http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/06/20/sl-letter-of-the-day-do-monogamous-gay-couples-exist Comments On: SL Letter of the Day: Do Monogamous Gay Couples Exist? 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) Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Sacrosant]]> Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:19:30 -0700 The Stranger
I am not young and stupid. Of all the mistakes I did make while getting through my teen years and early twenties, learning and perhaps changing some of my views along the way, one thing did remain the same and that was the idea that one day I would be with someone and share my life with them in a loving committed relationship. Saying that this young man is basically stupid because he is new to "the game" as one person put it is ridiculous.

I walked away from a very controlling religion at a young age because I didn't want to conform to what that organization and my parents/family expected of me.
When I was exposed to different types of people some of my experiences were great and changed the way I felt about certain things that I was raised to believe.
When I was exposed to the gay community I felt that I had to again conform to things I didn't believe were positive in my life or walk away from that lifestyle as well.

When so many in the gay community are quick to dismiss you because you express that you value something that isn't the norm, how is that any different from the struggle we go through trying to gain acceptance from our friends and family when we come out?

We are fighting for the right to marry and share our lives with someone that we love. When I'm old and sick, I want my partner to be able to make decisions for me. I want him to be with me in my final hours.

So much of the time gay men and women put their sex lives out on display as if the bigot watching a 10 second clip of a gay pride parade on Fox News doesn't know that gay people have sex. Yea, well that's what already comes to his mind when he thinks of fags. We don't need to remind him of that.
Maybe, if there were people within the gay community who could show that their relationship was based on love and that sex was only part of that, then we would have more acceptance from the people that hate us because they don't have an understanding of us.
Of course, a lot of the gay people that feel that way have the option of conforming to the norm within the gay community or just not being a part of it.

I am in a monogamous relationship and still deal with a lack of respect of that from the gay community.
I'm old enough now to laugh it off when some idiot makes a comment. It was just really interesting for me to read these comments and see that gay men and women can still be just as closed minded as the people that TiVo Bill O'Reilly.

Posted by Zzzzzz]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2013 13:23:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by SamtElvis]]> Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:15:48 -0800 The Stranger
In the time before I met my boyfriend, I was unfortunately deceived by those who led me on to believe they thought as I did, only to discover they were playing me for their own personal pleasure. (The comments left here lead me to believe this was not an anomaly, but an unfortunately common and selfish practice).

My point is, your right to pleasure yourself ends where my right to monogamy begins. When I was dating and I would meet guys, in some cases their first point of discussion was sexual (e.g. "Are you top or bottom?", "How often do you masturbate?"). In such cases, I could immediately identify an insurmountable obstacle between our goals. Sometimes, they would openly declare they were seeking an open relationship. In some cases, they would even already have a boyfriend (ew!) In these cases, it was easy to identify the enemy.

In other cases, however, the guy would pretend to be seeking a monogamous relationship. I experienced this three times. Three times I was heartbroken due to selfishness, shallowness, and dishonesty. If these people had been honest about their intentions, I would have been a virgin when I was with my boyfriend. Even though, I never went "all the way" with these maniacs, I still regretted the kissing, the making out, and so forth.

My point is, honesty is paramount. Whether you are gay or straight, if you are unable or if you have no intention of sustaining a monogamous relationship, then stay the hell away from people who are seeking monogamy!

And, by the way, I consider myself and my boyfriend to be fairly good looking. In fact, we are both constantly fighting off sex maniacs in the clubs where we like to dance. We also have inner beauty and self-respect, which keeps us from compromising our personal values for something as worthless as momentary pleasure. Peace.
Posted by Barth]]> Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:15:03 -0700 The Stranger two weeks ago i and my boyfriend had a conflict, so with that he broke up with me saying he no longer wanted to associate with me anymore, i never knew he was interested in working out his marriage with another girl, i was helpless because i loved him so much morethan myself, after begging and pleading with him I realized it was out of my hands, he really was leaving me, i could not stay without him, i tried to figure things out with him but he is not listening me, he told me that he is no longer interested that i should look for someone else, i tried all my best but things were not working out, so i had no choice than to look around for help, i went into search of spell caster to help me bring him back to me with the help of spell and after searching i actually finalize to work with prophetharry@ymail.com in regards of my lover. after 3 days as he told that my lover will return. my lover returned in surprising way, i was chocked and was so happy I can't say how much I'm grateful, My lover not only came back to me, but has left his other girl and now has engaged me, we are getting married next month, I don't know what I would have done without this spell caster.
Posted by nomarteddy]]> Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:19:28 -0700 The Stranger Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against monogamy. I have been in monogamous relationships and for me monogamy is on the table. However, so is non-monogamy.
But this "I believe all open relationships are shallow" bullshit is what gets to me. I don't have the reserve that Dan shows here, as my reaction to something like this would be a knee-jerk "oh, fuck you". The idea is that we all have the right to say "this is how I'd like my relationship to be" and then see if we can't find someone with a similar idea that we have chemistry with. I would never look at two people that are happy together and say "you're doing it wrong."
Posted by niko4ever]]> Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:52:22 -0700 The Stranger
But I am not in Quibble Mode because you have finally assisted something quite different to spring to mind. I now completely understand how Billie Jean King felt right after Margaret Court agreed to what became the Mother's Day Massacre (and indeed, given what has transpired with Mrs Court, it might be much more entertaining to ruminate on whether at some level that match might have been thrown).
Posted by vennominon]]> Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:28:35 -0700 The Stranger
Don't you people see that you are being just as sanctimonious? The writer's point is that for so long Dan has seemed to promote non-monogamy. Between all the monogamish posts to the extended book review regarding man's evolutionary predilections against monogamy.

I can see how confusing to young gay people to hear constantly that marriage equality is the most important thing ever and you may only vote for president based on that issue---while at the same time making fun of anyone who takes marriage vows seriously.

All the writer is asking is that monogamists be as respected for their choice as this column always demands for the non-monogamous. Dan finally stood up and did so eloquently and thoughtfully. Too bad you regular commenters didn't absorb the message.
Posted by GymGoth]]> Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:42:44 -0700 The Stranger
"Where is loyalty in open relationships?" or "Is there loyalty (because I don't see any)?" strikes me as much more in the spirit you are attributing to him without materially altering the meaning. There are at least as many definite, direct sentences (which lend force to the intepretation that "I don't see any loyalty" carries the unspoken implication, "therefore there isn't any"), some of which reveal offensive beliefs or comprise ridiculous presumptions from a Johnny-Come-Out-Lately. (The latter aren't a question of fault; we all were at one time - perhaps this might be where, if I were in Hostile Mode, I'd have something to say about Unseemly Straightsplaining.) I did not mention this earlier, but I can see how the letter could be interpreted as having a flavour similar to that of respectable, assimilationist, corporate-type gays complaining about how the queens and the freaks in the Pride parades were Ruining Everything! Not a Nice Mindset.

Sorry, but capitalizing the AT ALL is definitely stompy. Were the phrase uncapitalized I'd have been on the fence about it as not really necessary.

And personally I would precede, "I would appreciate a reply," with, "Thank you for your patience and attention," particularly if I were putting it directly after a question that was more snarky than it had to be. It could be a personal style point, but the inaccuracies, false equivalences and presumptions in the letter tend to forfeit the presumption of good will.

I would agree with you that he is *trying* to be reasonable, but he keeps getting in his own way and not making his best case. A good rewrite from someone like Mr Fortunate would have made the letter much more palatable and the LW much more appealing.
Posted by vennominon]]> Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:46:01 -0700 The Stranger
A Slogger came u p w/ a script for blocking a single user's posts from their view. I think it was because they were annoyed by someone who always posts their blog address in their sig, but it was handy for Loveschild & Seattleblues as well. Anyone know where I can find that script? Don't fancy having every thread turn into semantic battles.

Also, whatever happened to Uriel-238? I miss him.
Posted by Eva Hopkins]]> Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:18:03 -0700 The Stranger
The dictionary definition of promiscuity includes "indiscriminate in choice of sexual partners." So yes, it does mean there's a lack of self-control involved. If you that someone can have many sexual partners without fitting the definition of "promiscuous," then that's a separate issue.

I'm not defending monogamy. I'm defending LW. If he'd written in saying that he was uncomfortable with monogamy and thought all monogamous relationships were restrictive and that he was shy of entering his community because he thought he'd never find the nonmonogamous relationship that he dreamed of, everyone on this thread would have been cheering him on to accept himself for who he was.

If you really thought that continuing to respond on this thread is bad, then you wouldn't still be doing it.
Posted by DRF]]> Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:43:17 -0700 The Stranger
Other thoughts, then bedtime!

Kid doesn't sound "nasty" to me, just judgmental & inexperienced.

Also, I don't think promiscuity = lack of self-control. One can be very ethically & carefully sexually active, even if it's with lotsa people.

FWIW, although not a gay guy like the LW, I've had both open, monogamish & monogamous relationships. The ones in which I was most comfortable aren't all one type, but rather were the ones in which my partner & I at the time felt free to talk to each other about wants/needs. Like the LW, when I first started dating I was a 100% monogamy all the way kinda person.

The first time I had an open relationship, I was nervous about it, but it turned out to not be the open-door, my partner being with someone new every weekend, thing, that I thought it might be. It was a once in awhile variable & I look back on it fondly.

YMMV.

@ DRF - you seem very invested in this. You're now reminding me of the letter writer. Monogamy doesn't particularly need defending, y'know. It's still the default relationship setting for most of the country. This one pocket of the 'net questioning that has lots of like-minded souls on it, as there's not greater acceptance of different structures of relationships.

Just like when you were talking about the difference between legal & religious marriage in the other SLLOTD thread, a point has been reached where you wanna just have the last word, like a concern troll. Your repeating things back over & over is broken-record-like. Repetition doesn't make something more true.

Posted by Eva Hopkins]]> Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:01:53 -0700 The Stranger
"I don't see any loyalty" doesn't predismiss the possibility that others have seen loyalty. And the question "Is there any loyalty" doesn't mean the same thing.

"I would appreciate a response." That's just polite. The kid's whole letter is a little formal.
Posted by DRF]]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:37:22 -0700 The Stranger
Ms F - While I admire the gallantry of your defence, given that the LW says he despised Mr Savage on the basis of having seen all of one video clip, it is a difficult case to make that it is inappropriate to call the LW a twerp, which I am not doing. His coming to respect Mr Savage is a point in his favour, but being willing to despise someone on such a hair-trigger opens him up to a similar response. You might have better luck trying inaccurate.

A few quick takes:

[You seemed to suggest that monogamy was only for heterosexual people.] It takes a bit of a reach to conclude that.

[It rubs me the wrong way because, as a community, gay people are still fighting for our rights.] I can see why Mr Savage and those among his readers who have done far more for The Cause than Johnny-Come-Out-Lately would call this at least very newby.

[Frankly, Dan, it's the acceptance of open relationships in the gay community that makes me not want to connect with the gay community AT ALL.] Who can't visualize him picking up all his marbles and stomping his way home in high dudgeon?

[Because now I have to wonder if my future partner is going to leave me because I don't want to “swing,” or if I will never find a partner because I want a closed relationship.] Now this is the one part of the letter that shows the LW at his best. Here he has a glimmer of what a precious gift monogamy can be to give a partner and be given the same in return. If there had been a lot more from this angle in the letter, I suspect that it might have done a good deal for the overall impression.

[The one thing I never heard you talk about in that video is self control.] And of course that one video constituted Mr Savage's entire body of work?

[I don't see any loyalty in open relationships. Far to often I hear about relationships where one partner wants an open relationship and the other doesn't. What kind of relationship is that?] Weird sentiments to pair; they don't really mesh. The first sentence would have been less judgy phrased as a question, even with "I don't see any" appended. It would at least not predismiss the opinions of those who have seen loyalty in open relationships. As for the second sentence, Mr Savage's being an advocate for closed relationships instead of for open relationships wouldn't do any such couple any more good, would it? It would simply mean that the LW would have an authority on his side to use as a weapon.

The LW seems to think that, if there were no support in the gay community or from Mr Savage for open relationships, his potential future partner who wants an open relationship would just give in and have a (supposedly) closed one. If the LW would be happier that way than just not dating someone who wanted an open relationship, that would not really be a point in his favour. Perhaps he thinks his PFP would be genuinely happier not having any choices or alternatives to examine, or even giving up his own desires as the relationship price of admission. Unfortunately, Mr J is already married.

[I believe that all open relationships are superficial.] Perhaps, as Ms F suggests, there isn't any good way to make that statement without offending people. It's an offence-giving belief, particularly out of the mouth of Johnny-Come-Out-Lately. Had a Gay Elder made such a statement, one might well assume that at least he had some sort of point and a fair amount of anecdata in support.

[I would appreciate a response.] Unlike all those other LWs who are just venting without anything of particular importance to say or ask, I am Oh So Serious and this is Oh So Important.

Mainly, this seems an immature letter, which is fine. I have been monogamous all my life, but, with only this letter upon which to form an opinion, I would lean against wanting my younger self to date the LW. But perhaps he shows better in a different light.
Posted by vennominon]]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:14:30 -0700 The Stranger
Question: Is there anyway that this letter-writer could have indicated that he believed that nonmonogamous relationships are bad/superficial that would not have offended you? WAS there a nicer way to express that belief?

Please note "I believe all nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" and "I don't want a nonmonogamous relationship but support others who do" are not the same belief, and--the relevant part--wouldn't have gotten the same response from Mr. Savage. Because THAT is the point of writing to Mr. Savage. This was an invitation to a discussion, not an attack.
Posted by DRF]]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:00:15 -0700 The Stranger
Yes - "strength of the language", as in, where the kid starts off by saying after he watched the video about monogamy & open relationships, he "despised" Dan. That's not strong language? 'I disagree with your relationship! Therefore I despise you.' *eyeroll* That's the statement of someone judging others because their choices are not the same as his. Which is funny, because I bet he won't like it when others judge him for being gay.

Other people have cut & pasted his statements already.

I don't feel threatened at all by the young man's statements & opinions. They are his to have, & as I said just above you, he may hold that position as he gets out there into the world, dates & gets older, or he may not. But he's making false equivalence by saying all non-monogamous relationships = sleeping with everything in sight. That ain't necessarily so.

More importantly, losing the judgmental attitude - only THIS way of doing relationships is the RIGHT way - will be important if he wants to have tight friendships. Don't wanna be in something non-monogamous? Then don't be. Duh. But being all high & mighty about the One True Way to do things is an attitude that will be perceived by friends he'll meet along the way & likely won't endear him to them.

He should be true to himself, & chase after the kind of relationship he wants. Just accept that others' path may be equally valid, even though they differ from his own.
Posted by Eva Hopkins]]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:28:02 -0700 The Stranger
I get that people feel threatened by the fact that this young man holds anti-nonmonogamy views, but it isn't as if he was careless about how he phrased his statements.
Posted by DRF]]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:56:14 -0700 The Stranger
Add my voice to the chorus of those thinking the LW is young & judgmental, but eh - he'll figure it out. Dan & Mr. Hooper were both very considerate & eloquent in their responses to him.

This may wind up being who this young man is, for a very long time. Maybe forever. If he finds someone with who shares that view, good for them. Or he may find as he ages, that his views on this..what's the word all the politicians use?..evolve, over the years.

LW, if you have read this far down, know that people can be 100% equally respectful of each other, in love with each other & worthy of each other, whether they are mongamous, mongamish, or open. I'm older than you & have loads of gay guy friends. I'd say about a third of those in couples are monogamous. They're happy.

If people sound mad at your original letter it was because of the strength of the language you used in judging other people's relationships. If monogamy feels like a great fit when you're out there dating - good for you! You were right. But it doesn't mean that the friends you meet along the way who aren't monogamous are doing something wrong. What works for you, works for you; what works for someone else, works for them.

Live & let live..and glad you are out of the closet, now.


Posted by Eva Hopkins]]> Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:59:41 -0700 The Stranger Posted by HellboundAlleee]]> Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:58:59 -0700 The Stranger Posted by James Hutchings]]> Sat, 23 Jun 2012 05:26:31 -0700 The Stranger

Posted by James Hutchings]]> Sat, 23 Jun 2012 05:20:56 -0700 The Stranger
"Judeo-Christian prejudices of lexographers"? Then write a letter to Webster and Oxford English Dictionary. I'm sure they'll tell you how they research the updates for their entries. It's the language. If you want to make the case that the English LANGUAGE has been influenced by Judeo-Christian values, I'm sure it has, in places, but I wouldn't be able to say whether "promiscuous" itself has.

The idea that monogamy is morally superior comes from the thousands of years in which a woman's reputation for fidelity was the only known paternity test. As to whether it's personally or psychologically superior, I'm holding out for a controlled, multi-decade study with clear operational definitions.

The "barrage" of responses to my comments indicates only that you, ECD and a few other people were interested in responding to what I've said. It got us a close examination of a few relevant words, a link to a somewhat interesting NYTimes Op-Ed, and what I hope were multi-person rereads of the original text in question. Can't say this didn't make anyone think.
Posted by DRF]]> Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:57:39 -0700 The Stranger
96, you are incorrect, they are saying he is expressing himself in such a judgemental way because he is young, not his desire for Monogamy.
Posted by Yas]]> Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:40:37 -0700 The Stranger
The definitions of promiscuity and self-control that you use only reveal the judeo-christian prejudices of the lexicographers... and of those who choose to adopt those definitions.

The argument that monogamy is a superior moral position is also based in judeo-christian tripe (certainly not in biology!).

And I believe the barrage of comments against your posts should be enough to indicate that there is something profoundly offensive in them; they positively seethe with contempt. You're just so sure of holding the higher ground that you can't even begin to see that.

Now I'm done answering you. Have a nice, long, prejudiced existence.

Posted by Ricardo]]> Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:22:38 -0700 The Stranger Posted by DRF]]> Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:02:31 -0700 The Stranger