Savage Love Podcast Comments

 

Comments (35) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Hi Dan, Listening to you since the beginning I have usually found you a source of strength.

Do you realize you opened this recent show by uniformly demonizing a demographic of people different from you based on the a false stereotype promulgated by people philosophically opposed to said demographic?

As a gay man I somehow am called to task for every boy-fucking pedophile and am faced with popular culture ignorantly espousing the idea that I am a threat to their children. The statistical outlier and I have NOTHING in common. I am not a party to that behavior in ANY WAY.

As a targeted demographic who at this time has no choice but to live in a less than crime-free area, I also own a gun and have a carry permit. I responsibly own a gun. Why? because society doesn't give a shit about targeted demographics and minorities and how they are victimized. I don't support the NRA. I know many other progressive liberal people who also responsibly own guns and don't support the NRA. Now by simple virtue of being a gun owner I am being called to task for every kid-killing psycho. I get it now. You hate me for my lifestyle and are promoting others to do the same.

Then, LATER IN THE EPISODE you make the point that you support pedophiles in that you support them not to be an offender. That is a just perspective. You are sympathetic to their circumstance which you and your guest acknowledge is partially out of their control. You say you are for punishing people for how they offend, if they offend. You acknowledge that a man with the passionate desire to fuck kids can also be thoughtful and rational and responsible and have the control and NOT fuck kids.

You can justly and accurately parse the nuance of real world pedophilia, I know you have the capability to understand the nuance of a real world gun owner.

-responsibly packed trousers
More...
Posted by responsibly packed trousers on December 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM · Report this
2
Responsibly packed trousers:

So, if I understand you correctly, you're equating the choice to be a gun owner with your sexual orientation and pedophiles in that it's the "good version" of the problematic sorts: child molesters and murderers.

Pedophiles are people who did not choose to be such, but have urges and sexual drives that tend them towards horrible actions (child molestation). Resisting those urges to avoid being evil is more difficult for them than it is for others, and *that* is praiseworthy: accomplishing that which is difficult, in the name of morality. The only choice made here is a difficult one, and a moral one.

You, by comparison, made two choices here: the choice to be a gun owner and the choice to not murder people. While you have the right to make those choices, you don't have the right to make them free from the social judgment of others; while the Second Amendment protects your rights, the First Amendment protects Dan's (and others') free speech to criticize you if he so chooses. Choosing to be a gun owner is at best controversial, as there is little real need for anyone to possess a tool useful for only one thing: destruction and death.

You don't get a cookie for not being a murderer. I don't think anyone should be praised for that absolute minimum level of humanity.

If you have urges, comparable between your gun-owner status and pedophelia, that compel you towards horrible actions, I would hope that you seek some of the readily-available mental health treatment options available to you.
Posted by Aliem on December 18, 2012 at 8:52 AM · Report this
singing cynic 3
I went through something similar to the caller with the adulterous sister. My best friend (the maid of honor at my wedding, in fact) started a relationship with a mutual friend's husband. She kept it from me for a year or more, and the "coming out" was very painful and challenged our friendship. The mutual friend and her husband are now divorced, and my best friend is still dating him. I tried to follow previous advice that I'd heard from Dan, and I told her that I loved and supported her and always would, but that I didn't support the relationship, and that I didn't trust her boyfriend. Just saying those words out loud did a lot to help clear the air between us. Another year later, I still don't interact with her boyfriend, but things are much more normal between us.
Posted by singing cynic on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 AM · Report this
4
Not wanting your boyfriend to eat out other women is not particularly arbitrary or irrational. I think cunnilingus can often seem more intimate even than sex, because that's someone's FACE in your vag, and they're looking at it and engaging with it closely. There are lots of personal and emotional reasons she could reasonably render cunnilingus off-menu.
Posted by dchari on December 18, 2012 at 10:07 AM · Report this
5
responsibly packed trousers, Dan didn't come out against gun owners but against gun NUTS. I don't think you're a gun nut, but if you are, it's not by virtue of what you're packing in your trousers but by virtue of your baseless freakout. But either way you're not a very big part of the problem because random gun nuts are not really the problem--except inasmuch as, true, occasionally one of them picks up his guns or his mom's guns and goes nuts on some co-workers or college kids or six-year-olds--the bigger problem is the non-nut workaday gun violence that's putting whole communities in jail/graves, and the biggest problem is the onepercenter sonsabitches in congress who are in bed committing foul, unspeakable acts with the onepercenter sonsabitches in the gun lobby. None of THEIR kids go to public schools. None of THEM shop at malls. None of THEM go to movie premiers. None of THEM work at the kinds of places that get shot up by the disgruntled. None of them take public transportation. Some of them fly commercial on occasion, which is why there are no guns on airplanes. The filthy rich don't have any vested interest in protecting massive crowds of people from being mowed down by psychos because the filthy rich never ever find themselves in big, vulnerable crowds of vulnerable plebes. It's nearly impossible to get shot by a crazy person if you're filthy rich: about the only way is to become friends with Dick Cheney. The people keeping the guns uncontrolled are not doing it because they think you have a right to protect yourself or be a well regulated militiaman, they're doing it to make money for cronies and they don't give a crap about collateral damage because the six-year-olds killed are never ever theirs. I hope there is a hell so that they may roast in it forever. Til then, I think it would be nice if we could throw them out of office.
More...
Posted by cousine on December 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM · Report this
6
At #five: I would agree that the freakout of #one was baseless if I hadn't been following Dan on Twitter. I thought much of what was said on the podcast today was well said and reasonable, but he's been much more harsh all week on the issue. I get that he's angry. We should be angry when violence happens. But, we need to be flexible and open to compromise on both sides of any issue or we'll never get anywhere.

There is a universe of difference between, say, my family's heirloom rifles or those belonging to hunters (and deer around here are as numerous as mice and if we're not going to eat them we need to bring in some wolves or something, and somehow i don't think that'll go over) and the arsenal of semiautomatics in the basement of a mentally unwell doomsday prepper. But the dialog this week all over the net has been to equate all of the above.

We really do need to examine the system. I think some changes are long overdue. (Tests? Classes? Mandated range practice? I don't know. I'd be in favor of any of that.) But we need to get to a place where the dialog is less hostile.

Yes, I think it's appropriate that everyone's talking about guns and my constant refrain is something like "OK, everybody, just be cool. We're all friends, here. . . "
Posted by KDru on December 18, 2012 at 6:07 PM · Report this
7
The only thing gun regulations do is make it harder for sane, law-abiding citizens to obtain guns. Outlaws and psychos are not going to be deterred by waiting periods and permits.
Posted by Dragonrose36 on December 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM · Report this
8
@7 Really? Read some of posts on Slog; some people have actually been affected enough by these massacres to actually come up with real solutions. Crawl out of your little Second Amendment burrow and see that there is more to firearms dialogue than bumper sticker sayings and limp analogies. It's beautiful, you'll love it. And you'll get to keep at least some of your guns, too.
Posted by DisorganizedReligion on December 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM · Report this
9
Oh man, if I was the girl who had lied about being raped when she was 14, I would TOTALLY love to be be dished out a "fuck you" and then told I should go exercise "repairative actions".

Supporting crisis centers is a great gesture. Rudely patronise someone as if they are ignorant to any social issue is not.
Posted by weretryingtohaveacivilizationhere on December 18, 2012 at 10:01 PM · Report this
10
the sister of the woman who had a thing with a married man, did you ever think of the wife?
what if it had been your husband?

of course, I'm assuming nothing else is wrong with the marriage, and the wife love him.
Posted by SamDS http://about.me/samsproul on December 18, 2012 at 11:45 PM · Report this
11
FYI for anyone who wants to know--- the pedophile caller was likely talking about a medicine called "spironolactone". (It was hard to understand his slurred speech during his call). This is an Anti androgen med. We use it in our Endocrine practice to decrease the effect of testosterone on the hair follicles thereby decreasing unwanted dark body hair in our female patients....I have never heard of using it like this caller is. Just wanted to write, in case Dan gets other calls asking what the medicine was.
Posted by Paisley on December 19, 2012 at 12:13 AM · Report this
12
Here's a comment from an Australian from another website I visit. Remember that Australia also has a culture of self reliance , and a considerably more hostile natural world to deal with.

"Australia solved the gun problem in 1996 after a terrible day in Tasmania- 35 killed and many injured.

The Prime Minister acted quickly and rammed through legislation, aimed at banning guns.

In simple terms, it worked this way-

1- Declare an amnesty period where the government bought back firearms from the general population. Over 600,000 weapons were redeemed and destroyed in the 12-month period.

2- Any guns not returned attracted a severe penalty for the owner/handler.

3- Permits were very severly tightened, and only a limited number of licences were issued. These permits were mainly for target shooting clubs, professional hunters, defence forces, security personnel and police.

Granted, there are still guns in the community and I am not naive enough to believe that we will get rid of them all, but it is a bloody good start. I have had a rifle aimed at my chest, and it is a feeling that I never want to experience again.

I saw a stat that stated that 1,000,000 Americans have been killed or injured by gunshot since the death of Martin Luther King. That is EVERY man, woman and child in San Jose, Indianapolis, Austin or San Francisco. Can the American lawmakers afford to not act?"

Measures like this would not be accepted by Americans, but surely if other places can take drastic steps of this kind, something like a ban on assault weapons could fly in the US?
Posted by agony on December 19, 2012 at 4:20 AM · Report this
13
This is a rant about the opening of the show on banning guns. To ban guns is to make the general population weaker and criminals stronger. Criminals don't follow laws so what will stop them from getting a gun and doing worse things. Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun, he used a box truck and fertilizer and those are still legal. We need to take a page from Switzerland and get guns into more hands while getting them training on how to use the gun. They have the most guns and the lowest gun crime rate. If you think back to where each shooting has happened they have mostly been in places where guns are banned, why.... because the shooter knows no one will stop them easily. If each teacher had a gun they could have defended the children and the shooter wouldn't have had a chance to take nearly as many as he did. The same goes with the movie shooting. If even 1/4 the people were carrying a gun that would not have been as bad as it was. Mean while you want to ban guns or make it harder to own a gun, while the criminals have the connections to get a gun one day and shoot up a block the next, and I have to wait 3 days to get a gun to protect my house. Where I live since the stand your ground law has passed the crime rate here fell 2.6% even during the recession. Do you want to tell me that the fear of being shot when trying to break into a home has not deterred crime?

We need not to ban guns but to allow them into more places! Then and only then will these mass shootings stop. Allow everyone to open carry everywhere, with proper training, to show the criminals that we will not accept what they do and you will see the crime rate fall.
Posted by anons on December 19, 2012 at 6:32 AM · Report this
14
Hi Dan,

I thought your point regarding gun control puts a very simplistic rationalization behind a very complicated problem.

Criminals are going to get guns. Just because a criminal has a gun does not mean I should not have the right to defend my home with one. I live in one of the richest cities in the world... but home invasion robberies still occur here on a routine basis.

I believe the out of control problem of these lunatics going on rampages comes more from the lack of mental health care in our society, for which we can thank Regan for closing down all the care facilities. If a psycho wants to kill a group of people, they will do so with or without a gun.
Posted by llorcan on December 19, 2012 at 7:48 AM · Report this
15
Whats up with this idea that pedophiles must "loathe" themselves? Why gays have "gay pride" but pedophiles need to loathe themselves? As a pedophile, we have to be proud of our sexual orientation. There is nothing wrong about being a pedophile and a person doesnt have to loathe himself/herself for being a pedophile.
Posted by a pedo on December 19, 2012 at 10:22 AM · Report this
16
Whats up with this idea that pedophiles must "loathe" themselves? Why gays have "gay pride" but pedophiles need to loathe themselves? As a pedophile, we have to be proud of our sexual orientation. There is nothing wrong about being a pedophile and a person doesnt have to loathe himself/herself for being a pedophile. It's absurd. Pedophiles are equals to non-pedophiles. Not worse, or better. Equals. No one should be ashamed for being a pedo.
Posted by a_pedo on December 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM · Report this
17
Aliem:

"Pedophiles are people who did not choose to be such, but have urges and sexual drives that tend them towards horrible actions (child molestation)."

Pedophiles dont want to molest children any more than men want to rape women. Most pedophiles want to have consensual sex with children, not rape. It's a romantic, emotional and erotic sexual orientation. It is not "horrible" feeling love towards other person.
Posted by a_pedo on December 19, 2012 at 10:49 AM · Report this
18
Can some of you fit in a trip to the self-awareness store between your biweekly visits to the WalMart "sportsman" aisle? You want guns because you're afraid of a bunch of poor-people things like street crime that the people who make the tons and tons and tons of money from your buying guns don't have to worry about. You think the government is trying to TAKE your guns AWAY from you because your guns give you power over your government. Whereas the government is clearly and observably doing all it possibly can to get you access to as many guns as you can possibly buy with your lil prole money. You think you need your guns so you can overthrow tyranny and be freeeee. Whereas the government has drones and crazy crowdcontrol mechanisms that can make you fall to the ground with your skin on fire and so on ad infinitum and doesn't give a crap about the giant prepper arsenal of assault rifles you've amassed over decades of eating Top Ramen and spending all of your discretionary income because it can wipe you out in a millisecond without losing an eyelash.
Posted by cousine on December 19, 2012 at 11:03 AM · Report this
Roadflare 19
@17, an adult can not have a "loving" (which I can only assume includes sexual) relationship with a child because a child cannot consent. You can't help being a pedophile, but you can stop yourself from hurting an innocent child. So if you are hurting children, fuck off. Children do no understand the relationship you are talking about. Is that not obvious you justifying creep? The brain isn't even fully developed until a person is in their early 20s.
Posted by Roadflare on December 19, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
20
#7 You said "The only thing gun regulations do is make it harder for sane, law-abiding citizens to obtain guns. Outlaws and psychos are not going to be deterred by waiting periods and permits."

There a great deal of truth in that. That is why the penalties for having an illegal gun need to be kicked up a few notches. If the law is changed to illegal gun ='s mandatory jail and selling illegal guns ='s a long mandatory sentence it will make illegal guns far riskier, more expensive and most importantly far more difficult for criminals to get.
Posted by off__topic on December 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM · Report this
21
So difficult to have a rational conversation about gun rights with people who are so ideological or ill-informed. This is the first time I've discussed this recently and I'll try to avoid the inflammatory, sweeping, partisan, and judgmental tone that infuses Dan's statements about gun ownership. I'm sad to say that his tone is justified. Gun owners and the NRA have failed to push sensible gun regulations that serve to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally vulnerable. Media conglomerates have failed to do the same with violence. Now some reasonable and informed people are concerned the government will restrict their gun rights without effectively solving the problem. I think that is a legitimate concern. I wish the ideologues on both sides would stfu and let the informed, impartial, and rational lead the debate.
Posted by moshker on December 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM · Report this
22
So difficult to have a rational conversation about gun rights with people who are so ideological or ill-informed. This is the first time I've discussed this recently and I'll try to avoid the inflammatory, sweeping, partisan, and judgmental tone that infuses Dan's statements about gun ownership. I'm sad to say that his tone is justified. Gun owners and the NRA have failed to push sensible gun regulations that serve to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally vulnerable. Media conglomerates have failed to do the same with violence. Now some reasonable and informed people are concerned the government will restrict their gun rights without effectively solving the problem. I think that is a legitimate concern. I wish the ideologues on both sides would stfu and let the informed, impartial, and rational lead the debate.
Posted by moshker on December 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM · Report this
23
This is the pedophile who called in to the show.

Paisley: Yes, Spironolactone is the name of the drug. It inhibits the effect of testosterone, which includes sexual drive among other effects. Side effects can include loss of muscle mass and severe liver damage, from what I understand. I must have mentioned it in one of my other calls, and forgotten it in the most stable one. Sucks, cause it's a very important detail. It works, though. I apologize for my incoherent speech. It was a rough day.

I do want to say that I am not some kind of unstable sex hound. I am not worried about hurting a child in any way. Having been molested by my brother and a neighbor as a child, I could never possibly do such a thing. My discontent stems from self disgust. I am very much aware of what....excites me. It is that awareness that causes my anxiety on the issue.

A_Pedo: You're insane. There is no reason, ever, to approach a child in such a manner. The only thing you can do is suck it up, keep it in fantasyland and stay away from children. I hope very much that you are under some sort of medication or supervision, because that sort of 'pride' scares the shit out of me. How could you be proud of it? Proud that a part of your mind wants to ruin a child's life. A part of your mind you can never be free of. No child should be a part of any 'loving' relationship you allude to. I didn't understand what was going on when I was a child. I thought it was a game. I didn't know what was wrong when I was being grilled by cops and my parents were crying. Later in life that confusion turned to hatred for the people who did that to me. A pity they're both dead already. You would do that to some kid?

I can say that Dr. Cantor is correct. I have known since I was a child myself that I was looking at other children. I can't really explain it...as I got older, the things that interested me stayed the same. Was I born this way? Was it the result of my abuse? A pity there's no cure for it.

In any case, I will pass on joining that VirPed group. The last thing I want is to be constantly reminded of what I am. I am in therapy, separately, for depression and anxiety. It's a shame I cannot discuss it with my therapist, but that's life I guess. I hope that group can help others, though. It's pretty damning to have a secret you can't tell anybody about. This is the first time I have ever said those words. Nice to say it to somebody. Thanks for the kind words, Dan. Always been a huge fan of your work for LGBT rights.
More...
Posted by FourthCaller on December 19, 2012 at 4:25 PM · Report this
24
FourthCaller:

I was so saddened after hearing your call. What a terrible burden to have. I hope that you can continue to fight it. Please do not give up.
Posted by sym_MB on December 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM · Report this
singing cynic 25
Guys, a_pedo is obviously a troll. In his first sentence he's drawing false equivalencies between homosexuality and pedophelia - he thinks he's caught us in a delicious logical trap. Stop treating him as if anything he's saying is real, please.
Posted by singing cynic on December 20, 2012 at 3:01 AM · Report this
26
@19: I was talking at the level of *desires*, of longings, of attraction.

FourthCaller: Wow, no surprise you loathe yourself. According to you, being different is wrong. Diversity is wrong. Sexual difference is bad.

@25: Im not a fucking troll! Just because I think both pedophilia AND homosexuality are normal sexual orientations, that means im a troll?? Stop treating people who disagree with you as trolls.

I "love" how instead of discussing what I said you resort to name calling. Instead of addresing the central point, you just call people "trolls".
Posted by a_pedo on December 20, 2012 at 6:58 AM · Report this
27
"Media conglomerates have failed to [push sensible regulations that serve to keep violence out of the hands of the mentally vulnerable]."
See how that doesn't make any sense at all? Zero? Here's something else that makes zero sense:
"Now some reasonable and informed people are concerned the government will restrict their gun rights without effectively solving the problem."
No reasonable informed person thinks the government is going to take away his heirloom rifle collection or his "bunch of cool handguns that I like--sure, okay, maybe I could use them for self protection" arsenal in a misguided effort to prevent lunatics from running around the land using assault rifles to aerate crowds of people in schools, malls and theaters. Reasonable informed people realize that the overwhelming majority of American citizens plus a small cadre of slightly less than usually corrupted pols would like to keep machine guns and multiple-round magazines off the market to make it harder for loons to mow down a whole boatload of people at once. That's a REASONABLE attitude, on the part of the majority of Americans and a few politicians. See, that's what the word REASONABLE means: it might HAPPEN in the real actual world. It makes SENSE. It might WORK. Can you see the difference between reasonable and what you wrote there?
Posted by cousine on December 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM · Report this
28
For the fellow whose partner doesn't want him to perform cunnilingus on his thirds. He mentioned that she's worried about contracting and STI - might I suggest dental dams or a condom cut open? If an STI is her major issue then this is a simple solution. If she's also concerned (or more concerned) about intimacy then he should absolutely be honoring her wishes.

But yeah. Dental dams are awesome.
Posted by Ms.Monogamish on December 22, 2012 at 7:55 AM · Report this
Sandiai 29
@23 Thanks, FourthCaller. I'm sorry for your suffering.
Posted by Sandiai on December 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM · Report this
shurenka 30
Dan's answer to the female caller hoping to date her friend was spot on. That answer should be played to any man who bitches about being "Friendzoned".
Posted by shurenka on December 25, 2012 at 6:36 PM · Report this
31
In 1930's Germany gun rights were strictly prohibited, among the 12,000,000 undesirable victims of state violence lead to their helpless death were all of Germany's victims were homosexuals.
Speaking of the Oregon mall shooting, the shooter was confronted by a civilian with a concealed carry permit after he began shooting and then fled into a hallway where he killed himself. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-ar… Try and find this story in the literally thousands of stories about the shooting, along with the tens of thousands of crimes that are stopped by law abiding gun owners throughout the country each year! The second amendment is not about duck hunting, it is about our right to protect the first and third through tenth and fourteenth amendments!
Posted by liberalredneck on December 28, 2012 at 1:45 AM · Report this
32
@27 - Machine guns have been regulated since the 30's and no new ones could be registered since the 80's. The reporting that "assault weapons" that civilians can buy are "automatic" is patently false.

If you ask the military what an "assault weapon" is they will tell you it is a select fire rifle. Select fire means it can be put into either automatic or burst mode.

As a civilian you CAN NOT buy either.

A semiautomatic gun (rifle or pistol or whatevery) just means you get one round per trigger pull.

---

More broadly, the notion of being able to regulate away crime is exactly like the laws trying to regulate away the gay. Laws will not stop it. (Note, I'm not trying to equate gays with criminals -- I'm simply just comparing existing laws)
Posted by Vec on January 1, 2013 at 11:19 PM · Report this
33
@27 - Machine guns have been regulated since the 30's and no new ones could be registered since the 80's. The reporting that "assault weapons" that civilians can buy are "automatic" is patently false.

If you ask the military what an "assault weapon" is they will tell you it is a select fire rifle. Select fire means it can be put into either automatic or burst mode.

As a civilian you CAN NOT buy either.

A semiautomatic gun (rifle or pistol or whatevery) just means you get one round per trigger pull.

---

More broadly, the notion of being able to regulate away crime is exactly like the laws trying to regulate away the gay. Laws will not stop it. (Note, I'm not trying to equate gays with criminals -- I'm simply just comparing existing laws)
Posted by Vec on January 1, 2013 at 11:20 PM · Report this
34
In response to the caller who is a pedophile and Dr. Cantor's segment, Racehl Aviv has a piece in the New Yorker titled "The Science of Sex Abuse: Is it right to imprison people for heinous crimes they have not yet committed?" What this piece adds to the conversation is a look at how US laws toward pedophiles developed and how pedophiles are determined to be likely to commit an actual offense, as well as how they're treated by prison system.
Posted by jj9110 on January 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM · Report this
35
Got to this one a bit late..but wow...

scrap the second amendment?

You bring up japan and air rifles. Japan was very recently ruled by a king and instigated war which killed millions of people. This is recent history, so don't forget how things really are on the historical scale of things before you start with the knee jerk reactions to things.
Posted by fradimas on March 8, 2013 at 2:33 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!