Savage Love Podcast Comments

 

Comments (38) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Dan, please stop snacking during interviews. You're not fooling anyone. Ugh, moist mouth,
Posted by Bexatx on December 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM · Report this
2
Thank you for the rant at the top of the show. It was necessary and brought to light many issues and, I hope, a lot of awareness.
There are just a few things I would like to clarify:
-Savita did not ask for a termination or an abortion. She asked to receive standard medical care, which she was denied.
-Her diagnosis, an inevitable abortion which resulted in septicemia, is treated the same way as an ectopic pregnancy: ending the pregnancy. Her 17-week fetus with a heartbeat that her body was trying to expel was no more viable than a tubal pregnancy with a heartbeat that is an imminent threat of causing internal bleeding and death.
-Her doctors allowed their personal morals to cloud their medical judgement. To my knowledge, there is no law against treating a medical diagnosis with the appropriate medical treatment that, in Savita's case, she was denied. Again, I would use the example of an ectopic pregnancy, from which I hope women in Ireland are not dying.
-Terminating pregnancies save women's lives in both planned and unplanned pregnancies. As an OB/Gyn, it is a crucial part of my job.
-I am morally opposed to regularly eating a poor diet, but I would not deny someone treatment for a heart attack
Posted by @LeahNTorres on December 4, 2012 at 9:05 AM · Report this
3
The remainder of my comment was cut off. I just wanted to say that I work to ensure women receive safe, high-quality reproductive health care that they need and desire. Savita's death is devastating, infuriating, needless, and should not happen to anyone else.
Posted by @LeahNTorres on December 4, 2012 at 9:10 AM · Report this
4
Perhaps "pro-fetus" would be more accurate than "pro-life"? Where was the advocacy for Savita's life? If you were really "pro-life" wouldn't saving one life be better than saving none?
Posted by Nom de Plume on December 4, 2012 at 9:26 AM · Report this
5
The opening rant was depressing and upsetting, but I want to let you know that I did make a donation to NARAL because of it.
Posted by Dreamflight on December 4, 2012 at 9:39 AM · Report this
6
@ Nom de Plume "Perhaps "pro-fetus" would be more accurate than "pro-life"? Where was the advocacy for Savita's life? If you were really "pro-life" wouldn't saving one life be better than saving none?"

Honestly, the hand-in-hand conservative capital punishment position is what keeps them from being "pro-life". Even Rome has its head wrapped more firmly around this issue than American evangelicals... and that's fucking saying something.
Posted by Nate on December 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM · Report this
7
To the lesbian dealing with the awkward ex situation: I experienced a similar thing, I'm straight but it was a very small and very social town. I had left it for two years to get space from my ex but eventually had to return and face him and his new relationship. It was sooo scary and hard at first, but then one night the new girlfriend had some drinks then introduced herself to me. By the end of the night we were hanging out together and in time we became friends from a distance. When the time came for her to think about leaving the relationship, she was able to gain perspective from my experience with him. So Dan is right, just be upfront with the awkwardness and use booze for bravery!
Posted by Smoo on December 4, 2012 at 10:53 AM · Report this
ScienceNerd 8
I was interested in the call from the woman about childhood sexual play. I was always a sexually curious child and encouraged my friends to play in those ways. I have assumed as an adult that there was something wrong with me, perhaps I had been abused by an adult and have forgotten it... but now I'm thinking I may just have been a regular kid with just a bit more body fascination. It was so nice to hear that many children behave this way.
Posted by ScienceNerd http://stanichium.tumblr.com/ on December 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM · Report this
9
As long as you say the f word about evangelicals while preaching to the choir it's all good? But if you tell an opinionated fool w/0 any formal psychological trainining or an advanced degree to shut the f up about their uniformed ideas it's bad? On your forum here.
Posted by scorpio of Id. on December 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM · Report this
10
Wait, why exactly can't lesbians find a different bar or make different friends? I understand that bars can be homophobic, but you're certainly not beholden to spend time with ONLY other lesbians.
Posted by morgana on December 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM · Report this
11
Two things:
1) While I agreed with most of what your guest had to say, I was horrified that she went into such great, apologetic depth about how "all women who have abortions" take it deeply seriously and blah blah blah. Can we stop apologizing for our rights already? Please? I had an abortion and I'm not sorry and I don't have to explain it to anyone. The end.
2) Airing the comment from the anti-fattie guy at the end was the single wimpiest thing I've ever heard. Dan, if you hate fatties and want to lecture us, do it yourself instead of using someone else as your mouthpiece so you don't get yelled at. (And: hey, you're still getting yelled at! But this time, it's for being a wimp.)
Posted by zippyzippyzippy on December 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM · Report this
12
@11: I dunno, I am glad that Dan's guest talked about how studies show that women who have abortions take the decision seriously. Because unlike every rant Dan has ever done, in that moment she wasn't preaching to the choir - she was reaching out to pro-lifers, articulating their reservations about abortion, and constructing an eloquent counter-argument. I think that's just as important as stating baldly that abortion is a human right.

Also, @11, I don't think "hating fatties" is really the point. All Dan has said - all the caller said in this podcast - is that it's hard for overweight people to lose weight, even impossible for some, but it's vital for most.
Posted by dchari on December 4, 2012 at 8:13 PM · Report this
13
Dan, since you waited a few weeks to get someone else on to spaek with you about about Savita Halappanavar's tragic death, it might have been an idea for you to get a journalist who knew anything about Irish abortion law.

The European courts didn't rule that Ireland must allow abortion in the case of suicide risk. The Irish supreme court ruled that Ireland's own constitution already allowed for abortion when the mothers life is at risk, including risk from suicide. The European Court ruled 18 years later that Ireland needed to legislate for this supreme court decision.

Irish constitutional law has since the 80s affirmed the equal right to life of the mother and the fetus. There is however no legislation or regulation offering guidance on the specific circumstances inwhich this applies.

in 1992 a 14 year old girl was taken to court to prevent her having an abortion. The Irish supreme court eventually ruled that as the girl was suicidal she was entitled to an abortion on the grounds that her life was at risk.

The Irish government has since run 2 referendums to remove the threat of suicide as grounds for abortion. Both have been narrowly defeated. No legislation or regulation has been forthcoming.

In 2010 three Irish women who had had abortions in the UK took the Irish government to the European court on the grounds that their constitutional right to an abortion in Ireland had been violated. The court ruled that Ireland must legislate to allow women to access the extremely limited abortion rights that their constitution guarantees. No legislation has been forthcoming.

In 2012 two Bills legislating for abortion in the extremely limited circumstances where the mother's life is at rick have been rejected by the Irish government.
More...
Posted by keyboardcouch on December 5, 2012 at 2:44 AM · Report this
shw3nn 14
@11 That caller was yelling at Dan for being a coward. He was chastising Dan for cowing to the obese people who want him to shut up about the obesity epidemic.

The obesity epidemic is a real thing. It is an actual problem. It is a major issue in the U.S.

I don't want to make anybody feel bad about themselves but I also worry about the obesity epidemic. Because it is worrisome.

There is your insecurity on one hand and there is loss of life on the other. Do you see how, ultimately, that isn't much of a dilemma?

Dan is regularly punished for talking about a far reaching, fast spreading, life ending, life ruining problem that our nation faces. Why? Because it makes some people feel insecure. Think about that. What exactly is the metric for wimpy behavior, here?

I see a lack of courage, just not where you do.
Posted by shw3nn on December 5, 2012 at 10:05 AM · Report this
15
We all know Dan hates fatties. But he had the good sense in that previous show being commented on to know that advising the original caller to go all Susan Powter on her 71-year-old, 350 lb. father wasn't going to do any good. To the call-in guy on this show: great, glad you lost over 100 pounds. I've done it twice myself. I'll bet you are nowhere close to 70 years old, either. People that age generally don't pursue drastic lifestyle changes.

The caller who said she rocked the furry boy's world in high school? She wins the GGG award. Dude, whoever you are, marry HER. It'll never get any better than that for you.
Posted by marmer on December 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
16
This is definitely not as terrible as the story at the top, but where I live in NC, women have to wait 24 hours and be shamed and forced to have an ultrasound and told they're ending a life to have an abortion. A family friend of mine was having a miscarriage, and the doctors determined they could not save the baby, but still had to go through the same script and ultrasound process before terminating her pregnancy that was already terminating itself.
Posted by Magicalyn on December 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM · Report this
shw3nn 17
"We all know Dan hates fatties."

Not all of us. No.

There are some of us who think this is a transparently self-serving accusation made by overweight and obese people desperate to protect the delicate web of denial they have woven for themselves.

15 and 11 are gentle reminders to Dan that, if he even so much as suggests that overweight and obesity have some fairly dangerous health risks associated with them, there will come a typing of fury upon his inbox that will shut down his servers from the edge of night on.

Take heed, Mr. Cockmucher. Take heed.
Posted by shw3nn on December 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM · Report this
shurenka 18
Ugh, the biohazzard panties. So disgusting. D:
Posted by shurenka on December 5, 2012 at 2:07 PM · Report this
19
Regarding fatties. . . yep, there's an obesity epidemic. Yep, being overweight increases various health risks. Yep, we should all try to be as healthy as we can. Eat lots of veggies, exercise, and realize that soda is liquid satan, people.

However, "healthy" looks different on different people. I'm muscular, have excellent blood sugar, cholesterol levels, and BP bordering on too low. I exercise every day and have a physical job. My doctor does not think I need to lose anything. But still I get called "fatass" with extraordinary frequency. This has even happened while I was exercising.

Suddenly everyone thinks it's ok to police the physical health of total strangers, and it's REALLY not. Those of us who are never going to be skinny, even if it's because we're muscular (at least if we're also female) have to deal with almost constant verbal abuse about it. I understand why people who are not assholes have a hard time expressing concern while not wanting to be jerks.

I also figure giving a seventy year old a pass is not enabling the rest of the overweight world.
Posted by KDru on December 5, 2012 at 7:23 PM · Report this
20
What does GGG mean?
Posted by SuprDuprShyGuy on December 5, 2012 at 8:30 PM · Report this
noodles' girl 21
Dan, I think you need a separate podcast for politics. I tune into the Lovecast for entertainment and I got 15 minutes of depressing information. Quite a different mood was set at the top of this. Lovecast is fun and entertaining, dead babies and mothers are very sad.
Posted by noodles' girl on December 6, 2012 at 4:34 AM · Report this
22
@ 20 google is your friend.
Posted by agony on December 6, 2012 at 8:34 AM · Report this
23
Noodles' girl are you poly? Do you have two or more lovers who both go by the same handle, either "noodle" or "noodles?" If you are possessed by a single entity by the name of either "noodle" or "noodles," then it's "noodle's girl" or "noodles's girl," depending. If you're just a girl who really likes noodles, then it's "noodles girl." We none of us like grammar nazis on the internet, but if your misuse of apostrophes gets everybody confused about whether you're polyamorous or just like carbohydrate a lot, it's a bigger problem than simply you broke a grammar rule: it's interfering with your attempt to make sense. It wasn't a dead baby. It was a dead fetus. A dead fetus that spent a few days suffering needlessly before its inevitable death. Miscarriage can't be too much fun for the fetus either. Maybe they figured they couldn't intervene to stop the suffering of the fetus because that, too, was God's Plan? I didn't know about the dead fetus or the dead woman before I heard the podcast. I'm glad I know about it now. If you don't value the politics, noodles' girl, then you need to find another podcast to listen to while hanging with noodle or noodles or while eating noodles because the politics are a BIG, BIG PART OF THE PODCAST.
Posted by cousine on December 6, 2012 at 10:04 AM · Report this
24
@21 His podcast his rules. You don't have to listen or you can just zoom past all beginnings and pretend Dan's only supposed to talk about matters of human sexuality and rights related to it that interest you. Fuck off. It's supposed to be his voice related to STRANGER oriented matters. Politics matter A LOT since half the House of Representatives are okay with open homosexuality being illegal. Health class in normal non-religious classes includes sexual education and sex ed likewise includes a rather vast discussion of health-physical mental emotional and societal--you want fluff then you're in the wrong place. Dan's never been one to gloss over every issue and give fluff. Where's your moral compass? Life has some serious issues you should be aware of like it or not... and anyone who's aware of this in the least bit knows this isn't scripted and has zero guarantees as to content-safe to presume a disclaimer that it isn't what you should listen to at work or on the way there or back... Make dinner while you listen but personally I stick to This American Life type NPR when I need "shit might get real here" sensitive topic warnings.
Posted by bleh login option two on December 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM · Report this
25
Regarding the lesbian with a small social circle, I am wondering why the people she hangs out with all have to be lesbians. Why not just hang out with anyone whose accepting? I mean, so long as you're not looking to date people you're hanging out with, what does their gender and sexuality have to do with choosing who you socialize with?
Posted by nanoboy on December 6, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
26
@11
What you said in (1!

Posted by pjc on December 6, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
27
@17
No. Dan is physically turned off by fat. He has stated before that he and his partner have an agreement: "no guts." And he's lean enough to start with that he's not starting out with a 100 lb surplus. He has, over the years, moderated his initially very shrill anti-obesity stance because a lot of generally healthy people have pointed out that they aren't very successful in maintaining a number on a table of guidelines. Saying "Lose a lot of weight" to a very obese person is about as helpful and practical as saying "Get a job" to a homeless person. Just because they'd be better off if they could doesn't mean that significant, maybe insurmountable, obstacles don't exist to doing so.
Posted by marmer on December 6, 2012 at 1:40 PM · Report this
28
I feel like this episode must have been some sort of early April Fools' joke or something. I agree with your comments about Savita Halappanavar, but it went downhill fast from there.

If a child is sexually abused by an adult, unfortunately it is very common for that child to turn around and act out on other children. In this episode, you took a call from a victim of child-on-child sexual abuse who had a question about exonerating her late aunt. You could have encouraged her to make sure she had the proper treatment for any trauma she may have experienced, but instead you told her that the fact that she repressed the memory proved that it was no big deal (!). I don't personally care what she does about the aunt, but by writing off her trauma as insignificant, you found a way to retroactively participate in the abuse of this poor woman.

But wait, there's more! You played a comment from some idiot who said you should stop "enabling" fat people. It has been scientifically proven that there are hereditary factors, and other factors beyond a person's control, that affect your weight. Adhering to society's standards of beauty is not the same as staying healthy. Saying you shouldn't "enable" fat people is no different from saying you shouldn't "enable" gay people. Many aspects of your body type and shape are NOT a choice, any more than being gay is.

Sometimes you provide insightful and thoughtful advice, but this episode will only encourage trauma survivors to remain silent and avoid treatment, and encourage overweight people to feel shamed and develop eating disorders. These callers could've gotten better advice from fortune cookies. Shame on you, Dan.
Posted by Something Something Something Micucci on December 6, 2012 at 6:44 PM · Report this
29
@28 But the caller herself did not describe her experiences with her aunt as traumatic. I think your point would be correct if the caller had described the experiences with her aunt as abusive or coercive or in anyway traumatic, but for the caller it was clearly an incident of sexual exploration with a slightly older child. Her call seemed to have been prompted by the guilt she felt that the wrong aunt seems to have been accused for the events.
Posted by Buffy on December 7, 2012 at 9:34 AM · Report this
30 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
31
@29 Almost every trauma victim takes an attitude of, "I blame myself, it was no big deal, I've dealt with it, I'm beyond it now." The truth is that they are still affected by it profoundly even if they don't realize it.
Posted by Censored Inappropriate Comment About Kate Micucci on December 7, 2012 at 8:32 PM · Report this
32
Where is the holiday intro music? I can't get enough of those jingle bells and it IS Advent now.
Posted by biInMN on December 8, 2012 at 6:00 AM · Report this
33
Even without addressing the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, Savita could've been saved either way, simply if the laws were written better.

Pro-choice laws would've saved her, but pro-life laws could work too - if, instead of saying that allowing abortions for the LIFE of the mother, you would allow abortions for the HEALTH of the mother. Requiring doctors to prove that the mother would've died is literally an impossibly high standard, as we have tragically seen in this case.

If you believe in pro-life laws, then the laws should only require doctors to demonstrate that the woman was experiencing a serious medical condition because of the pregnancy. If doctors were given immunity after meeting this lower standard, they could've saved Savita even in a pro-life society.
Posted by Ire Land on December 8, 2012 at 12:32 PM · Report this
noodles' girl 34
Whoa, my first attack through the comment thread. Cousine, my boyfriend's nickname is Noodles b/c I was buying soba noodles at the store when he asked me out. Therefore, using the plural possessive, I am Noodles' girl. Get it? I like Dan's politics, I just think the rants can sometimes get a bit long and then you don't get as many viewer questions. I've seen / hear other viewers mention this (particularly after Ms. "makelovenot porn.com" whose voice I can't get out of my head. I just thought a separate politics blog would give Dan the chance to go off as much as he wants and not take away from the awesome lovecast he does. I also really enjoyed Savage U, but I don't think it would have been as good if Dan was up there lecturing to people about same sex marriage, polyamory or abortion rights instead of taking their questions with his knowledge and wit. It's just about the tone of the podcast, not about grammar or word choice. I'll still be listening, that one in particular (as a girl who has had an abortion) was a little darker than what I was expecting for my shot of entertainment on a tuesday morning at work.
Posted by noodles' girl on December 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM · Report this
noodles' girl 35
Whoa, my first attack through the comment thread. Cousine, my boyfriend's nickname is Noodles b/c I was buying soba noodles at the store when he asked me out. Therefore, using the plural possessive, I am Noodles' girl. Get it? I like Dan's politics, I just think the rants can sometimes get a bit long and then you don't get as many viewer questions. I've seen / hear other viewers mention this (particularly after Ms. "makelovenotporn.com" whose voice I can't get out of my head. I just thought a separate politics blog would give Dan the chance to go off as much as he wants and not take away from the awesome lovecast he does. I also really enjoyed Savage U, but I don't think it would have been as good if Dan was up there lecturing to people about same sex marriage, polyamory or abortion rights instead of taking their questions with his knowledge and wit. It's just about the tone of the podcast, not about grammar or word choice. I'll still be listening, that one in particular was a little darker than what I was expecting for my shot of entertainment on a tuesday morning at work.
Posted by noodles' girl on December 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM · Report this
36
About the rant on the situation that happened to this poor woman in Ireland, there is a somewhat similar situation happening right now in Costa Rica. A woman whose baby has absolutely no chance to survive is being denied pregnancy termination. For four months now, she's known every day that the baby she is carrying in her womb will not survive outside of her womb. The information is in Spanish, I am posting the link, and I'm translating the text. If someone is able to call some international attention to the matter, it would be deeply appreciated.

http://www.repretel.com/la-legislaci%C3%…

TITLE: The Legistature Transform her Pregnancy in a Torture

She prefers not to mention her name nor show her face.
For over six months, this young mother has carried in her belly a baby she knows has no hope of surviving outside the womb.
The small child has no abdominal wall, therefore its organs, such as heart, lungs and intestines, will be exposed. His legs did not develop and has many malformations.
She knows this since the eight week of pregnancy, and each day since has been a torment.
She asked the doctors of the Calderon Guardia Hospital for a pregnancy interruption, but she was denied as the Penal Code prohibits the abortion,
The young mother feels how the baby moves but she knows there is no hope more than waiting for its death.
This has affected her emotionally, and she looked for the legal help about her rights as a woman and filed a civil right suit.
We requested the position of the doctors at the Calderon Guardia but they failed to reply.
We consulted an specialist about the posibility to interrupt the pregnancy.
The stress this woman is dealing with affects her physical health, and so she is requesting a C-section instead of a natural delivery.
She and her lawyer will take the case to its last consequences, as they consider her legal predicament to make her life torturous.
For now, he baby's health declines and her heart breaks.
More...
Posted by djimenez on December 11, 2012 at 10:11 AM · Report this
37
But... noodles is one dude. So it should be noodles's girl. But... noodles the dude is not named for one single noodle but for plural noodles, so maybe it should be noodles' girl, if the plurality of the noodles after which noodles is named is part of the meaning of the name, noodles, which it undoubtedly is. But... the plurality of the noodles after which he is named then trumps the singularity of the dude. Which is more important? The thing? Or the thing signified?... ... ... >pop!< (That was one of my eyes. I turn off computer now before I suffer more damages.)
Posted by cousine on December 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM · Report this
38
Cousine needs to go back to about fourth grade. There are lots of names that end in "S," and it is acceptable, and in fact preferred, to make the possessive of those names by simply adding an apostrophe. For example, a hat that belongs to Charles would be written as Charles' hat. So a girl that belongs to noodles would indeed be Noodles' Girl. There is nothing wrong with your name.

According to modern preferred writing style, you should really never write "Noodles's Girl." It has nothing to do with analyzing the underlying situation. It just isn't the preferred way of expressing anything.
Posted by Micucci Nerd on December 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM · Report this

We're sorry, but commenting won't be available while we switch over to the new MAGNUM version of the Lovecast. Your comments will be back up tomorrow- please come back and let us know what you think!