Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Savage Love Category Archive

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on December 19 at 3:58 PM

Dear Dan, I'm a gay guy, late-40's, live in a metropolitan area. While I meet enough gay guys, I never really "click" with them. I'm "totally out" and all that, but for some reason gay guys don't often think of me romantically or sexually. I'm really sort of an average build, normal kind of guy, and don't really fit into the urban gay guy scene. On the other hand, bisexual guys are often drawn to me, and me to them. At first I thought it was a fluke, but after more than five years, I think there's something about bi guys that attracts me. (Maybe because they're not gay guys?) My shrink says "face it, it's just the way you're wired."

My question is, my bi guys always seem glad to have a hot time, sexually, but don't seem interested in grabbing a meal, or movie, or otherwise "dating." So, what do you think, it is hopeless for me to think a bi guy might want to date, and even build a life with a gay guy? It seems to me, a bi guy should be able to get emotionally closer to me, than to most gals he might date, since a bi guy can be honest about his life with me, but probably can't be completely honest with most gals. What do you think, Dan?

Wish A Nice Turned-on Biguy (WANTBI)

Here's my advice for WANTBI:

Most bisexuals--male or female--seem incapable of falling in love with same-sex partners. The proof can be seen anywhere you find middle-aged bisexuals. They all seem to be married--legally--to opposite-sex partners and seeking some same-sex, if they're seeking same-sex action, exclusively on the side. They're capable of responding sexually to same-sex partners, and enjoying the same-sex sex. but there's something important missing: the ability to form a lasting, intimate, emotional attachment to a member of the same sex.

This is a generalization. You can probably find a handful of bisexuals out there in same-sex relationships. But they're rare. And defensive bisexuals--bis that bought their own "being bisexuals means I fall in love with people, not genitals!" hype--will insist that the overwhelming majority of bisexuals have opposite-sex partners because there are just so many more opposite-sex partners out there to be had from; gay people are a tiny percentage of the population, blah blah blah, and everywhere you go there are hordes of heteros, blah blah blah. Don't fall for it: Most people who are gay and date bisexuals hit the same wall you do. When it comes to teh gays, bisexuals are interested in sex but not interested in dating--even when they're single.

Of course, you have to own up to something: You are, in part, drawn to bisexuals precisely because they're not available, right? There's a reason you've ruled out gay men as sex or romantic partners--something about bisexual guys and their hetero leanings draws you. And that's fine. But hoist, petard, etc.


Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on December 12 at 3:05 PM

Hi Dan,

I'm a 25 year-old straight female. I've been dating this amazing, wonderful guy for close to a year. The problem is that I can't stand living here in Seattle. I've only been here a year and a half. The clouds and rain make me depressed and the people here are cold and isolated, so I've decided I have to move next summer. He's considering leaving with me, but I'm not sure how seriously. He hasn't even told his friends or family about the possibility of leaving.

What I'm trying to decide is if I should end this now or stick it out and see what he decides to do. I can't imagine being without him, and that's the problem. If I stay with him and then he decides last minute that he just can't leave his hometown, there I am starting a new life in a new city with a broken heart. Should I just call this one quits or take the gamble? I should add that my staying is not a possibility. I'll go crazy.

Not a Risk Taker

Anybody?


Monday, December 10, 2007

My Fat Spouse

posted by on December 10 at 10:41 AM

Those folks upset by my recent comments concerning a partner's weight gain are going to blow their stacks when they get a load of this website. From My Fat Spouse:

If you have been watching the news lately, I am sure that you have heard of the "Obesity Epidemic." Marriages are not immune to the effects of this issue. This site will focus on the situation where one partner becomes, or remains obese and the other spouse maintains a thinner physique, or succeeds in becoming thinner.

It is unrealistic to expect this situation to not annoy the less fat partner. The effects of this on a marriage are subtle and not so subtle. If you hold the notion that love should be blind, and that romance should be judged by the "person on the inside," then go to the thousands of other forums and websites that believe the same way. Excuse making for not exercising and not eating correctly is not acceptable here. Politically Correct guilt trips should be left at the door.

The site's tagline--"it is disrespectful to become unattractive to your life partner"--echoes my advice for HARD.


Saturday, December 8, 2007

Someone Help Me Out Here

posted by on December 8 at 1:39 PM

Can someone please direct me to the column or blog post where I wrote, "But wait, fat people? Suck!"

Perhaps this is the wrong image to use... but irrational fat activists are stuffing words in my mouth. But, hey, if imagining that I've persecuted you is enough to float your boats, ladies, feel free. I didn't realize I was that buoyant.

O They Will Know We Are Christians By...

posted by on December 8 at 9:26 AM

...the 14 year-old boys we put in diapers.

A skit at a local Christian youth group meeting had teenage boys taking off some of their clothes, wearing adult diapers, bibs and bonnets and being spoon-fed by girls as they sat in their laps.

Some say it's just crazy, goofy teenage fun. But others, including one boy's mother and the Mt. Lebanon School District, aren't comfortable with it.

The skit took place during the Nov. 29 meeting of the Mt. Lebanon Young Life club, a nondenominational Christian youth group directed by youth minister O.J. Wandrisco.

Laurie Metz, whose 14-year-old son was one of the boys who took part in the skit, said she found it inappropriate, demeaning and sexually perverse.

Mr. Wandrisco and a national spokesman for Young Life say the skits are all in fun and meant to be used as "icebreakers" at the youth group meetings. "The skits are designed for one reason and one reason only--for kids to have fun. It's not a dirty joke. The skits are to break down the walls and let them have fun," Mr. Wandrisco said....

Ms. Metz said at the Nov. 29 Young Life meeting, after her son and two other boys were selected to take part in the skit, they were taken to a rest room by an older teen and given adult diapers, bibs and bonnets and directed to take their clothes off and put the diapers, bibs and bonnets on.... The boys returned to the group, where they were asked to sit in the laps of three girls. The girls spoon-fed baby food to the boys and then gave them baby bottles filled with soda pop. The first boy to finish was the winner.

"The whole premise of the skit is questionable," Ms. Metz said. "I see no purpose that it would serve, especially not in a Christian youth group setting. It's perverse."

Putting horny 14 year-old boys in diapers and then plopping them on the laps of teenage girls for a little spoon- and bottle-feeding... thus are life-long fetishes born. Not that I have anything against fetishes or the kind of formative life experiences that create 'em. Far from it. I live in the house that fetishes bought.

But still. Could you imagine the uproar from Christian groups if, say, a gay youth group did something similar? Or a gay-straight student alliance?

A spokesman for the Christian youth group says they've done this for years--they also do a "skit" where girls eat chocolate pudding out of adult diapers--and that Ms. Metz' son "had fun" in that diaper. I'll bet he did--and odds are good that he'll be having fun in diapers for the rest of his life.


Friday, December 7, 2007

Someone is Going to Get Drummed Out of the Fat Acceptance Movement...

posted by on December 7 at 9:59 AM

I'm getting torn up out there on the Fatosphere for my advice to HARD--or my readers' advice to hard; it's kind of hard to keep it all straight at this point--but one member-in-good-standing of the fat acceptance movement has my back:

Let's get one thing out of the way: I sympathise with the FA movement (obviously, as evidenced by my list of links to the right), and I strongly believe in HAES--health at every size. You can't help your body type, and if you take good care of your body, you shouldn't be penalized by society for looking a certain way. Makes sense.

But here's the thing: HARD's wife is not healthy. She started out healthy (presumably), but has gained a bunch of weight, her skin is terrible, etc. His description makes it clear that she is no longer the picture of health. And he finds her repulsive. You know what? I would too.... Now, the minister says "through sickness and through health." You're supposed to stick with your partner even as they get old and saggy and beer-gutted and grey or bald. But if your partner suddenly turns into a total slob, you can't force yourself to find them attractive.... So this is a pretty important tenant of Savage Love--you have a duty to your partner, and they have a duty to you. You both work together to ensure that everyone's needs are met, and thus you keep your relationship happy and healthy. It doesn't sound like a foreign concept to me...

So yes, this guy could be being a total douche and his poor wife has, in actuality, gained a measly twenty pounds and he's exaggerating the rest. Or his wife could have a serious problem which is turning her into a gross slob, and in my opinion he's well within his rights not to find her attractive anymore. So what was Dan's actual advice to HARD?

Your wife—the weight gain, the hair growth, the moodiness, the drugs—may be clinically depressed or have some undiagnosed medical condition, both subjects you could broach without touching on the boner-killing fatso stuff. But, yeah, at 10 years together you have a right to expect that your partner will maintain some base level of attractiveness. That's not about sexism—I expect the same from my boyfriend—it's about respect.

Wow. How terrible.


Thursday, December 6, 2007

Big Lies

posted by on December 6 at 10:20 AM

Suggesting that diet--what you choose to eat, how much you choose to eat, making choices about what and how much you eat based on your awareness of your own metabolism--has any connection whatsoever with obesity is rank bigotry. There's no connection between diet and obesity. Period. Only an anti-fat bigot would suggest otherwise.

People are born fat just like people are born gay. People can't become "ex-fat" for the same reason people can't become "ex-gay." Please make a note of it.

And pass the Twinkies.


Friday, November 30, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on November 30 at 2:42 PM

From the mailbag...

I'm a recently dumped male age 19. I feel somewhat confused by how my last relationship ended and was wondering if you could help me out. So this past week my girlfriend comes over and tells me that she can't be in a relationship right now, she gave me the "it's not you it's me". She says that she pushes people away when they get too close. And said she still wanted to be friends.

Because we got along so well and this was completely out of the blue, I ended up making a really dumb decision, I swallowed all my pills. I know this was a really stupid move but I let my emotions get the better of me. So my problem is I still love this girl but I know that she needs her space to take care of her problems. It hurts to think of her as just a friend considering I fell really hard for her.

Should I continue to be her friend and hope that things turn out for the best later on or should I move on?--Martin

First, get some therapy for that pill-swallowing thing.

Second, Martin, you shouldn't have anything to do with your ex. It sucks to be dumped. And it sucks even more to hang out with the person that dumped you in some misguided effort to prove that you're the good guy, really mature, and that you can do the "friends" thing. You're not interested in being this girl's friend--you weren't ever interested in being her friend. You want to be her boyfriend. Be friends with your friends, male and female, and date the people you feel something more than friendship for. Lean not to confuse the two.

That's my advice, Sloggers. What's yours?


Monday, November 12, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on November 12 at 1:38 PM

I come to you with a question about children's psychosexual development. My son has always loved women's feet--since he was two. I kid you not. He is now 5. The other night he was laying on the floor playing with my feet. He suddenly got up, face very red, and said he wanted to marry my feet! He also had an erection! I cannot tell you how odd this all is to me--I was never around boys much as a child, so sometimes I am bewildered by how they operate. I told him I loved him, but that marrying me and/or my feet would not work out. I let him know that he would find a nice person to marry one day, and gave him a hug and changed the subject. 1. Could you rate my response? 2. WHAT THE FUCK? So many questions are swirling in my head about his behavior, I don't even know where to start. Is it common for young boys to be aroused by their mothers? Is he turning into a foot-fetishist? Was the erection purely random and just so happened to be at the same time as the foot playing? Does that seal the deal forever? I asked my husband and he was as confused and slightly embarassed as I was. Can you help? Anonymous

Hm.

When I put the odds of a five-year old boy that liked musicals, makeup, dresses and Zac Efron growing up to be gay at 99%--you can read that column here--a couple of hundred thousand "Savage Love" readers attempted to rip me a couple of hundred thousand new assholes. After assuring me that they weren't the least bit homophobic, these outraged readers peppered me with angry questions: What was I thinking?!?! Who was I to say the kid was gay?!?! Didn't I know that not all kids that like musicals, makeup, dresses and male teen heartthrobs grow up to be gay?!?!

Well, yes. The ones that don't account for the 1%. Like, duh.

So when this letter arrived I thought... hm... I wonder if I'll get in as much shit when I tell this woman that there's a 99% chance her son is going to grow up to be a foot fetishist? Probably not. Because despite the protests a lot of the people that wrote in to complain about my advice for the aunt of that five year-old boy were being homophobic. Just a tad.

The reaction I got to that column reminded me of a reaction I once got from friend at college. We were discussing another kid in our theater program--a good-looking guy that didn't have a girlfriend and didn't seem much interested in acquiring one. For that and other reasons I concluded that he was a fag, like me. When I told my non-homophobic friend what I thought, she rolled her eyes. "Oh, Dan," she said. "Must you always think the worst of everyone?"

Even for many non-homophobic straights, believing someone to be gay--a five year-old boy with a crush on Zac Efron, a 19 year-old boy without a crush on anyone (who came out later that year)--remains the worst thing you could possibly think. When it comes to homosexuality, it seems, even avowed & admitted homosexuals are required to extend benefit of the doubt. Because it is a terrible thing to be gay or even be thought of as gay. So how dare I think that five year-old is gay?

Anyway, Anonymous...

1. Your response was perfect, spot-on. Well done. Bravo.

2. Your son will be a foot fetishist when he grows up. Hell, he's a foot fetishist now. The deal is sealed--well, let's say 99% sealed.

UPDATE: Anonymous is reading Slog right now. If you have some advice or insight for her, toss it up in comments.


Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on November 7 at 4:02 PM

I am a college freshman at a college not in my hometown. In high school I never truly rolled with the popular crowd. I was a more of a loner and a background character. During the college school year I have redefined people's perceptions of me and have been very close gaining "cool" status in my dorm. Just recently, one of my new friends inquired if I have seen the new video on the web. I immediately, in a half joking way, asked if it was porno. He assured me with some giggles that it wasn't porno. Immediately my new friend and a gang of my recently created friends insisted that they all go to my computer and watch it. I grew increasingly suspicious that I was not going to enjoy whatever it was that they were about to show me. When they got to my computer my friend logged on to a website which was obviuosly a porn site, all while assuring me it wasn't porn and showed me a video of feces porn involving two girls with a cup literally eating shit and later throwing up on each other. The crowd which had followed me into my room found it hilarious while I just found it twisted and disgusting. I felt I had just been hazed to be accepted. I'm still disgusted and wondering what kind of friends I'm making. I'm not militantly against porn in general I'm just disturbed by this one. Am I making the right kinds of guy friends? Is it okay to loathe guys who watch these types of porn videos? Truly Troubled Young Lad

I haven't seen the porn video in question, but I've heard all about it. If it's any comfort, TTYL, a lot of scat porn is created with shit substitutes. Someone is given, oh, six or seven thousands enemas, until the water runs back out clean, followed by a chocolate pudding enema and only then do the cameras start rolling. Still, gross. And your friends? Well, they sound like typical college freshman to me--immature, terrified of women, and obsessed with poop.


Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on October 30 at 11:20 AM

They're not all about piss and shit and fisting and gangbangs...

There's this new pastor @ the church I visit. She's gorgeous, a serious athlete--and can read ancient Greek. I've managed to get her to lunch twice, despite her schedule, and as she may be deployed to Iraq shortly, I spelled out my interest explicitly. (Hey, if I was smooth w/ the ladies, I'd be married already.) She seemed receptive, posited that dating someone in her new congregation could possibly cause issues, but may go hiking w/ me this weekend.

So what's the protocol for dating a smokin' hot priestess? (If I should be so lucky.)

Not Very Good Xian


Friday, October 26, 2007

Santorum in the News

posted by on October 26 at 12:38 PM

Slog tipper Lauren points out that Wonkette used the term santorum in an item about fucking Larry Craig that I linked to yesterday. Not only did Wonkette use the santorum correctly, but using santorum allowed Wonkette to communicate the full awfulness of fucking Larry Craig without forcing readers to conjure up graphic mental images. And isn't that the point of sexual slang and euphemism?

Traumatized Slog readers may recall that shit featured prominently in David Phillips' cherished memories of being topped by Larry Craig. By describing Phillips' story as a "Santorum-laced tale," Wonkette told us everything we needed to know. Just as it's better--more refined, less graphic--to say, "I sucked him off," than it is to say, "I took his erect penis into my mouth until he ejaculated," it is better to calmly cite santorum when fecal matter makes an unwelcome appearance during anal sex than it is to loudly scream shit.

Compare what Phillips said...

"[He] disappeared and returned with lube and a condom to fuck me me with. It was a clumsy and unremarkable fuck, except that I wasn’t clean and he was frantic about not getting my shit on anything. Still, he blew his load, ripped the dirty condom off and ordered me to get dressed without wiping myself.... On the way back through [his house] with shit all in my briefs and feeling totally humiliated I let my eyes wander and saw on a table a small envelope..."

...to what Phillips could have said:

"[He] disappeared and returned with lube and a condom to fuck me me with. It was a clumsy and unremarkable fuck, except that I wasn’t clean and he was frantic about not getting the santorum on anything. Still, he blew his load, ripped the santorum-streaked condom off and ordered me to get dressed without wiping myself.... On the way back through with santorum in my briefs and feeling totally humiliated I let my eyes wander and saw on a table a small envelope..."

Ah, much better! Nothing is lost, the pathos and squalor are preserved, but thanks to the artful use of a simple euphemism, readers are spared the stomach churning mental images and unwelcome olfactory sense memory.

In other santorum-related news, former Sen. Rick Santorum may finally be able to get his revenge on all the newspaper columnists everywhere that were mean to him. Santorum is going to be writing a bi-weekly column for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Santorum's column will tackle politics, Islamofascism, and the gays' tackle. It will be called "The Elephant in the Room" because the original name for the column, "Spreading Santorum," was already taken.


Wednesday, October 24, 2007

"Who wants crème brûlée?"

posted by on October 24 at 2:59 PM

After reading this week's Savage Love--which features a fruity five year-old--a reader sent a link to this SNL ad parody.

Oh, if only Homocil really existed.


Friday, October 19, 2007

Ben's Bear Feet

posted by on October 19 at 11:30 AM

Ben, my host while I visited Boston College yesterday, was wearing flip-flops when he picked me up at the airport yesterday. Since Flip-flops had recently come up in "Savage Love"--or "thong sandals," as this particular flip-flop fetishist insisted on calling the objects of his affection--I couldn't help but notice Ben's flip-flops. I'm not into flip-flops myself, or feet, or hairy toes. But for those that appreciate any or all of the above, this picture is for you...

BenFeetLimo.jpg

Point of clarificatin: Ben's not really a bear--just his toes. And I wanted to include this photo in the post I wrote yesterday about arriving in Boston but for some reason--some sophisticated foot/flip-flop fetish spam filter?--it took 24 hours to arrive in my inbox.


Thursday, October 18, 2007

Re: Where the Gas Is Always Greener

posted by on October 18 at 3:03 PM

Dom is feeling guilty about hopping a cab from the airport--well, Dom, check out the car that just picked me up at the Boston airport.

BostonLimo.jpg

Ben, the rep from the student group that brought me to Boston College for a talk this evening, was very apologetic. He called for a town car and they sent a stretch limo--complete with little twinkly lights on the roof the car and a wet bar stocked with champagne flutes, rocks glasses, and cut glass decanters. I felt like an ass crawling into this thing at the airport. I felt like a monster stepping out of it in front of the hotel near campus--in a progressive neighborhood full of students. There wasn't a good spot to pull over so we literally had to stop traffic to get out--and once we were out we couldn't make a clean getaway because Ben had to sign for the car. So we stood there, being glared at, feeling like we had just drowned a couple of polar bears with our bare hands.

We're going to walk to the event tonight--which is at a Jesuit college. Ben told me on the way into the city that he wasn't allowed to put the word "sex" on the poster (the original mockup described me as a "sex columnist"), and I got this in the mail yesterday: "Boston College requires that the artist be respectful of the Catholic and Jesuit nature of the University." When I asked for a clarification, I was told, "Basically, they don't want a speaker up there trashing Catholics."

Wish me luck!

That Dorito Bag Condom

posted by on October 18 at 1:00 PM

In this week's Savage Love—online now—guest expert Dr. W. H. assures curious readers that drinking piss is, relatively speaking, a safe activity. Gross, yes, but safe. When I mentioned his qualifications, I wrote...

Dr. W.H., an ER physician at a big city hospital like the ones on teevee! Dr. W.H. has seen people "guzzling every nasty-ass secretion known," and wasn't fazed by your question. (He also says that he's seen people use Doritos bags as condoms, but we'll save that for another column.)

Naturally people are curious about that Dorito bag, so I asked Dr. W.H. the obvious followup question: WTF?

I have several horrible-but-true vagina stories. If they had titles, they would include:

"Tampon Stuck for a Month"
"I Cut Myself With a Grapefruit Spoon"
"My Vibrator Disintegrated Inside Me"
"Will You Fuck Me?"
"The Crack Pipe"
And... as a vagina proxy:
"I Shoved Razor Blades Up My Ass"

Then there are cock, ball, and ass stories, but I'm too tired to go into all that.

Anyway—here's how the Doritos bag story goes:

An obese young woman came into our Emergency Department and said that her vagina didn't feel normal and she wanted it checked out. No real pain, no bleeding, just a certain "fucked-up feeling" that had been bothering her for a few days.

Peering into (not at) the vagina of an obese person can be a bit tough, but eventually an inspection revealed a crinkled, shiny wad waaay up there. My colleague removed it, then unrolled it to reveal a snack-size Doritos bag (original style, with a few strands of cheddar-based mucus clinging to it). When confronted with the evidence, the patient giggled and claimed she suddenly remembered a drunken fuck with her boyfriend where no condoms were available, so he grabbed the nearest snack wrapper at hand and went for it. Not exactly a James Bond kind of move. The bag apparently slipped off his cock after a few strokes and got pounded into a compact mass during the sex, subsequently drenched by his ejaculate and marinated in her own secretions and soothing Dorito oils. Afterwards they passed out and forgot the whole thing, until the aforementioned fucked-up feeling brought her to us.

Amazingly, the sharp plastic crease on the bag didn't seem to cause any noticeable laceration or injury, though superficial vaginal abrasions heal pretty fast, and it had been a few days.

I would like to say that the patient later gave birth to a baby girl covered with orange powdered cheese, but the truth is she never returned.

Aren't you glad you asked?


Monday, October 8, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on October 8 at 3:25 PM

I'm a 21 year old woman, just graduated from college. I've been with my current boyfriend since I was 15. We were each other's first everything- fucking, kissing, relationship. We have a great great relationship. This sounds hard to believe, but really no fights, just discussions and honesty; we both have separate lives outside each other, and amazing, great, kinky sex, even after 6 years.

So why am I writing you, right?

The way I see it, its hard to visualize a way of us breaking up. I have a feeling this is the guy I'm going to marry and be with the rest of my life. But some people seem to think it would be a bad thing for us to keep being together without ever being with someone else, if only for seeing what sex is like with other people. Sometimes I wonder too. What do you think, Dan? Say we never break up--am I going to wake up at 40 and wish I had fucked some other people, just for the experience?

His Only Girl

I expect so, HOG. I mean, even though I fucked plenty of people before age 40, I woke up at 40 and wished I had fucked some other people, just for the experience.


Friday, October 5, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on October 5 at 2:30 PM

how much piss can one consume without getting sick? and does it make a difference if the piss is yours or someone elses?

sincerely,

curious


Friday, September 28, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on September 28 at 2:33 PM

I was recently released from prison after completing a three year sentence. I am a professional male, and have been married for a decade. My wife and I have children. She stood by me while I completed the sentence I served for a financial crime. Since my release I have been reunited with my family. My issue is as follows. While incarcerated I had a consensual sexual relationship with my cellmate. The details of the relationship are unimportant; I have been tested for STDs since my release and I have tested negative. So, there are no health concerns for my wife. I am trying to decide whether to tell my wife about the relationship. Though the cellmate has attempted to contact me by mail, I have not responded. That part of my life is now. My relationship with my wife and family have normalized in the months since my return. While I want to be honest and make amends, I also don't want to cause her any more pain than I already have.

My advice: What happens in prison stays in prison; there are some things a spouse has a right not to know; and it's bad form to be rude to your ex-cellmate. (At least respond with a "I'll always cherish the memories" letter.) But what say you, Slog readers?


Friday, September 21, 2007

I Demand a Recount!

posted by on September 21 at 8:28 AM

I thought "Savage Lovecast" was the most socially destructive podcast available on the Interwebs--but no, apparently that honor falls to "Polyamory Weekly." Alexander Cornswalled--dig that name!--is a "Conservative Christian, writing and podcasting about religion, morals and the fight to halt the decay of American society and civilization." He slams Violet Blue's podcast ("unapologetic pornography... the only podcast for which I did not listen to an entire episode"), This American Life ("the Lifetime Channel for Liberals"), and some podcasts I haven't heard of but will definitely be checking out ("Nobody Likes Onions," "Dawn and Drew," "A Prairie Home Companion"), but "Polyamory Weekly" takes home the "most socially destructive" gold. Here's Cornswalled...

This is easily the most dangerous and socially destructive podcast I've ever heard. The program is about Polyamory, the practice of having multiple sexual partners, provided everyone consents and knows what's going on. It advocates just about every form of perversion you can imagine.... The program is not the most sexually explicit, nor is it the most offensive. It's dangerous because the program seeks to normalize Homosexuality, Bisexuality, wife swapping, bondage and a host of other unChristian behaviors. They side AGAINST the Mormons who want to legalize underage brides, but if all those Mormon brides are 18 or older, they're all for it.

If your child is listening to Polyamory Weekly, then I recommend you respond as if you'd found deviant magazines in their possession. Do not react with anger, as that will only make matters worse, but respond with Christian love and understanding. Your child has been exposed to dangerous and radical ideas, and needs help with the confusion of ideas that such exposure can create.

Cornswalled--he he he, that name!--promises to post more podcast reviews, the better to assist American parents in their efforts to monitor what their children are downloading and listening to. So watch out, "Polyamory Weekly"! I'm sending Cornswalled a link to "Savage Lovecast."

NOTE: I'm having hard time figuring out if Cornswalled is for real--he condemns "A Prairie Home Companion," for crying out loud. Is he a conservative Christian? Or parodying conservative Christians? He says he's from the midwest... but he sure doesn't sound like he's from the midwest in this video posted to his website.


Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on September 12 at 10:00 AM

Or, "Why I Shouldn't Read My Savage Love Mail Until Well After Lunch."

I need your advice.

First of all, I've been happily married for eight years. My wife and I have sex once or twice a week. We have a young son, and attend church regularly. I'm leading a secret life, though: I'm addicted to pornography.

I keep a stash of porn (Hustler, Barely Legal, B & D magazines, etc.) in my locked desk drawer at work. About three times a week my lunch hour is spent jerking off in the handicapped stall of a downtown public restroom. I can't seem to stop. It's all I think about in the morning and distracts me from my work.

And that's only the beginning. I have a fetish for shit. I'm excited by the smell and taste of my own shit. An ideal experience for me is to save up my bowel movement until lunch hour, find a favorite restroom, and time it just right so that I empty my bowels right before the moment of ejaculation. An extra added bonus is if someone arrives at one of the other stalls and takes a shit. The sound and smell of it excites me even more (I am definitely not gay) and once the person leaves I finish with a head-shattering orgasm.

After a really good one, I sometimes smear my shit on the walls of the stall. I feel very disgusted afterward. I'm not hurting anyone, but this seems wrong. Should I talk to someone ?

Addicted in L.A.

Yes, yes: talk to someone--but not to me, AILA, not at 9:30 in the morning. And it seems to me that you are, in fact, hurting someone--namely, whatever poor motherfucker has to clean that stall after you're through with it. And that "addiction to pornography"? That seems like the least of your worries--but, hey, at least you're not gay or anything.

You are, however, qualified to write for Seattlest.


Friday, August 31, 2007

It's a "Savage Love" Emergency!

posted by on August 31 at 11:51 AM

A "Savage Love" reader somewhere in the Pacific Northwest sent me this question....

Concerning MFF threesomes: How many straight women regret them? How many straight women had an excellent time? We read a lot about straight men and their desire to have MFF threesomes, and often about the details of setting one up, but what about the fallout? The aftermath?

I ask because I have been casually dating/fucking an acquaintance for the past few weeks, and I just found out his ex-girlfriend is going to be visiting from New Zealand for a little while. He suggested (of course) that we all get to know each other a little better. I will admit that it is intriguing. I've always wanted to fool around with another woman, but I'm incredibly threatened by the whole idea of sharing, especially since I have never done anything like this before. Also, although things have stayed relatively casual, I am worried that jealousy is going to be a problem.

Can you ask your straight female readers that have done MFF threesomes to let me know how they went? And what some appropriate ground rules are? Is there a way to fulfill this fantasy for him while protecting my feelings (and those of his ex-girlfriend)? Does it still count as a threesome if I have fun with her while he watches?

Sign me,

Tentatively Reflecting On Intriguing Session

Normally I would toss this letter in the column. But there's not enough time to get the feedback TROIS needs before the ex-girlfriend arrives in town--the ex-girlfriend arrives in a few days--so I'm tossing TROIS' letter up on Slog.

Any feedback for her, ladies? Anything TROIS should know before she consents to this MFF threesome? Anything you wish you had known before you did?


Monday, August 13, 2007

Savage Love Letter of the Day

posted by on August 13 at 3:38 PM

I'm an 18 year bisexual writing in response to your column on the "war" on teen sex. As the son of a social worker and a psychologist, let me give you the best advice I can: Stop fighting a losing battle. I can understand every parent's concern about the matter. No one wants to be the mother/father of the pregnant homecoming queen and I know that STDs are a serious issue for everyone. No kid wants to be HIV positive, trust me on that one.

Do you really want teens to stop doing it? Sex is a beautiful experience and to deny us that is criminal. And telling us not to do it isn't helping. One of the major components of teen psychology is the desire to define themselves, to discover who they are. This tends to result in us rejecting the advice of our elders and most authority figures and leaving judgment to ourselves. We want to experiment and make choices in a world where we believe we have a safety net (IE family and other providers) and will not yet face the consequences of an adult reality.

You mention putting castration chemicals in our foods: I personally find that sick and twisted on your part. What if the government, by the same token mentioned in your response, decided to stop gay sex in general by the same means? Not so fun now, is it?

Listen, teens having been doing it for centuries, it's in our nature. If you're worry is the consequences of a bad night, stop preaching "no" and teach the choir a new tune. Sing us a song of condom use and birth control. Tell us not to use any dangerous hormonal drugs or other stimulants during sex (for Health class, I had to lecture about the side effects of amyl nitrate. That changed a lot of minds.) But if you want us to stop altogether still, then you're going to have to mouth the sweet melody of masturbation. Still gets the vibes across without any cost.

Yes, our reckless actions can sometimes lead to disaster. But we learn by what you teach, or contrariwise, what you don't teach us. We aren't all idiots, Mr. Savage. We've just gotten our lessons out of the wrong textbook. Maybe your generation can make a difference and teach us the right way.

Boy Rebelling Against Tyrannical Sex-stoppers

Damn. Pushing condoms and birth control and letting teens make their own choices--man, why didn't I think of that! Thank goodness the 18 year-old bisexual child of a social worker and psychologist was there to set me straight. Because now that you mention it, stopping teen sex by dosing Doritos, Mountain Dew, lip gloss, and Axe body spray with chemical castration drugs does seem like an extreme measure.

What was I thinking! Thanks for writing, BRATS!


Friday, August 10, 2007

Violet Blue

posted by on August 10 at 11:30 AM

I get at least five questions a week about pegging--or straight woman fucking straight men in their straight butts with strap-ons. When I saw that SF-based sex blogger and author Violet Blue had a new book out on pegging--The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Strap-On Sex--I invited Violet to jump in and play guest expert in this week's column. Check it out here.

Violet is a columnist for the SF Chronicle--yes, Virginia, daily papers are different in Sodom by the Bay--and her latest column offers up a hilarious guide to conservative sexual fetishes. A sample...

Homosexuality: easily caught on a toilet seat. This is the world's best excuse for dwelling on fags and bondage, and you're carte blanche to talk to as many people about it as you want when you "warn" them with lurid details about the homosexual menace and sexual torture. Just the threat of getting some on you is exciting all on its own, but it's even more titillating to imagine what these leather-clad people are doing with each other. Of course, what's imagined is as far from reality as possible, but that's the point: the homosexual scenario is where you explore your nastiest homoerotic fantasy (Fire hydrants! Great Danes! Ralph Lauren tablecloth weights!)

BDSM (or ess and emm) is for evildoers. The BDSM exchange is where you project your wildest edge-play ideas. (Serial killers, helpless victims, and pasty guys with mullets who give the name Mistress Bitchslap at Starbucks are all possible components in your fantasy scenarios.) Everyone at Fox News knows that BDSM where consenting adults get tied up and spanked for sex is one and the same with torture. (Like in Vietnam, NOT like Abu Ghraib because "we don't torture.") Except the outfits, that's the only difference, though uniforms are always optional alternatives to 1980s studs and leather. You can easily convince your minions and followers that your enemy du jour is a homosexual pedophile by bringing in the whips and chains; only bad people "force" others to do things. Especially sexual things, which you should linger over for as long as possible. Everyone knows that normal people never, ever have any hint of power exchange in their sexual encounters.

The computer is an evil voodoo box of pornography. The Internet is like the real world, except MUCH scarier. This type of edge play is for conservatives who like to feel out of control, who maybe have to be the person in charge in their everyday lives but fantasize about helplessness and surrender. It's also a fabulous punishment tool, as guilt can be a more powerful mistress than Fleshbot.com. Naughty thoughts you have can be guiltlessly channeled into public humiliation of your enemies (those bad sex people that give you those weird feelings) in gay cure blogs, anti-porn websites, anti-sex email campaigns against cable advertisers, and the occasional reporting/expulsion of a member from a social networking site for not "thinking of the children."

Read the rest by clicking here. Violet's blog can be found here.


Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Meanwhile in a Sane Country

posted by on August 7 at 2:27 PM

While we dither and more women become infected with a virus that will one day kill them (Christine Gregoire? WTF?), British Columbia is moving on the HPV vaccine.

Girls in B.C. elementary schools could receive a controversial vaccine aimed at fighting human papilloma virus (HPV) as soon as the coming school year.

B.C. was not expected to start vaccinating children until 2008, but Health Minister George Abbott has told CBC News that could change when he receives final advice from provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall.


Monday, June 18, 2007

CBS & Fox Want You Knocked Up

posted by on June 18 at 3:04 PM

CBS and Fox are refusing to air an advertisement for Trojan condoms.

The--sigh--"controversial" ad shows a bunch of pigs in a bar trying to pick up women without success. The ad wasn't rejected for being unrealistic (pigs successfully pick women up in bars all the time), but because after one of the pigs goes to the bathroom and purchases a condom he's is magically transformed into a hot dude. That's not the issue either--CBS and Fox put plenty of hot dudes on television. When the hot dude returns to the bar a woman that rejected his pig incarnation smiles at his hot dude incarnation. But wait, that's not the problem either. The problem, it seem, is that something is missing from the tag line...

"Evolve. Use a condom every time."

Use a condom every time--isn't that the safe sex message we've all been hammering away at for the last twenty fucking years? Isn't that what condoms are all about? Why would they reject the ad?

Because the tag line doesn't mention disease prevention... and impressionable CBS and Fox viewers might get the impression that you can prevent something else by using a condom.

Says the NYT...

[The pigs did not fly at two of the four networks where Trojan tried to place the ad.

Fox and CBS both rejected the commercial. Both had accepted Trojan’s previous campaign, which urged condom use because of the possibility that a partner might be H.I.V.-positive, perhaps unknowingly. A 2001 report about condom advertising by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that, “Some networks draw a strong line between messages about disease prevention--which may be allowed--and those about pregnancy prevention, which may be considered controversial for religious and moral reasons.”

Representatives for both Fox and CBS confirmed that they had refused the ads, but declined to comment further.

In a written response to Trojan, though, Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, “Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy.”

CBS and Fox ran a previous Trojan ad that emphasized the use of condoms with people whose health you might be unsure about, i.e. casual sex partners. Which means preventing disease with condoms is fine with CBS and Fox, and so is casual sex. If the hot dude returned to the bar and said, "I wanna fuck you, lady, but you might have the AIDS, so I bought myself some condoms," that would have been fine. Or the tag line had read, "You've got a condom--because you never know what she's got," that would have been fine.

But because the ad is ambiguous about just what the guy might be using that condom for... it's not okay. Because it might piss off the pope. Because preventing disease transmission during casual sex is fine, preventing pregnancy during casual sex is not.

Holy shit.

You know, Knocked Up is a cute movie, it was funny and all, but do we really want strangers knocking each other up? It seems to me that if you don't wanna get HIV from a stranger you probably don't wanna get KID from that person either.

And I'm sure the execs at CBS and Fox agree with me--I'm sure that they use condoms with their casual sex partners, and encourage their privileged children to do the same. This isn't about the execs CBS and Fox believing condoms should never be used to prevent pregnancy, but CBS and Fox being terrified of the knuckle-dragging idiots on the religious right who think birth control is the moral equivalent of abortion.

Or maybe the problem was Trojans use of the word "evolve." Right-wing religious idiots have a problem with that too.


Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Next!

posted by on June 13 at 3:20 PM

The reviews for this week's installment of "Savage Love" are already rolling in, and they're decidedly mixed.

I've read you faithfully since junior year of high school, which makes it somewhere close to ten years now. I've always felt so much gratitude for filling the niche that you do, that I've never held it against you for persevering on politics (preaching to the choir). And I've never felt that you mailed it in--until this week.

I hope that you were either just proving a point, what with your merciless dismissals of these pathetic unconsidered inquiries, or merely overwhelmed by the luxury of some exotic excursion. But judging as how you usually regale us with stories of such adventures, I'll go out on a limb and suggest the job has begun to catch up with you. Say it ain't so! And, for the love of mankind, step it up next week, will you?

By the way, if you're ever around Boston, I'd love to buy you a beverage.

Jordan

I read you weekly in the Dig in Boston. I must say I prefer your amended, to-the-point responses in this "quickie" version of your usual column. You actually fit more bizarre stories and responses on one page, giving much more reading pleasure on a single page than usual.

Please consider this style moving forward and keep up the great work.

Brad In Boston

great advice in your latest column! you seem to be too busy to even bother... distracted? trouble at home? bored? where's the love mr. savage?

missing you

Amazing. This week's column is the best. More.

So, yeah, very mixed reviews on this week's column. Some folks loved it, some hated it. But I never phone 'em in, Jordan. This week's column actually took more time to pull together than one of my usual Dan-on-a-rant columns. It took me longer to pull together letters that could be dismissed with a word two than grabbing the first few interesting letters off the top of the pile and banging something out would have.

But, like, hey. They can't make everybody happy. And readers that were disappointed by this week's column--no venting? no self-indulgent digressions? no political rants?--are gonna enjoy next week's column, I promise...


Monday, May 28, 2007

Making Up Letters--Why Bother?

posted by on May 28 at 11:04 AM

Every day with the usual "Savage Love" mail I get one or two accusations of fraud: I have to make up the letters that appear in my column, distressed folks insist. People just aren't that... weird... are they? Usually I point to my own laziness in my defense: Why would I make up the mail? That would only mean more work for me--and I'm busy enough, thanks.

A recent letter in "Savage Love" from a man into ball busting--he enjoys being kicked in the nuts and found himself a nice young lesbian that enjoyed kicking 'em for him--earned a few dozen accusations of fraud. Being kicked in the balls? Surely no man is into that. I had to be making it all up. (Never mind the fetish websites out there for bull busters and ball bustees.)

Well, they do exist--and for proof I can point to this morning's newspapers. The AP reports the story of a sad, frustrated Canadian ball-bustee...

Police in Ontario are looking for a man who allegedly approached women and asked them to kick him in the groin. Three women reported similar incidents to police over the past two months, and two of the women reported the suspect was on a bicycle. None of the women reported injuries.

Police Sgt. Cate Welsh said Monday the man's request is not a crime, but they are concerned nonetheless. ''That kind of behavior tends to be a precursor to sexual assault.''

Yes, it is. But a welcomed assault on the ball-bustee, officer.


Friday, May 25, 2007

Commercial of the Day

posted by on May 25 at 2:32 PM

Here's how they sell condoms in France...

UPDATE: Says COMTE in comments...

Huh, I thought the punchline was going to be more along the lines of, "Don't want to raise a spoiled brat? Use condoms."

That's actually this condom commercial, COMTE...

My Life on the J List

posted by on May 25 at 2:11 PM

I'm proud to see my name on any list that includes Evan Wolfson, Alison Bechdel, Larry Kramer, Barney Frank, and Tony Kushner... but someone needs to let the bigots behind this website know that I'm not Jewish. I have a big nose, dark hair, a circumcision scar, and a penchant for hiring Jews (see here, here, and, of course, here), but I'm actually Irish Catholic.

And "Savage Love" isn't a "gay-themed sex-advice" column. It's a straight-themed sex-advice column written by a gay Catholic--that's the whole freakin' point, you dumb ass anti-semites.


Wednesday, May 23, 2007

A Feakle Matter

posted by on May 23 at 12:00 PM

This headline on an Irish newspaper's website caught my eye:

Clare priest 'deeply ashamed' by gay-website photos

So I clicked through my "priests behaving badly" Google Alert to the story itself. Good times...

A Co Clare Priest has put in a request for time away from his parish after photographs of him, allegedly from a gay website, were published in a tabloid newspaper.

Fr Michael Hogan today issued a statement acknowledging he breached his vow of celibacy, and has apologised to locals in the East Clare parish of Feakle. Fr Hogan said he was "deeply ashamed" at revelations concerning his use of a gay website in the Sun newspaper today, and his indiscretions in relation to his vow.

There's nothing shocking about Catholic priests violating their vows of celibacy, of course, but I may never recover from the shock of Feakle Parish. I about fell off my chair. I mean, how perfect is that? If Charles Dickens wrote gay porn he'd set it in Feakle parish.

But one aspect of this story disappoints. Was this Feakle priest hot? Did he have an easy time finding someone to come up and see him sometime in Feakle? Or did he have to leave Feakle parish to get a little action? We need a pic, Irish editors, to make that call. I'd go find 'em myself but there are four hundred papers called "the Sun" in Ireland and the UK. Am I supposed to go search 'em all? Gee, thanks loads.

I'm thinking "Feakle parish" needs to enter the lexicon with lower-case santorum. I shall now use it in a sentence: "Last night my boyfriend and I visited Feakle parish. Luckily there was no santorum."

UPDATE: Still no pictures of Fr Hogan. But a little web surfing took me to the Limerick Blogger. TLB reports that the good parishioners of Feakle have come out in support of their dirty-pic-postin, vow-of-celibacy-breachin' priest. Here's everything you ever wanted to know about Feakle. Feakle hosts an annual Feakle Festival in Feakle, and it's coming up. And you too can own a little piece of Feakle.

UPDATE 2: Still no pictures of Feakle's naughty priest. But I did find a picture of Pepper's Bar in downtown Feakle...

PeppersFeakle.jpg

...where you're welcome to come up to the bar push up a stool.


Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Everything Gives You Cancer

posted by on May 15 at 3:27 PM

My new column is up on the Stranger's website. I address the news that having oral sex with more than five partners increases a person's odds of developing throat cancer by 250%.

If you and your girlfriend have had more than five oral-sex partners in your lives, PBA, you are both 250 percent more likely to develop throat cancer than some sad asshole who's never had oral sex.

"Researchers believe," reports New Scientist, "[that] oral sex may transmit human papillomavirus (HPV), the virus implicated in the majority of cervical cancers," and the virus lodges in the throat, where it can cause cancer. Study subjects infected with HPV were 32 times more likely to develop throat cancer; folks who tested positive for one highly aggressive strain of the virus, HPV-16, were 58 times more likely to develop throat cancer. Smoking, previously believed to be the culprit behind most throat cancers, only triples a person's risk. (A new slogan for the tobacco industry: "Smoke cigs, not pole.")

A "Savage Love" reader crunched the numbers and sent this comforting email...

While there were many interesting ideas and findings in the recent Oral Sex/Cervical Cancer study from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the claims made by some is entirely out of proportion to reality. Some have claimed that the increase in risk due to throat cancer from oral sex in individuals is remarkably higher than those who do not engage in oral sex. Looking at the numbers, however, shows that this is simply not the case.

Tonsil and throat cancers affect about two in every 100,000 adults in the US, according to the New England Journal of Medicine (vol. 356, p. 1944), by way of New Scientist, "while [p]eople who have had more than five oral-sex partners in their lifetime are 250% more likely to have throat cancer than those who do not have oral sex."

Or, in other words, from 2 in 100,000 (1:50,000) (the norm) to 5 in 100,000 (1:20,000; as 250% more than 2:100,000 is 5:100,000). While this might seem like a substantial increase, keep the following information in mind: the ACTUAL percentage (not the relative percentage) is .002% in the normal case, and .005% in the other, the difference being .003 percentage points. In other words, if a man or woman has had more than five (5) oral-sex partners, then he/she is only 3 thousandths of a percent more likely to get throat cancer than someone else who abstains from oral sex.

While the data involving oral cancer from HPV is interesting and demands more study, this does not radically affect the average person who engages in oral sex. No one should be put off from oral sex due to these numbers, as cunnilingus and fellatio do NOT significantly increase one's risk of throat cancer.

Rock-Hard Numbers


Friday, May 4, 2007

The In & Out Box

posted by on May 4 at 12:36 PM

Fucking hell. You would think, at this point, I would know better than to read my "Savage Love" mail while I'm trying to eat my lunch.

I am a gay guy with only minimal sexual experience with females, teenage petting, etc. A straight friend recently played some straight porn for me of a female ejaculating. It was alright I guess but I couldn't help noticing that her anus repeatedly puckered out during her orgasm. I've never seen this before. know during female orgasm that the opening of the uterus moves down into the cervix, I think it is, to collect sperm. When this happens are the intestines, colon, anus, etc getting pushed out? And if so is it fair to say that when a woman has an orgasm she basically shits herself? I'm genuinely curious about this and mean no offence to my straight overlords who continue to such a great job making the world a better place to live, war and overpopulation notwithstanding.

Just A Bloke

Oh, man. Anyone want the rest of my sandwich?


Friday, April 27, 2007

Speaking Gigs

posted by on April 27 at 9:39 AM

This is why I go speak at colleges...

I'm a student at Western Washington University. I was at your Savage Love talk on this past Wednesday and I must say it was one of the most powerful talks that I have ever been too.

I first want to say, Thank you! One of the questions you answered was about people having a "gay voice." All my life I have been know as a "sissy fag" and I've always tried, no matter what, to change my voice, my walk and my mannerisms. Even my gay friends thought I was a little bit much at times. Never in my entire life has anyone said to me that it's ok to be a sissy and have the "gay voice" and it was natural and something I couldn't control. No one.

You don't know me personally or anything but hearing you say that made me feel finally accepted, and that I need not be ashamed of who I am. You don't know how much it means to me to hear that told to me after years of trying to hide or change who I am. For that I am thankful.

I must also admit that I am what you would call a chicken-shit. I'm a college student at a very liberal university but I still can't admit to some of my friends that I'm gay. But you have inspired me; I guess I have never really thought about the fact that if they don't accept me that maybe I don't want them as friends anymore. I need to be more honest and accepting of who I am if I wish to be happy.

Thank you very much. I wish I got a chance after the show to let you know how much of a positive impact your talk has had on my life but alas I promised to drive a friend home. I know you get lots of emails a day and I don't know when you will see this but I just wanted to let you know that you in the course of a couple hours have truly impacted and made a difference in my life.

Okay, the money's pretty good too. But this email really made the drive up to Bellingham worth it--and that's saying something, considering that the boyfriend brought the poodle, which promptly got car sick and threw up all over my coat, computer bag, and the back seat, and the car stank--stank--of dog vomit all the way up to Bellingham and all the way down to Seattle.


Thursday, April 26, 2007

Western Washington University

posted by on April 26 at 8:46 AM

I spoke to a large crowd of horny college students last night at Western Washington University. So what's on their minds up in Bellingham? Here are few of the questions put to me by WWU students...

Since when is sticking ones tongue and/or finger up the other's asshole without asking them 1st okay? And is it okay when they call you a pervert for liking it, even when you don't?
Can straight men enjoy sex toys? How & which ones?
Do you ride a unicycle?
How do you know you're in love?
Is there any tactful way to bring up the topic of sexual prowess with an older man one is trying to seduce? Say, an insecure older man one hasn't succeeded in convincing of his sexiness yet?
What is it you don't understand about transsexuality? Why is gender identity so hard for people to grasp? www.gendersanity.com
How's your poodle?

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Adoption Issues

posted by on April 19 at 2:57 PM

Good column today--I enjoyed reading it as usual. I wanted to point out, though, that one comment you made to the effect that all adoptions should be open really struck me as naive. In a situation like the one of the young woman in last week's column, yes it would be a nice option to have an open adoption.

In my case, my family of four (wife, me and two boys) adopted two kids from Ukraine in 2005. The littlest one was 18 months old at the time, and the elder was 3 1/2. The birth mom abandoned the little one at birth in the hospital, and the state came and took the elder one. She had--and has, as far as I know--severe alcohol problems, and is suspected of abuse (the elder has some pretty questionable scars). Do you think that she gives a shit? Do you think that if she ever wakes up and actually does give a shit that I ever want her showing up at my door saying "Mommy's here!" or anything else, for that matter? Not a chance.

I know it is highly unlikely, as she is half a world away. I also know that in the US, four weeks in re-hab, finding Jesus, and deciding she is a good mom after all is all most judges need to remove a child from a loving adoptive home. Precisely why we went to Ukraine. In Ukraine, the adoptive are, in the eyes of the law, and on the birth certificate, recognized as the birth parents.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone was nice, but it ain't so. Some people just should not be around children. Doesn't stop them from having them, though, does it? As you well know, if everyone had to go through all the trouble (and expense!) of adoption to get pregnant, the world's population would plummet.

B.F.

I hear you, B.F. But not all "open" adoptions are alike--they don't all involve high degrees of contact; some don't involve any ongoing, real-time contact at all. Some bio parents are so unfit to parent that even phone calls, let alone visits, are a danger to kids they couldn't take of in the first place. I still support "openness," however, even for what, in practice, may be closed adoptions.

In your case, I hope that your kids know their birth stories, where they come from, how they came into your lives. I feel they have a right to that information--no secrets, no lies. That is open adoption too.

Also, B.F., in Oregon, where my boyfriend and I adopted our son, the state placed my name and his on the birth certificate, and our adoption could only have been reversed if fraud was proved--and then only in the first year. So not all open adoptions involve the kind of risks you're concerned about.

Many parents that adopted in closed adoptions live in fear of their children's birth parents precisely because they know so little about them and imagine the worst. (Maybe what you imagine to be true about your children's birth mother is accurate, but maybe not.) In cases when it's possible for an adoptive parent to know his or her child's birth parents (and that's most cases, I believe), having the birth parent's blessing--to be chosen by the birth parent!--is tremendously empowering. It also honors the sacrifice that the birth parent is making. Knowing the birth parents can alleviate the anxiety--you don't have to worry about the birth parents coming for the child if you've met them, they picked you, and they're content with their choice.

In a closed adoption, the only way for the birth mom to ever see her child again is to sue for custody--to try and disrupt or reverse the adoption. In an open adoption--which, again, simply isn't possible in cases like yours--the birth parent or parents can have some mutually agreeable degree of contact, and see or hear from the child, without having to disrupt or reverse the adoption. I don't have stats but I would imagine that birth moms that have done open adoptions are, therefore, less likely to try and reverse the adoption--and, indeed, reversals of adoptions are pretty rare to begin with.

Thanks for writing.


Monday, April 2, 2007

Don't Leave Me, Debra Dickerson!

posted by on April 2 at 9:32 AM

Dear Debra,

That's some open letter you wrote me today on Salon. I've lost readers over the years, God knows, but never with quite so public a display of disaffection.

Your Savage Love sex advice column not only made me a better lover but a better person. You introduced me to people, places and things I would have never otherwise been aware of. You were my secret gay crush for five years. Or you used to be. But, sadly, this is both a fan letter and a Dear John, Dear Dan. It's over and it's better this way. You'll see. No, please, Dan--it's not you. It's me. But I'm hoping we can still be friends.

Of course we can still be friends, Debra. Why not? You intend to keep on reading Savage Love, but only for kicks now, no longer for tips. I've never asked my friends for more. As for the particular column that made you fall out of love with me--the one about a certain diaper-wearin' husband and the indulgent wife whose needs he was neglecting--I have to say that I'm surprised by your reading of it.

You trained me well, Dan. I know I should applaud my fellow savage for being so GGG (good, giving and game), but I don't. I think she should have headed for the hills at the first mention of Depends. I know I shouldn't think it. But the fact is that I do. Now, instead of regretting what I missed out on sexually, I'm terrified of what I might learn if I give the least hint of a sexual openness.

Oh, Debra. As a long-time reader of Savage Love, you should know that the appearance of a kink in the column--and there have been so many others, Debra, and so many worse ones--is not an endorsement, nor is it an indication that said kink has passed into the Must Go There Zone, i.e., it does not mean the kink has suddenly joined the list of kinks that an indulgent partner is expected to, well, indulge. It only means the kink... is. What to do about the kink, how to handle it, assess it, respond, and, if possible, incorporate the kink--that's where the advice comes in.

You describe me as "a raging 'mo with no boundaries," Debra, which is sweet and, oh, how I wish it were true! All people have boundaries and limits and hang-ups (me too!), and I've hammered that point home in Savage Love over the years. But I am guilty of insisting that, yes, there are times when it is worth considering expanding our boundaries and limits --for a particular person.

Paris is worth a mass and sometimes "Dave from accounting" is worth a spanking, you know what I mean? That's why I advise people to be "good, giving, and game," to be up for almost anything. Because people are package deals--you have to take the good with the bad, the relatives you like with the relatives you don't, and the desires that align neatly with your own with the kinks that sometimes challenge your ideas about what is and is not sexy. On a case-by-case basis, Debra, all of us will, over the course of our love lives, face moments when we have to decide if person A is worth engaging in kink B for.

When it comes to sex we sometimes mistake unfamiliarity for revulsion, and blurt out "no" without thinking. Really, how bad is, say, being with a foot fetishist? Is a little slobber on your toes too much to ask for love? Taking a hairbrush to someone's backside now and then? Too high a price to pay for love?

But I've never ordered people to charge out of the trenches, Debra, and do absolutely anything asked of them, ever, by a lover, however twisted, however objectively disgusting. All kinks are not created equal. Some kinks are revolting. (And some people with revolting kinks are thin-skinned and shortsighted. Hello, poop fetishists? If you're turned on because your kink is revolting and taboo then I'm helping to keep your kink hot by reinforcing the idea that it's revolting and taboo. You're welcome.) I describe a kink like a thing for poop as "a fetish too far," and I've told people with AFTF's that they should seek out like-minded fetishists online and refrain from springing their AFTF's on unsuspecting vanilla-to-GGG types. (Thank God for the internet, which has removed poop fetishists from the general dating pool! Thank you, Al Gore!)

And Debra, Debra, Debra. Your column today at Salon implies that my sympathies always lie with the kinkster. Not true! I'm harsh on kinky folks who take their indulgent partners for granted, kinksters who fail to recognize how good they've got it when they find someone that, unlike me and Debra, will "go there" on an issue like diapers. And you have to know that's my position, Debra, as it's in my response to the woman with the diaper-lovin' husband, a response that hardly reads like an endorsement of diaper fetishism--a response you don't quote in your piece! Your piece on Salon reads like I suggested that diaper fetishism is wholesome and sweet and somehow browbeat the woman who wrote in about her husband's kink. The diaper community--that's right, the diaper community--didn't see it that way. I got so much waa-waa-waa from adult babies for that column that I can't walk down the Depends aisle at Walgreens without shuddering. Here's my response, Debra:

Does your "baby girl" realize what he's got in you? The world is crawling—literally crawling—with adult babies who are alone and single and miserable and always will be. While the internet has made it possible for adult babies to find each other, a shared interest in nappies and nurseries doesn't guarantee compatibility. Plus, female adult babies are scarcer than folks who can read "my husband whines and cries and pretends to be a baby during sex" without hurling. Your husband should be doing everything in his power to keep you happy.

My advice: Take that break. Cut the brat off—no more baby games until he can successfully wrap his bonnet around this: Your pleasure matters as much as his does. He may not be interested in regular sex, but he better learn to fake it convincingly. And finally, BA, tell him that his continued failure to meet your vanilla needs is gonna get his diapered ass divorced, leaving him single and shit out of luck, sex-partner wise, for the rest of his adult infancy.

"Dump the honest foot fetishist," I warned a woman a few weeks ago, "and I guarantee that you will marry the dishonest necrophiliac." That's the Karmic Rule of Kink. But vanilla partners are not the only ones subject to KROK. For kinksters lucky enough to be with generous vanilla partners, your somewhat-less-pithy version of KROK goes like this: "Drive off an understanding, adventurous partner by failing to joyfully accommodate his or her desires for vanilla sex and you will NEVER get your kinky rocks off again without having to pay a pro $500 an hour to put up with your bullshit."

Frankly, Debra, I don't see how you get from that response to this strange epiphany:

Now, instead of regretting what I missed out on sexually, I'm terrified of what I might learn if I give the least hint of a sexual openness. Now it's me who's on the down low, repressing my sexual fantasies for fear of what his might be. I'm the hall monitor geek in the coming-of-age movie who cuts physics for an orgy only to wake up with a persistent itch, a stalker and a big, fat secret to keep buried deep inside. I simply do not want to know what bland Dave in accounting keeps in his spare room.

It took a gay activist to convert me to don't ask, don't tell, and regretfully, I'm going to have to DTMFA. Hard as I tried, it turns out that I'm not so good, not very giving and definitely gone. I'm not dumping the column--can't live without it. But I'll be reading as a peeping Tom, not an acolyte.

And reading this in your column made me feel like all my efforts at Savage Love have been wasted:

Now, instead of regretting what I missed out on sexually, I'm terrified of what I might learn if I give the least hint of a sexual openness.

Sexual openness does not create kinks, Debra, nor can sexual closedness protect you from them. Oh, you can run from kinks but you can't hide. Unless you intend to settle down with a Hitachi Magic Wand, odds are good that you will have to come to terms with a kink or two. You have a kinky appointment in Samara, Debra. Because people are kinky, and men are particularly kinky. Women, in my experience (all book learnin', but lots of it), tend to get kinkier as they get older. Something about sexual peaks, which men hit earlier than women, makes people freaky. Our sexual energy--whether we're male or female, gay, straight, or bi--has never fit inside the "normal" box into which we stupidly insist on stuffing it. Human sexuality bursts boxes--and, yes, sometimes diapers.

When you fall in love, Debra, please know that I'm still here for you. Hopefully it won't be diapers or poop or beating off parakeets, but it'll be something. And I'm confident that the lessons you learned reading about more extreme kinks in my column--lessons about kindness, compassion, mutual respect, a sense of fun, and being open to possibility--will apply.

So there's still hope for you, Debra. You may be a wild child yet. I'll see you in Samara.

Sincerely,

Dan


Friday, March 9, 2007

"Do You Ever Take Drugs So That You Can Have Sex Without Crying?"

posted by on March 9 at 7:27 AM

After the live "This American Life" recording at the Paramount on Wednesday night, I got home at around midnight, went to bed, got up at 4 AM, and headed to Sea-Tac. I flew United ("We Know Why You Fly--Because You Have To, Motherfucker. No One Would Subject Themselves to Our Bullshit Willingly") all the way to Bloomington, Illinois, where I spoke to three hundred students at Illinois Wesleyan University about sex, female ejaculation, Mary Cheney, gender roles, bisexuality, coming out, parenting, and same-sex marriage--all on three hours of sleep.

Before the talk the students filled out three-by-five cards with their questions. Using cards allows students to anonymously ask questions they might be embarrassed to ask out loud in front of their friends. I always take the cards with me when I leave--I don't want people fishing cards out of the trash after the talk to see if particular question is written in their boyfriend, girlfriend, or sorority sister's handwriting. I'm at Bloomington's teensy airport now, waiting for my flight, looking through last night's cards, trying to remember if I said anything that's going to get the Student Senate or the Pride Alliance in trouble for bringing me here.

So what's on the minds of the students at Illinois Wesleyan? Here are some sample questions from last night...

Settle a bet for me: Is the anus self-lubricating?
Does using a vibrator desensitize you?
Why couldn't my boyfriend ever keep it up?
What is the relationship, if any, between lesbian/bisexual gender roles and strap-on sex?
How did you find the courage to come out to your family?
What's your favorite posish?
What do you do if you're a horny woman and the guy you're dating refuses to have sex with you?
I have a fantasy about having two dicks and double penetrating my girlfriend. Can I use regular strap-on or is there a "special" variety for men with this fantasy?
Is it possible that after anal sex with my boyfriend, his dick will have poop on it?
How can a woman make herself orgasm? (Be specific!)
Female ejaculation--what's that about?

Monday, January 15, 2007

Cuckolding Confusion

posted by on January 15 at 4:04 PM

This week's "Savage Love" touched on race. I advised a white man that felt guilty about his desire to be cuckolded by a black man—that is, to have a black man fuck his wife in front of him—that it was possible for him to act on his "racist" fantasies and still be considered a good progressive. (You can read it here.)

Some felt my response was racist....

The question Can't Understand Cuckold Kink asked was racist, and your response was racist. A person cannot consider himself anything but sick and inhuman if their sexual gratification derives from the debased objectification of other people, regardless of anyone's consent. Your entire argument would have one believe that a person's sexuality should operate under situational ethics. I disagree. There's never a good time to derive sexual pleasure from Black male dehumanization—not because of a question of consent, but because such treatment disavows the very concept of Black male humanity no matter what. It's just wrong.... Frankly, I don't know how anyone can consent to their own degradation, but a person can't consider their fantasy objectifying another person and still perform said act because the soon-to-be-objectified person 'consented.'

J. L.

While others felt it was not racist...

I am a faithful reader of "Savage Love" in the Philadelphia Weekly and after having just read your advice to CUCK (Can't Understand Cuckold Kink) about the white man with a cuckold fantasy I felt the urge to give you kudos. As a heterosexual black woman, I have constantly been aware of the black, verile, "birth of a nation" stereotype and even though I am not a man, it has constantly bothered and insulted me to an indescribable point. I think you handled the advice very well, with just the right amount of social/racial consciousness and honesty but also bringing it back to what CUCK wanted which was sex advice. I'll not go off into a tirade on racism & stereotypes b/c #1 that'd take forever and #2 that's not what i want this email to be about.

Good to see there is another person out there with some sense regarding race that isn't Black themselves. I'd call that progress and it does give me hope.

Girl With A New Appreciation For Savage

And some folks thought I missed the point...

There's more to the b/w cuckold thing than what you wrote in your advice. At least in some situations, the white man who fantasizes/worries about "his" woman being fucked/raped by black men is actually transfering to the white woman his own unacknowledged lust for black men. The giant glistening black cocks are for him, not her.

Also, in the past two hundred years, identifying yourself as white, masculine and hetero has meant at least two three relationships of dominance: being dominant over non-whites, being dominant over "effeminate" or homosexual men, and being dominant over women of all colors. As writers and scholars of colonialism (George Orwell in "Shooting An Elephant," Ashis Nandy in THE INTIMATE ENEMY) have pointed out, this exercise in relentless dominance is pretty tiring, and sometime what the white/masculine/hetero man wants is to hang up his racial and gendered boots
and NOT be so dominant.

The "white man's burden" is precisely that: a burden, associated with particular ideologies of whiteness and masculinity. The burden can generate fantasies of equality (as it did with Orwell in BURMESE DAYS and E.M. Forster in A PASSAGE TO INDIA), or it can generate fantasies of being reduced to the state of the cuckold, where the top dog gets to be dominated for a change, and FREED, paradoxically enough, from the burden of having to be so relently white/manly/straight.

A third fantasy is identification, where the white man wants to BECOME black. CUCK's fantasy of watching a black man fuck his wife is related to late-19th and early-20th century blackface performances. Listen to Marlon Riggs in the documentary ETHNIC NOTIONS: the blackface performance was entertaining to whites because it set them free to act out their inner desires, unconstrained by the rules of whiteness. Your letter-writer doesn't just want to see a black man fuck his wife, he also wants to BE the black man fucking his wife. The black guy boning his wife is his own self, in blackface.

Sorry about the lecture. I teach history, if that's any excuse.

Satadru

And, finally, it seems that Oprah isn't interested this subject...

I just read your Village Voice article about the white male cuckold who dreams of a black dude fucking his wife. I just wanted to state that I'm a black man in New York City. I'm a member of several Yahoo groups that cater to white women that love fucking black men. You'd be surprised at the number of white males that post messages to the group seeking black men to fuck their wives. I've even emailed Oprah Winfrey about this, and suggested she do a show about it. Of course, I've never gotten a reply.

I once fucked an attractive 40something white businesswoman in a Manhattan hotel room while her husband watched and jerked off. White men watching black men fuck their wives or girlfriends is one of America's biggest secrets.

Well Endowed Black Man Enjoys Boffing Any Cuckold's Spouse


Thursday, January 11, 2007

Savage Love Poll

posted by on January 11 at 3:51 PM

pro_amputees.jpg

Today I got into a debate with a "Savage Love" reader. He felt that his fetish—he's into amputees—was less kinky than BDSM. I begged to differ. We leave it to you, Slog readers, to decide. Who's kinkier? Dudes that want to make sweet, sweet vanilla love to girls and/or boys that happen to be missing one or more limbs? Or dudes that want to be tied up and smacked around by girls and/or boys with four fully functioning limbs?

Vote for the one you think is kinkier...


Create polls and vote for free. dPolls.com

Thanks to Mr. B. for helping my tech-unsavvy ass pull this poll together. And sorry about the graphic—the very cheesy, highly heterosexist graphic. It was imposed on us in a non-consensual fashion.