report this user
Dec 3, 2012 Schreiber commented on SL Letter of the Day: Possible Side Effects.
Also, make sure she isn't a Meth Kingpin in the Southwest...
Nov 26, 2012 Schreiber commented on Savage Love.
Savage speaks a lot about "rounding up" in his columns. In fact, he makes mention of it in this very column. So my question is whether polyamory can be "rounded up" to an orientation?

First, the hard truth:the sexual aspect of polyamory isn’t exclusive to the polyamorous. When it comes to the actual sex that we want to have, I’d imagine poly people and monogamous people are pretty much the same. People pursuing monogamous relationships don't go through their lives not being attracted to anyone until they meet the one person they are supposed to be with and they don't stop being attracted to other people after they find them.

BUT...whatever it is about polyamory that works for the polyamorous, it clearly confounds legions of the monogamous. They understand the "pro" side, of course: more partners means more sex, more variety, more connections. What they often fail to understand is the absence of a "con" side. “How can you be okay with your partner being with someone else?” is the question that gets asked. And the answers are often maddeningly glib and revolve around how their partner is an autonomous person, not their property, etc. I say “maddeningly” because these kinds of answers imply that the sexual dynamics of committed monogamous couples must be...well, awful. That the decision to refrain from being with other people is driven by fear and anxiety, not love.

And, well, maybe it is. But human beings are fearful, anxious animals, poly and monogamous alike. Maybe Dan is right and what separates the monogamous from the polyamorous is not intrinsic the way heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are.

But the fact of the matter is that poly people don't get to live openly as poly people without social and professional consequences. Many people wring their hands over what kind of parents poly people make and what kind of example they set for their children. Polyamory is something that consenting adults do and that wigs the hell out of a lot of people. The easy approach when it comes to polyamory is to be open about it when you're in the company of other poly or poly-friendly people and to keep it to yourself when you're around people who aren't. Especially if those people sign your paycheck or sit on the board of your PTA.

If polyamory isn't an orientation, it sure as hell makes the polyamorous act as though it were.
Jul 15, 2011 Schreiber commented on Savage Love Episode 247.
Regarding Marcus Bachmann, I have to admit I was a little baffled by Dan's remarks. Aren't we supposed to wait until *after* these characters get caught with a rent boy?

Is the idea here that calling Bachmann gay is excusable because the real barb of the joke is that he's a self-loathing hypocrite? If so, no problem.

But I can't help feeling that Dan is calling him gay because it's the only bullet in the gun. It's not like anyone who supports him would be at all fazed by seeing him labeled as homophobic or medieval. That rationale seems a little sleazier.

On a related note, Will Saletan actually made a pretty good case against the application of the "gaydar" studies in this case. The entire sample group of gay men in the studies were openly gay, which as Saletan points out, makes perfect sense. But it also means that the scope of the study doesn't extend to gay men who are in the closet.
Jul 13, 2011 Schreiber commented on Savage Love.
Gotta disagree Suzy and Infidel. A marriage is a commitment two people make to each other, not a commitment they extract from the rest of the world. NSFMA isn't cheating on her husband and she is not bound to respect marriages that are not her own. If the idea behind marriage is to grab a good partner before anyone else can claim them, well, you're doing monogamy wrong.

That being said, NSFMA obviously doesn't like doing it very much and would like to do things differently. Now maybe she's just had rotten luck and has only tumbled into bed with married men. Maybe she's got a thing for married men. As I suggested earlier, maybe swinging and open-relationships are a turn-off for her. I think she ought to leave her husband, co-raise their child responsibly, and date again because it seems pretty clear a publicly monogamous is what she's after. But that's just me.
Jul 13, 2011 Schreiber commented on Savage Love.
I do feel like Dan kind of dodged NSMFA's question.

I can't help thinking of the Culture Gabfest's piece on Dan a couple weeks ago. With the exception of Dana Stevens, they all basically agreed with Dan about monogamy in theory and then promptly fell over themselves to say no, nothing Dan says applies to their own relationships, no sir, not at all. And these aren't cultural conservatives. These are just people in relationships that probably could not withstand the public pursuit of non-monogamy.

NSMFA's question seems dumb because we're reading it in Savage Love. But this isn't a kinkster with an unquenchable desire for something out of the ordinary that society frowns upon. This is something more boring than that. It's not that NSMFA's *can't* walk into a swing club or date a man in an open relationship with his wife. It's that these kind of things probably don't turn her crank. Which is fine.

NSMFA wants a husband with a dick that works. I know Dan's stance on divorce when kids are in the picture. But I think this may be case where it's not just that the husband can't give the wife what she needs, it's that the MARRIAGE can't give the wife what she needs despite the husband's good intentions. Being this guy's primary partner is an impediment to the kind of sex life she wants and I don't think there's anything either one of them can really do to fix that. IMO.
Jun 17, 2010 Schreiber commented on Savage Love.
@heatherly & ilq

So this is turns out Dan actually edited YOUNG's letter for the column. Here's the abridged section:

"I mean there was this one 20-year-old girl who was okay with it and we dated for awhile. She was an actress, but I kind of realized she sucked when I took my friends to see her, so I ended things. Haven't heard from her since.

Anyway, I gotta run. My friend Basil is coming over later. He's kind of a sad sack, but he's got this kick ass buddy Henry who's hella chill to hang with.

Peace out,
Jun 17, 2010 Schreiber commented on Savage Love.
Yeah, I have to call bullshit on YOUNG. There's no shortage of women who don't mind dating older guys. And please, please, please let's not start the Jason Robinson conversation again. If younger women think he's a creep, it's probably because he's acting like a creep. If older women think he's a player, it's probably because he's acting like a player.

I think Dan's first instinct was right. Not the one telling him to tell YOUNG to lie about his age, but that his lack of success with women has nothing to do with his youthful looks. If anything, he's getting blown off DESPITE them.
Jun 8, 2010 Schreiber commented on Savage Love.
Should Mandarin High School have taken the risk? Sure, in my opinion. Should they have been legally bound to take the risk? That's a tougher question, and not nearly as straightforward in my mind as whether Constance McMillen should have been allowed to go to prom in a tuxedo with her girlfriend.
Jun 8, 2010 Schreiber commented on Savage Love.

I don't particularly like defending Mandarin High School. Though they didn't break the law, they took private information about the coach's sex life and determined that he should not have his job any more. It crosses an ethical boundary that I myself would not cross. Let's stop to ask why they did it.

Maybe you're right and the principal is just a total "beee-yatch" who likes to throw her weight around. Maybe it was a short-term move to placate the 20-year-old's unhinged mother and prevent a shitstorm that would have lasted maybe a year and probably have no effect on the school in the grand scheme.

There's a third possibility. Mandarin High School could have decided that having had someone bring the coach's proclivity for younger women to their attention would prove to be catastrophic down the road if he ever DID do anything illegal or in violation of his contract, like, oh, sleep with a high school student. The public would see a pattern, whether it was there to be seen or not. Think that scene in Jaws ("You knew! And you kept the beaches open anyway!") I imagine Mandarin High School didn't particularly want to know who the coach was banging or how or why and would have been perfectly happy not knowing. But the mom went ahead and told them. And in this day and age, knowing is enough. We don't just go after pedophile priests. We go after the men of the cloth who fail to turn them in. We don't just go after senators for sending their aides dirty IMs. We go after the Speaker of the House who tries to cover it up.

Are any of these examples particularly analogous to Jason Robinson? No, not really. If he did wind up sleeping with a high school kid, it would be because he chose to break the law presumably for the first time. From a law and a public policy standpoint, the one will have nothing to do with the other. But this is the age we're living in. Outrage over an unrenewed contract doesn't outweigh the possibility of a predatory coach who you "knew" about it but kept employed anyway. That's kind of just reality.
Jun 8, 2010 Schreiber commented on Savage Love.
@195 Interesting suggestion, but then I suppose the administration's contract should probably also read"A teacher who completed an M.E. and a B.A. concurrently and is only 23 years old can still date his 20-year-old girlfriend. Maybe his 19-year-old girlfriend too, but only if she has, you know, 'life experience,' etc."

My point is, not all inappropriate behavior can be explicated and delineated in a contract and it's silly to think it can.