Who?

The main thing about freedom is that we're all allowed to make our own choices about what works best for us. The conservatives don't like that.

This argument that gay people are not monogamus enough for marriage is such bullshit. As Dan has pointed out numerous times and most everybody with two eyes and ears can find out for themselves, men are bad at monogamy. The pious always use the ideal to argue against reality. That's because reality is their enemy.

"And I've never been unfaithful to my husband. Not once."

...If you both agree to the terms, it's not being unfaithful...

I see what you did there.

@4 Really? You got that? Wow. Gold star.

Jesus may save Chuck Colson's sorry ass, but I don't have to forgive him. He forfeited the right to wag a finger in anybody's face, let alone mine, forty-some years ago.

Regarding Badash, a) he should try to marry a dude named Goodwood so he can change his name, and b) I can't help wishing that fewer gays had reading-comprehension problems than straights, but that's not the way the world works.

David's article didn't sound all that pissed off to me ...
he seems pretty well disposed towards you, Dan.

Certainly his article was more favorable towards you than
towards Chuck Colson, author of the book he was reviewing.

Did he hit a nerve when he defined "unfaithful" the way most monogamists would? Or are you just using SLOG to give him a plug? If it's the latter, bear in mind that you're also plugging Chuck's little book when you do that.

Got haters? That just means you're big-time now...

Yeah, bigger spotlight usually means you get a wider audience - cover of the NYT Magazine..? Very nice - & you get to use your voice as a force for good (IGBP). But it also means your critics are gonna turn up the volume. Perhaps the timing could have been better but this is a message of yours for many years now.

It's got people talking about monogamy, at least - both 'haters' & fans - that's gotta be all to the good in the end.

I can't help wishing that fewer gays had reading-comprehension problems than straights, but that's not the way the world works.

Indeed.

One of the problems we get when minorities are re-enfranchised and have full equality is that suddenly it becomes possible to see that they are, well, people. Just like the majority that had always had all the rights and privileges.

While you're fighting the good fight, you think of the sad cases -- of the gay couples who dearly love each other and made a beautiful commitment that they respect and cherish. Because they do make us all feel sad about injustice. You don't mention the less perfect cases, because they don't seem to show the injustice -- the less imperfect cases will only be food for the antis, who'll say they're less perfect because they belong to that minority (in this case, gays). "Of course they're imperfect; they're gays!"

And the antigays will go on pointing that out to every less-than-perfect gay couple for a while still. Just like antifems like to point out that some women are indeed horrible bitches that make their husband suffer. Just like racists like to point out that some Blacks are indeed violent criminals who'd rape you to tears.

The answer is of course to point out that the very same majority has the very same problems... so that what's going on is that we're seeing the 'oppressed minority' is not only composed of martyrs and saints, but of actual people.

Which was the point of equality, right? We're all people.

But ah! how difficult it will be to argue that in the middle of the finger-pointing forest!...

It's difficult to be a moderate.

Seems to me the essential problem is equating monogamy with faithfulness, and faithfulness with monogamy.

I would argue that "monogamy" has a pretty specific meaning (and would be why we see Dan using the word "monogamish"), but faithfulness has many meanings, even in strictly the het world (ever heard of "eating isn't cheating" -- *and* that not everyone agrees that's true).

So really, "faithfulness" has to be defined between each couple. Monogamy doesn't, except to distinguish it from faithfulness.

I don't understand the uproar aboout non-monogamy, or why people willfully distort your position as "Cheating is okay!" That's just the thing: Cheating is the problem, but cheating means lying, deception, betrayal. If more couples feel the freedom (and none of the shame) to negotiate a "degree of openness," as you often say, then there will be less cheating in relationships.

Because it's only cheating if it's against the rules, and all couples should have the freedom to set the rules for themselves, not have rules imposed on them by society at large.

I agree with the haters on one level. One reason I support gay marriage is because of how it will change marriage -- in particular how it changes marriage from a structure rife with gender assumptions to one where no one knows which person is supposed to be taller, nag more, earn the big salary, change diapers, bake brownies, have affairs.

I agree with Colson that gay marriage (and feminism) are very "bad news for our [patriarchal] culture." I just disagree with him on the value of that patriarchal culture.

Dan, for an opinionated and outspoken guy, sometimes you seem a bit thin-skinned.

I'm sorry- David who? Which David are we talking about?

*looks at the title after posting. Gets sheepish*

You schooled him, Dan.

Seriously, where do you get off claiming that more than half of gay male couples are or will be nonmonogamous?

This is all the same stuff as the civil rights movement. There were those who said that blacks should act like whites and if they were polite enough they might get equal rights. Then there were those who said that equal rights were worth fighting for and advocated for a less polite approach. Dan has always said stuff to piss off the "polite is right" crowd.

@11: http://th04.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/20…

I'm a straight hetero-sexual woman, but you are more than welcome to speak for me.

We'll blame the redundancy on the wine.

A lot of people are really bad at eating less and exercising more, too. Naturally, even! How many times do we have to hear this pathetic argument that men are simply bad at monogamy, and so we'll just have to live with that? It's also a very demeaning argument for the men who aren't bad at it.

That said, Dan is correct: the right to marriage doesn't depend on whether your particular approach to the daily life of marriage suits anyone else. You either have the same rights as other people, or you don't. Where I think Dan is wrong is that he overestimates the number of gay male couples who aren't interested in monogamous marriage. However, I think it's just as likely that marriage will change the cultural norms for gay men as it is that gay men will change the cultural norms for marriage.

Once we have full marriage equality for all people, it can be come the significant dividing line between kinds of relationships that it is for heterosexuals at present. More hetero people cheat when they're dating than will cheat when they're married, and they value fidelity in the marital relationship more than they do in dating. It's no surprise that things haven't been this way for people who were pressured to live in hiding and silence, with no way of having their long-term, faithful relationships celebrated and supported in society the way that marriages usually are. You also see differences between older and younger women, when examining fidelity in lesbian relationships, so it's not clear that the differences are solely a function of sex/gender, as opposed to a complex cause including cultural influence.

@18- Of course over 50% of male couples have had sex outside their relationships- they're made OF MEN. Men seek to have sex with as many partners as possible. Put two of them in a relationship- monogamish is as good as it'll get for the majority of them. Better to negotiate terms than to blow the relationship up because....OH NOES- YOU CHEATED ON ME! [but I've cheated on you, too]
Dan can represent the queer community just fine. He speaks reality in all things- no hypocrisy, no delusions, just the unvarnished reality.

david badash's article is concern trolling at it's finest.

@25 Suzy says: A lot of people are really bad at eating less and exercising more, too. Naturally, even! How many times do we have to hear this pathetic argument that men are simply bad at monogamy, and so we'll just have to live with that? It's also a very demeaning argument for the men who aren't bad at it.

Great analogy! Let's go with it: The more restrictive the eating/exercise routine, the less sustainable. How many weeks would you say you've been able to consistently maintain a daily workout routine plus a no sugar/flour/fats diet before you find yourself secretly shoveling in ice cream straight from the carton while standing over the sink? A plan for healthy living that opens up the possibility of enjoying some of your favorite foods in moderation is going to get better long term results.

Why is this idea so threatening to people?

@28 Nice. I have an effective exercise regimen and most of my diet is clean, healthy food, packed with fruits and vegetables. I have lost weight, gained muscle, and feel extremely energized. How do I keep it up? I have a little bit of chocolate every day, and gelato, froyo, or ice cream 3-4 times a week. It balances out well and I've never felt better.

Being poly, I deeply appreciate that there is at least one nationally known figure who is pointing out the truth: that relationships are healthier when people opt-in to rules they define according to their own needs, rather than what's expected of them by this massive force we call "society."

My parents divorced because of an affair. Wrecked my family and had a devastating impact on my life. It is part of what drove me learn about polyamory, to get far away from a relationship model I didn't understand. If my parents were both up for an open marriage, we could have stayed together as a family. They were both great parents and would have made great friends, as they ended up becoming later on.

The backlash to the NYT article serves to prove the notion that illiteracy isn't just about knowing how to read period, it's about reading comprehension. Dan has made it clear time & time again how his marriage works. In the context of what Dan's said about his marriage he has not been unfaithful. It's not that difficult to understand. The thing that seems to throw most people is that Dan is upfront & honest. People aren't used to that.

As for Colson, EricaP said it perfectly @13

I agree with Colson that gay marriage (and feminism) are very "bad news for our [patriarchal] culture." I just disagree with him on the value of that patriarchal culture.

Here's what pisses me off about the Dan-haters (and the gay-haters, and the black-haters and every other damn thing): marriage, gay or straight, should be about what the two people in it say it's about. Monogomy? Great. Mostly exclusive but sometimes with a hot [fill in the blank]? Excellent. No sex at all? Fabulous. As long as those two people agree, then that works. So when the argument against the gay/black/asian/hispanic/jewish/blahblah marriage is "but they'll RUIN it for everyone else", it just makes me want to find a rooftop and a machine gun.

Besides, if you're in agreement with your partner (sorry, Dan, I know you hate that word) and the dishes get done and the toilets get swished, and the checking account isn't permanently overdrawn and you LIKE EACH OTHER, then you can figure it out. 'Cause, frankly? The financial stuff is way harder to deal with, and is, I think, why we're focused on this marriage thing.

@28: On your "extended" analogy, monogamy would indeed be grossly restrictive, since it's not allowing us to enjoy ourselves. Why would you assume that monogamy has to be so unenjoyable, comparable to some kind of no fat/sugar/flour diet in which you're never satisfied? Maybe for you it's like that, but not for me.

The point is, some people like monogamy, and don't feel like they're not getting to eat their ice cream! But Dan insists that it's so very, very hard, and that men are simply bad at it. Never mind the many men who stay faithful and don't cheat. Meanwhile, those of their partners who are good at it, for whom it's not hard, just have to live with the male nature and accept a little being cheating on as "success"! Literally, Dan said that men who step out only a few times in the course of a long marriage are very good at monogamy.

"Why is this idea so threatening to people?"
It's not threatening to me if other people want to have and enjoy honest, non-monogamous relationships. I think that's terrific, and it's what I preferred when I wasn't married. However, I DO find it threatening when people press the idea that men are nonmonogamous as the norm, and that failure to accept this is hopeless, and many people therefore need to either live with cheating or open our relationships. B.S. People differ, their desires differ, and there is nothing unnatural, negative, or inherently difficult about monogamy, including for the many men who prefer it.

In short, I don't see why, to make a space for nonmonogamy, we have to falsely denigrate and attack monogamy, and promote a distorted view of male sexuality.

Ken, what is the actual evidence for that? Going by personal anecdote alone, almost every guy I've ever dated has wanted monogamy, even when he had other options in the relationship.

#35: Of course they say that, Suzy, because that's what they they think you want to here. And perhaps they believed it at the time. Let's see what happens 5-10 years down the road.

And that was "hear," sorry--all the heat and humidity have affected my brain.

Why would they think I wanted to hear that, when I was actively telling them otherwise? I can believe that the demand for monogamy stems in part from wanting to control the partner's behavior, rather than any special desire on one's own part for long-term fidelity. Still, that's how it was. And long-term fidelity is how it is in my marriage now, because that's what we want--although, as Dan so respectfully reminds us, we could be duped and cheating on each other, for all we know.

@14 - you hit the nail on the head. Dan, this is bullshit. Gays won't EVER get shit together if we argue amongst each other. Anybody could read that shit and see that David was NOT attacking you OR your non-monogamous life.

For someone who has chosen non-monogamy, you sure seem threatened when someone discusses your choices. What happened to being proud of who you are and not giving a fuck what others think? Your writings and podcasts influenced me to be me and I'm grateful for that, but it seems like sometimes the columnist needs to read his own columns.

This reminds me of people who say we shouldn't have Pride Parades because the leather daddies or drag queens or dykes on bikes or (name whatever group makes you feel uncomfortable) make other gay people look bad. It kind of reminds me of Bruce Bawer saying that "radical gay activists" make other gay people look bad. We all must all behave perfectly and should refer to The Donna Reed Show if we have any questions about what it means to do so. We must never say or do anything that might offend anyone's grandmother, dead or living. Perhaps we should all just shut up and pretend to be straight like we used to do. Then the religious right or whoever else might like us a little bit better and vote for our equal rights.

This reminds me of people who say we shouldn't have Pride Parades because the leather daddies or drag queens or dykes on bikes or (name whatever group makes you feel uncomfortable) make other gay people look bad. It kind of reminds me of Bruce Bawer saying that "radical gay activists" make other gay people look bad. We all must all behave perfectly and should refer to The Donna Reed Show if we have any questions about what it means to do so. We must never say or do anything that might offend anyone's grandmother, dead or living. Perhaps we should all just shut up and pretend to be straight like we used to do. Then the religious right or whoever else might like us a little bit better and vote for our equal rights (after all, we shouldn't have equal rights unless people are willing to vote for them).

Now that all has been said and done, I suppose, since I'm the subject of the piece, I'm entitled to the right to respond?
"Monogamy: Dan Savage Calls Me Out"
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/mon…
Thanks.
David Badash

I'll admit that occasionally I pick up a vibration that makes Mr Savage's positive/ish comments about monogamy feel like President Obama's negative/ish comments about marriage equality, but I can live with that.

I always like how Dan tells it like it is. I rely on him for that.

Unfortunately too many people don't really want the truth...and would rather believe in fantasies and lie to themselves.

Though I can understand how members of the LGBT community are anxious, impatient and not willing for thornier topics to get outed and examined, I like how marriage equity serves to dispel erroneous thinking on both sides of the issue.

Despite the obvious political costs I respect Dan for taking on these human liberation issues.

42

Well reasoned and well put.

You're burned, Danny......