http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/06/11/by-josh-weeds-logic Comments On: By Josh Weed's Logic... by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Fri, 24 May 2013 20:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Also I am not sure when they rewrote the bible to read that adultery was ok, but since I am married to a female is it also ok for me to have sex with another female since I have no appetite for other men and do not care to be a pile driver.
Posted by JackKnauf]]> Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:04:40 -0700 The Stranger Was that an admonition or a random sentence fragment? On one hand, if I were to use your post in a sentence, it would be something like: "I would condemn homosexuals, 'except the bible' also condemns shellfish and I love a good shrimp cocktail."
Conversely, it could be that they just didn't cover except / accept in your religiously based home school.
Which is it?
Posted by Amy Bjorge]]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:27:06 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Amybjorge]]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:16:13 -0700 The Stranger
How does he know he could not have the same level of love, intimacy, happiness and family with a man he was actually physically in love with? Because others have told him it's not possible? That's the creepiest part of all! Here how it usually ends up. After years of denial he will fall in love. He will resist, he will fight it but like countless others before him his innate human desire for REAL love and sexual intimacy will take over! He will stop living his life for others who have never had to make the personal sacrifice they have forced him to make! No matter how much he think he was a WILLING participant - he was not, he's been brainwashed into believing that real love and happiness was not allowed for him! Someday his basic, real humanity will finally overpower his childish desire to be an obedient little boy and the true, real and terrible price that he has had to pay to make OTHERS happy will come crashing down on top of him! He will realize that he has been in self inflicted agony. He will be angry and frustrated that he was not allowed the simple happiness others take for grant. If he's young enough to still achieve real love in his life he will tell that fake wife, and those miserable people who forced him into accepting an unfulfilled relationship, to go screw themselves. And he will final allow himself to live beyond THEIR bigoted prejudices and, perhaps, finally find some real peace and happiness!
Posted by ButchPeaston]]> Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:04:44 -0700 The Stranger
How does he know he could not have the same level of love, intimacy, happiness and family with a man he was actually physically in love with? Because others have told him it's not possible? That's the creepiest part of all! Here how it usually ends up. After years of denial he will fall in love. He will resist, he will fight it but like countless others before him his innate human desire for REAL love and sexual intimacy will take over! He will stop living his life for others who have never had to make the personal sacrifice they have forced him to make! No matter how much he think he was a WILLING participant - he was not, he's been brainwashed into believing that real love and happiness was not allowed for him! Someday his basic, real humanity will finally overpower his childish desire to be an obedient little boy and the true, real and terrible price that he has had to pay to make OTHERS happy will come crashing down on top of him! He will realize that he has been in self inflicted agony. He will be angry and frustrated that he was not allowed the simple happiness others take for grant. If he's young enough to still achieve real love in his life he will tell that fake wife, and those miserable people who forced him into accepting an unfulfilled relationship, to go screw themselves. And he will final allow himself to live beyond THEIR bigoted prejudices and, perhaps, finally find some real peace and happiness!
Posted by ButchPeaston]]> Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:54:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by TiffanyPerkins]]> Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:26:32 -0700 The Stranger Posted by DC270]]> Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:59:52 -0700 The Stranger
The problem is that in reading what he wrote he isn't putting up his statement that he has a better relationship in light of it being better for 'him'. He is clearly making what he thinks, or at least wants others to think, is some kind of objective comparison. That his relationship IS better than most of the people he knows.

That's where I call Bullshit.
Posted by Fortunate]]> Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:47:31 -0700 The Stranger
However, the thing is, marrying and sleeping with a lady really is his only option if he wants biological children so he's right on that. And he said in his blog how he's a "traditionalist" so, basically, he's incapable of honoring his authentic nature because it's not what most people do, traditionally. At his fundamental core, he needs to be a sheep, following the herd. If that's how they do it, then I have to be that way too. He's like a pair of GAP khaki pants: pure BLAH. It's good he recognizes this about himself, but he sounds incredibly lame as a person.

As for Weed claiming his relationship is better and more satisfying, well, that probably has a ring of truth to it. His wife-and-kids set up is more satisfying *to him* than if he had chosen an authentic life, honoring his natural inclinations. Because a sheep like him, *has* to be mainstream in order to be okay with himself. (Seriously, he sounds lame- like a Top 40 guy). But, again, he recognizes this about himself (which is good) so the sacrifice he's making is worth it, to *him*.
Posted by Confluence]]> Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:13:22 -0700 The Stranger
However, accepting that as perverse and creepy as most religious, and in this case specifically Mormon, views of sex and happiness are, since he is already in that place I can understand his decision. After reading his and his wife's account of how they ended up together it is actually very understandable.

But his insistence that somehow this has led to an even better and more satisfying relationship and degree of happiness just reeks of cognitive dissonance to me. He's making a very big sacrifice in order to adhere to Church doctrine which he has always been taught will make him happy, and so he has to work hard ignoring the negative and focusing and amplifying the importance of the positive in order to convince himself that his originally held belief was, indeed, true.

Or as Shakespeare put it, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Posted by Fortunate]]> Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:33:34 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Mischa Vainburg]]> Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:12:12 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Sally Hemings' daughter]]> Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:15:48 -0700 The Stranger Now... if Josh is happy - fine - but it isn't generalizable.
Posted by geoz]]> Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:06:18 -0700 The Stranger
Given the audacity and off-putting boastfulness of Weed's claim to know that his marriage "has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know," I think this particular attack on his post and its logic was justified. Take your example of the bicurious-or-whatever lesbian who called in to the podcast. As I recall she never boasted that the incongruity between her identity and her attractions made her somehow more authentic or just. She seemed genuinely and sadly worried about the judgement of others, and Savage attempted to affirm to her, much like what for the most part people are doing to Weed, that hey, whatever makes you happy, and fuck the haters. The difference being here that Weed's post is filled with so many little dog-whistling barbs that the whole "judge not lest ye be" clauses are deeply and very much invoked.

Aaaand, as for the probable real root of the matter of why we're here: Savage's feelings towards some of the major church structures. That's something that seems pretty well established, and all the NOM money about to flow into WA isn't going to help anytime soon. But, hey look,the bigger, ostensibly anti-gay fish to fry that also floated in over the weekend.

(Also, "agenda?" Are you going to go after Goldy with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion next?)
Posted by AirBuddy]]> Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:43:44 -0700 The Stranger
Anyway, was just an attempt at humor. Lesbians are cool with me. Rock on.
Posted by debug]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:09:29 -0700 The Stranger That's what is bothering me. This particular situation is him doing the bullshit he usually calls out.
Posted by Tommyfoolery]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:52:30 -0700 The Stranger Reductio ad absurdum. It can be a cruel technique, for sure, but then, ummm, why exactly are you reading Dan Savage? If you didn't expect him to be calling bullshit on ideas he disagrees with? He's sort of opinionated, you may have noticed.
Posted by AirBuddy]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:36:15 -0700 The Stranger
I am dumbfounded by Dan forcing his agenda into the conversation. Which sucks, because up until now, his intelligent, higher road position has been what I admired most about him, and the reason I've followed his writing. To me, publicly crucifying a gay man for having straight sex and being happy (regardless of whether or not you believe it) is worse than crucifying a gay man for being gay. The anti-gay parties at least have ignorance on their side.

In fact, when a girl came to Dan on Savage Love and was terribly upset over the fact that she is gay and is terrified to tell her friends that she is attracted to men, he had the most compassionate and supportive answer for her. Why is this guy suddenly anti-gay for saying the same thing?
Posted by Tommyfoolery]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:01:11 -0700 The Stranger
I will say that ten years ago, one of them ran a blog that had some sharp words around men who acted like children--but lots of non-lesbian women participated in it.

Your mileage may vary.
Posted by clashfan]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:41:44 -0700 The Stranger
Consider that shark jumped.
Posted by Ophian]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:51:21 -0700 The Stranger Posted by ndattn]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:10:47 -0700 The Stranger
I think there’s some anti-male subtext to this one. Basically all women are of course hardwired to have sex and love be the same thing but men are naturally incapable of this, and the only way to get them to this point is to take away the lust I guess.
Posted by Karey]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:20:19 -0700 The Stranger
Straight women, gay men, lesbians (I always imagine lesbians being pissed at straight men for some reason or another)

Other than the sex (open marriage anyone?) I can see lots of sports, video games, beer, electronics, cars, boats, etc.

For some reason the theme from the Odd Couple has started playing in my head...
Posted by debug]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:02:36 -0700 The Stranger
Most religions are based on the concept that we are broken or incomplete and that in order to be fixed we need some kind of communion with some higher power or ideal. That in order to do that we need to adhere to some kind of tenants that are relayed to us through the earthly representatives of that power or ideal. And all this is taken on faith.

That is how religions fundamentally work. When politics goes south it is typically because the political movement has started to follow that same format, but unlike with religions that isn't fundamental to politics.

If someone surrenders themselves to a greater political movement there is the potential for danger, yes. But you don't have to surrender yourself to a political movement to be involved in politics. Religion, however, is based on the need of people to surrender themselves to the greater movement of the religion. That redemption for politics doesn't exist for religion. The baseline for religion is everything that can go wrong (but doesn't always) with politics.
Posted by Fortunate]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:16:52 -0700 The Stranger
It's not just religion, it's ideologies of any kind. Is "politics" all bad because of the existence of the National Socialists in wartime Germany? Political movements, remember, have also brought about things you likely support, such as gay rights. Labeling everything shit because it falls under the heading of "religion" is just plain dumb. Very simplistic thinking and very narrow.

Anytime a person surrenders himself to some greater perspective or movement, there's a danger, and that goes way beyond "religion."
Posted by Confluence]]> Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:43:36 -0700 The Stranger