http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=15280324 Comments On: Savage Love 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) Sun, 19 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sun, 19 May 2013 02:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Yama]]> Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:23:53 -0700 The Stranger Posted by dinana]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:35:50 -0800 The Stranger Absolutely, big props to all the straight folks who helped it happen!
I live in Canada (it's been legal up here for a few years now, as you know from personal experience!) - so those votes don't affect my life directly, but it sure made me sooooo happy on election night and the day after to see how those 4 state votes went. (And Tammy Baldwin, and on non-LGBT matters, Warren, McCaskill, and the gent who defeated Murdouch, and Rep. Tammy Duckworth....and on and on.. not to mention re-electing Obama!)
Posted by Corvicula1979]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:59:56 -0800 The Stranger
I am sick to death of that obtuse argument. The scenarios are not at all comparable. The people around babies and the comatose have a CHOICE about whether to feed and care for those babies and comatose. Not to mention they're not having nutrients drained directly from their bloodstream and not being subjected to the subsequent waste products, and they're also not having their system flooded with hormones that can cause fatal reactions, having their organs crushed, or being forced to push the dependent out of a small hole at great physical risk (not to mention the many other non-desirable physical results and/or dangers).

The result of a fertilized egg is a parasite, in the most plain scientific terms, just like a bacterium or virus. At best, it's comparable to a tumor - a collection of human cells that grows really quickly at the expense of the organism it inhabits. We have no qualms suggesting that a woman may rid herself of those, certainly not any that produce the exact same deleterious effects. The one difference is that a fertilized egg could potentially turn into a fully-substantiated human (and only potentially - it could also turn into a molar pregnancy, die in utero and cause septic shock, or any other number of potentially fatal outcomes). Now you can argue all you want that we should protect "potentially human" parasites over other life forms, but that's the only argument you can make. You cannot argue that it's reasonable to expect a human to harbor a parasite just because you say so. You need to argue that it's reasonable to expect a human to harbor that particular kind of parasite over another. And I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, but that is the only logical approach to the argument.
Posted by Exasperated Sigh...]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:57:53 -0800 The Stranger
I am sick to death of that obtuse argument. The scenarios are not at all comparable. The people around babies and the comatose have a CHOICE about whether to feed and care for those babies and comatose. Not to mention they're not having nutrients drained directly from their bloodstream and not being subjected to the subsequent waste products, and they're also not having their system flooded with hormones that can cause fatal reactions, having their organs crushed, or being forced to push the dependent out of a small hole at great physical risk (not to mention the many other non-desirable physical results and/or dangers).

The result of a fertilized egg is a parasite, in the most plain scientific terms, just like a bacterium or virus. At best, it's comparable to a tumor - a collection of human cells that grows really quickly at the expense of the organism it inhabits. We have no qualms suggesting that a woman may rid herself of those, certainly not any that produce the exact same deleterious effects. The one difference is that a fertilized egg could potentially turn into a fully-substantiated human (and only potentially - it could also turn into a molar pregnancy, die in utero and cause septic shock, or any other number of potentially fatal outcomes). Now you can argue all you want that we should protect "potentially human" parasites over other life forms, but that's the only argument you can make. You cannot argue that it's reasonable to expect a human to harbor a parasite just because you say so. You need to argue that it's reasonable to expect a human to harbor that particular kind of parasite over another. And I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, but that is the only logical approach to the argument.
Posted by Exasperated Sigh.....]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:52:50 -0800 The Stranger tickles, how the hell is she supposed to get off? Guy needs to pull that clit in and SUCK IT!
Posted by I have always been... east coaster]]> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:05:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ms. M]]> Sat, 24 Nov 2012 10:12:47 -0800 The Stranger You're fortunate to live in a commendably forward-thinking region that has warmly embraced the LGBT community long before ours here in the states did. That's really cool.

I've long accepted the term breeder ever since Dan first coined the phrase for what it is---a jab at heterosexuals because we hets could end up with kids by having unprotected sex. I just don't use it because I feel it doesn't apply to me.
Other people posting to this week's column suggested the retiring of the term breeder, such as @42 alecto, and I simply agreed with them.
Exactly what am I reading way too much into?

Long story short, I think you're misreading way too much of what I said.
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:35:03 -0800 The Stranger
I think you're kind of missing the point.

Look, where I live, gay marriage has been around for years, sodomy laws were repealed back in the swingin' 60's and I was looking forward to kindergarten when the military got over itself and allowed gay people to serve openly.

But I still don't pretend that we're at a point where the focus should shift to how straight people are stereotyped.

The point of the term was never to suggest that all straight people have children - simply that they were biologically capable of doing so - STILL not accurate across the board, but a humourous jab isn't SUPPOSED to be.

Long story short, you're reading way too much into it.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Thu, 22 Nov 2012 04:35:01 -0800 The Stranger
I still don't see your argument about breeders. How was I complaining? All I said was that since many heterosexuals (including myself) have simply chosen not to have kids (for WAY too many reasons to count here!), and a lot of gays and lesbians are proudly and lovingly having children, the original concept, even as a joke, seems outdated in today's society.
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:58:21 -0800 The Stranger
The point is, straight/cis people still enjoy a higher social status than LGBT people and that's a shame. Complaining about the term 'breeder' is kind of like complaining about all that sexism against men and all that racism against white people.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:58:15 -0800 The Stranger Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:27:25 -0800 The Stranger I realize that "breeder" is meant as a joke. However, I try not to make generalized statements, because not everybody from any one group tends to think the same way.

Bprrowing a line from Daman Wayans: when it comes to actually "breeding", THIS "Homey" don't play that!

@179 vennominon, and @180 mydriasis: What do you mean that by retiring the word, "breeder", Our Work Here is Done?
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:26:12 -0800 The Stranger
Bingo!

Posted by mydriasis]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:18:46 -0800 The Stranger
"men don't manscape so much"

Haha, what.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:47:45 -0800 The Stranger
Good luck with your campaign for voluntary human extinction.


Posted by seandr]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:27:28 -0800 The Stranger There's a huge difference between "80 % of women don't feel a thing from penetration ", "80 % of women don't come from penetration ever" and "80 % of women don't come from penetration only".
Somehow, I think if one of the statements above is true, it would be the last.
Posted by migrationist]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:37:26 -0800 The Stranger
However, the last time I recieved oral without penetration right afterward, I was still a "virgin". Maybe my post-cunnilingus expectations of penetration make it easier for me to come? My partners seem to enjoy it too, so everybody wins, we like variety. But given the choice between getting head with no penetration afterward, and using my vibrator...sorry fellas.

When I see statistics like "80% of women don't feel a thing from penetration" I wonder what the hell is in it for those women, besides making her partner feel good, or babies if she's into that kind of thing. I honestly have a hard time believing it because I hang out in environments like this. I guess that's why science is still in search of the elusive G-Spot.
Posted by Auragasm]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:21:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by AFinch]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:22:30 -0800 The Stranger
Great band. Kim Deal's fantastic.

@Ven

"Retiring the term suggests that Our Work Here is Done, which most definitely is not the case."

My thoughts exactly.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:28:21 -0800 The Stranger
Retiring the term suggests that Our Work Here is Done, which most definitely is not the case.

Weirdly, though, I think it would be more accurately used to describe those who have to go about the matter as if dealing with racehorses (Frankel and Goldikova, perhaps?) rather than referring to those likely to produce a pregnancy at any particular moment of intimacy.
Posted by vennominon]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:43:18 -0800 The Stranger Posted by scorpio of Id.]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:35:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by fat ghost]]> Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:56:56 -0800 The Stranger I think most guys could go either way on groomed or not, with any preference being a function of what the woman they are hot for is currently doing with hers. I learned to appreciate hairy armpits from one partner (animal sexy), and a hairier than average bush (sometimes shaved, sometimes not) from a another one of Greek+Jewish decent.

Two things I've never gotten used to, however:
1) Excessive pubic hair spilling out from a bikini
2) Hairy legs, especially with sheer stockings

@Breeder:
Taking offense to "breeder" is silly. The term is ultimately a joke, just like the "kill straighty!" graffiti you sometimes see on Capitol Hill. Back in the 90's, referring to oneself as a breeder was a cute/ironic way to demonstrate you were down the gays. Letters to Savage Love would often open with "I'm a breeder boy..." or "I'm a breeder chick...", right after the "Hey, Faggot" salutation. Remember Kim Deal's band? Whether or not one has any intention to actually breed is entirely besides the point.
Posted by seandr]]> Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:08:21 -0800 The Stranger
Yes but she has two of them, right? And two eyes? two arms? One mouth, nose, bellybutton and vagina on the midline?

Sounds pretty symmetrical to me even if her breasts were slightly different sizes.

But I guess it's all relative.

@griz

The term breeder is like the term honkey. It's a vaguely derogatory term towards the less exploited group. I wouldn't take it too seriously or think that it's a legitimate way that all gay people think about all straight people.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:59:12 -0800 The Stranger