needs to end, SFMCN, because those men don't want the same things and won't be happy together.
As for why I don't "promote" the message that open relationships are harmful and superficial, well, I don't promote that message because it's a lie. An open relationship, like a closed one, can be good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, successful or not. (Laci Peterson was in a closed relationship.) I'm not interested in promoting one type of relationship model over another. I'm interested in people being honest with themselves and their partners about what they want, what works for them, what makes them happy, and then finding someone who wants the same things.
And finally...
Straight people don't have to be monogamous to be married or married to be monogamous. Our fight is for equal rights, SFMCN, not double standards.
1
My hope is that SFMCN is just young and naive, and that years from now he'll have more perspective and be embarrassed by the level of sanctimony he spews here. Even if he remains convinced monogamy is the way for him to go.
I have friends in non-monogamous relationships that are anything but "superficial". They also demand self-control like any others - just in different forms.
I have friends in non-monogamous relationships that are anything but "superficial". They also demand self-control like any others - just in different forms.
3
What an insufferable little twerp. He makes me feel like going out and having a fling. Anybody out there looking for a quickie?
4
To LW: SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP
No, really...promise to stop pushing your ideals on everybody else, and we promise not to date you.
No, really...promise to stop pushing your ideals on everybody else, and we promise not to date you.
5
@2, I know, right? Sanctimony goes a lot better with a high tight bubble butt.
This kid's pretty classic Young Republican: "I have never had a relationship, so here's how all you who are having them ought to behave!" Future Log Cabin local chapter delegate, I fear.
This kid's pretty classic Young Republican: "I have never had a relationship, so here's how all you who are having them ought to behave!" Future Log Cabin local chapter delegate, I fear.
6
Oh, Catalina, my dear. I would so do a quickie with you, but I'm too busy fixing the plumbing. (That's part of the gay agenda they never told me about when I signed up for this long-term relationship thing.)
7
Bloody Hell, Dan; Both you and this Jeremy Hooper dude were so fucking comprehensive, articulate, and compassionate, it was a thing of beauty to read.
Except for all the "wanna"s. What is this "wanna" b.s?
And the reference to Laci Peterson, which SFMCN is likely too young to get (and if not, doubtless would misunderstand as your saying that Scott Peterson was a murder *because* his marriage was closed, and then extrapolate that to mean that you infer that all monogamous marriages end in murder).
Except for all the "wanna"s. What is this "wanna" b.s?
And the reference to Laci Peterson, which SFMCN is likely too young to get (and if not, doubtless would misunderstand as your saying that Scott Peterson was a murder *because* his marriage was closed, and then extrapolate that to mean that you infer that all monogamous marriages end in murder).
8
As for SFMCN, Dan has been hugely popular since before you were born mostly because he's right most of the time... including that video.
Very few people, straight or gay, are 100% monogamous. Monogamy need not be an absolute either/or thing. As you get older, you'll realize that many things are not as absolute as you like to think they are when you're young.
I've been in a relationship for well over 20 years. When we first got together, the notion of gay marriage didn't even exist. We were free to form whatever sort of relationship we wanted. We chose to be monogamous. Thats what we modeled, that surreal 1950s ideal. It didn't really work out that way. Both of us have fallen off the wagon once or twice. Relationships are messy. But despite occasional lapses and the messiness of a long-term relationship, we are still mostly monogamous. Our relationship is anything but superficial. Just because I have on occasion had sex with someone else doesn't mean I'll sleep with any guy any time, nor does it mean that I am not committed to my partner, as our 20+ year relationship will attest.
Finally, just as you don't like people telling you that you should be straight, I don't like you telling me that I should be monogamous. It is the same thing: pressuring people to be something they are not. If two guys want to be monogamous, super. Go for it. But if another couple chooses not to be monogamous, who are you to tell them they're wrong?
Very few people, straight or gay, are 100% monogamous. Monogamy need not be an absolute either/or thing. As you get older, you'll realize that many things are not as absolute as you like to think they are when you're young.
I've been in a relationship for well over 20 years. When we first got together, the notion of gay marriage didn't even exist. We were free to form whatever sort of relationship we wanted. We chose to be monogamous. Thats what we modeled, that surreal 1950s ideal. It didn't really work out that way. Both of us have fallen off the wagon once or twice. Relationships are messy. But despite occasional lapses and the messiness of a long-term relationship, we are still mostly monogamous. Our relationship is anything but superficial. Just because I have on occasion had sex with someone else doesn't mean I'll sleep with any guy any time, nor does it mean that I am not committed to my partner, as our 20+ year relationship will attest.
Finally, just as you don't like people telling you that you should be straight, I don't like you telling me that I should be monogamous. It is the same thing: pressuring people to be something they are not. If two guys want to be monogamous, super. Go for it. But if another couple chooses not to be monogamous, who are you to tell them they're wrong?
9
Aw, lighten up a little folks... if LW is the least bit cute/attractive he will be having so much fun with cock in a few months that he will look back at his sanctimonious sayings as just one of the many dumb things one says when one is new to the game.
10
@8 (Reverse Polarity):
About a year ago, Sugar had a question about monogamy and infidelity that had a similar amount of sanctimonious judgment. Her answer, while not sanctioning or advocating monogamishness, still dealt beautifully with the lw's judgment, and brought up some of the same points you do:
http://therumpus.net/2011/08/dear-sugar-…
About a year ago, Sugar had a question about monogamy and infidelity that had a similar amount of sanctimonious judgment. Her answer, while not sanctioning or advocating monogamishness, still dealt beautifully with the lw's judgment, and brought up some of the same points you do:
http://therumpus.net/2011/08/dear-sugar-…
11
@3: Ha! My sentiments exactly.
As a straight dude I am really grateful that Dan is opening (sorry) the conversation in public discourse about relationships and how widely they can, and should, vary. When I was a younger man I too had ideals about love and romance, believing in 'the one' and all that shit. I suffered for it IMMENSELY. By trying to hold my relationships to those ridiculous ideas I got hurt badly many times. That's why I've loosened up and let go of that.
I would say I hope you don't ever have to suffer like that, but relationships, even the best ones, ALWAYS involve some pain. The way to lesson that is by NOT creating stupid narratives about what it is and should be. Just enjoy it, be in the moment, and know that all things must pass.
Oh, and while you're young just fucking get some and have some fucking fun for chrissake. Damn. (I say that 'cause I wish someone had said that to the 19 year old me.)
As a straight dude I am really grateful that Dan is opening (sorry) the conversation in public discourse about relationships and how widely they can, and should, vary. When I was a younger man I too had ideals about love and romance, believing in 'the one' and all that shit. I suffered for it IMMENSELY. By trying to hold my relationships to those ridiculous ideas I got hurt badly many times. That's why I've loosened up and let go of that.
I would say I hope you don't ever have to suffer like that, but relationships, even the best ones, ALWAYS involve some pain. The way to lesson that is by NOT creating stupid narratives about what it is and should be. Just enjoy it, be in the moment, and know that all things must pass.
Oh, and while you're young just fucking get some and have some fucking fun for chrissake. Damn. (I say that 'cause I wish someone had said that to the 19 year old me.)
12
Man, what a great response to that kid. I'm not sure most of us in the comments could be that patient... I think it must be the province of the young to believe that the world is, with 100% certainty, like this, and therefore, the only possible course of action is that, which is what everyone should do. And there is no possibility for changing one's mind on this topic, after being in a few relationships oneself.
Not saying that he will definitely change his mind/views as he gets older (many don't, obviously, and that's perfectly fine), but at least be open to the possibility that how you see things now may change someday (on this, or any topic). The world is full of gray, kid...
Not saying that he will definitely change his mind/views as he gets older (many don't, obviously, and that's perfectly fine), but at least be open to the possibility that how you see things now may change someday (on this, or any topic). The world is full of gray, kid...
13
SFMCN, you're mistaking "open" for fucking anything in sight. That's more what straight guys do if Jersey Shore is any indication of current straight community attitudes. I mean all straight guys are pretty much exactly like The Situation and his crew, aren't they? No? Ah, maybe my idea of what it means to be straight is off kilter then.
I trust you get the point.
Even in SF, I know some monogamous gay couples. I also know some triads, some wide open relationships, open relationships with more rules than most monogamous couples, and some total (ethical) sluts.
You've worked out what you need in a relationship. Hurray. Good luck finding a match. When you find him, hopefully he'll like you back the same way.
I trust you get the point.
Even in SF, I know some monogamous gay couples. I also know some triads, some wide open relationships, open relationships with more rules than most monogamous couples, and some total (ethical) sluts.
You've worked out what you need in a relationship. Hurray. Good luck finding a match. When you find him, hopefully he'll like you back the same way.
14
Fantastic response to the kid. Let people have the relationships they want - if they're not harming anyone/thing, then who cares?
15
@1 - I suspect that's the case. When I was younger, barely out and hadn't dated anyone in my life, there was nothing I wanted more than to find one guy out there to grow old with in monogamy. When you first come out, thinking that you only want to ever date and screw one guy is a comforting thought when facing a future of uncertainty. It's also impractical.
Dan's right when he says that coming out is like starting to date all over again at age 15--with the same hiccups along the way. And quite a number of 15-year-olds are dreaming about "the one".
Then I grew up and actually started dating (and screwing) other people. Now I'm in a long-term, monogamous relationship with the door open for future non-monogamy--after the appropriate discussion--if it means that it'll keep our relationship healthier and us happier.
Dan's right when he says that coming out is like starting to date all over again at age 15--with the same hiccups along the way. And quite a number of 15-year-olds are dreaming about "the one".
Then I grew up and actually started dating (and screwing) other people. Now I'm in a long-term, monogamous relationship with the door open for future non-monogamy--after the appropriate discussion--if it means that it'll keep our relationship healthier and us happier.
16
Wow, seems like none of you were ever young and naive... Maybe he'll read Jeremy and Dan's response and understand. He obviously had no understanding of Dan's position and hopefully now he does.
I think he has less to worry about with monogamy and more with dealing with the members of our community who are just bitter and mean like some of the responses.
I think he has less to worry about with monogamy and more with dealing with the members of our community who are just bitter and mean like some of the responses.
17
I will probably be shot down for this, but the difference between gay relationships and straight ones is that gays are more open about non-monogamy.
Having said that, 12 years here of gay monogamy and counting.
Having said that, 12 years here of gay monogamy and counting.
18
SFMCN, although I think some of responses before me here are a little on the harsh side, the basic premise of them is mostly correct.
Nothing wrong with wanting monogamy. Putting down those who don't feel the same is where you are being unfair and narrow minded. Just because it isn't for you doesn't mean that those who choose it are somehow less committed to their relationships or weak people with no self control.
Your basic question is easy to answer. Not only are there gay people who want monogamous relationships, there are a quite a few of them.
What does happen sometimes is that people who are not suited for open relationships get into them because they think they should and that if they don't they are being provincial, old fashioned or emulating some kind of "heteronormative" behavior, and make a mess of their relationship. And there are people who are not suited to monogamy who force themselves into it because they share opinions like yours that belittle and put down alternative models of relationships. And they mess up their supposedly monogamous relationships.
You can't judge or condemn either monogamy or non-monogamy based on these failures because the real failure isn't something inherent in the relationship model. It was a failure of the individuals who try to force themselves to fit some model that they weren't suited for.
The real problem with you is that you seem to be a good candidate for fucking up your relationships for that very reason. Not that you aren't necessarily suited for monogamy, but because if you aren't you probably won't figure that out until after you cause several relationships to implode, messing up not just yourself but a string of partners along the way.
That's because your negative attitude towards alternative relationship models will prevent you from every seriously considering if one of them might not be a better fit for you. Regardless if you are suited to monogamy or non-monogamy, you are going to force yourself into monogamy simply because you have adopted so many negative ideas about the alternatives.
If you were cool with everyone else doing as they liked, and just felt that this one way was a good fit for you I wouldn't worry. That you seem to think that this one way is the only legitimate way, and that anyone who doesn't adopt it are somehow weak and lacking in character of some kind paints a very different view of your potential future.
When I was younger I only wanted monogamy because I thought that was really just the was it was supposed to be done. So I ended up spending my late teen to mid 20's going through a succession of serial monogamy relationships. The problem for me wasn't that I wasn't suited to be monogamous. It was that I was too young to be thinking of being serious to begin with. But I couldn't see that.
Then in my midish 20's I got a clue and realized I didn't need to commit to someone. I could just have some fun, and that is what I did. And at that time I got to see all sorts of people with different kinds of relationships and to see that all models have their unique challenges and issues, but none are inherently better.
At one point I was casually dating three different guys (they all knew), and I found that although I liked all of them well enough I wasn't willing to get too serious with them, but I kind of wanted to. But I realized that I was not capable of making that kind of commitment in an open situation. It was all fine though, because I was still just having fun.
Then I met my current partner. I met him and almost immediately broke it off with the other three. We dated, and we eventually committed with an agreement to monogamy. Now over 16 years later we are still happily together. I know I have kept my commitment to him, and I am as sure as anyone possibly can be that he has kept that commitment to me.
Among our friends are couples who have been together around the same amount of time. Some are monogamous. Some are not. All have long lasting, committed, serious and successful relationships. We have all found what works for us.
However I probably never would have found what really worked for me, even though it turned out to be what I thought I wanted from the start, if I hadn't let go of my ideas of what things "should" be and simply saw what was the best fit for me.
If monogamy will work for you it will take you letting go of your bad attitude about everything else before you will really know. And if it is you will find someone who shares that, because despite the doom and gloom of some people the fact is that there are plenty of monogamy minded gay guys out there. But once you really figure yourself out only then will you be able to sort out the guys you meet who really are suited for monogamy from those who just think they should be but really aren't. That is the real key to monogamy. Getting past all the BS to figure out who has really figured out what they want and who hasn't.
More...
Nothing wrong with wanting monogamy. Putting down those who don't feel the same is where you are being unfair and narrow minded. Just because it isn't for you doesn't mean that those who choose it are somehow less committed to their relationships or weak people with no self control.
Your basic question is easy to answer. Not only are there gay people who want monogamous relationships, there are a quite a few of them.
What does happen sometimes is that people who are not suited for open relationships get into them because they think they should and that if they don't they are being provincial, old fashioned or emulating some kind of "heteronormative" behavior, and make a mess of their relationship. And there are people who are not suited to monogamy who force themselves into it because they share opinions like yours that belittle and put down alternative models of relationships. And they mess up their supposedly monogamous relationships.
You can't judge or condemn either monogamy or non-monogamy based on these failures because the real failure isn't something inherent in the relationship model. It was a failure of the individuals who try to force themselves to fit some model that they weren't suited for.
The real problem with you is that you seem to be a good candidate for fucking up your relationships for that very reason. Not that you aren't necessarily suited for monogamy, but because if you aren't you probably won't figure that out until after you cause several relationships to implode, messing up not just yourself but a string of partners along the way.
That's because your negative attitude towards alternative relationship models will prevent you from every seriously considering if one of them might not be a better fit for you. Regardless if you are suited to monogamy or non-monogamy, you are going to force yourself into monogamy simply because you have adopted so many negative ideas about the alternatives.
If you were cool with everyone else doing as they liked, and just felt that this one way was a good fit for you I wouldn't worry. That you seem to think that this one way is the only legitimate way, and that anyone who doesn't adopt it are somehow weak and lacking in character of some kind paints a very different view of your potential future.
When I was younger I only wanted monogamy because I thought that was really just the was it was supposed to be done. So I ended up spending my late teen to mid 20's going through a succession of serial monogamy relationships. The problem for me wasn't that I wasn't suited to be monogamous. It was that I was too young to be thinking of being serious to begin with. But I couldn't see that.
Then in my midish 20's I got a clue and realized I didn't need to commit to someone. I could just have some fun, and that is what I did. And at that time I got to see all sorts of people with different kinds of relationships and to see that all models have their unique challenges and issues, but none are inherently better.
At one point I was casually dating three different guys (they all knew), and I found that although I liked all of them well enough I wasn't willing to get too serious with them, but I kind of wanted to. But I realized that I was not capable of making that kind of commitment in an open situation. It was all fine though, because I was still just having fun.
Then I met my current partner. I met him and almost immediately broke it off with the other three. We dated, and we eventually committed with an agreement to monogamy. Now over 16 years later we are still happily together. I know I have kept my commitment to him, and I am as sure as anyone possibly can be that he has kept that commitment to me.
Among our friends are couples who have been together around the same amount of time. Some are monogamous. Some are not. All have long lasting, committed, serious and successful relationships. We have all found what works for us.
However I probably never would have found what really worked for me, even though it turned out to be what I thought I wanted from the start, if I hadn't let go of my ideas of what things "should" be and simply saw what was the best fit for me.
If monogamy will work for you it will take you letting go of your bad attitude about everything else before you will really know. And if it is you will find someone who shares that, because despite the doom and gloom of some people the fact is that there are plenty of monogamy minded gay guys out there. But once you really figure yourself out only then will you be able to sort out the guys you meet who really are suited for monogamy from those who just think they should be but really aren't. That is the real key to monogamy. Getting past all the BS to figure out who has really figured out what they want and who hasn't.
19
There's also a big distinction between having a a fling or a fuck buddy, with whom you each do not share any additional expectations, and being emotionally committed to your partner to meet each others' emotional needs in addition to the physical. Sex is not the same as love.
20
@17: I've always said that the difference between a gay relationship and straight relationship is the likelihood and/or the frequency of hearing your spouse utter this sentence: "Honey, it's been too long since we had a threesome."
21
SFMCN,
I'd like to tell you a story, but first a bit about myself. I'm a polyamorous and queer woman. However, I frequent a gay man's bar. (It's five blocks from my house, and has karaoke, which I don't believe I can say about any of the girl bars in town.) Anyway, I was sitting in a group of gay men, and I the only woman present. They were talking about how much they value monogamy. I made a disparaging comment about how monogamy is overrated. They all pretty emphatically disagreed with me. Not one, out of the ten other people in the conversation agreed with my outlook. (Notice the switch of stereotypical gender roles there? Nice, huh?)
I know this is anecdotal, but ten out of ten is a pretty good indication of the interest in monogamy as a lifestyle within your community. Obviously, I know that this is not across the board (I know plenty of gay men who are very much poly or monogamish.) But, basically the stereotype of gay men all wanting open relationships is decidedly not true. If for no other reason, then because of the amount of prestige that monogamous relationships are held up within our culture.
While I don't think monogamy is a great way to go, I recognize that maybe I've just not found "the one" to tempt me into it. I hope you do find your "one". And congrats on coming out!
I'd like to tell you a story, but first a bit about myself. I'm a polyamorous and queer woman. However, I frequent a gay man's bar. (It's five blocks from my house, and has karaoke, which I don't believe I can say about any of the girl bars in town.) Anyway, I was sitting in a group of gay men, and I the only woman present. They were talking about how much they value monogamy. I made a disparaging comment about how monogamy is overrated. They all pretty emphatically disagreed with me. Not one, out of the ten other people in the conversation agreed with my outlook. (Notice the switch of stereotypical gender roles there? Nice, huh?)
I know this is anecdotal, but ten out of ten is a pretty good indication of the interest in monogamy as a lifestyle within your community. Obviously, I know that this is not across the board (I know plenty of gay men who are very much poly or monogamish.) But, basically the stereotype of gay men all wanting open relationships is decidedly not true. If for no other reason, then because of the amount of prestige that monogamous relationships are held up within our culture.
While I don't think monogamy is a great way to go, I recognize that maybe I've just not found "the one" to tempt me into it. I hope you do find your "one". And congrats on coming out!
22
Wow, Dan, there was a whole pile of issues in that letter and you handled all of 'em well. Bravo.
@1, I'm hoping the same thing. It seems like he's deathly afraid that someone will cheat on him someday because Mr. Dan Savage said that open relationships are okay. It says a lot about his trepidations as he starts dating. Some experience will show him that love and sex are not all black and white, and most people are good people.
@1, I'm hoping the same thing. It seems like he's deathly afraid that someone will cheat on him someday because Mr. Dan Savage said that open relationships are okay. It says a lot about his trepidations as he starts dating. Some experience will show him that love and sex are not all black and white, and most people are good people.
23
It's SO easy for the young ones to come out now and live free and proud and swishy or what ever and what do they do? They complain. Oh for the good old days of the closet when sex was a REAL hunt, not just a click away.
24
26 years of monogamy here. Never would have happened if not for the wild debauchery that preceded it. No one should worry about monogamy until they have tried all the other options. Like so many types of piety, it is much easier to reform than to resist temptation.
25
So we have a gay man who believes that promiscuity is bad and that sex should also be about love and devotion? WOHOO!! YEAH! APPROPRIATE THE BEST PARTS OF CONSERVATIVE VIEWS OF SEX AND CLAIM THEM AS YOUR OWN! Reject the all-or-nothing fallacy! Just because conservatives believe it doesn't mean it's wrong!
And good luck, young man. Good luck.
And good luck, young man. Good luck.
26
@1 Believing that promiscuity is bad and that self control is good isn't sanctimony. It's character.
27
What an odd, odd letter.
With 60% of heterosexual men cheating on their wives and 40% of heterosexual women cheating on their husbands, one can only wonder if what SFMCN truly seeks is to model his own relationships after people who have sexual relations outside of their marriages and LIE to each other about it.
In any case, this kid is in for a rude awakening.
And for the record, kiddo, my partner and I have been monogamous for 12+ years now. And we're... wait for it...
...GAY MEN.
SFMCN, unfortunately, seems to have believed what heterosexuals have taught him about himself, and for that I feel sorry for him.
Good luck to you, SFMCN. You're going to need it. It's a jungle out there.
With 60% of heterosexual men cheating on their wives and 40% of heterosexual women cheating on their husbands, one can only wonder if what SFMCN truly seeks is to model his own relationships after people who have sexual relations outside of their marriages and LIE to each other about it.
In any case, this kid is in for a rude awakening.
And for the record, kiddo, my partner and I have been monogamous for 12+ years now. And we're... wait for it...
...GAY MEN.
SFMCN, unfortunately, seems to have believed what heterosexuals have taught him about himself, and for that I feel sorry for him.
Good luck to you, SFMCN. You're going to need it. It's a jungle out there.
28
Letter Writer,
If you’re reading this, I have a question for you. Why do you want to be monogamy, anyway? I’m not saying at all that you shouldn’t want it; I’m only asking why it’s important to you.
There are a few indirect clues in your letter (“I’ve just recently come out of the closet to my mom and the rest of my family,“ and “It rubs me the wrong way because, as a community, gay people are still fighting for our rights…I would hope someone like you would be more careful about what you say publicly.”) that hint at a bigger concern with keeping up appearances than with leading a happy life. But I presume your feelings run deeper than that. Or maybe they don’t.
So why is monogamy important to you?
If you’re reading this, I have a question for you. Why do you want to be monogamy, anyway? I’m not saying at all that you shouldn’t want it; I’m only asking why it’s important to you.
There are a few indirect clues in your letter (“I’ve just recently come out of the closet to my mom and the rest of my family,“ and “It rubs me the wrong way because, as a community, gay people are still fighting for our rights…I would hope someone like you would be more careful about what you say publicly.”) that hint at a bigger concern with keeping up appearances than with leading a happy life. But I presume your feelings run deeper than that. Or maybe they don’t.
So why is monogamy important to you?
29
Letter Writer,
One more thought. You wrote “Self control is all about knowing you can do something and deciding you won’t do it. “ True as far as it goes, but like much of your letter, it substitutes a platitude for any real moral consideration. Why should or shouldn’t you do a thing? What is the right thing to do, and why?
Consider anorexia – possibly the most pathological feat of self control ever. These people know they can feed their own starving bodies, but choose not to. That doesn’t actually make them superior people or shining examples of fortitude. And yet, in their pathological state, that’s exactly what many of them believe it does. Anorexia isn’t just about body image, it’s about behavior.
“Self control” seems so self-evidently virtuous, yet can be twisted into self destruction. Is it within your moral universe to consider the same may be true of monogamy? I’m not terribly interested in whether you answer is yes or no. I’m interested in why your answer is yes or no.
One more thought. You wrote “Self control is all about knowing you can do something and deciding you won’t do it. “ True as far as it goes, but like much of your letter, it substitutes a platitude for any real moral consideration. Why should or shouldn’t you do a thing? What is the right thing to do, and why?
Consider anorexia – possibly the most pathological feat of self control ever. These people know they can feed their own starving bodies, but choose not to. That doesn’t actually make them superior people or shining examples of fortitude. And yet, in their pathological state, that’s exactly what many of them believe it does. Anorexia isn’t just about body image, it’s about behavior.
“Self control” seems so self-evidently virtuous, yet can be twisted into self destruction. Is it within your moral universe to consider the same may be true of monogamy? I’m not terribly interested in whether you answer is yes or no. I’m interested in why your answer is yes or no.
31
25
Oh, and do you think it's telling of anything that in a discussion of monogamy vs nonmonogamy, the word you jumped to is "promiscuity"?
I do totally agree with you that sex can also be about love and devotion. I just put the emphasis on "also."
Oh, and do you think it's telling of anything that in a discussion of monogamy vs nonmonogamy, the word you jumped to is "promiscuity"?
I do totally agree with you that sex can also be about love and devotion. I just put the emphasis on "also."
32
29
Just reread my string of verbosity here. To the Letter Writer. When I wrote "I’m not terribly interested in whether you answer is yes or no" I expressed myself poorly and I apologize. What I actually meant, is: it's entirely up to you if your answer is yes or no and you should absolutely live your life by the answer you find. But I really hope - both for your sake and for the betterment of the world by having one more morally mature person in it - that you find the answer through wrestling with the complexity of the question, not just through received "wisdom."
There. Now I'm done talking with myself for the night.
Just reread my string of verbosity here. To the Letter Writer. When I wrote "I’m not terribly interested in whether you answer is yes or no" I expressed myself poorly and I apologize. What I actually meant, is: it's entirely up to you if your answer is yes or no and you should absolutely live your life by the answer you find. But I really hope - both for your sake and for the betterment of the world by having one more morally mature person in it - that you find the answer through wrestling with the complexity of the question, not just through received "wisdom."
There. Now I'm done talking with myself for the night.
33
@32 - Yawn. Hitler was faithful to his girlfriend. Character is marked by showing honesty and respect for others in all of one's personal relationships. It is not defined by having sex with only one person at a time.
Enjoy monogamy. But leave everyone else who doesn't alone.
Enjoy monogamy. But leave everyone else who doesn't alone.
35
I'm glad Dan and Jeremy were so patient and kind toward the Letter Writer, just as I'm glad the first few comments tossed words like young, naive, sanctimonious, and twerp into the mix.
And I'm so glad that I decided against teaching high school English. Having to read essays by kids like the Letter Writer (who is, despite his deep twerp-tendencies, probably marginally above average in intelligence) would drive me completely insane.
And I'm so glad that I decided against teaching high school English. Having to read essays by kids like the Letter Writer (who is, despite his deep twerp-tendencies, probably marginally above average in intelligence) would drive me completely insane.
37
"You seemed to suggest that monogamy was only for heterosexual people."
Riiiight, because heterosexuals never, ever want to swing, or have open relationships. Or cheat. Nope. Never happens.
"Frankly, Dan, it's the acceptance of open relationships in the gay community that makes me not want to connect with the gay community AT ALL. Because now I have to wonder if my future partner is going to leave me because I don't want to "swing," or if I will never find a partner because I want a closed relationship."
Uh, ditto. What community ARE you going to connect with? You will find open-relationshippers pretty much everywhere you look: gay, straight, religious, secular. If you plan on damning entire demographics for the public words of one guy in their midst, you are going to grow up mighty lonely. Do you honestly think the entire gay population takes Dan Savage as gospel, concerning how they personally feel about open relationships? Do you honestly think there aren't any other gays who feel the same way you do? If being gay means you have to have a predisposition towards open relationships, then how the hell do we explain YOU?
"I believe that all open relationships are superficial."
In this case "believe" being synonymous with "I don't know a damned thing about it, having vowed never to experience it myself, but that isn't going to stop me from talking shit about it."
Honestly, I suggest you watch that video a few more times, because you clearly misunderstood it the first time.
Riiiight, because heterosexuals never, ever want to swing, or have open relationships. Or cheat. Nope. Never happens.
"Frankly, Dan, it's the acceptance of open relationships in the gay community that makes me not want to connect with the gay community AT ALL. Because now I have to wonder if my future partner is going to leave me because I don't want to "swing," or if I will never find a partner because I want a closed relationship."
Uh, ditto. What community ARE you going to connect with? You will find open-relationshippers pretty much everywhere you look: gay, straight, religious, secular. If you plan on damning entire demographics for the public words of one guy in their midst, you are going to grow up mighty lonely. Do you honestly think the entire gay population takes Dan Savage as gospel, concerning how they personally feel about open relationships? Do you honestly think there aren't any other gays who feel the same way you do? If being gay means you have to have a predisposition towards open relationships, then how the hell do we explain YOU?
"I believe that all open relationships are superficial."
In this case "believe" being synonymous with "I don't know a damned thing about it, having vowed never to experience it myself, but that isn't going to stop me from talking shit about it."
Honestly, I suggest you watch that video a few more times, because you clearly misunderstood it the first time.
38
Great response. Hooper's reply was pitch-perfect and you didn't rise to the bait of SFMCN's apparent hostility.
You treated SFMCN's question with respect even though he didn't offer your perspective on relationships the same courtesy. Often, one of the hardest lessons to learn is that two people can follow two different paths and both people can be right in their choice.
SFMCN's lack of respect might stem from the fact that he feels alone and fears he will be judged by the gay community, which causes a defensive backlash against those (the gay community/other gay men) whose rejection he fears. It seems like it would be extremely painful to struggle with accepting your sexuality as a gay man only then to feel like "your" community might reject you because you don't meet perceived expectations (or stereotypes).
I hope SFMCN gets what he needs from this response.
You treated SFMCN's question with respect even though he didn't offer your perspective on relationships the same courtesy. Often, one of the hardest lessons to learn is that two people can follow two different paths and both people can be right in their choice.
SFMCN's lack of respect might stem from the fact that he feels alone and fears he will be judged by the gay community, which causes a defensive backlash against those (the gay community/other gay men) whose rejection he fears. It seems like it would be extremely painful to struggle with accepting your sexuality as a gay man only then to feel like "your" community might reject you because you don't meet perceived expectations (or stereotypes).
I hope SFMCN gets what he needs from this response.
39
Wow. Seriously. What an amazing, intelligent and beautifully put conversation, here. What an amazing forum. Other than the snarkiness - he's a kid for god's sake; he's naive by definition so give him a break, please - I find it moving that this kid's heartfelt, apparently heart wrenching concerns were addressed in such intelligent, equally heartfelt ways. Bravo slog. Bravo Dan and Jeremy.
Just want to add that I love this video. It's simply the truth for a lot of people - probably most people - especially over time - that looking at your mate and saying 'I'll never see another naked person in my life' absolutely = despair. I think it's important that this be admitted to and 'outed'. We are totally lying to ourselves and our mates otherwise.
Of COURSE everyone likes the idea that we'll always desire our mate and want nobody else and vice versa, that we won't ever stray or want to, but that's as rare as can be and a massively tall order to begin with, and I believe, unnatural, and in most cases unsustainable over time. Come on -30, 40, 50 yrs, day in and day out with the same person and never craving anyone else? The marriages I know of that have lasted this long that are monogamous are entirely sexless and have been for many years - sometimes decades. This is not uncommon. The sex died because there are only so many ways you can keep it fresh and exciting over a 20 or 30 or 40+ year period. Period. It's damn near impossible.
That said, I don't know that monogamish is the answer as I've never done it, but clearly for some people it works, and even apparently manages in the process to revive the flame with their mate. Based on that alone, and obviously factoring in for safety and no unwanted babies, it's worth respect and serious consideration.
More...
Just want to add that I love this video. It's simply the truth for a lot of people - probably most people - especially over time - that looking at your mate and saying 'I'll never see another naked person in my life' absolutely = despair. I think it's important that this be admitted to and 'outed'. We are totally lying to ourselves and our mates otherwise.
Of COURSE everyone likes the idea that we'll always desire our mate and want nobody else and vice versa, that we won't ever stray or want to, but that's as rare as can be and a massively tall order to begin with, and I believe, unnatural, and in most cases unsustainable over time. Come on -30, 40, 50 yrs, day in and day out with the same person and never craving anyone else? The marriages I know of that have lasted this long that are monogamous are entirely sexless and have been for many years - sometimes decades. This is not uncommon. The sex died because there are only so many ways you can keep it fresh and exciting over a 20 or 30 or 40+ year period. Period. It's damn near impossible.
That said, I don't know that monogamish is the answer as I've never done it, but clearly for some people it works, and even apparently manages in the process to revive the flame with their mate. Based on that alone, and obviously factoring in for safety and no unwanted babies, it's worth respect and serious consideration.
40
As far as I'm concerned, gay couples being less concerned about strict monogamy puts them way ahead of the curve relative to hetero(normative)s. You can be monogamous if you want, SFMCN, and that's fine as long as it works for you; but please don't mistake it for a matter of right and wrong, and even more importantly, don't mistake it for an indication of, or substitute for, caring or devotion.
41
@27: "With 60% of heterosexual men cheating on their wives and 40% of heterosexual women cheating on their husbands"
I've never quite understood how that statistic works. Who are those extra 50% of male cheaters cheating with? Either there is a very large segment of the single female population that thinks that going after married men is the bees' knees, or there is a very large segment of married women who lie on surveys.
I've never quite understood how that statistic works. Who are those extra 50% of male cheaters cheating with? Either there is a very large segment of the single female population that thinks that going after married men is the bees' knees, or there is a very large segment of married women who lie on surveys.
43
@ 41 - You forgot one possibility: that those 40% of married women are cheating way more than their fare share.
44
@ 41 - Actually, you forgot quite a bunch of possibilities:
Women might be more inclined to have an affair, so they'll stick to one man when they cheat.
Men might be more inclined to have casual sex (on top of affairs, or not) with unmarried women, sex workers or... other men (I've had sex with dozens of married men, so it's definitely a possibility; funny how they only tell you they're married once the sex is over, though).
And I'm sure there are many other possibilities.
Please note the use of the words "might" and "possibilities", everyone, before telling me I'm sexist or something.
Women might be more inclined to have an affair, so they'll stick to one man when they cheat.
Men might be more inclined to have casual sex (on top of affairs, or not) with unmarried women, sex workers or... other men (I've had sex with dozens of married men, so it's definitely a possibility; funny how they only tell you they're married once the sex is over, though).
And I'm sure there are many other possibilities.
Please note the use of the words "might" and "possibilities", everyone, before telling me I'm sexist or something.
45
After watching that clip, my only beef is with Dan's assertion that monogamy "is never easy". I've heard him say this before, and I've heard him accuse anyone who claims that monogamy is easy of being a bullshitter. I could get behind the statement "relationships are never easy", since they require work, sacrifice, and the ability to admit when you're wrong and apologize. But monogamy isn't an aspect of my relationship that's ever been difficult for me. My husband is attracted to far more people than I am, so he might have a different perspective. I will say that if he's struggling not to cheat, he's doing a damn good job of hiding it.
46
I thought I was reading a letter from a teenaged Morrissey. I had to check the calendar to make sure of the year.
47
Just to reiterate @7: Dan, what's with the "wanna"? Even in casual conversational writing it kind of (kinda?) disrupts the flow. I'm wondering if doing that hyper-cutesy MTV gig is causing you to regress into your college-age persona. It would be a shame.
48
I'm also a monogamous queer person, and I used to feel the same way you do. Totally okay with other people having open relationships if they want, but I've been certain from very early on that it wasn't for me. I used to really resent that open relationships are such a thing in the queer community, though, because when I was younger I couldn't find anyone to date who didn't want an open relationship either, and ended up either turning down people that I really liked or being in relationships that didn't make me happy at all.
Now that I'm older and have more freedom and a bigger dating pool, I've changed my mind. I still like monogamy, and if my current relationship breaks up and I date again, I'd like there to at least be a significant amount of other monogamous queers to pick from, but I've become pretty okay with nonmonogamy being seen as normal too.
Think of it this way- there's a social pressure towards monogamy, especially for straight people, where presenting yourself as monogamous can be the only way to get a partner. Some people are just not good at monogamy, or don't really see the point, or just prefer not to be monogamous. And those people might be more likely to cheat, or to insist on opening up the relationship at some future point when there might be kids or shared finances- not because they're bad people, but because having that pressure there towards monogamy takes away their option to be open about it early on and find other people who either don't care or who want to be open, too. When it's not the monogamy parade 24/7 in your community, somebody who claims to be monogamous is a lot more likely to actually be monogamous. I mean, if a guy says "Dan says I can have an open relationship, so let's have an open relationship," that isn't a person who would prefer to be monogamous in the first place. That's a person who's looking for permission to do what they want to do in the first place, and who eventually will most likely do it anyway, permission or not.
There is a huge difference between a person who's attracted to people besides their partner but chooses to keep it in their pants anyway because monogamy is important to them, and a person who is nonmonogamous. Both people are making a choice based on what they want in a relationship and what's important to them, and you can't turn a nonmonogamous person into a monogamous person just by telling them to "have some self-control". Self-control is internally imposed! It's somebody putting off immediate gratification for the sake of something that's more personally important. It's a matter of values- of the subjective, everyone cares about different things kind, not of the "I'm more moral than you" kind- and that's not something you or Dan or any one person can change in somebody else.
So don't think of the acceptance of open relationships as a bad thing, think of it as a very good thing. Maybe right now you're missing out on some dates, but in the future, you'll be way less likely to have a cheating husband or an "If you don't let me sleep with other people, I'm leaving you" ultimatum. It's a smaller monogamy parade nowadays, but it's a much more genuine one, and I think you'd be happier if you focused on that. Personally, I'm really glad my partner is someone who's been exposed to nonmonogamy, given it some thought, and said "no thanks", instead of someone who's just going along with it because that's what's done.
More...
Now that I'm older and have more freedom and a bigger dating pool, I've changed my mind. I still like monogamy, and if my current relationship breaks up and I date again, I'd like there to at least be a significant amount of other monogamous queers to pick from, but I've become pretty okay with nonmonogamy being seen as normal too.
Think of it this way- there's a social pressure towards monogamy, especially for straight people, where presenting yourself as monogamous can be the only way to get a partner. Some people are just not good at monogamy, or don't really see the point, or just prefer not to be monogamous. And those people might be more likely to cheat, or to insist on opening up the relationship at some future point when there might be kids or shared finances- not because they're bad people, but because having that pressure there towards monogamy takes away their option to be open about it early on and find other people who either don't care or who want to be open, too. When it's not the monogamy parade 24/7 in your community, somebody who claims to be monogamous is a lot more likely to actually be monogamous. I mean, if a guy says "Dan says I can have an open relationship, so let's have an open relationship," that isn't a person who would prefer to be monogamous in the first place. That's a person who's looking for permission to do what they want to do in the first place, and who eventually will most likely do it anyway, permission or not.
There is a huge difference between a person who's attracted to people besides their partner but chooses to keep it in their pants anyway because monogamy is important to them, and a person who is nonmonogamous. Both people are making a choice based on what they want in a relationship and what's important to them, and you can't turn a nonmonogamous person into a monogamous person just by telling them to "have some self-control". Self-control is internally imposed! It's somebody putting off immediate gratification for the sake of something that's more personally important. It's a matter of values- of the subjective, everyone cares about different things kind, not of the "I'm more moral than you" kind- and that's not something you or Dan or any one person can change in somebody else.
So don't think of the acceptance of open relationships as a bad thing, think of it as a very good thing. Maybe right now you're missing out on some dates, but in the future, you'll be way less likely to have a cheating husband or an "If you don't let me sleep with other people, I'm leaving you" ultimatum. It's a smaller monogamy parade nowadays, but it's a much more genuine one, and I think you'd be happier if you focused on that. Personally, I'm really glad my partner is someone who's been exposed to nonmonogamy, given it some thought, and said "no thanks", instead of someone who's just going along with it because that's what's done.
49
With all due respect, Doug, shut up. You raise some valid points, but those kind of arguments mean nothing to folks like the letter writer. This isn't a situation that can be solved by presenting a logical argument. This is about sex, which isn't exactly a logical or rational activity.
No... what people like this letter writer need is time. And stories like Mr. Hooper's. These are personal examples which can give people something they can empathize and connect with.
No... what people like this letter writer need is time. And stories like Mr. Hooper's. These are personal examples which can give people something they can empathize and connect with.
50
Gay man. 100% monogamous relationship for seven years now. We have vague plans to have kids once we're done moving around in another few years.
And really kid? You should reserve judgement on the "gay community" until you meet it. What you get from third party sources is incredibly distorted. So even if you decide it's not the community for you (it's not for everyone) you'll have decided for yourself, and not let your biased sources decide for you.
And really kid? You should reserve judgement on the "gay community" until you meet it. What you get from third party sources is incredibly distorted. So even if you decide it's not the community for you (it's not for everyone) you'll have decided for yourself, and not let your biased sources decide for you.
51
Whoa! I won't accuse the LW of being sanctimonious, but he certainly does flit from one thing to another. First he says he despised you after watching the video; then he says he came to respect you after seeing the IGB campaign. That's a quick flip-flop.
I feel his greatest motivation for attacking you and your views is fear. Suddenly, just because you've apparently decreed – in his opinion – that all gay relationships should be promiscuous and shallow (Wow, see how important you are, Dan, to wield So. Much. Power), everyone will look down at him, especially his mom, believing that he will immediately become promiscuous to match the characteristics of this uniform, monolithic gay community in which he knows everyone and everything (NOT).
He's played the “What if” game but, instead of being focused on a Happily-Ever-After scenario, he's already moved beyond it to the ::gasps:: partner betrayal and breakup.
To put it kindly, the kid needs to learn how to listen and read more carefully. He completely missed your message in the video where you're trying to ... uh ... SAVE marriages which – based on statistics – are at risk of failure, even after only a single moment of infidelity. [BTW, your comparison to sobriety was spot on.]
I hope a few years down the road he will learn how to be more compassionate and less quick to judge. If not, I don't think monogamy will be in the cards ... and it'll have absolutely nothing to do with sexual fidelity.
I feel his greatest motivation for attacking you and your views is fear. Suddenly, just because you've apparently decreed – in his opinion – that all gay relationships should be promiscuous and shallow (Wow, see how important you are, Dan, to wield So. Much. Power), everyone will look down at him, especially his mom, believing that he will immediately become promiscuous to match the characteristics of this uniform, monolithic gay community in which he knows everyone and everything (NOT).
He's played the “What if” game but, instead of being focused on a Happily-Ever-After scenario, he's already moved beyond it to the ::gasps:: partner betrayal and breakup.
To put it kindly, the kid needs to learn how to listen and read more carefully. He completely missed your message in the video where you're trying to ... uh ... SAVE marriages which – based on statistics – are at risk of failure, even after only a single moment of infidelity. [BTW, your comparison to sobriety was spot on.]
I hope a few years down the road he will learn how to be more compassionate and less quick to judge. If not, I don't think monogamy will be in the cards ... and it'll have absolutely nothing to do with sexual fidelity.
52
@41 those extra men are cheating with each other. Now, that makes it all much more interesting, doesn't it?
53
Bravo for your mature and honest response, Dan. Trying to force sexuality into boxes of Shoulds and Shouldn'ts doesn't work and isn't helpful. The stereotypes SFMCN is spewing about open relationships are exactly the same stereotypes that gay people had to overcome, and hopefully he'll realize that and turn more tolerant after reading this.
54
Though I agree the LW is a twerp, as a hopelessly monogamous person myself I can kinda-sorta understand where he's coming from. In my mid-20s I was cheated on by my first love and went through a phase when I considered sex without commitment to be just wrong and evil. I found it threatening that most/many people could screw for fun while the idea of even kissing anyone but my boyfriend made me feel physically ill. It took me awhile to realize that my attitude was coming from my own insecurities and feelings of betrayal. I'm still monogamous by nature but I realize that an honest open relationship is a relationship worthy of as much respect as any honest relationship. Hopefully the LW will gain some perspective, good on Dan and Jeremy for their responses--they really were excellent.
55
A.) He'll probably look back on this in 5 years and be embarrassed. B.) He should know that there's no better time to be out in the dating pool with monogamous tendencies. If we're all becoming more open with who we are, it's more likely that the guy you're dating who says he's into monogamy is saying so because he is, not because society expects that of him.
56
Mr Savage - Regarding the threesomes, I've generally held that that's mainly one potential logistical advantage of a same-sex partnership. Yes, some one-sex threeways operate similarly to those with mixed sexes, but a pair of Kinsey 6s starts out with a huge advantage over a pair of Kinsey 0s in having an equally fun for both time with a third.
As for Mr Hooper, his history seems to suggest that Ms Erica was likely right about the text-dumper.
Both responses had a nice, patient tone, so often helpful with the newly out, especially the trying ones.
I'd refer the LW to *Rumpole and the Reform of Joby Johnson* with particular attention to how Mizz Liz Probert's initial response to Dot Clapton's nasal jewel is radical free-spirited sisterhoodly approval - until she notices Dot twinkling at Dave Inchcape and has the sudden realization that it's Politically Incorrect, nothing more than a hareem signal. Ms McKern had a lot of fun with those scenes in the television series' final set of episodes.
As for Mr Hooper, his history seems to suggest that Ms Erica was likely right about the text-dumper.
Both responses had a nice, patient tone, so often helpful with the newly out, especially the trying ones.
I'd refer the LW to *Rumpole and the Reform of Joby Johnson* with particular attention to how Mizz Liz Probert's initial response to Dot Clapton's nasal jewel is radical free-spirited sisterhoodly approval - until she notices Dot twinkling at Dave Inchcape and has the sudden realization that it's Politically Incorrect, nothing more than a hareem signal. Ms McKern had a lot of fun with those scenes in the television series' final set of episodes.
57
I stand by my twerp comment. Believe it or not, I was young once, and was somewhat of a twerp myself. Some wiser, older people told me in no uncertain terms that I needed to get over myself, and I eventually did.
Civility should always be the norm, but respect is something that is earned. LW needs to know that.
Civility should always be the norm, but respect is something that is earned. LW needs to know that.
58
Sorry dude, but that whole thing about gay men being slutty being bad for the cause... that's just grist for the mill.
That's not the real reason that people who are anti-marriage equality are anti-marriage equality. Mostly they just think that gay sex is icky, gay men are weird, and anything gay is unmanly. Some of them see an opportunity to oppress a minority for political gain. Many (maybe even most) of them are hot for gay men, but have been conditioned to repress their feelings, and act out against what they desperately want but can't have with anger and hatred.
After all, you never hear the same arguments against *lesbians*. In fact, you rarely hear any arguments against lesbian marriage. The sex *they* have isn't weird and icky enough to get all worked up about.
That's not the real reason that people who are anti-marriage equality are anti-marriage equality. Mostly they just think that gay sex is icky, gay men are weird, and anything gay is unmanly. Some of them see an opportunity to oppress a minority for political gain. Many (maybe even most) of them are hot for gay men, but have been conditioned to repress their feelings, and act out against what they desperately want but can't have with anger and hatred.
After all, you never hear the same arguments against *lesbians*. In fact, you rarely hear any arguments against lesbian marriage. The sex *they* have isn't weird and icky enough to get all worked up about.
59
I'll add a slightly different perspective here. I was in a monogamous relationship for 24 years, right up until the "death do us part" ending of it. Was it wonderful? Yes. Was it perfect? God no, but I wouldn't have had it any other way.
It wasn't what I was really looking for when that relationship started, but somehow monogamy just felt right and it worked for the two of us. I'm still healthy, relatively young (well at 52, I don't consider myself old yet). Will my next relationship be monogamous? It might be, but I don't view that as the gold standard anymore. I think in the context that SFMCN writes, he's talking about the physical/sexual aspect of monogamy, but the reality is that there's another, more important aspect to a relationship: the spiritual and emotional intimacy. That part is very important to me, but as far as the sexual part, meh, maybe not so much.
It wasn't what I was really looking for when that relationship started, but somehow monogamy just felt right and it worked for the two of us. I'm still healthy, relatively young (well at 52, I don't consider myself old yet). Will my next relationship be monogamous? It might be, but I don't view that as the gold standard anymore. I think in the context that SFMCN writes, he's talking about the physical/sexual aspect of monogamy, but the reality is that there's another, more important aspect to a relationship: the spiritual and emotional intimacy. That part is very important to me, but as far as the sexual part, meh, maybe not so much.
60
I generally don't mind the the use of "wanna". I'm in my 30s and I use this construct often when writing in a conversational mode, things like "Wanna go to the park?" or "Wanna make a difference?".
That said, that's a whole lot of wanna's, now that I look at it.
That said, that's a whole lot of wanna's, now that I look at it.
61
While I believe if a relationship is a healthy one, be it closed, open or whatever that's all that should matters. That being said it does suck for those of who are gay, single and want to be in monogamous relationships when a large portion of potentional partners tend to not have the same desire.
62
I'm glad to read Dan comment on this subject matter. I previously mistook his point of view as jaded and myopic rather than the refreshingly expansive explanation offered here. I've been out and proud for over 21 years. Most of that has been in the SF area and believe in the monogamy model. A lot of people do! It is not naive or "young republican" for anyone to have personal values. However, it is wrong to inflict them on others. Our personal lives should be just that - personal. I've seen a lot more happiness and success in the rare monogamous partnerships of myself and others than "committed open" ones so that remains my goal. I also respect that many have a different take. Either way - no one should be judged for whatever relationship they and their partner(s) decide to have.
63
I previously mistook Dan's point of view as jaded and myopic rather than the refreshingly expansive explanation offered here. I've been out and proud for over 21 years. Most of that has been in the SF area and believe in the monogamy model. A lot of people do! It is not naive, Christian or "young Republican" for me or anyone else to have personal values. I do quite well with them and they help guide me in making tough choices. However, it is wrong to enforce these ideals on others. Our personal lives should be just that - personal. I've seen a lot more happiness and success in the rare monogamous partnerships of myself and others than "committed open" ones so that remains my goal. I also respect that many have a different take. Either way - no one should be judged for whatever relationship they and their partner(s) decide to have.
64
I want to meet this kid, make him a ton of promises and cheat on him every chance I get and blame the nefarious Gay Community [thunderclap] for my nefarious ways.
Quick, everybody, here comes a hetero! Look straight!
Quick, everybody, here comes a hetero! Look straight!
65
I don't think that being hetero- or homosexual makes you more or less likely to be monogamous. I tend to think that it's more that gay couples would rather accept an open relationship than to have partners sneaking around on each other, and straight couples would rather feign monogamy and sneak around.
66
I carried the opinions of the LW for the first couple gay relationships I had, until I learned that, tho I could commit emotionally and forever to one man, I could not be satisfied seeing 'only him naked for the rest of my life'. So my 3rd relationship was started unequivocally as NON-MONOGAMOUS right up front. We both believe that if there is another man out there who makes our mate happier than we can, that is who they should be with. 20+ years later, we're still that person for each other.
LW- non-monogamous couples are as dedicated and committed to each other as monogamous ones. Sex has zippo to do with fidelity in a marriage. Good luck to you as a newly out gay man- you will find the way that's perfect for you, with the perfect man for you. I sure did.
LW- non-monogamous couples are as dedicated and committed to each other as monogamous ones. Sex has zippo to do with fidelity in a marriage. Good luck to you as a newly out gay man- you will find the way that's perfect for you, with the perfect man for you. I sure did.
67
Maybe the LW's difficulty in finding monogamous relationships is because people meet him and instantly think "Oh hell, no way you're the only person I'm fucking forever."
69
Wow, reading this letter was like hearing 19 year old me's thoughts. And 30 year old me still can't believe 19 year old me was that simple-minded. That being said, I've been "married" for years and been with my partner (I'm going to brag and tell you he resembles David Beckham) for nearly 8 years. We've had exactly 2 sorta-kinda-threesomes in 8 years. And they both involved massive amounts of drinks, massive amounts of trust, and massive amounts of revelations. The first being, threesomes are fun and an awesome time. The second being, threesomes are akward and interesting. And the last being, "wow, my husband is a superior lover. Thank god he puts up with me."
Don't worry kid, if you're anything like me, you'll meet really good friends who happen to be in open relationships, closed relationships, and tons of other types of relationships. And you'll see that it's not about you. It's about them and what they've found works well for them. Don't judge them, they're likely not judging you.
Don't worry kid, if you're anything like me, you'll meet really good friends who happen to be in open relationships, closed relationships, and tons of other types of relationships. And you'll see that it's not about you. It's about them and what they've found works well for them. Don't judge them, they're likely not judging you.
70
A thought on the stereotype that gay men are more likely to be in open relationships: they probably are. Being gay in today's world usually means having to overcome a sexual orientation that was pushed on you and deciding that you know what's best for you. Once someone makes this kind of choice, it becomes much easier to shed other social norms and sit down and really figure out what they want in life.
SFMCN, if the only reason open relationships seem unethical is because, well , they just are, then you could probably benefit from really thinking about this viewpoint a little. Because that's the same attitude that has millions around the world convinced that being gay is unethical. If you just don't want that for yourself, well good for you, I'm the same way, but that's about you and your preferences, not about other people.
SFMCN, if the only reason open relationships seem unethical is because, well , they just are, then you could probably benefit from really thinking about this viewpoint a little. Because that's the same attitude that has millions around the world convinced that being gay is unethical. If you just don't want that for yourself, well good for you, I'm the same way, but that's about you and your preferences, not about other people.
71
Gay man. 35 years relationship. The "job" of dating is to find someone whose values match yours. Not interests, but values. And the "job" of relationship is to keep the communication up so that as one changes, the partner is aware and participating. Dan advocates that open relationships be put on the menu. Your option is not just monogamy (many), serial monogamy(Newt Gingrich and Zsa Zsa) and polyandry (Someone give me an example) or being single(Mother Teresa and Miss Palin). It is such a wonderful spectrum. And don't jump into a long term contract without the negotiations. (BTW, 35 years of monogamy on my side and probably on his.)
72
@3, I'll take you up on that quickie offer. As long as you don't live in MN I can do it because those are the rules in my open relationship. :)
74
Personally, I think that self-control and non-monogamy should absolutely NOT be mutually exclusive concepts-- unless you want your relationship to crash and burn, that is. Self-control should be an important element of any adult relationship; I've been in an open marriage for 5 years now and while our rules are quite permissive, it is certainly not a free-for-all.
75
Hooper is articulate and all, but the anecdote about the phoned-in breakup before the kiss (My commitment to fidelity was stronger than my capacity to craft a tactful exit strategy) is ironic. He cites an example of being meaninglessly monogamous as a (mildly flawed) boon to his character. I do not think he is a bad guy, but what he did to preserve his commitment by a technicality was clearly a shitty thing to do. It is not the kind of behavior I would bring up as evidence that monogamy works. To me, it is an example of something the monogamish should bring up to point out the flaws in monogamy.
76
East Coast Douglas: Anorexia is not an example of self-control. Anorexic patients have lost control of themselves. It is only that it has manifested undereating rather than by overeating.
I used the word "promiscuity" because the letter-writer did. What I said was "promiscuity is bad and self-control is good," so no, I didn't happen to say that the two are mutually exclusive, but it is true:
Courtesy of dictionary.com, promiscuity means "indulging in casual and indiscriminate sexual relationships." Please note the "indiscriminate." So yes, someone who is promiscuous lacks self-control.
I used the word "promiscuity" because the letter-writer did. What I said was "promiscuity is bad and self-control is good," so no, I didn't happen to say that the two are mutually exclusive, but it is true:
Courtesy of dictionary.com, promiscuity means "indulging in casual and indiscriminate sexual relationships." Please note the "indiscriminate." So yes, someone who is promiscuous lacks self-control.
77
So a young man writes in and says, "I want a monogamous relationship" and the people on this thread go, "you're a twerp for wanting that," "you're hostile for wanting that," "you're forcing your values on us (by saying that you want that)" and "once you grow out this stupid little phase of yours you'll stop wanting that."
79
Not to mention, I've seen some pretty horrible things result when ONE TRUE METHOD of relationships is, ah, religiously promoted. So while I sympathize with LW, when he wants Dan to preach the "right way" to do things... nope (specifically "I would hope someone like you would be more careful about what you say publicly.")
So, no thanks. I'm happy to live & let live. You wanna open relationship? Please go ahead. You wanna monogamous one? Please go ahead.
I will say that lying should be off the table, but that doesn't exclude open relationships, oddly enough.
So, no thanks. I'm happy to live & let live. You wanna open relationship? Please go ahead. You wanna monogamous one? Please go ahead.
I will say that lying should be off the table, but that doesn't exclude open relationships, oddly enough.
80
@ 76 - Then by that dictionary's definition, I have never been promiscuous in spite of shagging with thousands of men, since I've always chosen who I wanted to have sex with (which is an example of... self-control!).
It's quite obvious that this definition needs to be revised.
It's quite obvious that this definition needs to be revised.
81
@65: I think it may have to do with the reproductive implications in hetero relationships, and the social consequences of breaking them. Society laughs most scornfully at a man who is unwittingly raising another man's offspring (and by corollary frowns on a man who would do that to another family). They regard that man as unable to "keep" his wife. Men will tend to want avoid being tarred with this perception. Society also regards a woman who would let a man unwittingly raise another man's offspring as the worst sort of con artist.
That particular threat is all but non-existent in homosexual pairings. The only reproducing that is going to happen in that system will be deliberate and well-thought-out in advance. This makes sex outside the relationship a considerably less threatening proposition.
I've also heard it said (could have sworn it was Dan) that the reason is that men tend to regard cheating less disfavorably than women, as evidenced by their apparently higher rates of cheating; and when a relationship involves two men, that means both parties are somewhat more likely to not mind so much. It's not that they are gay, it's that they are both men.
That particular threat is all but non-existent in homosexual pairings. The only reproducing that is going to happen in that system will be deliberate and well-thought-out in advance. This makes sex outside the relationship a considerably less threatening proposition.
I've also heard it said (could have sworn it was Dan) that the reason is that men tend to regard cheating less disfavorably than women, as evidenced by their apparently higher rates of cheating; and when a relationship involves two men, that means both parties are somewhat more likely to not mind so much. It's not that they are gay, it's that they are both men.
82
@ 67 - Probably not yet, as he's still very young, but that's what happened to someone I know who took the sanctimonious route way back when.
He's now 40, single for 6 years, has been in therapy forever, has no sex life to speak of and is totally desperate to meet someone who shares his values, but he scares off every possible candidate with the way he imposes his values and judgment on them before even getting a chance to know them at all... even the ones who DO share his values. In the end, it's not his values that are wrong, it's his holier-than-thou attitude.
Beware, LW, that's what may end up happening to you.
He's now 40, single for 6 years, has been in therapy forever, has no sex life to speak of and is totally desperate to meet someone who shares his values, but he scares off every possible candidate with the way he imposes his values and judgment on them before even getting a chance to know them at all... even the ones who DO share his values. In the end, it's not his values that are wrong, it's his holier-than-thou attitude.
Beware, LW, that's what may end up happening to you.
83
76
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, I had to spend some time thinking about it. You are correct, the letter writer made the false equivocation of non-monogamy and promiscuity before you did. And you're right, promiscuity - as opposed to non-monogamy - os a failure of self-control.
But no, anorexia is not a failure of self-control to feed your body the nutrition it needs - undereating. Anorexics feel hunger just like anybody else, they feel it all the time. But through sheer will - self-control - they command themselves to ignore the signals of their bodies and their own natural instincts for self-preservation. Ever hear an anorexic speak of eating? The language is almost always self-disgust at their own weakness and failure of will.
I bring-up anorexia only as an example of how even the virtue of self-control can be twisted. Every virtue can be twisted any misused to the point of hurting others or self-destruction. Any virtue. Even monogamy.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, I had to spend some time thinking about it. You are correct, the letter writer made the false equivocation of non-monogamy and promiscuity before you did. And you're right, promiscuity - as opposed to non-monogamy - os a failure of self-control.
But no, anorexia is not a failure of self-control to feed your body the nutrition it needs - undereating. Anorexics feel hunger just like anybody else, they feel it all the time. But through sheer will - self-control - they command themselves to ignore the signals of their bodies and their own natural instincts for self-preservation. Ever hear an anorexic speak of eating? The language is almost always self-disgust at their own weakness and failure of will.
I bring-up anorexia only as an example of how even the virtue of self-control can be twisted. Every virtue can be twisted any misused to the point of hurting others or self-destruction. Any virtue. Even monogamy.
85
People on this thread are calling this kid all sorts of names for saying he wants a monogamous relationship. If he were saying he wanted to be pegged or couldn't get an erection unless his partner was wearing Hello Kitty earmuffs, all you guys would be cheering him on to accept himself and his desires.
@77 I did, just 'cause you said so. I still see a kid who is talking about what he wants and expressing legitimate doubts about other people's choices. So what if he doesn't like it when monogamy is "made into a joke"? I imagine people in other types of relationships don't like being ridiculed either.
@76 Let's look up "indiscriminate": "lacking in care, judgment, selectivity," so a promiscuous person is someone who engages in a lot of sexual relationships and doesn't use care, judgment or selectivity when choosing partners. It doesn't mean that he/she doesn't choose the partners him/herself. Because I don't know you personally, I cannot say whether you are promiscuous or not. I stand by my earlier statements, "Promiscuity is bad" and "Promiscuity indicates a lack of self-control."
Too many people in this thread are reading WAY too much into this kid's letter. Maybe many of you have been subjected to hate speeches from jerks, but this is not one of those times. The views that this letter writer expresses are very moderate.
@77 I did, just 'cause you said so. I still see a kid who is talking about what he wants and expressing legitimate doubts about other people's choices. So what if he doesn't like it when monogamy is "made into a joke"? I imagine people in other types of relationships don't like being ridiculed either.
@76 Let's look up "indiscriminate": "lacking in care, judgment, selectivity," so a promiscuous person is someone who engages in a lot of sexual relationships and doesn't use care, judgment or selectivity when choosing partners. It doesn't mean that he/she doesn't choose the partners him/herself. Because I don't know you personally, I cannot say whether you are promiscuous or not. I stand by my earlier statements, "Promiscuity is bad" and "Promiscuity indicates a lack of self-control."
Too many people in this thread are reading WAY too much into this kid's letter. Maybe many of you have been subjected to hate speeches from jerks, but this is not one of those times. The views that this letter writer expresses are very moderate.
86
East Coast Douglas -- Anorexics might be resisting the calls of their bodies to eat, but they have failed to resist the psychological compulsion to refrain from eating. They cannot overcome their feelings of disgust about their bodies and perform the actions that are logically necessary for their health and survival.
87
It embarrasses me to think that I was once this young and opinionated. Luckily I never wrote a letter that would prove it for all time.
The LW is lucky that he wrote to Dan and got such a thoughtful response from both Dan and Jeremy. I, like so many of the other commenters, wouldn't have been so gentle.
I feel fortunate to be in a relationship with a man that I love dearly and am devoted to. I feel committed to him and his happiness and the health of our relationship. This is all a surprise to me. I'm 40 and have never been interested in monogamy or even being in a relationship. It wasn't until I met my boyfriend that I started thinking about things in the long term and learning the true benefits of forming a partnership with someone.
I feel trust and loyalty and respect and adoration for my boyfriend, all while still being attracted to other men. We're open, and I've never been happier.
It would never occur to me to tell some one how to run their relationship, and I find it offensive that some young idiot has the temerity to suggest that my relationship is superficial. But I've mellowed over the years and know that I'll get over it. I also think that in a few years this kid will pull his head out of the sand and think before he dashes of a plaintive letter. We'll all be better off for it.
The LW is lucky that he wrote to Dan and got such a thoughtful response from both Dan and Jeremy. I, like so many of the other commenters, wouldn't have been so gentle.
I feel fortunate to be in a relationship with a man that I love dearly and am devoted to. I feel committed to him and his happiness and the health of our relationship. This is all a surprise to me. I'm 40 and have never been interested in monogamy or even being in a relationship. It wasn't until I met my boyfriend that I started thinking about things in the long term and learning the true benefits of forming a partnership with someone.
I feel trust and loyalty and respect and adoration for my boyfriend, all while still being attracted to other men. We're open, and I've never been happier.
It would never occur to me to tell some one how to run their relationship, and I find it offensive that some young idiot has the temerity to suggest that my relationship is superficial. But I've mellowed over the years and know that I'll get over it. I also think that in a few years this kid will pull his head out of the sand and think before he dashes of a plaintive letter. We'll all be better off for it.
88
@ 85 - I suppose you were answering my posting @ 80, so here goes:
I have had sex with thousands of men, but never "lacking care, judgment or selectivity" when choosing partners. My tastes are very precise, so I'm always selective, and I avoid nutcases and other potentiel sources of danger like the plague. I have always been in control of the situation, but I just made sure I didn't miss out on any good occasion.
I do believe that by anyone's standards, I am a promiscuous man. I have never lacked in self-control, though, as anyone who knows me could tell you. Therefore, your reasoning is dubious.
I have had sex with thousands of men, but never "lacking care, judgment or selectivity" when choosing partners. My tastes are very precise, so I'm always selective, and I avoid nutcases and other potentiel sources of danger like the plague. I have always been in control of the situation, but I just made sure I didn't miss out on any good occasion.
I do believe that by anyone's standards, I am a promiscuous man. I have never lacked in self-control, though, as anyone who knows me could tell you. Therefore, your reasoning is dubious.
89
@ 85 - Also, having experimented promiscuity, which doesn't seem to be your case, I can also affirm that it is not at all bad (at least if you use condoms). It's what you make it.
90
@85: "I still see a kid who is talking about what he wants and expressing legitimate doubts about other people's choices."
You honestly don't see the logical inconsistency with what you just wrote? Give it a moment, it'll come to you.
Other people's choices are other peoples choices. Not his. If he gets to want what he wants, then other people get to want what they want. If he is going to characterize those other people's choices as "making monogamy into a joke" or "all open relationships are superficial" or "despising" Dan for daring to suggest that other people might be empowered to make choices different from his, he can expected to be called an idiot for it.
Live your own life, young padawan.
You honestly don't see the logical inconsistency with what you just wrote? Give it a moment, it'll come to you.
Other people's choices are other peoples choices. Not his. If he gets to want what he wants, then other people get to want what they want. If he is going to characterize those other people's choices as "making monogamy into a joke" or "all open relationships are superficial" or "despising" Dan for daring to suggest that other people might be empowered to make choices different from his, he can expected to be called an idiot for it.
Live your own life, young padawan.
91
Letter Writer needs a copy editor. He could have said the same thing in a lot fewer words:
"A few years ago I saw a video on Youtube of you talking about monogamy and open relationships. Now that I am out I will soon be looking for a relationship. I'm scared that it will turn out that he also watched that video, and will want an open relationship, and I just can't handle that prospect. Dan, you have no business telling people that they get to make choices that might clash with what I want. For that, I despise you."
"A few years ago I saw a video on Youtube of you talking about monogamy and open relationships. Now that I am out I will soon be looking for a relationship. I'm scared that it will turn out that he also watched that video, and will want an open relationship, and I just can't handle that prospect. Dan, you have no business telling people that they get to make choices that might clash with what I want. For that, I despise you."
92
@88 Like I said, I don't know you, but I find it hard to believe that someone could have sex with "thousands" of people and still show good "judgement and selectivity." My take? If you see something that you want but shouldn't have and don't take it, then that's self-control.
As for whether or not promiscuity isn't bad, perhaps you'll forgive me for not taking your word for it. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it just wasn't for you. Maybe it was for you and you don't see fit to say so to a stranger during an argument about another stranger.
@90 Just because they're other people's choices doesn't mean he doesn't get to talk about them. Yes, there's a line. This kid isn't going around haranguing nonmonogamists with fire and brimstone. He's expressing reservations. What comes to me is that a lot of people on this thread have probably been harassed by conservative jerks and are projecting that justified anger onto a conservativish non-jerk.
As for whether or not promiscuity isn't bad, perhaps you'll forgive me for not taking your word for it. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it just wasn't for you. Maybe it was for you and you don't see fit to say so to a stranger during an argument about another stranger.
@90 Just because they're other people's choices doesn't mean he doesn't get to talk about them. Yes, there's a line. This kid isn't going around haranguing nonmonogamists with fire and brimstone. He's expressing reservations. What comes to me is that a lot of people on this thread have probably been harassed by conservative jerks and are projecting that justified anger onto a conservativish non-jerk.
93
@92
>My take? If you see something that you want but shouldn't have and don't take it, then that's self-control.
"shouldn't have" according to who? Your grandma?
Clearly you are of the same mind, but the letter, and your silly, naive comments about "character" boil down to: "people are promoting and enjoying and proud of something I don't like and disapprove of! Stopitstopitstopit I hate you!"
You could keep trying to impress your conservative friends and/or family by making such a big deal about how hardcore monogamous you are or you could maybe, oh I don't know, get real.
Fin.
>My take? If you see something that you want but shouldn't have and don't take it, then that's self-control.
"shouldn't have" according to who? Your grandma?
Clearly you are of the same mind, but the letter, and your silly, naive comments about "character" boil down to: "people are promoting and enjoying and proud of something I don't like and disapprove of! Stopitstopitstopit I hate you!"
You could keep trying to impress your conservative friends and/or family by making such a big deal about how hardcore monogamous you are or you could maybe, oh I don't know, get real.
Fin.
94
"Shouldn't have" as in bad for the doer, bad for the partner, bad for the environment, bad for a third party, the list goes on.
So in other words, when I encourage this young man and suggest that he's not necesarily wrong/stupid/deluded for valuing monogamy you want me to stopitstopitstopit.
I do have a conservative friend or two, but neither I nor my family is conservative. As I said to LW in my first post, we should appropriate the good parts of conservative views rather than rejecting everything they say as necessarily wrong just because many of the other things that they say are.
In fine, if conservatives say, "Homosexuality is bad and monogamy is good," feel free to reject the "homosexuality is bad" and retain the "monogamy is good."
So in other words, when I encourage this young man and suggest that he's not necesarily wrong/stupid/deluded for valuing monogamy you want me to stopitstopitstopit.
I do have a conservative friend or two, but neither I nor my family is conservative. As I said to LW in my first post, we should appropriate the good parts of conservative views rather than rejecting everything they say as necessarily wrong just because many of the other things that they say are.
In fine, if conservatives say, "Homosexuality is bad and monogamy is good," feel free to reject the "homosexuality is bad" and retain the "monogamy is good."
95
@94
>So in other words, when I encourage this young man and suggest that he's not necesarily wrong/stupid/deluded for valuing monogamy you want me to stopitstopitstopit.
No one ever suggested he was any of those things for wanting to be monogamous, the disdain was aimed at the high horse he rode in on using words like "despise" and absolutes like "all non-monogamous relationships suck because I say so".
Monogamy is A-ok if it works for you.
Non-Monogamy is A-ok if it works for you.
As long as everyone involved in whatever relationship they are in are all clear about that relationship's definitions then one is not better than the other as you and the LW seem to suggest.
>So in other words, when I encourage this young man and suggest that he's not necesarily wrong/stupid/deluded for valuing monogamy you want me to stopitstopitstopit.
No one ever suggested he was any of those things for wanting to be monogamous, the disdain was aimed at the high horse he rode in on using words like "despise" and absolutes like "all non-monogamous relationships suck because I say so".
Monogamy is A-ok if it works for you.
Non-Monogamy is A-ok if it works for you.
As long as everyone involved in whatever relationship they are in are all clear about that relationship's definitions then one is not better than the other as you and the LW seem to suggest.
96
@95, actually, yes, a lot of people are here saying things like, "he only wants this because he's young/stupid/naive," to name the kinder ones. There is a level of vehemence in this thread that is entirely unmerited by this letter alone.
No one has said that anyone's better than anyone else. You guys are projecting that onto what LW actually said.
No one has said that anyone's better than anyone else. You guys are projecting that onto what LW actually said.
97
86
To paraphrase
Monogamest might be resisting the calls of their bodies to spread their sexuality far and wide, but they have failed to resist the psychological compulsion to limit their sexual expression.
Huh? Just goes to show that language can twist anything around on itself.
Anyway, this is not an anorexia forum and I am not going to beat a dead horse further. Especially as that horse is a metaphor for an allegory.
I would, however, humbly request that you google “anorexia and control.” Anorexia is not an disease of “feelings of disgust about their bodies” and it is not a semantic issue.
To paraphrase
Monogamest might be resisting the calls of their bodies to spread their sexuality far and wide, but they have failed to resist the psychological compulsion to limit their sexual expression.
Huh? Just goes to show that language can twist anything around on itself.
Anyway, this is not an anorexia forum and I am not going to beat a dead horse further. Especially as that horse is a metaphor for an allegory.
I would, however, humbly request that you google “anorexia and control.” Anorexia is not an disease of “feelings of disgust about their bodies” and it is not a semantic issue.
98
@96
"I believe that all open relationships are superficial."
That's a direct quote from the letter. Did you by chance read it?
"I believe that all open relationships are superficial."
That's a direct quote from the letter. Did you by chance read it?
99
@ 92 - The fact that you and I do not share the same definition of "judgment" and "selectivity" doesn't mean that mine isn't good. You can't dismiss it just because you don't agree with it. Obviously, to you, those words mean "to repress oneself". To me, they mean "think before you act", and I always did.
And if you believe that I shouldn't have had sex with so many men because it is somehow not good, then all I read are your judeo-christian prejudices concerning what is good or not. I'm an atheist, so I don't follow this ridiculous (to me) so-called "moral" value system.
My analysis of those situations is based on some simple considerations: Is it good for me? Is it good for the other person(s)? Are there any victims?
If no one was hurt and no infection transmitted, what the fuck is bad about it?
If I made a conscious decision not to repress my sexual impulses because there was absolutely no reason to repress them, what the fuck is bad about it? What would I gain from repressing them? I'd just become bitter and envious for not getting laid enough. And where is the lack of self-control if it's a conscious, well thought-out decision?
And as I said, promiscuity is "what you make it". If it's not for you, fine. If someone enjoys it and isn't hurting anyone, fine. If you weren't so hung up on some supposedly moral principles, you might understand that: to each his own.
All I perceive from your comments is that you believe that if YOU don't repress your impulses, you'll be the least moral person in the world. And since it has left you unsatisfied with your life, well, you sure don't want anyone else to have more fun than you do!
Finally, we also disagree on the definition of conservative. You are extremely conservative. And judgmental. You expect everyone to obey your "moral" values, and tell them they're doing something wrong if they don't. Just like the LW. No wonder you're defending him: you share his self-righteousness.
More...
And if you believe that I shouldn't have had sex with so many men because it is somehow not good, then all I read are your judeo-christian prejudices concerning what is good or not. I'm an atheist, so I don't follow this ridiculous (to me) so-called "moral" value system.
My analysis of those situations is based on some simple considerations: Is it good for me? Is it good for the other person(s)? Are there any victims?
If no one was hurt and no infection transmitted, what the fuck is bad about it?
If I made a conscious decision not to repress my sexual impulses because there was absolutely no reason to repress them, what the fuck is bad about it? What would I gain from repressing them? I'd just become bitter and envious for not getting laid enough. And where is the lack of self-control if it's a conscious, well thought-out decision?
And as I said, promiscuity is "what you make it". If it's not for you, fine. If someone enjoys it and isn't hurting anyone, fine. If you weren't so hung up on some supposedly moral principles, you might understand that: to each his own.
All I perceive from your comments is that you believe that if YOU don't repress your impulses, you'll be the least moral person in the world. And since it has left you unsatisfied with your life, well, you sure don't want anyone else to have more fun than you do!
Finally, we also disagree on the definition of conservative. You are extremely conservative. And judgmental. You expect everyone to obey your "moral" values, and tell them they're doing something wrong if they don't. Just like the LW. No wonder you're defending him: you share his self-righteousness.
100
ECD, sometimes one thing can be applied to another and sometimes it can't. I was talking about anorexics: Anorexics can resist the call of their bodies that tells them to eat but they've failed to resist the psychological compulsion not to eat. Anorexics feel an unhealthy compulsion to starve themselves and they fail to resist it. No, I do not believe that anorexics serve as an example of people WITH self-control.
@98 Yes I did. Let's break it down. He said "I believe," showing that he is expressing his own beliefs and opinions and "superficial," which is clinical and mild. No, he didn't say how much he loves nonmanogamy, but it's a far cry from meriting the insults that have been thrown his way. How else was he supposed to say it?
@99 I didn't dismiss anything about you. I just said that I don't know you and won't be taking your word for it. Were you planning on taking my word for it?
"If I made a conscious decision not to repress my sexual impulses because there was absolutely no reason to repress them, what the fuck is bad about it?"
You can certainly make the case that it's not bad, but it's not an example of self-control either. It's more like self-permission.
You are reading way too much into my posts. The only moral value of my own that I've expected people to obey is to NOT take a kid who wrote in to an advice columnist with an extremely mild critique of non monogamy and act like he's the biggest sexophobe who ever lived. Again, maybe you've encountered jerks who've treated you like crud, but I am not one of them. Stop projecting their cruelty onto me.
@98 Yes I did. Let's break it down. He said "I believe," showing that he is expressing his own beliefs and opinions and "superficial," which is clinical and mild. No, he didn't say how much he loves nonmanogamy, but it's a far cry from meriting the insults that have been thrown his way. How else was he supposed to say it?
@99 I didn't dismiss anything about you. I just said that I don't know you and won't be taking your word for it. Were you planning on taking my word for it?
"If I made a conscious decision not to repress my sexual impulses because there was absolutely no reason to repress them, what the fuck is bad about it?"
You can certainly make the case that it's not bad, but it's not an example of self-control either. It's more like self-permission.
You are reading way too much into my posts. The only moral value of my own that I've expected people to obey is to NOT take a kid who wrote in to an advice columnist with an extremely mild critique of non monogamy and act like he's the biggest sexophobe who ever lived. Again, maybe you've encountered jerks who've treated you like crud, but I am not one of them. Stop projecting their cruelty onto me.
101
@96, you are right and you are wrong.
You are right that some folks have basically said he is naive for wanting monogamy. Not all that many overall, but yes, that's come through some of the posts.
You are wrong that no one has said that anyone is better than anyone else. The LW clearly was stating that monogamous relationships are better, and that people in open relationships aren't taking their relationships seriously:
" I don't see any loyalty in open relationships."
"I believe that all open relationships are superficial."
"Self control is all about knowing you can do something and deciding you won’t do it. Why you don’t promote that message, Dan, instead of promoting open relationships?"
He is clearly judging open relationships as inferior and outright bad.
And that is the reason that the majority are getting on his case, not that he wants to be monogamous.
The thing is, I kind of get his basic point, until he gets into the whole condemning others who don't share his ideals.
It IS a bit disheartening to be gay and monogamy minded and then have to navigate through a sea of potential partners who don't share that. It is hard enough being gay. No matter where you live, even if you live in San Francisco or NYC, being gay means having far more limited options than straight people. Finding someone who is gay, attractive to you, attracted to you, and who shares your values and ideas about relationships is freaking hard. When the majority seem to desire a form of relationship that just won't work for you, and you realize that your small range of options just got significantly smaller, it is very disheartening and depressing. The idea of trying to find what you actually want can seem completely futile. Seriously, just thinking of where he is coming from and how he is seeing his options and future is literally making me depressed because I have been there and I know what it is like.
And although I think that it is too easy to oversimplify what Dan says in this by watching short clips of his videos, and that Dan's ideas on these things are far more complex than "monogamy is a joke", the fact is that on first listen to Dan it does come across as if he is saying that. It is easy to get the message from Dan's comments in the past, as well as from the comments of many gay people, that monogamy really doesn't exist. That you either are going to have an open relationship or you are going to be cheated on and have an non-monogamous not by choice. That your only options is to just suck it up and give up any hope of having what you want because one way or another you are not likely going to have a truly monogamous relationship, and even less likely if you are gay.
I can hear what this kid is hearing, and I understand his frustration and depression over it.
Where I part company with him is in doing the same thing to others that he is doing. Dismissing their wants and needs and considering them as inferior.
There are definitely those out there, gay and straight, who make it out as if being monogamous is an antiquated and useless concept that people should just give up on. And there are people like the LW who say that open relationships are inherently inferior and bad. And both of those stances are wrong and clinging to them detrimental.
The LW needs to learn that he can want what he wants, legitimately, and pursue it without having to condemn those who don't share his views. What he is doing is seeing people who want open relationships as an obstacle to his happiness. If only they would just want what he wants then things would be much easier for him. And actually he is right, if everyone wanted what he wanted things would be easier for him. But this is reality and things aren't easy, and it isn't the obligation of others to make things easy by giving up what they want themselves to make him happy. I totally get where he is coming from, and feel for him, but he needs to drop the superior attitude and the condemnation. If for no other reason than that it is unattractive, and if he wants to ever find someone, and he is going to have a very small number of options because what he wants is not what the majority of his tiny range of options wants, he can't afford to drive away any of the few good potential matches with a bad attitude.
Rather than strategizing to try to make the most of a limiting situation he is whining about it, and that is just annoying to others and unproductive for himself.
More...
You are right that some folks have basically said he is naive for wanting monogamy. Not all that many overall, but yes, that's come through some of the posts.
You are wrong that no one has said that anyone is better than anyone else. The LW clearly was stating that monogamous relationships are better, and that people in open relationships aren't taking their relationships seriously:
" I don't see any loyalty in open relationships."
"I believe that all open relationships are superficial."
"Self control is all about knowing you can do something and deciding you won’t do it. Why you don’t promote that message, Dan, instead of promoting open relationships?"
He is clearly judging open relationships as inferior and outright bad.
And that is the reason that the majority are getting on his case, not that he wants to be monogamous.
The thing is, I kind of get his basic point, until he gets into the whole condemning others who don't share his ideals.
It IS a bit disheartening to be gay and monogamy minded and then have to navigate through a sea of potential partners who don't share that. It is hard enough being gay. No matter where you live, even if you live in San Francisco or NYC, being gay means having far more limited options than straight people. Finding someone who is gay, attractive to you, attracted to you, and who shares your values and ideas about relationships is freaking hard. When the majority seem to desire a form of relationship that just won't work for you, and you realize that your small range of options just got significantly smaller, it is very disheartening and depressing. The idea of trying to find what you actually want can seem completely futile. Seriously, just thinking of where he is coming from and how he is seeing his options and future is literally making me depressed because I have been there and I know what it is like.
And although I think that it is too easy to oversimplify what Dan says in this by watching short clips of his videos, and that Dan's ideas on these things are far more complex than "monogamy is a joke", the fact is that on first listen to Dan it does come across as if he is saying that. It is easy to get the message from Dan's comments in the past, as well as from the comments of many gay people, that monogamy really doesn't exist. That you either are going to have an open relationship or you are going to be cheated on and have an non-monogamous not by choice. That your only options is to just suck it up and give up any hope of having what you want because one way or another you are not likely going to have a truly monogamous relationship, and even less likely if you are gay.
I can hear what this kid is hearing, and I understand his frustration and depression over it.
Where I part company with him is in doing the same thing to others that he is doing. Dismissing their wants and needs and considering them as inferior.
There are definitely those out there, gay and straight, who make it out as if being monogamous is an antiquated and useless concept that people should just give up on. And there are people like the LW who say that open relationships are inherently inferior and bad. And both of those stances are wrong and clinging to them detrimental.
The LW needs to learn that he can want what he wants, legitimately, and pursue it without having to condemn those who don't share his views. What he is doing is seeing people who want open relationships as an obstacle to his happiness. If only they would just want what he wants then things would be much easier for him. And actually he is right, if everyone wanted what he wanted things would be easier for him. But this is reality and things aren't easy, and it isn't the obligation of others to make things easy by giving up what they want themselves to make him happy. I totally get where he is coming from, and feel for him, but he needs to drop the superior attitude and the condemnation. If for no other reason than that it is unattractive, and if he wants to ever find someone, and he is going to have a very small number of options because what he wants is not what the majority of his tiny range of options wants, he can't afford to drive away any of the few good potential matches with a bad attitude.
Rather than strategizing to try to make the most of a limiting situation he is whining about it, and that is just annoying to others and unproductive for himself.
102
@100
>How else was he supposed to say it?
People have already given you plenty of examples of how he was supposed to say it, but you continue to ignore them.
How about "Not like an asshole". How about "I don't feel that non-monogamy is for me and am worried I will have a hard time finding a partner who shares that."
How about not "I despise you because I mis-interpreted a video you were in". How about not "I believe that all open relationships are superficial," which, no matter how you keep trying to spin it, is a judgmental and shallow absolute that will dictate how he treats others.
You're trolling aren't you?
>How else was he supposed to say it?
People have already given you plenty of examples of how he was supposed to say it, but you continue to ignore them.
How about "Not like an asshole". How about "I don't feel that non-monogamy is for me and am worried I will have a hard time finding a partner who shares that."
How about not "I despise you because I mis-interpreted a video you were in". How about not "I believe that all open relationships are superficial," which, no matter how you keep trying to spin it, is a judgmental and shallow absolute that will dictate how he treats others.
You're trolling aren't you?
103
101
Amen. I actually agree with everything you said, and you said it much better than I could.
Maybe I just need to write longer posts...
Amen. I actually agree with everything you said, and you said it much better than I could.
Maybe I just need to write longer posts...
104
@ 100 - I'm not reading too much into your posts, I'm answering your words.
I haven't encountered jerks who treated me like crud, I'm answering your words.
I'm not projecting non-existant people's cruelty unto you, I'm answering your words.
Maybe you should think things out a bit more before you write. That would be a good example of self-control.
I haven't encountered jerks who treated me like crud, I'm answering your words.
I'm not projecting non-existant people's cruelty unto you, I'm answering your words.
Maybe you should think things out a bit more before you write. That would be a good example of self-control.
105
Fortunate, that's not what he said. That's what he reminded you of.
"I don't feel that non-monogamy is for me and am worried I will have a hard time finding a partner who shares that."
But that's not what he means. The "it" in "How is he supposed to say it?" refers to "How is he supposed to express that non-monogamous relationships strike him as superficial?" He doesn't believe that non-monogamy just wouldn't work for him. He believes that it doesn't work for anyone. "I believe nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" is actually a pretty noninflammatory way of stating that.
Is there any way for someone to say, "I think nonmanogamy is bad/harmful/etc." that wouldn't strike you as inappropriate? I gather you'd rather he didn't believe this, but it seems that he does.
As for whether or not I'm trolling, I've been posting responses to Mr. Savage's columns for years, and debates like this one have been rare. Feel free to look at my posting history.
Ricardo, you've assumed that I'm Judeo-Christian, which I didn't say. You've assumed that I believe self-control is the same as self-repression, which I didn't say. You've assumed that I think that if I don't repress myself I'll be the least moral person in the world, which I didn't say. You've assumed that I'm sexually unsatisfied and don't want anyone else to have fun, which I didn't say. The list goes on. So yes, you ARE reading things into my posts that are not there.
"I don't feel that non-monogamy is for me and am worried I will have a hard time finding a partner who shares that."
But that's not what he means. The "it" in "How is he supposed to say it?" refers to "How is he supposed to express that non-monogamous relationships strike him as superficial?" He doesn't believe that non-monogamy just wouldn't work for him. He believes that it doesn't work for anyone. "I believe nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" is actually a pretty noninflammatory way of stating that.
Is there any way for someone to say, "I think nonmanogamy is bad/harmful/etc." that wouldn't strike you as inappropriate? I gather you'd rather he didn't believe this, but it seems that he does.
As for whether or not I'm trolling, I've been posting responses to Mr. Savage's columns for years, and debates like this one have been rare. Feel free to look at my posting history.
Ricardo, you've assumed that I'm Judeo-Christian, which I didn't say. You've assumed that I believe self-control is the same as self-repression, which I didn't say. You've assumed that I think that if I don't repress myself I'll be the least moral person in the world, which I didn't say. You've assumed that I'm sexually unsatisfied and don't want anyone else to have fun, which I didn't say. The list goes on. So yes, you ARE reading things into my posts that are not there.
106
105
He doesn't believe that non-monogamy just wouldn't work for him. He believes that it doesn't work for anyone. "I believe nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" is actually a pretty noninflammatory way of stating that.
What do you mean for the Letter Writer to mean by the word "work" in this context?
He doesn't believe that non-monogamy just wouldn't work for him. He believes that it doesn't work for anyone. "I believe nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" is actually a pretty noninflammatory way of stating that.
What do you mean for the Letter Writer to mean by the word "work" in this context?
107
@105
Well then he's wrong and naive for thinking that, which is why he's encountering hostility. What works for one person doesn't always work for another. Duh.
>...debates like this one have been rare...
The only "debate" is the one you made up out of thin air. This is Occam's razor shit: kid writes a snooty, uptight and accusatory letter, people get mad and berate him, you show up saying LW is completely right to act that way and doesn't merit the hostility he's getting. Now isn't that kind of silly?
Since you like to look up definitions of words, how about you look up the word "despise" and then comment on his use of it, which till now you have so nimbly avoided doing =)
Well then he's wrong and naive for thinking that, which is why he's encountering hostility. What works for one person doesn't always work for another. Duh.
>...debates like this one have been rare...
The only "debate" is the one you made up out of thin air. This is Occam's razor shit: kid writes a snooty, uptight and accusatory letter, people get mad and berate him, you show up saying LW is completely right to act that way and doesn't merit the hostility he's getting. Now isn't that kind of silly?
Since you like to look up definitions of words, how about you look up the word "despise" and then comment on his use of it, which till now you have so nimbly avoided doing =)
108
@105, No, that is what he said. Those were exact quotes copied and pasted from his email to Dan. He said those things. There is really no way to misinterpret them, and everyone other than you seems to have no problem getting what he is saying.
He's being absolutist and judgmental. If that is how he really feels then that is the part he needs to get over. I don't doubt that he is sincere in his beliefs, but that is the part that MOST people are talking about when they suggest he needs to grow up, not his wanting monogamy.
He's being absolutist and judgmental. If that is how he really feels then that is the part he needs to get over. I don't doubt that he is sincere in his beliefs, but that is the part that MOST people are talking about when they suggest he needs to grow up, not his wanting monogamy.
109
@107 I will clarify. "Debates"/"arguments"/"conversations" like the one in this thread, in which many parties have multiple replies have been rare.
If his letter were snooty and accusatory, then I wouldn't defend him, but it isn't. Regarding "despise," he says, "I despised you ... I have come to respect you." He's saying that he USED to hate Mr. Savage but doesn't any more.
@106, by "work," I meant "to be good for"/"to function"/"to be healthy," etc. Just general stuff. Mudkips used the expression ""I don't feel that non-monogamy is for me," and I meant for "work" to be equivalent to that.
Using that same expression, it would be, "By, 'I believe that all open relationships are superficial,' he's not saying that he thinks nonmonogamy isn't for him. He's saying that he thinks nonmonogamy isn't for anyone."
And yes, I'm interested: Is there a way he could have expressed this belief that would have been less offensive to you than "I believe all nonmonogamous relationships are superficial"?
It seems that this kid's options were 1. say "I believe ... superficial" 2. not talk with Mr. Savage about his issues with nonmonogamy or 3. pretend that he believed something else.
If his letter were snooty and accusatory, then I wouldn't defend him, but it isn't. Regarding "despise," he says, "I despised you ... I have come to respect you." He's saying that he USED to hate Mr. Savage but doesn't any more.
@106, by "work," I meant "to be good for"/"to function"/"to be healthy," etc. Just general stuff. Mudkips used the expression ""I don't feel that non-monogamy is for me," and I meant for "work" to be equivalent to that.
Using that same expression, it would be, "By, 'I believe that all open relationships are superficial,' he's not saying that he thinks nonmonogamy isn't for him. He's saying that he thinks nonmonogamy isn't for anyone."
And yes, I'm interested: Is there a way he could have expressed this belief that would have been less offensive to you than "I believe all nonmonogamous relationships are superficial"?
It seems that this kid's options were 1. say "I believe ... superficial" 2. not talk with Mr. Savage about his issues with nonmonogamy or 3. pretend that he believed something else.
110
@ 105 - The only thing I did assume was that you were sexually frustrated. Eh, you sound so uptight that a little provocation seems in order!
I did not say that you are judeo-christian, but that you hold judeo-christian values. That is quite obvious from your posts. (Don't you read them before you send them?)
Your equation of self-control with self-repression is also quite obvious from your posts, and so is the disdain you display towards those who show "self-permission" (as if that notion contradicted that of self-control), which explains my comment about your apparent need to repress yourself.
Self-control is not about stopping yourself from doing something, it's about deciding, after analysis, if you should or shouldn't do it. Promiscuity is therefore not synonymous with lack of self-control. You just assume that it is. And that says an awful lot about you, even though you might not be aware of it.
I did not say that you are judeo-christian, but that you hold judeo-christian values. That is quite obvious from your posts. (Don't you read them before you send them?)
Your equation of self-control with self-repression is also quite obvious from your posts, and so is the disdain you display towards those who show "self-permission" (as if that notion contradicted that of self-control), which explains my comment about your apparent need to repress yourself.
Self-control is not about stopping yourself from doing something, it's about deciding, after analysis, if you should or shouldn't do it. Promiscuity is therefore not synonymous with lack of self-control. You just assume that it is. And that says an awful lot about you, even though you might not be aware of it.
111
Fortunate, the words "anyone is better than anyone else" and "inferior" do not appear in LW's text. That part is your interpretation. He's not saying that one type of person is better than another. He's saying that monogamous relationships strike him as bad.
113
He said that people in open relationships lack self control. Clearly he thinks he is better than that.
And I think that you meant that he is saying that Non-monogamous relationships strike him as bad. And yes, but that is judgmental and you can't separate out "non-monogamous" relationships and the people in them. If non-monogamous relationships are bad, then the people in them are doing something bad.
It may be interpretation, but it's not the kind of interpretation that needs a Rosetta stone to come to. Pretty much everyone but you has figured it out. You are trying to put so much spin on it that you are going to give yourself whiplash.
Remember, I kind of sympathize with the kid, but there is no doubt he is being pejorative in his remarks about non-monogamous relationships and the people in them. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you. But I have read all your spin and I can't arrive at the same place you apparently have.
And I think that you meant that he is saying that Non-monogamous relationships strike him as bad. And yes, but that is judgmental and you can't separate out "non-monogamous" relationships and the people in them. If non-monogamous relationships are bad, then the people in them are doing something bad.
It may be interpretation, but it's not the kind of interpretation that needs a Rosetta stone to come to. Pretty much everyone but you has figured it out. You are trying to put so much spin on it that you are going to give yourself whiplash.
Remember, I kind of sympathize with the kid, but there is no doubt he is being pejorative in his remarks about non-monogamous relationships and the people in them. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you. But I have read all your spin and I can't arrive at the same place you apparently have.
114
110
DRF, is using semantics to bat away a lot of arguments, rather than refuting them. The exact definition of "Promiscuous" does in fact include a lack of controlled decision making.
I totally get that you are using the word to mean "sexually expansive" not "indiscriminate" and your points are clear. But derailing the discussion on to the literal meaning of one word rather than the substance of the sentence is an effective means of avoiding actual discourse. It's just giving him an opening.
In other words, I've decided to stop feeding the erudite and very polite troll. Just a thought.
DRF, is using semantics to bat away a lot of arguments, rather than refuting them. The exact definition of "Promiscuous" does in fact include a lack of controlled decision making.
I totally get that you are using the word to mean "sexually expansive" not "indiscriminate" and your points are clear. But derailing the discussion on to the literal meaning of one word rather than the substance of the sentence is an effective means of avoiding actual discourse. It's just giving him an opening.
In other words, I've decided to stop feeding the erudite and very polite troll. Just a thought.
115
Oh, and it is possible to make a cogent argument for monogamy as a superior principle, which the Letter Writer didn't even try to do and what my very first post to this conversation asked about.
I don't endorse this column, but I recognize it as a sincere attempt to marshal a coherent argument for the superiority of monogamy, not as an individual choice, but as a moral principle. Something that's been absent from this thread so far.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/opinio…
I don't endorse this column, but I recognize it as a sincere attempt to marshal a coherent argument for the superiority of monogamy, not as an individual choice, but as a moral principle. Something that's been absent from this thread so far.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/opinio…
116
@110 Every assumption in that list came straight from your posts, Ricardo. I did not express any disdain toward self-permission. That is you projecting your assumptions onto me again. What I said was that self-control and self-permission were not the same thing.
Promiscuity is, by definition, indiscriminate sex and therefore indicative of a lack of self control.
If telling you guys that you're wrong to call LW "twerp" and "stupid" is repressing you, then yes, I am trying to repress you. The reaction on this thread to LW's letter has been drastically disproportionate to its content.
Promiscuity is, by definition, indiscriminate sex and therefore indicative of a lack of self control.
If telling you guys that you're wrong to call LW "twerp" and "stupid" is repressing you, then yes, I am trying to repress you. The reaction on this thread to LW's letter has been drastically disproportionate to its content.
117
Clarification: Ricardo, there is no need to scold me for contradicting your preferred definition of "promiscuous" when it has already been established that we are not using the same one.
118
@ 116 - I didn't call the LW anything except "young" (you really don't read before you comment, do you?). I just called you out on your equation of promiscuity with lack of self-control.
The definitions of promiscuity and self-control that you use only reveal the judeo-christian prejudices of the lexicographers... and of those who choose to adopt those definitions.
The argument that monogamy is a superior moral position is also based in judeo-christian tripe (certainly not in biology!).
And I believe the barrage of comments against your posts should be enough to indicate that there is something profoundly offensive in them; they positively seethe with contempt. You're just so sure of holding the higher ground that you can't even begin to see that.
Now I'm done answering you. Have a nice, long, prejudiced existence.
The definitions of promiscuity and self-control that you use only reveal the judeo-christian prejudices of the lexicographers... and of those who choose to adopt those definitions.
The argument that monogamy is a superior moral position is also based in judeo-christian tripe (certainly not in biology!).
And I believe the barrage of comments against your posts should be enough to indicate that there is something profoundly offensive in them; they positively seethe with contempt. You're just so sure of holding the higher ground that you can't even begin to see that.
Now I'm done answering you. Have a nice, long, prejudiced existence.
119
>actually, yes, a lot of people are here saying things like, "he only wants this because he's young/stupid/naive," to name the kinder ones.
96, you are incorrect, they are saying he is expressing himself in such a judgemental way because he is young, not his desire for Monogamy.
96, you are incorrect, they are saying he is expressing himself in such a judgemental way because he is young, not his desire for Monogamy.
120
Actually I both read and checked, through CTRL-F. The kid gets called "twerp" five times by post fifty-seven.
"Judeo-Christian prejudices of lexographers"? Then write a letter to Webster and Oxford English Dictionary. I'm sure they'll tell you how they research the updates for their entries. It's the language. If you want to make the case that the English LANGUAGE has been influenced by Judeo-Christian values, I'm sure it has, in places, but I wouldn't be able to say whether "promiscuous" itself has.
The idea that monogamy is morally superior comes from the thousands of years in which a woman's reputation for fidelity was the only known paternity test. As to whether it's personally or psychologically superior, I'm holding out for a controlled, multi-decade study with clear operational definitions.
The "barrage" of responses to my comments indicates only that you, ECD and a few other people were interested in responding to what I've said. It got us a close examination of a few relevant words, a link to a somewhat interesting NYTimes Op-Ed, and what I hope were multi-person rereads of the original text in question. Can't say this didn't make anyone think.
"Judeo-Christian prejudices of lexographers"? Then write a letter to Webster and Oxford English Dictionary. I'm sure they'll tell you how they research the updates for their entries. It's the language. If you want to make the case that the English LANGUAGE has been influenced by Judeo-Christian values, I'm sure it has, in places, but I wouldn't be able to say whether "promiscuous" itself has.
The idea that monogamy is morally superior comes from the thousands of years in which a woman's reputation for fidelity was the only known paternity test. As to whether it's personally or psychologically superior, I'm holding out for a controlled, multi-decade study with clear operational definitions.
The "barrage" of responses to my comments indicates only that you, ECD and a few other people were interested in responding to what I've said. It got us a close examination of a few relevant words, a link to a somewhat interesting NYTimes Op-Ed, and what I hope were multi-person rereads of the original text in question. Can't say this didn't make anyone think.
122
I also suspect that there are more 'cheating couples' than either monogamous or swinging couples.
123
Dan, for how many years are you going to use that "40 years old" line? Because it seems that it won't be too long before you have to change it to "50." Just sayin'.
124
@123 - I would also like to see Dan cop to his real age more frequently. He looks so fantastic for it. But hey, it's his party, he can lie if he wants to.. ;)
Add my voice to the chorus of those thinking the LW is young & judgmental, but eh - he'll figure it out. Dan & Mr. Hooper were both very considerate & eloquent in their responses to him.
This may wind up being who this young man is, for a very long time. Maybe forever. If he finds someone with who shares that view, good for them. Or he may find as he ages, that his views on this..what's the word all the politicians use?..evolve, over the years.
LW, if you have read this far down, know that people can be 100% equally respectful of each other, in love with each other & worthy of each other, whether they are mongamous, mongamish, or open. I'm older than you & have loads of gay guy friends. I'd say about a third of those in couples are monogamous. They're happy.
If people sound mad at your original letter it was because of the strength of the language you used in judging other people's relationships. If monogamy feels like a great fit when you're out there dating - good for you! You were right. But it doesn't mean that the friends you meet along the way who aren't monogamous are doing something wrong. What works for you, works for you; what works for someone else, works for them.
Live & let live..and glad you are out of the closet, now.
Add my voice to the chorus of those thinking the LW is young & judgmental, but eh - he'll figure it out. Dan & Mr. Hooper were both very considerate & eloquent in their responses to him.
This may wind up being who this young man is, for a very long time. Maybe forever. If he finds someone with who shares that view, good for them. Or he may find as he ages, that his views on this..what's the word all the politicians use?..evolve, over the years.
LW, if you have read this far down, know that people can be 100% equally respectful of each other, in love with each other & worthy of each other, whether they are mongamous, mongamish, or open. I'm older than you & have loads of gay guy friends. I'd say about a third of those in couples are monogamous. They're happy.
If people sound mad at your original letter it was because of the strength of the language you used in judging other people's relationships. If monogamy feels like a great fit when you're out there dating - good for you! You were right. But it doesn't mean that the friends you meet along the way who aren't monogamous are doing something wrong. What works for you, works for you; what works for someone else, works for them.
Live & let live..and glad you are out of the closet, now.
125
"Strength of the language"? I don't know if there was any milder way for him to say what he said. He used "I think," "I feel" and "I believe" statements like crazy. The only less confrontational thing to do would have been for LW to not ask Dan Savage his question at all or pretend that he didn't believe what he believed.
I get that people feel threatened by the fact that this young man holds anti-nonmonogamy views, but it isn't as if he was careless about how he phrased his statements.
I get that people feel threatened by the fact that this young man holds anti-nonmonogamy views, but it isn't as if he was careless about how he phrased his statements.
126
@ 125/DRF: Sir or ma'am - where did you come from? You seem to have landed @ Slog to take up the position of contrarian.
Yes - "strength of the language", as in, where the kid starts off by saying after he watched the video about monogamy & open relationships, he "despised" Dan. That's not strong language? 'I disagree with your relationship! Therefore I despise you.' *eyeroll* That's the statement of someone judging others because their choices are not the same as his. Which is funny, because I bet he won't like it when others judge him for being gay.
Other people have cut & pasted his statements already.
I don't feel threatened at all by the young man's statements & opinions. They are his to have, & as I said just above you, he may hold that position as he gets out there into the world, dates & gets older, or he may not. But he's making false equivalence by saying all non-monogamous relationships = sleeping with everything in sight. That ain't necessarily so.
More importantly, losing the judgmental attitude - only THIS way of doing relationships is the RIGHT way - will be important if he wants to have tight friendships. Don't wanna be in something non-monogamous? Then don't be. Duh. But being all high & mighty about the One True Way to do things is an attitude that will be perceived by friends he'll meet along the way & likely won't endear him to them.
He should be true to himself, & chase after the kind of relationship he wants. Just accept that others' path may be equally valid, even though they differ from his own.
Yes - "strength of the language", as in, where the kid starts off by saying after he watched the video about monogamy & open relationships, he "despised" Dan. That's not strong language? 'I disagree with your relationship! Therefore I despise you.' *eyeroll* That's the statement of someone judging others because their choices are not the same as his. Which is funny, because I bet he won't like it when others judge him for being gay.
Other people have cut & pasted his statements already.
I don't feel threatened at all by the young man's statements & opinions. They are his to have, & as I said just above you, he may hold that position as he gets out there into the world, dates & gets older, or he may not. But he's making false equivalence by saying all non-monogamous relationships = sleeping with everything in sight. That ain't necessarily so.
More importantly, losing the judgmental attitude - only THIS way of doing relationships is the RIGHT way - will be important if he wants to have tight friendships. Don't wanna be in something non-monogamous? Then don't be. Duh. But being all high & mighty about the One True Way to do things is an attitude that will be perceived by friends he'll meet along the way & likely won't endear him to them.
He should be true to himself, & chase after the kind of relationship he wants. Just accept that others' path may be equally valid, even though they differ from his own.
127
Regarding "despised," the LW says that he used to despise Mr. Savage but changed his mind after learning more about him. That's not bad.
Question: Is there anyway that this letter-writer could have indicated that he believed that nonmonogamous relationships are bad/superficial that would not have offended you? WAS there a nicer way to express that belief?
Please note "I believe all nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" and "I don't want a nonmonogamous relationship but support others who do" are not the same belief, and--the relevant part--wouldn't have gotten the same response from Mr. Savage. Because THAT is the point of writing to Mr. Savage. This was an invitation to a discussion, not an attack.
Question: Is there anyway that this letter-writer could have indicated that he believed that nonmonogamous relationships are bad/superficial that would not have offended you? WAS there a nicer way to express that belief?
Please note "I believe all nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" and "I don't want a nonmonogamous relationship but support others who do" are not the same belief, and--the relevant part--wouldn't have gotten the same response from Mr. Savage. Because THAT is the point of writing to Mr. Savage. This was an invitation to a discussion, not an attack.
128
Ms Hopkins - Thank you for bringing up "despise". I started a similar post yesterday but had to kill it halfway through. Can we agree to disagree about his looking fantastic for his age?
Ms F - While I admire the gallantry of your defence, given that the LW says he despised Mr Savage on the basis of having seen all of one video clip, it is a difficult case to make that it is inappropriate to call the LW a twerp, which I am not doing. His coming to respect Mr Savage is a point in his favour, but being willing to despise someone on such a hair-trigger opens him up to a similar response. You might have better luck trying inaccurate.
A few quick takes:
[You seemed to suggest that monogamy was only for heterosexual people.] It takes a bit of a reach to conclude that.
[It rubs me the wrong way because, as a community, gay people are still fighting for our rights.] I can see why Mr Savage and those among his readers who have done far more for The Cause than Johnny-Come-Out-Lately would call this at least very newby.
[Frankly, Dan, it's the acceptance of open relationships in the gay community that makes me not want to connect with the gay community AT ALL.] Who can't visualize him picking up all his marbles and stomping his way home in high dudgeon?
[Because now I have to wonder if my future partner is going to leave me because I don't want to “swing,” or if I will never find a partner because I want a closed relationship.] Now this is the one part of the letter that shows the LW at his best. Here he has a glimmer of what a precious gift monogamy can be to give a partner and be given the same in return. If there had been a lot more from this angle in the letter, I suspect that it might have done a good deal for the overall impression.
[The one thing I never heard you talk about in that video is self control.] And of course that one video constituted Mr Savage's entire body of work?
[I don't see any loyalty in open relationships. Far to often I hear about relationships where one partner wants an open relationship and the other doesn't. What kind of relationship is that?] Weird sentiments to pair; they don't really mesh. The first sentence would have been less judgy phrased as a question, even with "I don't see any" appended. It would at least not predismiss the opinions of those who have seen loyalty in open relationships. As for the second sentence, Mr Savage's being an advocate for closed relationships instead of for open relationships wouldn't do any such couple any more good, would it? It would simply mean that the LW would have an authority on his side to use as a weapon.
The LW seems to think that, if there were no support in the gay community or from Mr Savage for open relationships, his potential future partner who wants an open relationship would just give in and have a (supposedly) closed one. If the LW would be happier that way than just not dating someone who wanted an open relationship, that would not really be a point in his favour. Perhaps he thinks his PFP would be genuinely happier not having any choices or alternatives to examine, or even giving up his own desires as the relationship price of admission. Unfortunately, Mr J is already married.
[I believe that all open relationships are superficial.] Perhaps, as Ms F suggests, there isn't any good way to make that statement without offending people. It's an offence-giving belief, particularly out of the mouth of Johnny-Come-Out-Lately. Had a Gay Elder made such a statement, one might well assume that at least he had some sort of point and a fair amount of anecdata in support.
[I would appreciate a response.] Unlike all those other LWs who are just venting without anything of particular importance to say or ask, I am Oh So Serious and this is Oh So Important.
Mainly, this seems an immature letter, which is fine. I have been monogamous all my life, but, with only this letter upon which to form an opinion, I would lean against wanting my younger self to date the LW. But perhaps he shows better in a different light.
More...
Ms F - While I admire the gallantry of your defence, given that the LW says he despised Mr Savage on the basis of having seen all of one video clip, it is a difficult case to make that it is inappropriate to call the LW a twerp, which I am not doing. His coming to respect Mr Savage is a point in his favour, but being willing to despise someone on such a hair-trigger opens him up to a similar response. You might have better luck trying inaccurate.
A few quick takes:
[You seemed to suggest that monogamy was only for heterosexual people.] It takes a bit of a reach to conclude that.
[It rubs me the wrong way because, as a community, gay people are still fighting for our rights.] I can see why Mr Savage and those among his readers who have done far more for The Cause than Johnny-Come-Out-Lately would call this at least very newby.
[Frankly, Dan, it's the acceptance of open relationships in the gay community that makes me not want to connect with the gay community AT ALL.] Who can't visualize him picking up all his marbles and stomping his way home in high dudgeon?
[Because now I have to wonder if my future partner is going to leave me because I don't want to “swing,” or if I will never find a partner because I want a closed relationship.] Now this is the one part of the letter that shows the LW at his best. Here he has a glimmer of what a precious gift monogamy can be to give a partner and be given the same in return. If there had been a lot more from this angle in the letter, I suspect that it might have done a good deal for the overall impression.
[The one thing I never heard you talk about in that video is self control.] And of course that one video constituted Mr Savage's entire body of work?
[I don't see any loyalty in open relationships. Far to often I hear about relationships where one partner wants an open relationship and the other doesn't. What kind of relationship is that?] Weird sentiments to pair; they don't really mesh. The first sentence would have been less judgy phrased as a question, even with "I don't see any" appended. It would at least not predismiss the opinions of those who have seen loyalty in open relationships. As for the second sentence, Mr Savage's being an advocate for closed relationships instead of for open relationships wouldn't do any such couple any more good, would it? It would simply mean that the LW would have an authority on his side to use as a weapon.
The LW seems to think that, if there were no support in the gay community or from Mr Savage for open relationships, his potential future partner who wants an open relationship would just give in and have a (supposedly) closed one. If the LW would be happier that way than just not dating someone who wanted an open relationship, that would not really be a point in his favour. Perhaps he thinks his PFP would be genuinely happier not having any choices or alternatives to examine, or even giving up his own desires as the relationship price of admission. Unfortunately, Mr J is already married.
[I believe that all open relationships are superficial.] Perhaps, as Ms F suggests, there isn't any good way to make that statement without offending people. It's an offence-giving belief, particularly out of the mouth of Johnny-Come-Out-Lately. Had a Gay Elder made such a statement, one might well assume that at least he had some sort of point and a fair amount of anecdata in support.
[I would appreciate a response.] Unlike all those other LWs who are just venting without anything of particular importance to say or ask, I am Oh So Serious and this is Oh So Important.
Mainly, this seems an immature letter, which is fine. I have been monogamous all my life, but, with only this letter upon which to form an opinion, I would lean against wanting my younger self to date the LW. But perhaps he shows better in a different light.
129
Note LW's use of expressions like "seemed to suggest." He is acknowledging that his conclusion is a bit of a reach. His whole letter is full of language like that: "I believe," "I don't see," "It rubs me the wrong way." This is not a hostile, stupid or twerpish letter. People are taking mild and reasonable language and picturing a "twerp" who "takes his marbles and stomps home." They're projecting a lot of nastiness into this letter that just isn't there.
"I don't see any loyalty" doesn't predismiss the possibility that others have seen loyalty. And the question "Is there any loyalty" doesn't mean the same thing.
"I would appreciate a response." That's just polite. The kid's whole letter is a little formal.
"I don't see any loyalty" doesn't predismiss the possibility that others have seen loyalty. And the question "Is there any loyalty" doesn't mean the same thing.
"I would appreciate a response." That's just polite. The kid's whole letter is a little formal.
130
Mr. Vennominon: I think Dan is in great shape. We can agree to disagree if ya like. Your analysis of the LW's words is a lot more patient & thorough than mine. I wish to meet you someday to have tea & little cakes.
Other thoughts, then bedtime!
Kid doesn't sound "nasty" to me, just judgmental & inexperienced.
Also, I don't think promiscuity = lack of self-control. One can be very ethically & carefully sexually active, even if it's with lotsa people.
FWIW, although not a gay guy like the LW, I've had both open, monogamish & monogamous relationships. The ones in which I was most comfortable aren't all one type, but rather were the ones in which my partner & I at the time felt free to talk to each other about wants/needs. Like the LW, when I first started dating I was a 100% monogamy all the way kinda person.
The first time I had an open relationship, I was nervous about it, but it turned out to not be the open-door, my partner being with someone new every weekend, thing, that I thought it might be. It was a once in awhile variable & I look back on it fondly.
YMMV.
@ DRF - you seem very invested in this. You're now reminding me of the letter writer. Monogamy doesn't particularly need defending, y'know. It's still the default relationship setting for most of the country. This one pocket of the 'net questioning that has lots of like-minded souls on it, as there's not greater acceptance of different structures of relationships.
Just like when you were talking about the difference between legal & religious marriage in the other SLLOTD thread, a point has been reached where you wanna just have the last word, like a concern troll. Your repeating things back over & over is broken-record-like. Repetition doesn't make something more true.
More...
Other thoughts, then bedtime!
Kid doesn't sound "nasty" to me, just judgmental & inexperienced.
Also, I don't think promiscuity = lack of self-control. One can be very ethically & carefully sexually active, even if it's with lotsa people.
FWIW, although not a gay guy like the LW, I've had both open, monogamish & monogamous relationships. The ones in which I was most comfortable aren't all one type, but rather were the ones in which my partner & I at the time felt free to talk to each other about wants/needs. Like the LW, when I first started dating I was a 100% monogamy all the way kinda person.
The first time I had an open relationship, I was nervous about it, but it turned out to not be the open-door, my partner being with someone new every weekend, thing, that I thought it might be. It was a once in awhile variable & I look back on it fondly.
YMMV.
@ DRF - you seem very invested in this. You're now reminding me of the letter writer. Monogamy doesn't particularly need defending, y'know. It's still the default relationship setting for most of the country. This one pocket of the 'net questioning that has lots of like-minded souls on it, as there's not greater acceptance of different structures of relationships.
Just like when you were talking about the difference between legal & religious marriage in the other SLLOTD thread, a point has been reached where you wanna just have the last word, like a concern troll. Your repeating things back over & over is broken-record-like. Repetition doesn't make something more true.
131
I don't consider "kid" nasty either. But "twerp," "I'd like to smack him," and "Oh as soon as he grows out of his stupid little phase he'll be okay" is pretty nasty.
The dictionary definition of promiscuity includes "indiscriminate in choice of sexual partners." So yes, it does mean there's a lack of self-control involved. If you that someone can have many sexual partners without fitting the definition of "promiscuous," then that's a separate issue.
I'm not defending monogamy. I'm defending LW. If he'd written in saying that he was uncomfortable with monogamy and thought all monogamous relationships were restrictive and that he was shy of entering his community because he thought he'd never find the nonmonogamous relationship that he dreamed of, everyone on this thread would have been cheering him on to accept himself for who he was.
If you really thought that continuing to respond on this thread is bad, then you wouldn't still be doing it.
The dictionary definition of promiscuity includes "indiscriminate in choice of sexual partners." So yes, it does mean there's a lack of self-control involved. If you that someone can have many sexual partners without fitting the definition of "promiscuous," then that's a separate issue.
I'm not defending monogamy. I'm defending LW. If he'd written in saying that he was uncomfortable with monogamy and thought all monogamous relationships were restrictive and that he was shy of entering his community because he thought he'd never find the nonmonogamous relationship that he dreamed of, everyone on this thread would have been cheering him on to accept himself for who he was.
If you really thought that continuing to respond on this thread is bad, then you wouldn't still be doing it.
132
"If you really thought that continuing to respond on this thread is bad, then you wouldn't still be doing it." You sound about 12 years old. OK, you may have the last word. I'll let others engage you, or not.
A Slogger came u p w/ a script for blocking a single user's posts from their view. I think it was because they were annoyed by someone who always posts their blog address in their sig, but it was handy for Loveschild & Seattleblues as well. Anyone know where I can find that script? Don't fancy having every thread turn into semantic battles.
Also, whatever happened to Uriel-238? I miss him.
A Slogger came u p w/ a script for blocking a single user's posts from their view. I think it was because they were annoyed by someone who always posts their blog address in their sig, but it was handy for Loveschild & Seattleblues as well. Anyone know where I can find that script? Don't fancy having every thread turn into semantic battles.
Also, whatever happened to Uriel-238? I miss him.
133
Ms F - As I stated earlier, the LW himself opened the Nasty Door. As Helen Morgendorffer once said, Judge and be judged.
"Where is loyalty in open relationships?" or "Is there loyalty (because I don't see any)?" strikes me as much more in the spirit you are attributing to him without materially altering the meaning. There are at least as many definite, direct sentences (which lend force to the intepretation that "I don't see any loyalty" carries the unspoken implication, "therefore there isn't any"), some of which reveal offensive beliefs or comprise ridiculous presumptions from a Johnny-Come-Out-Lately. (The latter aren't a question of fault; we all were at one time - perhaps this might be where, if I were in Hostile Mode, I'd have something to say about Unseemly Straightsplaining.) I did not mention this earlier, but I can see how the letter could be interpreted as having a flavour similar to that of respectable, assimilationist, corporate-type gays complaining about how the queens and the freaks in the Pride parades were Ruining Everything! Not a Nice Mindset.
Sorry, but capitalizing the AT ALL is definitely stompy. Were the phrase uncapitalized I'd have been on the fence about it as not really necessary.
And personally I would precede, "I would appreciate a reply," with, "Thank you for your patience and attention," particularly if I were putting it directly after a question that was more snarky than it had to be. It could be a personal style point, but the inaccuracies, false equivalences and presumptions in the letter tend to forfeit the presumption of good will.
I would agree with you that he is *trying* to be reasonable, but he keeps getting in his own way and not making his best case. A good rewrite from someone like Mr Fortunate would have made the letter much more palatable and the LW much more appealing.
More...
"Where is loyalty in open relationships?" or "Is there loyalty (because I don't see any)?" strikes me as much more in the spirit you are attributing to him without materially altering the meaning. There are at least as many definite, direct sentences (which lend force to the intepretation that "I don't see any loyalty" carries the unspoken implication, "therefore there isn't any"), some of which reveal offensive beliefs or comprise ridiculous presumptions from a Johnny-Come-Out-Lately. (The latter aren't a question of fault; we all were at one time - perhaps this might be where, if I were in Hostile Mode, I'd have something to say about Unseemly Straightsplaining.) I did not mention this earlier, but I can see how the letter could be interpreted as having a flavour similar to that of respectable, assimilationist, corporate-type gays complaining about how the queens and the freaks in the Pride parades were Ruining Everything! Not a Nice Mindset.
Sorry, but capitalizing the AT ALL is definitely stompy. Were the phrase uncapitalized I'd have been on the fence about it as not really necessary.
And personally I would precede, "I would appreciate a reply," with, "Thank you for your patience and attention," particularly if I were putting it directly after a question that was more snarky than it had to be. It could be a personal style point, but the inaccuracies, false equivalences and presumptions in the letter tend to forfeit the presumption of good will.
I would agree with you that he is *trying* to be reasonable, but he keeps getting in his own way and not making his best case. A good rewrite from someone like Mr Fortunate would have made the letter much more palatable and the LW much more appealing.
134
Dan finally wrote a reasonable comprehensive response (plus Jeremy's) and then I open the comments and see all of these idiots making fun of the writer and talking down monogamy.
Don't you people see that you are being just as sanctimonious? The writer's point is that for so long Dan has seemed to promote non-monogamy. Between all the monogamish posts to the extended book review regarding man's evolutionary predilections against monogamy.
I can see how confusing to young gay people to hear constantly that marriage equality is the most important thing ever and you may only vote for president based on that issue---while at the same time making fun of anyone who takes marriage vows seriously.
All the writer is asking is that monogamists be as respected for their choice as this column always demands for the non-monogamous. Dan finally stood up and did so eloquently and thoughtfully. Too bad you regular commenters didn't absorb the message.
Don't you people see that you are being just as sanctimonious? The writer's point is that for so long Dan has seemed to promote non-monogamy. Between all the monogamish posts to the extended book review regarding man's evolutionary predilections against monogamy.
I can see how confusing to young gay people to hear constantly that marriage equality is the most important thing ever and you may only vote for president based on that issue---while at the same time making fun of anyone who takes marriage vows seriously.
All the writer is asking is that monogamists be as respected for their choice as this column always demands for the non-monogamous. Dan finally stood up and did so eloquently and thoughtfully. Too bad you regular commenters didn't absorb the message.
135
Ms Goth - Very clever of you. If I were in Quibble Mode, I'd ruminate on the exact nature of taking marriage vows seriously, but then there are a lot of people I'd like the power to kick off Team Monogamy because I like to take pride in my team.
But I am not in Quibble Mode because you have finally assisted something quite different to spring to mind. I now completely understand how Billie Jean King felt right after Margaret Court agreed to what became the Mother's Day Massacre (and indeed, given what has transpired with Mrs Court, it might be much more entertaining to ruminate on whether at some level that match might have been thrown).
But I am not in Quibble Mode because you have finally assisted something quite different to spring to mind. I now completely understand how Billie Jean King felt right after Margaret Court agreed to what became the Mother's Day Massacre (and indeed, given what has transpired with Mrs Court, it might be much more entertaining to ruminate on whether at some level that match might have been thrown).
136
I guess Dan gets enough of these emails to feel like he needs to clear this up once and for all.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against monogamy. I have been in monogamous relationships and for me monogamy is on the table. However, so is non-monogamy.
But this "I believe all open relationships are shallow" bullshit is what gets to me. I don't have the reserve that Dan shows here, as my reaction to something like this would be a knee-jerk "oh, fuck you". The idea is that we all have the right to say "this is how I'd like my relationship to be" and then see if we can't find someone with a similar idea that we have chemistry with. I would never look at two people that are happy together and say "you're doing it wrong."
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against monogamy. I have been in monogamous relationships and for me monogamy is on the table. However, so is non-monogamy.
But this "I believe all open relationships are shallow" bullshit is what gets to me. I don't have the reserve that Dan shows here, as my reaction to something like this would be a knee-jerk "oh, fuck you". The idea is that we all have the right to say "this is how I'd like my relationship to be" and then see if we can't find someone with a similar idea that we have chemistry with. I would never look at two people that are happy together and say "you're doing it wrong."
137
two weeks ago i and my boyfriend had a conflict, so with that he broke up with me saying he no longer wanted to associate with me anymore, i never knew he was interested in working out his marriage with another girl, i was helpless because i loved him so much morethan myself, after begging and pleading with him I realized it was out of my hands, he really was leaving me, i could not stay without him, i tried to figure things out with him but he is not listening me, he told me that he is no longer interested that i should look for someone else, i tried all my best but things were not working out, so i had no choice than to look around for help, i went into search of spell caster to help me bring him back to me with the help of spell and after searching i actually finalize to work with prophetharry@ymail.com in regards of my lover. after 3 days as he told that my lover will return. my lover returned in surprising way, i was chocked and was so happy I can't say how much I'm grateful, My lover not only came back to me, but has left his other girl and now has engaged me, we are getting married next month, I don't know what I would have done without this spell caster.
two weeks ago i and my boyfriend had a conflict, so with that he broke up with me saying he no longer wanted to associate with me anymore, i never knew he was interested in working out his marriage with another girl, i was helpless because i loved him so much morethan myself, after begging and pleading with him I realized it was out of my hands, he really was leaving me, i could not stay without him, i tried to figure things out with him but he is not listening me, he told me that he is no longer interested that i should look for someone else, i tried all my best but things were not working out, so i had no choice than to look around for help, i went into search of spell caster to help me bring him back to me with the help of spell and after searching i actually finalize to work with prophetharry@ymail.com in regards of my lover. after 3 days as he told that my lover will return. my lover returned in surprising way, i was chocked and was so happy I can't say how much I'm grateful, My lover not only came back to me, but has left his other girl and now has engaged me, we are getting married next month, I don't know what I would have done without this spell caster.
138
My boyfriend and I have been together since April 2009. Monogamy is one of the terms of our relationship, as we both have faith in God and believe that God blesses monogamy. (I realize this is an appeal to faith not heard often enough in the so-called "gay community").
In the time before I met my boyfriend, I was unfortunately deceived by those who led me on to believe they thought as I did, only to discover they were playing me for their own personal pleasure. (The comments left here lead me to believe this was not an anomaly, but an unfortunately common and selfish practice).
My point is, your right to pleasure yourself ends where my right to monogamy begins. When I was dating and I would meet guys, in some cases their first point of discussion was sexual (e.g. "Are you top or bottom?", "How often do you masturbate?"). In such cases, I could immediately identify an insurmountable obstacle between our goals. Sometimes, they would openly declare they were seeking an open relationship. In some cases, they would even already have a boyfriend (ew!) In these cases, it was easy to identify the enemy.
In other cases, however, the guy would pretend to be seeking a monogamous relationship. I experienced this three times. Three times I was heartbroken due to selfishness, shallowness, and dishonesty. If these people had been honest about their intentions, I would have been a virgin when I was with my boyfriend. Even though, I never went "all the way" with these maniacs, I still regretted the kissing, the making out, and so forth.
My point is, honesty is paramount. Whether you are gay or straight, if you are unable or if you have no intention of sustaining a monogamous relationship, then stay the hell away from people who are seeking monogamy!
And, by the way, I consider myself and my boyfriend to be fairly good looking. In fact, we are both constantly fighting off sex maniacs in the clubs where we like to dance. We also have inner beauty and self-respect, which keeps us from compromising our personal values for something as worthless as momentary pleasure. Peace.
More...
In the time before I met my boyfriend, I was unfortunately deceived by those who led me on to believe they thought as I did, only to discover they were playing me for their own personal pleasure. (The comments left here lead me to believe this was not an anomaly, but an unfortunately common and selfish practice).
My point is, your right to pleasure yourself ends where my right to monogamy begins. When I was dating and I would meet guys, in some cases their first point of discussion was sexual (e.g. "Are you top or bottom?", "How often do you masturbate?"). In such cases, I could immediately identify an insurmountable obstacle between our goals. Sometimes, they would openly declare they were seeking an open relationship. In some cases, they would even already have a boyfriend (ew!) In these cases, it was easy to identify the enemy.
In other cases, however, the guy would pretend to be seeking a monogamous relationship. I experienced this three times. Three times I was heartbroken due to selfishness, shallowness, and dishonesty. If these people had been honest about their intentions, I would have been a virgin when I was with my boyfriend. Even though, I never went "all the way" with these maniacs, I still regretted the kissing, the making out, and so forth.
My point is, honesty is paramount. Whether you are gay or straight, if you are unable or if you have no intention of sustaining a monogamous relationship, then stay the hell away from people who are seeking monogamy!
And, by the way, I consider myself and my boyfriend to be fairly good looking. In fact, we are both constantly fighting off sex maniacs in the clubs where we like to dance. We also have inner beauty and self-respect, which keeps us from compromising our personal values for something as worthless as momentary pleasure. Peace.
139
Practically speaking, the problem with non monogamy is that you open the door to comparing your long term partner with your other sexual partners. It's human, because you can't control how you feel, you can only do your best to control your choices (which is hard enough). Also, when allowing sex outside your partnership you have no way of believing that your partner is going to keep your agreement. Sex is a powerful thing--that why so many guys like it so much.
140
This video and some of the comments made here are the reasons why I have stayed away from the gay community.
I am not young and stupid. Of all the mistakes I did make while getting through my teen years and early twenties, learning and perhaps changing some of my views along the way, one thing did remain the same and that was the idea that one day I would be with someone and share my life with them in a loving committed relationship. Saying that this young man is basically stupid because he is new to "the game" as one person put it is ridiculous.
I walked away from a very controlling religion at a young age because I didn't want to conform to what that organization and my parents/family expected of me.
When I was exposed to different types of people some of my experiences were great and changed the way I felt about certain things that I was raised to believe.
When I was exposed to the gay community I felt that I had to again conform to things I didn't believe were positive in my life or walk away from that lifestyle as well.
When so many in the gay community are quick to dismiss you because you express that you value something that isn't the norm, how is that any different from the struggle we go through trying to gain acceptance from our friends and family when we come out?
We are fighting for the right to marry and share our lives with someone that we love. When I'm old and sick, I want my partner to be able to make decisions for me. I want him to be with me in my final hours.
So much of the time gay men and women put their sex lives out on display as if the bigot watching a 10 second clip of a gay pride parade on Fox News doesn't know that gay people have sex. Yea, well that's what already comes to his mind when he thinks of fags. We don't need to remind him of that.
Maybe, if there were people within the gay community who could show that their relationship was based on love and that sex was only part of that, then we would have more acceptance from the people that hate us because they don't have an understanding of us.
Of course, a lot of the gay people that feel that way have the option of conforming to the norm within the gay community or just not being a part of it.
I am in a monogamous relationship and still deal with a lack of respect of that from the gay community.
I'm old enough now to laugh it off when some idiot makes a comment. It was just really interesting for me to read these comments and see that gay men and women can still be just as closed minded as the people that TiVo Bill O'Reilly.
More...
I am not young and stupid. Of all the mistakes I did make while getting through my teen years and early twenties, learning and perhaps changing some of my views along the way, one thing did remain the same and that was the idea that one day I would be with someone and share my life with them in a loving committed relationship. Saying that this young man is basically stupid because he is new to "the game" as one person put it is ridiculous.
I walked away from a very controlling religion at a young age because I didn't want to conform to what that organization and my parents/family expected of me.
When I was exposed to different types of people some of my experiences were great and changed the way I felt about certain things that I was raised to believe.
When I was exposed to the gay community I felt that I had to again conform to things I didn't believe were positive in my life or walk away from that lifestyle as well.
When so many in the gay community are quick to dismiss you because you express that you value something that isn't the norm, how is that any different from the struggle we go through trying to gain acceptance from our friends and family when we come out?
We are fighting for the right to marry and share our lives with someone that we love. When I'm old and sick, I want my partner to be able to make decisions for me. I want him to be with me in my final hours.
So much of the time gay men and women put their sex lives out on display as if the bigot watching a 10 second clip of a gay pride parade on Fox News doesn't know that gay people have sex. Yea, well that's what already comes to his mind when he thinks of fags. We don't need to remind him of that.
Maybe, if there were people within the gay community who could show that their relationship was based on love and that sex was only part of that, then we would have more acceptance from the people that hate us because they don't have an understanding of us.
Of course, a lot of the gay people that feel that way have the option of conforming to the norm within the gay community or just not being a part of it.
I am in a monogamous relationship and still deal with a lack of respect of that from the gay community.
I'm old enough now to laugh it off when some idiot makes a comment. It was just really interesting for me to read these comments and see that gay men and women can still be just as closed minded as the people that TiVo Bill O'Reilly.
141
Growing up as a young gay guy trying to reconcile my orientation with my values, and find hope for love beyond the stereotypes projected by an imbecile like Dan Savage, I've come to believe that he's done more to thwart the progress of rights of gay and lesbian people than many evangelical pastors. Dan Savage is an idiot. For anyone who has the dignity to hold on to the hope of finding lives monogamy is key.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 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 (141) RSS