Follow Dan

Facebook    Twitter    Instagram    YouTube
Savage Lovecast
Dan Savage's Hump
It Gets Better Project

Savage Love Podcast

Got a question for Dan Savage?
Call the Savage Love Podcast at 206-201-2720
or email Dan at mail@savagelove.net.

Savage Love Archives

More in the Archives »

More from Dan Savage

More in the Archives »

Books by Dan Savage

Want a Second Opinion?

Contact Dan Savage

Savage on YouTube

Loading...

Santorum Surges

January 11, 2012

I am writing to thank you. I remember reading your definition of "santorum"—"the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex"—when it first appeared. I remember thinking it was a cute way to make fun of a dickhead politician. I never thought it would go this far. But after Iowa, Rick Santorum is in the spotlight again. And so is that frothy mixture. And that's fucking awesome.

Jeff In Wisconsin

Don't thank me, JIW. Thank Rick Santorum for making his bigotry crystal clear in a 2003 interview with the Associated Press. Santorum equated consensual gay sex with child rape and dog fucking, he stated that birth control should be illegal, he argued that states should be able to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people—gay and straight—for private, consensual sex acts.

Thank the Savage Love reader who, after reading that interview, urged me to invite my readers to submit new definitions for Santorum's last name. And thank the Savage Love readers who—in their wisdom—selected "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" from a crowded field of equally repulsive candidates.

I did my part: I counted the ballots, I created a website (www.spreadingsantorum.com) that eight years later remains the number one return when you google "Santorum." But, again, if it weren't for my creative, kinky, and hilarious readers, JIW, an otherwise distressing news cycle—a ranting, raving, washed-up religious bigot tied for first place in the Iowa caucuses?!?—would not have been leavened by such unintentionally hilarious headlines as "Santorum Surges from Behind," "Santorum Runs Hard," and "Romney Squeezes Out Santorum."


Dan Savage is one sick, pathetic excuse for a human being. Truly a sad piece of sh*t. Especially trying to "insert himself"—pun intended—into the GOP presidential race.

Savage Isn't Completely Kind

We redefined "santorum" back in 2003, SICK, long before Santorum was running for president. So it would be more accurate to say that the GOP presidential race has inserted itself into me, not the other way around. And, gosh, I hope there isn't any santorum on the GOP presidential race when it pulls out of me—that would be so embarrassing!

Also embarrassing: Elise Foley's gushing profile of Elizabeth Santorum, Rick's adult daughter, that appeared on the Huffington Post before the Iowa caucuses.

"It is tough [being] a young surrogate for a candidate/father clinging to an older worldview," Foley writes. "Her father's stance on same-sex marriage and gay rights, in particular, has caused some friction from non-supporters. 'It's a policy thing,' [Elizabeth Santorum] said of gay marriage... Opposed to same-sex marriage herself, Elizabeth said she has gay friends who support her father's candidacy based on his economic and family platforms."

Yeah, it's tough out there for a 'phobe—and it's getting tougher all the time. Rick Santorum was nearly booed off a stage in New Hampshire last week after he insisted that legalizing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamous marriage. (The same argument was made against legalizing interracial marriage—and here we are, 44 years after the Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional, and Tiger Woods can marry only one busted Olive Garden hostess at a time.)

You know what else is tough? Gay widowers losing their homes after the deaths of their spouses because they don't qualify for the same Social Security benefits as all other married couples. Also tough: seeing your wife deported because the federal government doesn't recognize your marriage.

But, hey, Elizabeth Santorum isn't a bigot—she can't be! She has gay friends! And her gay friends support her dad!

Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his having equated consensual gay sex to child rape and dog fucking? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his opposition to gay marriage and any other legal framework—civil unions, domestic partnerships—that might provide legal protections for same-sex couples? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his promises to write anti-gay bigotry into the US Constitution, forcibly divorce all legally married same-sex couples in the United States, reinstate DADT, and ban adoptions by same-sex couples?

Who are these faggots?

To Ms. Foley and all the other political reporters out there: When someone like Elizabeth Santorum tells you that she has gay friends and her gay friends support her dad based on his "family platforms"—gay people shouldn't be allowed to have families—your subject is making an astonishing claim. Your immediate response should be a demand for the names and phone numbers of these gay friends. Offer to quote these gay friends anonymously, to protect their privacy/stupidity, but tell the homophobe that you will need to verify the existence of her gay friends because you're a journalist, not a stenographer. You'll either catch the homophobe in a very revealing lie—what does it tell us about this moment in the struggle for LBGT equality that even bigots like Rick and Elizabeth Santorum perceive a political risk in being perceived as homophobic?—or land a fascinating interview with a crazy-ass faggot.


I've been a loyal reader for half my life. Today, a friend and I got into a debate about you. My friend says your campaign to redefine "santorum" flies in the face of your anti-bullying "It Gets Better" campaign. Would you please address this issue?

Google Problems

First, GP, the campaign is over: Santorum has been redefined.

Second, taking the piss out of a middle-aged bigot who has repeatedly and viciously attacked a tiny minority for personal and political gain—a man surrounded by people who support him personally, politically, and financially—is not the moral equivalent of beating the shit out of a vulnerable and isolated 13-year-old queer kid in rural Texas who is a member of the tiny minority that this powerful bigot has repeatedly and viciously attacked.

Third, circling back to Elizabeth Santorum's blowjob on HuffPo: "[Elizabeth] is aware of her father's so-called 'Google problem,' part of a campaign by columnist Dan Savage... 'That just makes me sad. It's disappointing that people can be that mean,' she said."

I'm sorry for giving you a sad, Elizabeth. You know what gave me a sad? Reading about Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond. The women, together 18 years, were vacationing in Florida in 2007 with three of their four children when Pond suffered an aneurysm. Langbehn and the children were barred from Pond's room when they arrived at the hospital. A social worker informed Langbehn—who was distraught—that she wouldn't be able to see her wife because they were in an "anti-gay city and state."

Lisa Pond was not a "policy thing," Elizabeth. She was a human being. And her wife and children were prevented from saying good-bye to her because people who agree with you and your father—people who doubtless felt empowered to act on their bigotry thanks to high-profile bigots like you and your father—persecuted them as Pond lay dying.

By being so mean as to oppose legal protections for gay and lesbian families, Elizabeth, you and your father are trying to make sure that other families headed by same-sex couples will suffer as Langbehn, Pond, and their children were made to suffer.

It is disappointing how mean some people can be, Elizabeth, it really is.


Time to follow through on your threat to redefine "rick," Dan.

Matt Via Twitter

Already done: To "rick" is to remove something with your tongue—the "r" from "remove," the "ick" from "lick"—which makes "rick santorum" the most disgusting two-word sentence in the English language after "vote Republican."


Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.

mail@savagelove.net

@fakedansavage on Twitter

 

Comments (329) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I understand that in New Hampshire, Willard Romney is licking Santorum.
Posted by CW in LA on January 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM · Report this
2
Very well said Dan.

As I type this, I see that Santorum is a distant 5th in New Hampshire and falling like a rock.
Posted by naked chilli on January 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM · Report this
3
If I called you a "faggot", or "pillow biter", or "cum dumpster" would that be o.k? How come when you defend any criticisms, you start by calling names and trying to belittle people that have different views than your own. It's rather ironic that gay people always complain and try to hurt straight people who have different views from them, but want laws made to protect them if a straight person says something that offends them. Typical "Libtard" hypocrisy. If you were really a person who didn't discriminate, you wouldn't label any person. Not gay, straight, African American, Native American, etc.
Posted by Showing True Hypocrisy on January 10, 2012 at 6:09 PM · Report this
4
Dan, I second the first letter. Spreadingsantorum.com has made this primary season amusing and nauseating, instead of just the latter. I hope Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have thanked you as well, because they are certainly doing their part to help with project "Google Santorum."
Posted by GretaJane on January 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM · Report this
5
If I called you a "faggot", or "pillow biter", or "cum dumpster" would that be o.k? How come when you defend any criticisms, you start by calling names and trying to belittle people that have different views than your own. It's rather ironic that gay people always complain and try to hurt straight people who have different views from them, but want laws made to protect them if a straight person says something that offends them. Typical "Libtard" hypocrisy. If you were really a person who didn't discriminate, you wouldn't label any person. Not gay, straight, African American, Native American, etc.
Posted by Showing True Hypocrisy on January 10, 2012 at 6:14 PM · Report this
6
I'm interested in the definition of bullying. Especially, I've been interested in the way some people glommed on to the idea that bullying was any time anyone did something that they didn't like to them personally. So a bunch of cliquish girls saying mean things about each other became bullying. I asked a school counselor about it. She said that the thing that distinguishes real bullying from any name calling is the power differential. 10 kids against one is bullying. One big kid beating up a little kid is bullying. Teachers choosing favorites and ostracizing others is bullying. In other words, it would be thrilling to think of the spreading santorum campaign as bullying. It would mean power has finally gotten where it belongs.
Posted by Crinoline on January 10, 2012 at 6:20 PM · Report this
Lilliable 7
You missed day one of history class. Savage wanted to call the column "Hey, Faggot" but the editors nixed the idea. (Though they did allow letters to be addressed that way initially.)

"Sticks and stones..."
Posted by Lilliable on January 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM · Report this
8
@3, 5: There's a substantive difference here that you are missing. Being gay, straight, Native, black, whatever--those are states of being, inherent to the person. Beliefs are not, and if they are ridiculous beliefs then they are subject to ridicule.

As to your false statements of fact, well, I'll leave you to figure out what they are.
Posted by clashfan on January 10, 2012 at 6:29 PM · Report this
9
I was eating when I read that last line...
Posted by TheAngryAdmin on January 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM · Report this
10
My staunchly republican husband (small r, I'm slowly getting the repub stick out of his ass) giggles everytime he hears the word santorum (small s, because that fuckwad doesn't deserve capitalization). Who exactly came up with the whole frothy definition? Wiki says it was the winner in a contest, but that was before I started reading Dan.
Posted by catballou on January 10, 2012 at 6:44 PM · Report this
11
"rick santorum"

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Posted by dakoneko on January 10, 2012 at 6:56 PM · Report this
12
So, we'll put you down as "undecided", Dan? ;-)

Seriously though, I was interested to see your reaction, and you did not disappoint. Well done!
Posted by Landog on January 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM · Report this
13
@3 and 5: Tone argument. You lose.
Posted by Gamebird on January 10, 2012 at 7:07 PM · Report this
14
Beautiful column. Vote away the scum! Obama 2012.
Posted by spoon on January 10, 2012 at 7:31 PM · Report this
15
The new/ old definition of "Rick Santorum" has completely blown my mind..I'm giggling like a 12 year old boy before puberty. Well said Dan. Nothing justifies hate that drives 13 year old children to commit suicide. Also, no one is justified in a belief that teaches 13 year old children to deal out that kind of hate and cruelty.
Posted by MichelleM. on January 10, 2012 at 7:36 PM · Report this
16
Fuck haters - I heart Dan Savage.

Johnny D.
Posted by Johnny D. on January 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM · Report this
17
I would say that Santorum sucks santorum, but that's probably a legitimate fetish, and he doesn't deserve to be associated with the word "legitimate".
Posted by Gay Movie Fan on January 10, 2012 at 8:40 PM · Report this
18
I would really, really like to hear from these alleged "gay friends" who support Mr. Frothy Mixture. Srsly, I want to understand what would make anybody queer even think about supporting him. Unless, of course, they don't exist.......
Posted by dalek princess on January 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM · Report this
19
@3, 5 - are you actually complaining about name-calling while employing a form of 'tard' in your argument? EPIC FAIL. Also, go back to compassion school and see if you can discover why you flunked out. Bigotry ≠ 'views', you douchecanoe.

Column made of win (not a given) Dan. Well done.
Posted by happyhedonist on January 10, 2012 at 8:45 PM · Report this
20
Santorum is still railing against contraception and all the other stupid shit he opposes. I wish I could tell him that if he took my IUD while I was sleeping, I'd probably (1) Have a lot more anal sex with my husband and (2) Bang a lot more lesbians in order to avoid becoming pregnant. Santorum backfires. A pun in and of itself.
Posted by wxPDX on January 10, 2012 at 9:09 PM · Report this
21
I've read the articles about Santorum's 2003 speech a few times now, and while it does contain repulsive anti-gay and other extreme views, didn't he literally say "it's NOT like man-on-dog," etc. (caps mine)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that son of a gun and his mind-bogglingly extreme views has been made into a joke that damages his chances of gaining a position that will give him a chance to act on them, but "not" is a pretty relevant word.
Posted by DRF on January 10, 2012 at 9:33 PM · Report this
22
I think Dan Savage is a great human being. Long may he reign.
Posted by Dan Not Savage on January 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM · Report this
23
DRF: I was confused about that too at first. But upon a second reading, it became clear to me that he was saying "[the definition of marriage] is not, you know, man-on-child, man-on-dog". So he was likening gay marriage to man/child or man/dog by basically meaning "if marriage isn't man-on-child or man-on-dog, why should it be man-on-man?"
Posted by AK on January 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM · Report this
24
@20:

You know when homophobic politicians come out as flaming faggots?

Rick Santorum has a different problem. He hates sex. Probably because he *wants* to have all the fun the rest of us are having with our filthy, depraved sex lives, like oral and anal and lesbian sex, but his mind was so fucked up by his religion that he believes that the only way to make his desires go away is by making sure *other* people can't have them. Just like the closet cases who become homophobic senators trying to outlaw the gay. Which is why if elected President, he will legislate against oral and anal and lesbian sex, and empower the police to peek through your bedroom window to make sure you're not having any of it. Because he also thinks you have no right to *privacy*.

So while you think Santorum backfires, you just fail to understand the *scope* of the problem he will become for you. Sorry, he's *also* coming for your condoms and your IUDs and your alternatives to vaginal sex which also include gay nightclubs.
Posted by gromm on January 10, 2012 at 10:13 PM · Report this
25
@ 21: No. He says marriage is not like man-on-dog, just like it's not like homosexuality:

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —


The "it" is marriage, not homosexuality. He's quite clear that he's not "picking on homosexuality", he could just as easily have used bestiality as an example, it would be the same thing. According to him.
Posted by Chase on January 10, 2012 at 10:33 PM · Report this
26
@6 Crinoline: Interesting points.
@7: Actually, Dan's editor wanted to name the column "My Gay Friend", but cringed on "Hey, Faggot" as the title. Instead, it was agreed that "Hey, Faggot" was okay as a greeting for Dan's column and thus, the title Savage Love was born.
@14 spoon: I second that!!!

Dan--I've got one---now that he's falling fast, and his shit has nowhere else to go, how about Santorum Runoff? Trickle Down Santorum?

Bless you, Dan, fellow readers, and bravo!!
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 10, 2012 at 10:35 PM · Report this
27
@ 24: I think you misjudge 20. She's saying his effort to stop her from using birth control, if successful, would just encourage her to indulge in anal sex and homosexuality. I think she fully understands what a shitstain he is, she's just keeping her tongue in her cheek instead of his ass.
Posted by Chase on January 10, 2012 at 10:36 PM · Report this
28
How do I change my setting to read Unregistered Comments? I know some of you Tech Savvy folk can help me...

Before Iowa and post Rupert Murdoch starting a Twitter account so he could endorse Santorum, I related the Google Problem story to all my friends and urged them to google Santorum...
Posted by albeit on January 10, 2012 at 11:18 PM · Report this
29
@28 at the bottom of Dan's response, right above the first comment, there are a few option buttons, asking you to choose if you want to view registered posters, unregistered posters, and whether you want oldest or newest posts first.
Posted by EricaP on January 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM · Report this
30
As of tonight he's a distant fourth, so perhaps he and his Google problem can go the way of all santorum...
Posted by Sarah in Olympia on January 11, 2012 at 12:05 AM · Report this
31
Ah Ricky!

He's just a treasure trove of dumbassedness. Whether it's marriage leading to dog orgies with 4 or 5 people, or going to college being "elitist snobbery".

Man, I really wish they'd plop me in front of a camera with a question. Because, this whole issue of biblical homosexuality thing is mostly because it's adultery. Along with any sex outside of marriage, and even thinking about having sex with someone you're not married to. (That's a bit more hardcore).

I just want to see him try and answer a question about how he's going to stop heterosexual adultery as President.

Posted by Xeson on January 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM · Report this
32
One of my big problems with His Frothiness is his assertion that we have no inherent right to privacy. If that's the case then what Dan has been saying for a long time - that Sanny, and his right-wing friends, are coming for all birth control and non-procreative or missionary style heterosexual sex. The idea of somebody being able to come into my bedroom and arrest me and my partner just because we aren't "doing it properly" is the very antithesis of what the USA is supposed to embody - freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Oh, yeah, Frothy doesn't believe in the pursuit of happiness either.

I also find his hypocracy to be beyond the pale. He talks about how states should have the right to criminalize contraception, homosexual behavior, and all abortions. (He would criminalize the very procedure that saved his wife's life when she was carrying a non-viable fetus, which is a whole additional level of hypocracy.) Then, in the next breath he will also talk about how the states shouldn't have the right to legalize same-sex marriage, if that is their wish. So which is it, Sanny? If the states have the right to make laws regarding the legality of such things as contraception and abortion, why can't they make laws legalizing same-sex marriage? Or is he only for states' rights if they are legistating in the direction that he believes is "best for our society"?
Posted by SherBee on January 11, 2012 at 1:57 AM · Report this
33
I can understand the argument that civil discourse would be better. Indeed it would. It would be much better if people had civil discussions about who is right and who is wrong, without redefining names and without making factually wrong comparisons between gay sex, bestiality, and pedophilia.

Santorum could try to defend his argument by appealing to the bible and claiming it's the authority he respects. If the bible says these thigns are the same, so will he. Then the argument would be about whether or not you should always follow the bible. And so on and so forth.

And this could in principle be done in a civil manner. But given the emotions that power the various worldviews here, especially in America... It seems pretty damn naive to expect that people will always be civil in their public debates.

That is indeed a pity. But unless those who criticize Dan's vehemence can tell me that they criticize also the vehemence of right-wing people (Glenn Beck? Hannity?), and what they're doing to change that -- I have to say it is similarly hypocritical to condemn things only when they come from the people you already oppose.

Changing the mud-slinging habits of American politics starts at home. If you say to your enemy "you stop first", you're just playing the same game again, no change.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 11, 2012 at 3:15 AM · Report this
34
I'm in Australia and heard Mr Santorum mentioned on the news the other night. My first thought was "you can't say that word on television !"
Posted by Spaniel on January 11, 2012 at 3:20 AM · Report this
35
I'm with 34. I thought, if I'm finally hearing Santorum's name on the Australian news, it's time for another wave of the frothy mix campaign...
Posted by melbzig on January 11, 2012 at 3:29 AM · Report this
36
When a kid getting bullied wins the fight, it doesn't make that kid also a bully. Santorum started a fight with gay people and it ended with ruining his name.
Posted by Sirus on January 11, 2012 at 3:42 AM · Report this
37
Making fun of a politician who has the power to hurt/destroy human lives in order to call attention to his depraved beliefs/policies is not mean. It's called grassroots politics in action. Duh. Maybe more people should have made fun of Adolf Hitler before he took total power.
Posted by TaniaZ on January 11, 2012 at 3:42 AM · Report this
38
Santorum and his ilk are so horrible that I don't like to waste thought on him. I am interested in exploring where ideas like his come from. I'm interested in why people, now and historically, agree with him. We've talked about love and attraction. We've talked about reasons, evolutionary and other, straight people cheat in marriages. We've talked about genetic and/or societal influence on homosexuality. Yet a tendency towards persecution of homosexuality is something to be condemned, not questioned.

You'd think, on the surface, that if your brother, friend, neighbor, or son said that he wanted to have sex with boys, people would shrug and say whatever. From an evolutionary point, they'd say "more females for me." But instead, going back to Biblical times and in many cultures, there's hatred to the point of hunting people down and killing them. Why? I'm not satisfied with the idea, possibly meant to insult, that it's just an aberration. It's too widespread. You could almost call it natural. Why?
Posted by Crinoline on January 11, 2012 at 5:24 AM · Report this
39
Dan, on the issue of Santorum, you are right, your naysayers are wrong.

End of story, the only people that back Santorum are not deserving of the title human.

Posted by Kylere on January 11, 2012 at 5:33 AM · Report this
40
That "Santorum Surges from Behind" headline came from the Philadelphia Daily News, and I can guarantee there was nothing *unintentional* about that hilarity. Those editors put a lot of thought into their clever headlines. There's no way that wasn't on purpose (along with numerous other Santorum headlines that have been coming out lately). Stewart and Colbert may be more overt, but a lot mainstream media types are trying to subtly have a laugh on this one too.
Posted by PhillyLiberal on January 11, 2012 at 5:35 AM · Report this
41
I am impressed that Mr Savage managed a double shot at both Mr Woods and Ms Nordegren at the same time. Or was it intended only as a shot against him? As she wasn't an Olive Garden hostess, it's not clear.
Posted by vennominon on January 11, 2012 at 5:38 AM · Report this
42
Well, that explains why most santorum froths at the ass but Rick Santorum froths at the mouth.
Posted by LML on January 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM · Report this
43
I just want to say thanks from a longtime straight reader from Pennsylvania. Rick Santorum is a national disgrace, but a particular embarrassment to those of us from PA. Thank you for doing all that you do to show that embarrassment for what it truly is: an idiocy far too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Let's hope NH has spelled the end of this particular episode of political farce.
Posted by KatePA on January 11, 2012 at 5:51 AM · Report this
44
In my opinion, Rick Santorum, like most of the catholic clergy he parrots, is a self-loathing latent homosexual. I just don't feel any threat to my male heterosexuality by gay people marrying or sharing full rights in society. It doesn't make me think after years of being attracted to women, "hey, I think I need to start switching off." And I don't believe that gay men are going to suddenly start being attracted to women by denigration, obnoxious laws, or criminalizing their behavior. But self-loathing gays are terrified, because they need the world to hate gays to resist their own temptation to be who they really are. Rick Santorum tries way too hard to follow the company (conservative catholic) line.
Posted by koplaw on January 11, 2012 at 6:09 AM · Report this
45
Hi Dan, as a Dutch fan of your blog I enjoy every minute of the republican presidential-candidate election covering on our Dutch news channels.
We are aware of the surprising rise of (yuk) Rick Santorum, and many Dutch people start googling him to find out who he is (just like all the other republican candidates). With younger people here, Santorum's (yuk) google problem has been known for some time, now the general public gets a taste of it (unintentional pun); only the fourth hit on google has information on the bigoted politican. The rest refers to (the origins of) the word Santorum as we all love and cherish it. Perhaps you already know this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comment…

Or better, the comments on this post. I didn't post it, but I sure hope it helped with the google results!

All the best with your Savage Love!
Posted by Femke on January 11, 2012 at 6:18 AM · Report this
46
Hm...it doesnot show the link properly: here again (it's a post about Santorum having said that "Nobody has ever died because they didn't have healthcare"
.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/o3cc7/santorum_no_one_has_ever_died_because_they_didnt/
Posted by Femke on January 11, 2012 at 6:25 AM · Report this
47
FWIW, if frothyman gets less than 10% of the vote in NH, then he (and Gingrich and Perry) wasted capital in getting no delegates. Nothing will flush him faster than running out of money :-)

So, if you really want one of his sweater vests, wait till he officially drops out before ordering one (they may discount it then too).

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 11, 2012 at 6:29 AM · Report this
48
I love the Joe Newton illustration this week!
Posted by Married in MA on January 11, 2012 at 6:34 AM · Report this
geoz 49
I was so happy to see that Santorum came in just ahead of Perry at the bottom of the results in my town in New Hampshire. Also of note, this year no one was out holding signs as they always have in other years. I'm hopeful that the enthusiasm gap is the reason.

By the way, I'm pleased that the definition of "rick" is now established. Perhaps then the collateral damage to other people named santorum can be a little less?
Posted by geoz on January 11, 2012 at 7:02 AM · Report this
50
Aaagh! Say it ain't so! I just googled Santorum to help keep Spreading Santorum at the top, and found it had moved down to fifth place. Dan – please put out the word that we need a massive surge of hits to restore Spreading Santorum to its rightful number-one spot.
Posted by SpreadingTheWord on January 11, 2012 at 7:09 AM · Report this
51
So, I understand that this isn't a good rhetorical move to use with right-wing hate filled f*ckwads, but why exactly are we supposed to take it as so obvious that legal polygamy is bad that both sides use its badness as the premise of their argument? ("He is so evil he compared gay marriage to polygamy", vs "If you allow gay marriage then what's next, polygamy?")

I honestly don't get it. I have tried, but I literally can't think of a single ethical argument against legal polygamy, though surely there would be pragmatic hurdles, as with anything new.

I do the one at a time thing myself, except for a handful of one-shot threesomes and some standard-fare stints dating more than one person when none were serious. But my neighbors are an all-male very stable threesome and they have one of the healthiest and most supportive relationships in my friend group. My kid hangs out with them a fair amount and came to the conclusion on his own that there is not only nothing ethically wrong with multiple partners, but nothing weird about it in practice either.

Even Savagers who happily participate in threads about polyamory seem to find it obvious that it's insulting to suggest a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamous marriage. And Dan seems to do the same above, at least by implication. I think I am in favor of such a slippery slope! If someone had argued back in the miscegenation days, "If we allow interracial marriage, what's next, same-sex marriage?" they would have actually turned out to be prophetic, right? What is the difference?

Don't tell the right wing f*ckwads I said so though ;)
Posted by philgirl on January 11, 2012 at 7:17 AM · Report this
52
@38 - My opinion about why people freak and condemn when they think about homosexuality, specifically males, is some visceral fear that they will be overpowered and have unpleasant-to-them sex acts performed upon their bodies. Men know the violent capabilities of their own gender against women, so it follows that male heterosexuals would worry for themselves.

Women don't think that way, because, certainly, you are right, I thought from the first time I understood what a lesbian is: hmm, fine, more men for me. I also thought: gay men, how sad for me! until I realized how fabulous most gay men can be and what a wondrous addition to the population they are.

Posted by Bugnroolet on January 11, 2012 at 7:21 AM · Report this
53
@23 Thanks AK. I was assuming that the "it" in "It's not like man-on-dog" meant "sex between two men" but you're saying that the "it" meant "marriage."
Posted by DRF on January 11, 2012 at 7:38 AM · Report this
54
After Pounding in New Hampshire, Santorum Slides in Polls.
Posted by Pablo Picasso on January 11, 2012 at 7:43 AM · Report this
55
Killer take-no-prisoners column, Dan, and it really, really all needed to be said. Thanks.
Posted by MrEasy on January 11, 2012 at 8:05 AM · Report this
56
@54,

Santorum slides in polls, and gets a pounding behind Gingrich in NH (Perry ends up on bottom).
Posted by Married in MA on January 11, 2012 at 8:09 AM · Report this
57
Maybe somebody should make up a rude and degrading definition based on the name of Dan Savage's son and promote this on the Internet. Then he would understand his evil and hurting ways.

Anybody who says someone "should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there's nothing left but the rope." should command nobody's respect.
Posted by naked chilli on January 11, 2012 at 8:17 AM · Report this
58
I have read that one reason against polygamy is that richer men would hoard women, leaving poor men without. Poor men without women/sex are more prone to violence, etc.

No polygamy = less societal violence.

That's the reasoning I have heard.
Posted by Lost a lot of time on January 11, 2012 at 8:20 AM · Report this
59
Naked Chilli: Keep on fappin'!
Posted by Dolt on January 11, 2012 at 8:21 AM · Report this
60
People PLEASE!
Calling out a bully like Rick Santorum is NOT bullying, it is standing up for yourself and all the other people Rick would like to legislate into oblivion.....double bonus points if it's done as mockery because the Rethugs HATE being mocked.

When Rick Santorum or Rick Perry are found dead, tied to a fence post after being beaten to death or beaten up while walking down the street minding their own business, or raped and then denied healthcare by evil gays and women, THEN we'll talk.

Posted by MJ1 on January 11, 2012 at 8:33 AM · Report this
61
It's one thing to have consenting--truly consenting--adults involved in polygamous marriages. It is quite anohter, however, how polygamy has been traditionally practiced--as a patriarchal institution that women, and sometimes young girls, are forced into. So, yes, there are ethical reasons against, say polygamy as practiced by Mormons or other religious zealots.
Posted by LML on January 11, 2012 at 8:33 AM · Report this
62
WTF does Dan mean by "tiny minority"?? Does he now suddenly believe there are very few LGBTQ folks on the planet? Tiny my ass!

I have never subscribed to the unreasonable theory that we only make up 10% of the population. How can any source, from Kinsey on, be relied on for accuracy when it comes to personal info many gay people are still reluctant to be honest about?
Posted by wayne on January 11, 2012 at 8:36 AM · Report this
63
People PLEASE!
Calling out a bully like Rick Santorum is NOT bullying, it is standing up for yourself and all the other people Rick would like to legislate into oblivion.....double bonus points if it's done as mockery because the Rethugs HATE being mocked.

When Rick Santorum or Rick Perry are found dead, tied to a fence post after being beaten to death or beaten up while walking down the street minding their own business, or raped and then denied healthcare by evil gays and women, THEN we'll talk.

Posted by MJ12 on January 11, 2012 at 8:37 AM · Report this
64
We should work harder on the phrase "rick santorum" because currently googling that phrase doesn't give spreadingsantorum.com for the first result. And it doesn't explain that "rick" is a verb even.

Rick (v) To remove a substance with one's tongue.
"Eww, I'm dribbling everywhere, could you rick this santorum, honey?"

There were so many sites exploiting santorum's name I spent last week on the floor laughing. Examples :

http://gawker.com/5872978/every-funny-he…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/0…
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattcherette/25-…

But my favorite remains "Santorum surges from behind dislodging Romney". Can we keep the obvious meaning for Romney too?
Posted by Jef on January 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM · Report this
65
Another great and subtle jape on the Columbia Journalism Review's blog article "Santorum Goes After Social Security" (emphasis mine):

But a better idea as the campaign progresses is to ask [His Frothiness] such a question point blank and report his answer. If a slippery candidate doesn’t dot the Is and cross the Ts, the press surely should.


@51, it's because, in their eyes, polygamy means less cunt to go around and some men might end up without a cunt to abuse and control. Note how the guys bringing this up are often so fortunate as to have one secretly despairing woman who can scarcely tolerate them and only stick around because of a misguided sense of duty -- the likely losers when the two-by-two life-pairing nonsense is no longer enforced at gunpoint.

Speaking of nonconsensual enforcement of cultural norms, here's a nice article suggesting that ab-only sex ed encourages bullying, which the culture warriors, being bullies themselves, are just bully about:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/20…
Posted by allfullup on January 11, 2012 at 9:36 AM · Report this
66
@51 "Even Savagers who happily participate in threads about polyamory seem to find it obvious that it's insulting to suggest a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamous marriage."

It's not insulting. But poly marriage is a whole different kettle of fish, for precisely the pragmatic reasons to which you refer: SS benefits, health care benefits, child custody issues in case of divorce... If you only imagine a three-way marriage, those issues seem manageable, but suppose A marries B, C, D, and E, where B is also married to F; C is also married to G & H; and wild D is married to P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V. (Also, V hates G with a passion, so they're definitely not married. F and A are sisters, so they're definitely not married...) Okay, now who gets to share A's health benefits? If B dies intestate, how do you divide B's assets? And if B has a kid with D, who gets custody after B dies?
Posted by EricaP on January 11, 2012 at 9:38 AM · Report this
67
@61: Yes obviously. And there are grotesque ethical problems with how one-man one-woman marriage has been implemented, especially in various subcultures. I don't see the difference. Indeed surely it would be easier to prevent such abuses if the 'marriages' weren't subterranean and illegal, where, for instance, women are even more terrified to report abuse than usual because they fear their whole community will be destroyed if they are exposed. Not that I think legalization is ever going to make those subcultures ok - the point is they will make them somewhat better or leave them as they are, not make them worse.

But mostly the implicit form of your argument just seems deeply wrong. there are deeply perverted, abusive relationships and subcultures of all sorts. It is important to know about that and try to help. I see none of that as having any bearing whatsoever on whether there is something intrinsically sketchy about a particular arrangement of partnered-up bodies or whether we should legalize their union. The polygamous partnerships in my social circle have no more relationship to LDC craziness than do any of my other friends' partnerships.
Posted by philgirl on January 11, 2012 at 9:41 AM · Report this
68
"Offer to quote these gay friends anonymously, to protect their privacy/stupidity, but tell the homophobe that you will need to verify the existence of her gay friends because you're a journalist, not a stenographer."

THANK YOU.
Posted by Parrots aren't journalists on January 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM · Report this
69
I look forward to a definitive list of justifications for name-calling and bullying. A lot of the people I disagree with really have it coming.
Posted by Cletus on January 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM · Report this
crivins 70
@66 you used the word "intestate". I love you; please marry me. (Note: I am already married to T, who is brothers with L and M. Will that be a problem?)

I have nothing else to say that hasn't been said less simplistically or more elegantly by someone else: it's all being driven by fear and repression.
Posted by crivins on January 11, 2012 at 10:15 AM · Report this
71
"Offer to quote these gay friends anonymously, to protect their privacy/stupidity, but tell the homophobe that you will need to verify the existence of her gay friends because you're a journalist, not a stenographer."

THANK YOU.
Posted by Parrots aren't journalists on January 11, 2012 at 10:21 AM · Report this
72
Thank you, again, Dan!
Posted by kungfujew on January 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM · Report this
73
What amazes me is that if the Republicans could get over their obession with religion (serious, why does that even come into politics) and focused on just their economic/legislative beliefs, they would probably be courting homosexuals. At least those gays who want to get married. Who better to get angry at people popping out welfare babies than couples who have to go through a whole long process to get a child? Come on Republicans. Stop worrying about what some guy in the desert wrote 3,000 years ago.
Posted by stevethecreep on January 11, 2012 at 11:01 AM · Report this
74
Great definition of santorum--but would be even better with the addition of "ejaculate" or "semen."
Posted by CodyCT on January 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM · Report this
75
"Romney Squeezes Out Santorum"! LOVE IT!
Posted by Nom de Plume on January 11, 2012 at 11:08 AM · Report this
76
Great definition of santorum--but how about adding "ejaculate" or "semen" to it.
Posted by CodyCT on January 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM · Report this
77
Sorry--didn't mean to add it twice (74 and 76)
Posted by CodyCT on January 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM · Report this
78
Kudos Dan, and thank you for taking down one of the many douchebags out there. An America under Santorum would be unimaginable. I am not an American, I am Canadian and we have our own brand of "Santora" (plural for Santorum). Our legal gay-marriage and even abortion is under attack from our newly elected right-wing(nut) government. I am also an accountant and am proud to call a great number of gay couples both good friends and clients.

What I have witnessed over my 30plus years of practice both before and after the recognition of gay marriage can only be aptly described as night and day. No more can a family ravage with total impunity the possessions of a surviving partner, no more can a child be taken from a surviving parent by the family of the deceased. No more will one person in a family be granted extended health care, while another will not. No more will a surviving spouse be left destitute because the pension plan did not recognise their marriage.

No more will a same-sex couple have to execute agreement after agreement in order to protect themselves and their children from multiple civil intrusions because their union was not recognised.

One last point: I prepare income taxes for both Canada and the US. Here in Canada, one spouse can stay at home and raise the children. The couple receive a significant income tax deduction for this arrangement. This is not the case in the US. The 1040 will not recognise same sex family units -for that matter, common law relationships are not granted the same priviledges under law as married relationships. Common law has been recognised throughout the British commonwealth for many decades.
Posted by teppy1954 on January 11, 2012 at 11:20 AM · Report this
79
Mr. Savage:

This is an excellent and moving article. I've seen you quite a few times on various TV venues, but this is my first time seeing your writings. I was so moved by the hardship of the Langbehn-Pond family that I cried. Generally, due to my cynicism, it's difficult for writers to touch my heart so deeply. I hope that somehow Elizabeth Santorum had the opportunity to read this, too.
Posted by Golgafrincham_Ark_Two on January 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM · Report this
80
The biggest problem with santorum is that, now that the namesake former senator is back in the news, I keep flashing to his busted face every time after I have anal sex. That is the horrible unintended consequence of this otherwise excellent definition.
Posted by Malevich on January 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM · Report this
81
What I don't get is how *anyone* can be that repressed, that stupid, that misguided, that pigheaded, that falsely-confident...

I TOTALLY Believe that Rick Santorum is gay and he hates himself for it (Lord knows why).

Redirecting his self-hate into trying to "save the world" by becoming a politician..

Seriously: WHAT A FUCKING DOUCHEBAG SANTORUM IS!

It's all so *sad*. Some will never know and never get it.. Santorum is among those people.

Who cares who's gay and who's not anymore?

Fuck, it's 2012 already: there's gay marriage now in several states, a lame show like 'Glee' is more of a hit than it should be, and fuckers like Rick Santorum are comparing being gay to something evil?

Look in the mirror, you dickhead! Eh, not to worry: Santorum's run will be done within a month/two months' tops.

The more bits people drag out about Santorum, the quicker his shit will tumble and he can hopefully return to semi-obscurity where he belongs (There, in therapy and in a bathhouse. Not necessarily in that order ;-) lol...).
Posted by Santorum So Likes The Cock on January 11, 2012 at 11:52 AM · Report this
OutInBumF 82
@38- It's the 'ick' factor and nothing more. Folks hear 'gay'='buttsex'='santorum'. Hence, less revulsion thinking of lesbian sex.
I counter with- "think about your parents or children having sex". Funny to watch their expression change when thinking of an icky form of 'godly' straight sex.
Posted by OutInBumF on January 11, 2012 at 11:57 AM · Report this
83
EricaP @66.

I agree, it is complicated. And honestly I am not some big crusader for it. But I think the tone on both sides is a moralizing one, not just a matter of getting a headache contemplating the policy complexities. I'm happy for people to decide that multiple marriage is just too complicated to deal with in the short or medium run. I'm not happy for same-sex couples to martial the rhetoric of "we are basically normal, not like those poly freaks, how dare you compare us". Notice @51's immediate rush to talking about creepy LDS misogynist cult stuff when I brought the topic up.

My personal stance on all this is probably closest to that of the great Jimmy McMillan of the Rent is Too Damn High Party: "If you want to marry a shoe, I'll marry you". But I will leave my case for inanimate object unions to another time ;)
Posted by philgirl on January 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM · Report this
84
I'm happy to report that I'd never heard of the man before I'd heard of the word. It has been, and always will be, Dan's definition I think of first when I hear that word.

Also, what's so bad about polygamy? As long as its between consenting adults why should we care?
Posted by ebetsy on January 11, 2012 at 12:25 PM · Report this
85
@83, I think there's a good case to be made for ending civil marriage all together. (Religious people could obviously still have whatever ceremonies they want, as could people marrying their shoes :-)

People would have to figure out other ways to indicate legally where want their stuff to go when they die, who they want to raise children with, who they want making decisions if they get ill, etc. But it's totally doable, and might get around the problems I raised @66. Like you said, "in the short or medium run," we're probably not ready yet. But long term, maybe.
Posted by EricaP on January 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM · Report this
86
Rick Santorum is obviously a deranged individuals. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind thinks about dog orgies? I don't think I spent even one minute thinking about it until I wrote this post. I've got three dogs at home, two of them humpers, and still have never thought of them as anything more than friends.
Posted by boaster on January 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM · Report this
87
Hey Dan,
Why did I have to go online to read this today instead of finding you in the SFWeekly as usual? Where you aware of this? I hope this is dome sort of deadline problem and nit editorial fuckwittage on the part of what I thought were the slightly less conservative owners of what was formerly a very conservatively owned free weekly in a big market that ran your column regularly with no problems.

Cheers,
DeBoner
Posted by DeBoner on January 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM · Report this
88
@83(philgirl, & EricaP), I tend to agree with you (philgrl) on polygamy: there is no reason to consider it "freaky" when compared to same-sex marriage, and activists who do so are either trying to play on the 'we're normal like you, look we even are disgusted by the same things' key, or then are actually (unfairly) disgusted by polygamy, most probably without having thought it through.

As EricaP points out, most of the problems with polygamy are practical ones for which some practical solution can be found, if one is willing to think carefully about it.

Running the risk of seeming too radical even for SLOG, I would even maintain that, in principle, the same can be said even for bestiality or sex with children (and the corresponding types of marriage). The task would be more complicated yet, and the redefinitions more radical (and there would be the question of asking who would benefit from it: if too few people, is it worth the trouble?), but I think it probably is doable. But that's of course a different question.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM · Report this
89
@83(philgirl, & also EricaP@85), I entirely agree with you (philgirl): there is indeed no reason why anyone should need to imply that polygamy is "obviously more freaky" than same-sex marriage; logically speaking, it is not, and yet people do, since many comparisons and judgments, both by pro and con debaters, are not justified with practical considerations like EricaP's, but with appeals to 'what is obvious.' On the part of same-sex advocates, I think this is part of the desire to play the 'we're not that different from you' card ('look, we're even disgusted by the same things, like polygamy').

Hopefully polygamy will indeed be the next topic to be talked about and considered, after same-sex marriage becomes mainstream. The practical difficulties that EricaP mention are considerable, but -- I agree -- probably solvable if one is willing to think enough about them.

Running the risk of sounding too radical even for SLOG, I'll even maintain that the same could be said about the other boogiemen, sex with animals and with children (and perhaps even the corresponding forms of marriage): the difficulties, again much more considerable, could probably also be solved (though here I might think it would be better to abolish marriage altogether rather than trying to solve them). I'd also throw in incestous marriage as an easier case to solve.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM · Report this
90
Damn double posting! Sorry everybody.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM · Report this
91
Ms Erica - Well stated about multiple marriages - it would be like the Plantagenets unlimited, and the Family Division would end up ten times larger than any other portion of the court. Then again, the growth in demand for lawyers and judges might be just what the current economy needs...
Posted by vennominon on January 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM · Report this
92
@38, I've often thought about this question. I think it is the "eeew" factor (i.e., basically social stereotypes and their influences), plus the fear that straights themselves might turn homosexual if homosexuals are allowed to exist (i.e., the old fear of a 'homo-virus' that would inexorably gayify us all). Some analyses I've read suggest that gender roles are so strongly built into us (mostly by society) that a simple lack of sexual interest in people of the same sex ends up reinforced to an actual disgust, repulsion, even horror so that the traditional roles are more strongly kept apart: men like women, women like men, and if we don't keep it this way then the gender boudaries (and with them the whole fabric of society) collapses. I don't like this very much because it sounds conspiratorial, which is usually the wrong way to analyze historical processes, but it does seem to be true that homophobia tends to correlate (with exceptions, of course) with belief in more sharply defined gender roles. The more your ideology claims that these gender roles are very important to society, the more a challenge to them (like homosexuality) would seem to be a dangerous threat.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 11, 2012 at 3:02 PM · Report this
93
@85 EricaP, I've been reading your comments for quite a while now, and I find this concept absolutely fascinating. I can't wait until society is open-minded enough to explore this idea!
Posted by Cherry on January 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM · Report this
94
@38, plus, looking back on my own (fortunately short) homophobic phase in pre-adolescence, I think there is actually some fear that gay people were all 'perverted' in the evil mustache-twirling villain kind of way. Because gays were presented as 'bad', I thought of them as bad in all senses of the word, including fearing that they would have no respect for what I wanted or didn't want and would simply rape me if ever given the opportunity to do so. Basically what many mainstream people think of kinksters (or 'pervs') in general: that they are so obsessed with their own form of sexuality that they're ready to jump and force other people to submit to their desires if they ever had the chance. (Think of all those claims about 'what would happen in the shower' if gays were allowed to serve openly in the military.)

It took some time, and was at first surprising, to think that someone could be at the same time gay and not obsessed by his gayness, gay and not willing to jump and rape other people. I know, it is not at all logical to think so; but if you started out with this image in your head, it does take some time to get rid of it.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM · Report this
95
@93 Thanks! There will be push back from the traditionalists, of course, so if you want to achieve that society, think about how to support positive change in your own social circle (supporting consensual but untraditional relationships of many kinds)...
Posted by EricaP on January 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM · Report this
96
Mr Ank - As for multiple simultaneous marriage, it's not a question of thought; it's a question of dedication of resources. Satisfying a sufficiently large portion of the group such a change would serve would likely require a planet with no military, if not more.

And it's all well and good for you to make your pronouncements from a civilized country, but over here, wait and see. If I were inclined to gamble, I'd bet on a HUGE rollback, and would likely not rule out government-enforced dissolutions in addition to same-sex couples permanently and irrevocably being barred from marriage. Much more doable. Sorry to sound bitter. I am.

As for your more radical questions, I suppose there could possibly be solutions for at least some of them, but it would likely just be Mary Crawford playing speculation (winning the hand only to find that it didn't repay what she'd given to secure it) on a larger scale.
Posted by vennominon on January 11, 2012 at 3:52 PM · Report this
97
On a separate but related note (about sanctimonious anal effluence creators)

In case you were wondering why RANDALL TERRY is running as a Democratic party presidential candidate:

It is because political ads can't be censored, even during the super bowl. Brilliant in a ass juice kind of way.
Posted by Married in MA on January 11, 2012 at 4:00 PM · Report this
98
Ms Erica - Of course the case for ending civil marriage can be made. But, if I were betting, I'd back theocracy first, though perhaps in a post-theocratic period...
Posted by vennominon on January 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM · Report this
Noadi 99
@51 I see no ethical reason not to allow plural marriage in whatever configuration people want. I do however see some serious logistical problems to it but that is separate from how people pro and anti gay marriage often portray it (meaning if we had plural marriage legal then we would need to completely rework how marriage laws work and that would be a big job). It's definitely something that bugs me, I see it as no less ethical than any marriage between consenting adults.
Posted by Noadi http://noadi.net on January 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM · Report this
Aurora Erratic 100
Bravo, Dan! I read stuff like that HuffPo piece and just sputter with rage; you find powerful words to express it.
Posted by Aurora Erratic http://www.finemesspottery.com on January 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM · Report this
101
@24
I'm pretty sure Ricky Licky doesn't know what he wants. My nickel's worth of pop psy? He's been told and expected all his life to conform to a social structure that has both confined him and insulated him from some very real truths. He has always been in a comfortable place where he was able to act within a defined set of rules and was rewarded for his behaviors. He hits the bar and gets the food pellet. At his level of politics, all he has to do is step into the media created mold of what a 'politician' is supposed to be and see if that is what the public wants.
Does he do this duplicitously? I doubt it. He may actually think he has some quality or characteristic that is unique. Mostly he and every other politician look like a slightly more well read news anchor. Is he an ass, yes. If you took him on an outward bound and fed him some chiba???? well who knows?
Posted by charazarr on January 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM · Report this
102
Ank,

I am truly sorry about your wife. Her hatred of former Soviet ethnic groups is not unlike other famous racial/ethnic hatreds. I have talked to ex-Soviets, and the feelings are returned. They found their own lands being filled with Russians, their languages and religions suppressed, and a total Soviet world view being crammed down everyone's necks.

My father was a very intelligent man, but a completely idiotic anti-Semite. I didn't choose my father.

I think you should explore this aspect of your wife. Talk to her.

Posted by Hunter78 on January 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM · Report this
103
Re: Polygamy. A system in which men may have more than one wife while women must stay faithful to only one husband.

Do the math: Start with 3 men. Each has 3 wives. Each woman has 4 children. 9 x 4 = 36. Call the 36 children the F1 generation. Say there are 18 boys and 18 girls. They don't all reach marriageable age at the same time. Say they're spread out over 12 years. The first 12 reach their early 20s are ready to marry. The boys have been schooled in the idea that they can expect to marry at least one girl. Out of the 6 girls, 3 go to the older men. 3 go to the boys of the F1 generation. That leaves 3 boys with no wives, but they can wait a few years for the girls a little younger to grow up.

Those girls do grow up, but now there are also boys the same age who would also like wives. Younger girls down the line grow up. These are promised first to the boys only a little older, then to the ones their own age. Some also become the 2nd wives to the older in the F1 generation. In no time, you get boys without wives.

How to solve the problem? At first, it's easy. The boys, now young men, wait until they're in their early 30s to marry young women in their early 20s. The society is not disgusted by that. The age difference is not too great. The F1 generation starts producing the F2 generation. More girls are growing up.

But in a short time, you start running out of girls. There aren't enough to go around. The powerful older men take more than one. In order to keep their power, they have to promise the girls, the scarce resource, to the young men who keep them in power. The first necessary result of the system is the marriage of younger and younger girls. The second necessary result is some way of getting rid of the excess boys, preferably getting rid of them when they're too young to do much about it, maybe when they're only in their mid-teens. The most obvious way to do this is to implement stricter and stricter rules to separate who "merits" wives, that is, who gets two, who gets one, and who gets cast out as unworthy.

The rules are generally who shows greatest loyalty to the powerful older men, but they could be any strict rule as far as adherence to the religious and social system.

This sounds like the polygamist colonies we read about in the news, right? Child marriage for the girls. Boys dropped at bus stations when they're 14 for some ridiculous infraction.

My point is that this isn't some arbitrary way polygamy has been practiced so far. This is the way it has to be practiced.

Ah, but what about if you don't start with an isolated colony of 3 men and 9 wives. What if it's larger? Go ahead and change the numbers to make them 3,000 men with 9,000 wives, or 30,000 men with 90,000 wives. You're still going to get younger and younger girls promised in marriage, a necessity to unload extra boys, and more and more arbitrary and conservative rules. Except now, you don't have a larger society to unload the boys on. You have no bus station.

This is starting to sound like some Moslem countries, no? The boys go to war or become suicide bombers. They don't have a lot to live for at home.

But wait, you say. Some of the suicide bombers are married and have children. They have money and power. True, but that doesn't change the basic dynamic of the society, the basic values of the culture. Polygamist cultures tend to volatile while monogamist ones tend towards stability.
More...
Posted by Crinoline on January 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM · Report this
Tim Horton 104
I logged in to comment on the problems with polygamy but @103 beat me to it (much more artfully than I would have explained). Partnered marriage is an egalitarian concept that allows all men (in theory) sexual access. I would only add my sincere belief that men without access to sexual release are prone to violence, isolation, despair, etc. Interesting to see what will happen to China, what with all those missing girls.
Posted by Tim Horton on January 11, 2012 at 5:24 PM · Report this
105
@103/104 I don't understand why that argument seems persuasive to you, given the conversation so far @66, 83, 85, 88...

We're saying it might be possible to set up marriages to include more than two people, where those people's gender is not determined. But we'd probably have to take down civil marriage to get there.

Why are you emphasizing polygyny? Just because that's how polygamy has often been done in the past?
Posted by EricaP on January 11, 2012 at 5:59 PM · Report this
106
(Starting with philgirl's comment @51, actually.)
Posted by EricaP on January 11, 2012 at 6:00 PM · Report this
107
@105 polyandry existed as well,

As I wrote previously, one of my ancestors was fathered by one or the other of 2 brothers sharing a common law wife. Which? Makes no difference since the bloodline was maintained.

By frothyman's reckoning does that invalidate a civil solution (ie common law) in the inheritance, and the potential sanctity of their child? To my knowledge the local church didn't intervene, so maybe the batshit has gotten deeper over the years.

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 11, 2012 at 6:44 PM · Report this
108
Another actual headline: "Santorum Rips Paul"
Use more lube next time.
Posted by relph on January 11, 2012 at 6:47 PM · Report this
109
More actual headlines: "Santorum Rips Paul"
(Use more lube next time.)
"Santorum can surge again"
Posted by relph on January 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM · Report this
110
Omg-move to Canada and live in peace - marry gay , then straight and have ceparation of church and state . Also banking regulation = better economy for all!
Posted by CND on January 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM · Report this
111
Regarding overcoming difficulties in the administration of plural marriages, the first model that comes to mind is the corporation.

The government allows any number of individuals to affiliate and pool their resources for the purpose of doing business. Why they think they have a legitimate role to prevent such affiliations when the motivating force is love -- in addition to money, not instead of it; let's be perfectly clear on that point -- is a mystery to me.
Posted by avast2006 on January 11, 2012 at 7:07 PM · Report this
112
In case you were wondering, several people have told me about the Santorum definition, not realizing where it came from. It now just seems like a happy coincidence that his name and that word are the same. You can just walk away whistlin'.

Though I don't think you should. You def. need to claim credit for this one.
Posted by inbed http://inbedwithmarriedwomen.blogspot.com on January 11, 2012 at 7:14 PM · Report this
113
@38, because homosexuality is a challenge to authoritarians who are obsessed with strict gender roles. Without strict gender roles, it is harder to justify men being in charge of women. Authoritarians hate that because they are obsessed with putting people into dominance hierarchies, much like the behavior of wolves. This also explains why anti-gay people are also usually sexist.
Posted by Diagoras on January 11, 2012 at 7:36 PM · Report this
114
Santorum has at least one gay supporter and friend, his former staffer Robert Traynham: http://www.thegrio.com/politics/opinion-…
Posted by stats on January 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM · Report this
115
"Why are you emphasizing polygyny? Just because that's how polygamy has often been done in the past?"

Um, because humans have not changed in a few hundred thousand years, and will not for a few more hundred thousand...so, you can expect future behavior to look like past behavior?

Shocking concept, I know.
Posted by Oh, right. Everything is different now.... on January 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM · Report this
116
I propose changing the definition: how about we define the bloody and painful shit that occurs when you have hemorrhoids as Santorum. I think frothy, anal discharge doesn't quite fit this creature anymore.
Posted by Elpee on January 11, 2012 at 10:21 PM · Report this
117
I suggest we change the definition: how about we define santorum as the bloody and painful shit that occurs when you have hemorrhoids.

Posted by Elpee on January 11, 2012 at 10:27 PM · Report this
seandr 118
In case you missed it, Andy Samberg does Rick Santorum in the opening skit of last week's SNL, and he finishes with a joke about his Google problem.
Posted by seandr on January 11, 2012 at 11:09 PM · Report this
119
@102, she is not irrational about that; her 'hatred' feels more like traditional rivalry between supporters of different football teams than like ethnic hatred.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 12, 2012 at 1:39 AM · Report this
120
Mr. Ven (@96), let's say the multiple simultaneous marriage problem is a question of thought about dedication of resources. Certainly making sure people are satisfied is part of the deal, but not all (as per EricaP's comments).

Oh, I have no hopes about things being easy, not even in the Netherlands, where a right-wing backlash is ongoing. Probably lots of bad things will happen before a good one does.

Which is why I'm talking hypotheticals. I don't think I (or maybe even my daughter) will be alive when the more radical questions I mentioned are actually debated fairly. That I live at a time when same-sex marriage is already getting a fair hearing, at least from some quarters, is already a privilege. I am often bitter too; that is why I prefer to think about hypotheticals: they allow me to explore possible intrinsic problems of a proposal (like what EricaP said with respect to polygamy) without having to consider how difficult it would be to get a fair debate going in the real world out there.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 12, 2012 at 2:08 AM · Report this
121
Once again, Dan "National Treasure" Savage has taken fools to school with style and humor.

Knowing what we know about the term 'Rick Santorum', I can't believe his parents were so cruel to name him after such a disgusting act.

If my parents named me after the act of licking poo sludge, I might have turned into a hateful, nervous, sweaty bigot too.
Posted by Never_nude on January 12, 2012 at 4:55 AM · Report this
122
Maybe Ted Haggard is Elizabeth Santorum's friend.
Posted by Lacey23 on January 12, 2012 at 5:10 AM · Report this
123
Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum...

Duh, they're called "priests."
Posted by Catholic Boy on January 12, 2012 at 5:30 AM · Report this
124
@111 (avast) I thought the same thing. A corporation (like a marriage) is a group (couple) of people coming together that will be represented under the law as a single entity. If you do it for money it's called capitalism, if you do it for love (or for anything other than money) it's called communism (and that's putting aside any arguments of polyandry vs. polygyny). Remember, marriage for love is a mostly new concept, only from the last 200 years or so. There seems to be a deep seated mistrust in the western hemisphere of people who do anything and are not motivated by profit.
Posted by Joe Noe on January 12, 2012 at 6:02 AM · Report this
125
Rick Santorum's views as well as those of his fellow homophobic bigots will mostly be a thing of the past in probably just a generation. Remember in the 60's when blacks weren't really 'people'? Just 40 years later we have a mixed race president. It's simply a matter of time before these assholes fade away. Keep up the fight Mr. Savage.
Posted by VegDude on January 12, 2012 at 6:59 AM · Report this
126
spreadingsantorum.com is not the number one hit when I Google "santorum"!
Posted by Sweetling on January 12, 2012 at 7:26 AM · Report this
127
Rick Santorum truly rises above the other Repubs in hypocrisy, and in a field that includes Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, that's saying something. Because he cloaks himself in sanctimony, the viciousness of Santorum's bigotry is often overlooked. That can be enraging.

Nevertheless, I feel this campaign is coarse and mean-spirited in a way that tarnishes Dan Savage's usual compassionate and courageous commentary. I'm still a big fan, but regret it.
Posted by DocC on January 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM · Report this
128
As 104 said, "I would only add my sincere belief that men without access to sexual release are prone to violence, isolation, despair, etc."

What about women? I'm a woman, and bad things happen if I don't get sex at least once a week from my boyfriend. So let's just say, if some political frothy mixture wants to take away my rights to birth control and hot sex, there's gonna be a lot of violent and depressing riots, with THIS chick leading the way.
Posted by hazmatte on January 12, 2012 at 8:21 AM · Report this
129
@126 It's the number one hit that isn't paid for by Santorum.

RE: the Dan-as-a-bully argument-- fighting back against a bully, is NOT another form of bullying.

RE: the definition of "rick"... now we need a definition of "perry".
Posted by robo5 on January 12, 2012 at 8:23 AM · Report this
Godzilla1916 130
Spot on Dan, throw that santorum back in Elizibeth's face...."mean" my ass!
Posted by Godzilla1916 on January 12, 2012 at 8:30 AM · Report this
131
Sadly, it's been a long time since I've read your column, Dan, and reading this one makes me wonder why. Well said, as always. Thank you.
Posted by cearbhaill on January 12, 2012 at 8:33 AM · Report this
132
It's been a long time since I've read your column, Dan, and this one makes me wonder why. Well done!
Thank you.
Posted by cearbhaill on January 12, 2012 at 8:36 AM · Report this
133
@ 125: Well said. I agree totally. It was barely 50 years ago that there was civil rights for all installed... That, and the advancement of technology, people not really giving a shit anymore who's gay and who's not, or who marries who...

Santorum is something out of 'The Andy Griffith Show': a cast extra they never bothered to get on the series, yet he acts as if he was Ron Howard playing Opie, or Andy Griffith himself: some geeky hick from Pennsylvania who somehow believes that suppressing and redirecting his homoerotic energies into laughable runs for political office will redeem his own conflicted self-hatred...

It's ALL Silly, Santorum in any capacity: the schmegg on a toilet seat or the man himself (same difference ;) lol) .

VegMan, I concur: Santorum's a fake, antiquated douche and his days are numbered. To the bathhouse, pronto, Santorum!
Posted by Watch Out For That Falling Spinach, VegMan! lol;)+~+ on January 12, 2012 at 9:09 AM · Report this
134
I am a middle class straight, married mother of two (15,10.) This despite having had gay friends all my life. Heck, our neighborhood includes many gay families, and so far, my hetero marriage has maintained its "integrity," though to listen to conservative politicians, you wouldn't think that possible.

Here's my problem. In my circles, I don't get to use the phrase 'santorum' too much. to say "My husband f*!#ed me in the a** so hard last week that there's still santorum running down my leg" simply wouldn't fly in my social circle.

So I've started using the term santorum to include the stuff that I have the vet squeeze out of my dogs' anal glands. I can work that into almost any convo ("I've got to go call the vet, because Luke is loaded with santorum. Or, "I've gotta run or I'm gonna be late for Gus's appt to get the santorum squeezed out of his anal glands." Or, "The dogs just got their anal glands expressed and the doctor is worried because their santorum is so runny..."

You should add that to the google definition so that everyone can share in the fun!
Posted by gayfriendlymomma on January 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM · Report this
135
Thank you, EricaP for once again saying what I was thinking before I got to it!
Polygamy (marriage to multiple individuals) and polygyny (marriage to multiple women) are not the same thing. Particularly the type of polygyny that is practiced by repressive patriarchal cults - er, religions. I find myself wondering if the reason "polygamy" (usually used to refer to polygyny) is often bought up in comparison to "traditional marriage" is that it is, in fact, regarded as acceptable in the Bible, and the folks making the Bible-based argument are trying to distance themselves from that? After all, when you look more closely at what their very own church has considered acceptable, it has varied quite a bit. Not the best foundation for an "it's always been this way" argument.
Posted by octothorpe on January 12, 2012 at 10:19 AM · Report this
136
I'm really proud of Dan and the readers for the successful redefinition of this campaign! I also encourage justice oriented readers to buy girls scout cookies to fight the boycott of GS cookies led because the girls scouts have ostensibly admitted transgender children into the organization.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11…
Posted by shortasianstine on January 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM · Report this
137
@ 134: Color me wrong anyone, but isn't "santorum" an umbrella heading for the following?

1.)Schmeggma
2.)Any variant of diseased, deposited, usually-encrusted residue of foul bodily fluids and excrement (and lube) congealed on the surfaces of many unsuspecting people's furnishings and appliances?

3.)Any varying degree of human waste and scum anywhere in a public bathroom or otherwise really, really unsanitary conditions..

4.) The last few droplets left in that plastic bag for 'Summer's Eve' feminine hygiene products (no offense whatsoever to proper women. Too bad Rick Santorum can't cop to being a proper woman himself!;)).

Regards.
Posted by Santorum Is An Umbrella Heading For All Unsanitary Scum on January 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM · Report this
138
Why do people demonize sexual identity instead of concerning themselves with child rapists, child trafficking, missing children, rape, poverty, racism, torture, indefinite detention (I'm sure there are others)... the real evils in our society, in the world. Going after privacy and personal choice amongst consenting adults is shallow, stupid and indefensible. He deserves all the ridicule we can muster -- good for U Dan !
Posted by NanSee on January 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM · Report this
shw3nn 139
I saw this on reddit today. To use a reddit phrase...relevant:

http://imgur.com/Y0vyp
Posted by shw3nn on January 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
140
@ 138: 'Cos people who can't get laid bag on those who can and do. Santorum epitomizes why people can be ass-backwards as an existence.

Why do we worry about aiding other countries (or invading them) when we barely can feed and/or support our hungry and homeless?

The same goes for all of the other issues that continue to trouble and sadden, like the ones you mentioned NanSee :-) :

To quote you:

"child rapists, child trafficking, missing children, rape, poverty, racism, torture, indefinite detention (I'm sure there are others)... the real evils in our society, in the world. Going after privacy and personal choice amongst consenting adults is shallow, stupid and indefensible. He deserves all the ridicule we can muster..."

Exactly. Rick Santorum truly is too stupid to even wonder if he is that fucked-up, as well as an idiot.

I give his sorry shambles of a campaign a month before the plug is pulled.
Posted by PoppyHear on January 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM · Report this
141
@134(gayfriendlymomma), I loved your broadening of the meaning of santorum, and I hereby officially adopt it! (Since I'm not a native speaker of English, I'm not sure I have the constitutinal right to do so. What would the Founding Fathers say?...)

Indeed, it did occur to me that, in its strict Savagean definition, "santorum" would tend to be a very low-frequency word. If it can be extended to at least a few other kinds of ass juice (including animal ass), this might increase the frequency -- and thereby the general usefulness -- of santorum.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 12, 2012 at 12:54 PM · Report this
142
@ Everyone: Has anyone noticed that word "Santorum" has 8 letters like the word "Shithead"?

;-D
Posted by Jesus Likes His Rock And Roll+~+ on January 12, 2012 at 1:23 PM · Report this
143
@ 134: I like your screen name! That's awesome :) . You have a good way with words, too. I like how the butt nuggetts ya squeezed out of your pooch's tookas now can qualify as santorum! Well done. Where's Rick Santorum so we can rub the sorry bastard's nose in your pooch's doody droppings? A shithead is as a shithead does! Wait! I'll put on some vinyl gloves and squish the shit inside his own ears: Shit has never found a more fitting place than the vacant cavity of insanity that is the noggin of Rick Santorum. He's just mad his high school picture is so fucking geeky! ;-D
Posted by The Anti-Rick-Santorum League on January 12, 2012 at 1:30 PM · Report this
144
Every time I read about american politics I think about how lucky I am to live in Canada.
For now at least, I just hope that good old steven harper doesn't get carried away.
Posted by Canucklehead on January 12, 2012 at 1:35 PM · Report this
145
I love you Dan Savage. Then, now, forever. Thank you.
Posted by keh7959 on January 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM · Report this
146
To everyone mentioning the fact that Santorum stated "NOT man-on-dog", just know that he said that AFTER saying "If we legalize gay marriage, who's to say we won't legalize man-on-dog?". So, he compared the two and then contradicted himself to make it seem like he wasn't a bigot.
Posted by jh12 on January 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM · Report this
147
@75: LOL!! I do, too!
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM · Report this
mydriasis 148
@50
As of right now, Dan's site is #1

@82
Because straight guys don't like anal too? Since when?

@104
"Interesting to see what will happen to China, what with all those missing girls."

Will happen? It already has.

Little girls from North Korea get sold in exchange for rice (one country has not enough food, one has not enough girls). Little girls in China get kidnapped on the way to school and sold to become wives. There's such a shortage of women that sometimes men will have to chip in together to buy a wife to share.

@128
Bad things will happen? Oh really? You're going to rape someone?
No need to chomp at the bit for equality in everything honey.
Posted by mydriasis on January 12, 2012 at 2:47 PM · Report this
149
@129: How about "Perry-err": One big "Oops!" that didn't quite make it to the toilet.
@142: It sure fits, doesn't it?
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM · Report this
150
Ank,

Ethnic and football club rivalries may have common origins, but their effects can be far different. Football hooliganism can be nasty, but nothing compared to the many millions killed and terrorized by ethnicism.

Posted by Hunter78 on January 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM · Report this
mydriasis 151
Are people still seriously not getting it as the top hit?

Maybe it's an America-only adjustment. I JUST checked again.

http://i40.tinypic.com/260u687.png
Posted by mydriasis on January 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM · Report this
152
Dan Savage said he has been divorced overnight because the Harper government in Canada argues that non Canadian same sex couples getting married in Canada is not valid.
Posted by arewethereyet on January 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM · Report this
153

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli…

Dan Savage, dont get mad, get even~!!!

"Mr. Dan Savage, please do to the name Harper what you did to the name Santorum."

AS A CANADIAN, please, Please do this!!
Posted by arewethereyet on January 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM · Report this
mydriasis 154
1. As a Canadian, I'm disgusted. I can't even describe how sad I was when I saw that Harper won a majority (and how angry I was at Mr Ig for starting that whole clusterfuck and giving Harper a majority)

2. Slightly indignant, I mean come on Dan. You're actually complaining because our goverment isn't good enough to balance out how shitty your government is? Become a citizen here and you'll be married again - voila.

Long story short, as shitty as Harper is, our goverment is still more gay friendly than yours. NEVA4GET
Posted by mydriasis on January 12, 2012 at 5:43 PM · Report this
155
I didn't know there was a 'frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex' after the act...That's really gross and it makes the idea of anal sex even more disgusting. Thanks for reaffirming my initial cognitions regarding butt sex.
Posted by Datsjusnasty00 on January 12, 2012 at 8:27 PM · Report this
156
@54 & @56: Or how about Santorum Wiped By Mitt; Perry Err Lands on Bottom, Ends on a Sour Newt.

Film Update at 11!
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 12, 2012 at 8:51 PM · Report this
157
@155, Not to worry, sex is only gross and dirty if you're doing it right.

Otherwise, all bodily fluids ejected after the period of friction will be safely collected in sanitized jars and disposed of by robots. No muss, no fuss.
Posted by EricaP on January 12, 2012 at 11:23 PM · Report this
158
@156 EricaP: Okay. What are your suggestions for getting gross and dirty for the single women over age 45 who don't have husbands / boyfriends / fuck buddies? I'm not comfortable with randomly throwing myself on somebody, though. I doubt that I'd do well in LTRs, either. I'm not hurting; it's just that I enjoy being independent. Should I just get a dildo?

Over ten years, I have done some major healing, however. I've let go of a lot of things, forgiven those who have once hurt me, am still forgiving myself, and have moved on. My biggest challenge still is fully letting go of being made to believe that I am repulsively ugly, unloved, unwanted, and undesirable (picture having an older sister who was perfect little Miss Prom Queen / Martha Stewart/ Queen Elizabeth III and demanded all the attention; so sweet and good to her "adoring public" while being secretly vicious to you, the kid sister, and an annoyingly condescending oldest sister of 10 1/2 years seniority who keeps trying to sit on you like a mother hen. It was like a page right out of Cinderella).
So, for obvious reasons, I don't rush out to go visit my sisters. I don't want a truck to run over them, but I have had to establish boundaries.
I've also learned to accept that it's okay to NOT be close to siblings.
Life goes on.

Shit---sometimes all I want is just to be held.
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 13, 2012 at 1:34 AM · Report this
159
@150(Hunter), I don't disagree with you, I merely point out that it's not the case for my wife. You see, she doesn't support terrorist or anti-ethnic measures; she simply decided she doesn't like Baltic people because she got the impression in Riga that they don't like her. (I don't think it was a logical decision, but I guarantee this doesn't imply she will take any actions against them.)
Posted by ankylosaur on January 13, 2012 at 3:31 AM · Report this
160
148 Mydriasis-- And yet, my understanding was that when American couples wish to adopt, China was still a good place to adopt abandoned baby girls from. That doesn't go with trading rice for girls from North Korea or chipping in for a joint kidnapped girl for a joint marriage. (Perhaps shared prostitute/sex slave would describe the situation better.) It would seem (and again, I'm not up on the situation there) that as the supply of females goes down, their value would go up, and production would increase. Yet I don't know of couples trying to spend their allotment for one child on a female infant. Anyone know of a source for information on this? China is such an enormous country that I imagine a lot of the conflicting information comes from things being different in different regions and differences from urban to rural.
Posted by Crinoline on January 13, 2012 at 3:39 AM · Report this
161
@158, maybe dating sites? At least you can look at profiles before deciding to date someone. Also, one thing that worked for me was having a number of activities -- from language courses to book clubs -- where I could meet other people who seemed more interesting than the average bar denizen.

I went for while through the male equivalent of your situation, since my older brother was Mr Athletic Hero With Many Girlfriends while being secretly mean to me, the bespectacled nerdy kid brother. It did help, in a Schadenfreude sort of way, that he got in trouble later on (alcoholism) so that I ended up being the successful one in the family. But up until my early 20's, that wasn't the case.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 13, 2012 at 3:40 AM · Report this
162
@148(mydriasis), but why do you think @128 above is 'chomping at the bit for equality in everything'? Isn't she simply stating she also likes sex? I don't think she's trying to imply she would commit big crimes if she didn't get her needs met.

Besides, making rape simply depend on unsatisfied males is a bit simplistic.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 13, 2012 at 3:43 AM · Report this
163
Oh, Dan...you really are a brilliant writer...I always love your work, and this piece made me cheer over and over again! I am constantly amazed at the way those people flip everything. You know what I'm saying..."Republicans want smaller government/less government interference" but they want to legislate God into schools, and decide who can be married, and who can have health care, and who should pay taxes, and who should be rescued when the economy fails, and who should control women's bodies...
They claim to be Christians, but turn their back on the poor, and cast judgement on everyone, manipulating and bribing, and exploiting anyone and everyone in order to gain power, and/or destroy anyone who disagrees or competes with them.
They "fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage" but cheat on their spouses, or divorce several times, and have horrendous legal battles over material wealth and custody of children (who were mostly raised by illegal immigrant nannies that they exploited, then deported in order to avoid paying)
They claim to be PRO-LIFE, but can't get enough of killing anyone who has oil or other valuable resources, and they don't want to risk their own lives, so they recruit poor kids, promising them adventure, great pay, free education, respect and honor,then send them off to kill and die and be maimed physically and mentally, and then deny any responsibility to care for them or their families, and deny them the right to be who they are and marry who they love...
I could go on and on. But I know you already know.
I just want to say thank you for not holding back. Thank you for making them uncomfortable...embarassed...and thank you for giving specific examples of how THEY are the bullies, and not letting them flip it on you.
You ROCK!
More...
Posted by CalamityJyl on January 13, 2012 at 3:57 AM · Report this
mydriasis 164
@160
All of those things were told to me first hand. Most of what I know about China, I hear from people who are from there, not from reading online. I don't know if that makes my info more or less biased but I trust that it's at least somewhat true. I didn't say it was true across the entire country - just that negative effects of the 'one child rule' have already started.

Besides, I don't believe what I wrote conflicts with what you've heard about adoption. But you seem to be implying that parents would be comfortable having baby girls with the intent of selling them into slavery and I just don't believe that to be true. I think parents who are unfortunate enough to have a girl would rather her end up in America then as a sex slave. Wouldn't you? Unless I misunderstood what you meant by "production would go up".

@162
She was responding to 104. 104 was referencing the negative social implications of a society where there is an unbalance between men and women - where a large number of men are deprived of sex.

I absolutely did not imply that rape depends on unsatisfied males. And to go futher, I'll explicitly say right now "rape does not simply depend on unsatisfied males"

But if we use China as an example. I don't believe an excess of women and a shortage of men would lead to the same kinds of social problems that China is seeing.

It seemed to me that when he was referencing 'violence' some portion of that would be referring to rape. To my knowlege, it's exceedingly rare for women to rape men.

She seemed offended to be left out of his statement. I'd argue that it's not one you'd want to be included in.
Posted by mydriasis on January 13, 2012 at 6:16 AM · Report this
165
@164, oh OK. I misinterpreted your statement because I hadn't followed the (sub)thread on China that you mentioned.

It is interesting to speculate on what an excess of women would do. If it happened within traditional structures, I suppose this would (just like in the case of an excess of men) lead to more violence against women (who would be worth less), even though social stability might not be threatened in the same way that the excess of men does.

As long as the claim that most rapes are by men on women is not taken as an indictment of men, I have no problem with it. (I think this fact is as much, if not more, a consequence of the average difference in strength between men and women than of unsatisfied desire. [Leaving aside social factors, which in a complete analysis would of course also have to be considered.] If women were in average as strong as men or even stronger, things would change dramatically.)
Posted by ankylosaur on January 13, 2012 at 6:33 AM · Report this
166
Dan!!!
Best.
Column.
Ever.
(Jan 11, 2012)
My hat is off to you.
No one nails it like you do.
Thank you thank you thank you for this week's column. You renew my faith in humanity. We WILL overcome this ridiculous point in history, thanks to people like you speaking truth to power.

Sign me,
Straight Friend of the LGBT Nation
Posted by Straight Friend of the LGBT Nation on January 13, 2012 at 6:51 AM · Report this
Tim Horton 167
@164, 165 - So I won't go so far and insist that men's unsatisfied sexual urges can lead to violence (although intrinsically I believe this is true). On the other hand, a man having a wife (assumedly a sexual outlet) and children does seem to placate male aggression. I recall reading that children actually lower male testosterone.

From a societal standpoint, it would seem best that a man have only one wife so that his resources and efforts are channeled to her and their children (usually only a couple of kids). If he is allowed more than one wife, his resources and efforts will be spent acquiring more wives, having more children that he may not be able to fully support, etc.

Monogamy - the king and the peasant each have access to one woman. Egalitarian, no?

So maybe the state has an interest in fostering couples as opposed to polygamous marriages.

As to EricaPs question of why we assume polygamy would mean 1 man multiple wives and not one woman w multiple husbands? A math problem: One man with 4 wives can give each of them 3 biological children, without any stress on his reproduction. One woman would be in for a hell of a ride if she had to bear 3 children for each of her 4 husbands.

Plus, would women really want multiple husbands? Does that sound remotely appealing?

Ok, my amateur psych musings are over. Back to the donuts.
Posted by Tim Horton on January 13, 2012 at 7:51 AM · Report this
168
My 12 year old son was recently assigned to write a paragraph about the top three finishers in Iowa. I don't let him on the computer without my supervision, so we sat down together to Google the three candidates. We did not even have to click on your definition,it just comes up right on the Google page for my 12 year old to see. So , now I am having to expalin fecal matter ,and anal sex to my 12 year old. Not to mention why cyber bullying is accepted as satire if done by adults. Could you please just be a grown up and think about the consequences of your actions! Children are being assigned to recearch this and they are being confronted with a subject that is far above their age level. And it's not like the parents are letting them mess around on the internet unattended. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that a child might be assigned to research a presidential candidate! You have a FB page, a blog, a radio show, appearences on The Young Turks, Olberman etc., many ways to get your message out there. Yet, you choose cyber bullying and it does not just hurt the man you are angry with, it hurts innocent children. Again, grow up and consider the consequences of your actions!!
Posted by nllmom on January 13, 2012 at 8:03 AM · Report this
169
#51, I don't see the problem you do with the rhetoric on this issue. Same-sex couples are pointing out that what they want doesn't require any kind of redefinition or rethinking of the whole institution of marriage. Rather, they simply want to join the same institution that has heretofore been officially closed to them. Polygamy, regardless of whether one is for or against it, would indeed require a major reorganization of the institution, and a reconsideration of why governments support marriage through official recognition at all. Indeed, the initial responses here--why not just obliterate any civil marriage, then? is every marriage then going to operate like a business group, which is VERY different legally on so many levels--indicate that is true.

The situation here is much simpler: same-sex marriage just IS marriage, as we have always known it. No further redefinition required.
Posted by Suzy on January 13, 2012 at 8:06 AM · Report this
170
Re: The discussion on China and the results of societies with an excess of men or an excess of women.

We're going to run into the trouble that comes with any attempt to trace cause and effect in broad societal trends. It's too easy to note that what affects society does not necessarily affect that guy over there. In general, disenfranchisement and crushing poverty leads to revolution against the ruling classes, but we all know someone who's particularly beaten down who hasn't risen up against anybody.

Similarly, historically when there are large numbers of men without access to women to marry, there's a general trend towards violence against an outside group. That doesn't mean that in microcosm an unmarried man is more likely to be violent. And the violence tends to be directed outward. It doesn't mean that a sexually frustrated man is more prone to rape.

165-- Societies with an excess of women tend toward the political left, a relaxation of strict sexual roles, and a tendency towards promiscuity on the part of both men and women. This happened as the baby boomers came of age in the late 60s and early 70s.

167-- Anything remotely appealing about 4 husbands? It depends on what the expectation would be and the roles that would be played. Cooking, cleaning and being solely responsible for the care of the children of 4 men does not sound appealing. Allowing 4 men to support me and pleasure me sexually does.
Posted by Crinoline on January 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM · Report this
171
I'm really tired of hearing these politicians described as having "family values." Can we pick a better word? I'm thinking probably the same words they use to describe it when other religions try to force their rules on everyone. Fundamentalist values?
Posted by cab61160 on January 13, 2012 at 8:20 AM · Report this
172
168 nilmom-- If you think that knowing about anal sex harms a 12 year old but a presidential candidate who would seek to outlaw gay people's existence does not, there's your problem right there.
Posted by Crinoline on January 13, 2012 at 8:21 AM · Report this
173
@167 MFM can be a great way to have two salaries and a homemaker. Note that in most of the cases I've seen, the homemaker was one of the men.

Also, even in a FMF, you shouldn't think of it as the man "owning" two wives (as in traditional polygyny). The women may have sex with each other; they may have sex with outside men and women (the way men have long had sex outside of marriage).

In a society open to different poly options, you'd probably also see a bunch of MFMF, where the sexual configurations and division of household labor are none of our business.
Posted by EricaP on January 13, 2012 at 8:53 AM · Report this
174
@171/172 yes and yes!
Posted by EricaP on January 13, 2012 at 8:54 AM · Report this
175
Crinolines - I don't like Santorum and would not vote for him. Why, because he is a bigot plain and simple. Still, my child should be able to do a Google search for a presidential candidate without running into sexual information of any kind. And let's get real, if Santorum got elected (highly unlikely) that does not mean he could turn this country into a theocracy any more than Obama can turn it into a Socialist state as ideologues in the Republican party claim. So it remains that children should be able to do a reasonable Internet search without running into things far above their age level. My point was not to defend Santorum, there is no defense, my point is that there are more appropriate ways to get the point across.
Posted by nllmom on January 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM · Report this
176
175 nilmom-- "My point is that there are more appropriate ways to get the point across."

I agree. There are probably no funnier ways to get the point across, but there are more appropriate ones. If there were more national discussion in the media, even more discussion from the far Right, if the point had gotten across, there would be no need to resort to the tactics that I don't consider to be bullying.

In the mean time, while we agree that there are more appropriate ways, let's hear them.
Posted by Crinoline on January 13, 2012 at 9:21 AM · Report this
mydriasis 177
@175

I understand the point you're making, but sexual content is unfortunately very free and open on the internet, even when searching innocent things. I was around that age when the internet was new and exciting. I remember me and my friend typed random words we thought would be interesting with ".com" at the end.

We ended up with porn more than once.

And at twelve years old, most kids know about all that stuff anyway. From the playground or the schoolbus.

If this kind of thing worries you, have you considered some sort of software that blocks inappropriate content?
Posted by mydriasis on January 13, 2012 at 9:28 AM · Report this
178
Auntie grizelda @158 – have you tried reading the book Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy by David D. Burns? It's available for less than $10 on Amazon, and I highly recommend it. It may help you realize that it's up to you to start telling yourself the truth, rather than repeating the ugly lies you were fed as a child. (I know it's hard to believe, but Stuart Smalley was right all along :-)

After reading that, the next step might be to figure out what you really want.

Are you most interested in getting more human touch? Then expand your criteria until you are able to find someone eager to share that with you. (Might mean being open to women around your age, or men outside your accustomed age-range, or people more overweight than you were envisioning.) Like ankylosaur said @161, dating sites are a good place to start.

Or are you more interested in orgasms? Masturbation is still the easiest way to get those – it may help to shop for vibrators, porn that works for you, or, yes, dildos, if you like that.

Or do you just want more human contact, not necessarily sexual? Ankylosaur @161 is right that group activities (volunteering? book clubs at the library? taking a class?) are good ways to meet people. And this will sound crazy, coming from me, but just getting outside, away from the internet, is bound to lead to more face-to-face human interactions...
Posted by EricaP on January 13, 2012 at 9:28 AM · Report this
179
@175/177 -- Google Safe Search should suit your purposes:

http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/…
Posted by EricaP on January 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM · Report this
180
Nilmom,

If your son can't get on the computer without your supervision, he has a tyrant and a fool for a mom.
Posted by Hunter78 on January 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM · Report this
181
Why don't you just watch your children? Or perhaps put in child locks on everything? Guess what, there is a lot more distasteful (smirk) stuff on the internet than santorum, or the definition of his name. Try parenting.
Posted by Christian Figueroa on January 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM · Report this
182
Adding to the (excellent) ideas in 178--

For more touch that's not necessarily sexual, there's massage. It feels good on sore muscles, and it just feels good too.

For figuring what you want, let me share something that's been useful for me. I used to think I wanted to be radiantly happy. It took me a while to realize that accepting myself meant accepting the part of myself that often felt unhappy, unloved, and unwanted. I can be a dismissive, irritable, snobbish person with horrible social skills. It's a lot easier to accept that about myself than to keep beating myself up over traits that aren't likely to change.

Therapy and self-work can be about self-improvement, and therein lies a contradiction. It implies that you're in need of improvement when you're pretty good the way you are.
Posted by Crinoline on January 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM · Report this
HellboundAlleee 183
Ah, "inappropriate content."

"Inappropriate" is such a handy word, isn't it? It works for anything anyone at any time might possibly find slightly offensive. It also works to block other people who find certain content necessary and informative.

"Inappropriate" stops thought. Any time a concept or a visual comes through that causes concerstipation, anger, humor or all of the above can be eradicated through the use of "inappropriate."

"Inappropriate" has been used mostly against people. Have you ever been the "inappropriate" person based on race or sexual orientation, or based on something biological that's simply a fact of nature, not an offense to others? Hell, simply associating with you or using a word to describe you makes whole blocks of content automatically "inappropriate for children."

Quite convenient, isn't it?
Posted by HellboundAlleee http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com on January 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM · Report this
184
I would like to suggest another campaign/ definition contest, for a few other words to mean other things maybe
not-fit-for-dinner-table-Conversation.

As we know we have a few Anti-gay/Anti-woman/Anti-poor/ Bigoted republican prospects in the running for the GOP nomination.

It would be great to have a spreadingromney.com, a spreadinggingrich.com, a spreadingronpaul.com, and a spreadingbachmann.com, and spreadingpalin.com while we are at it.

I think the savage love readership would be able to come up with a few ideas, for new meanings for the names of our leading bigots in the GOP.

Anyone have suggestions?
Posted by Hayhook on January 13, 2012 at 10:23 AM · Report this
185
@182 "I can be a dismissive, irritable, snobbish person with horrible social skills."

Me too!

"Therapy...implies that you're in need of improvement when you're pretty good the way you are."

I like to use a plant analogy. Each person/plant is already lovely the way it is, but over time, it will grow and develop and blossom. Doesn't mean it was defective before, just that we all have opportunities for growth.
Posted by EricaP on January 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM · Report this
186
Dan,

Good news, you're married again!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli…

Even our (Canada's) right wing conservative government had to bend or lose a lot of support at home and credit internationally.

I was talking to some US expat's and I can't fathom that a conservative business minded mormon as the moderate in the pack of republican nominees. Your centrist guy, Mitt, is still far to the right of our Conservative leader Harper, imo. Just can't wrap my head around it.

Posted by vancityjames on January 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM · Report this
187
@175: Sure, you get to want the internet to be a child-friendly place. All I can say is, good luck with that windmill, Mr. Quixote. Haven't you heard of Rule 34?

Today, it's Santorum you are complaining about. (By the way, did you miss the part where the candidate himself made references to man-on-child sex and man-on-dog sex, right in the middle of his speech about defending marriage? Is it not above their age level when he's the one doing it?) What will it be next quarter, next research paper? You've just assigned yourself the task of shutting up whatever segment of the population that you find "inappropriate" at the moment -- a supply which is for all practical purposes infinite. This is, of course, presuming that any of them should even listen to your imperial decree, and subside into embarrassed meekness, rather than telling you to improve your own filters instead of telling other people how to run their own lives.
Posted by avast2006 on January 13, 2012 at 10:56 AM · Report this
188
Thank you for this fantastic article and penmanship Dan, I read it yesterday and I'm still laughing and crying.

Rick Santorum:
"To remove with your tongue, the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex"

Keep being awesome.
Posted by SantorumRicker on January 13, 2012 at 11:37 AM · Report this
189
Thank you for this fantastic article and penmanship Dan, I read it yesterday and I'm still laughing and crying.

Rick Santorum:
"To remove with your tongue, the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex"

Keep being awesome.
Posted by SantorumRicker on January 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM · Report this
190
Why give Santorum any further press? It'll all be over for him soon anyway. Fuck it.

Thanks for writing responses (coughahemsarcasm).

The evidence is glaring...
Posted by Not. on January 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM · Report this
191
Crinoline. I believe I already mentioned the many ways Mr. Savage has to get his message out, blog, radio program, he is an author and appears on many cable talk shows. Also, the media is not ignoring the fact that Mr. Santorum is a bigot, they discuss it ad nauseum on MSNBC and even Chris Wallace on FOX took him to task. Wallace gave several quotes then asked if Santorum had made them, when Santorum replied that he had Wallace smacked him down "Mr. Santorum these arguments you make against gays in the military are the same arguments once used by racists to try to keep the military from being intergrated."
@Hunter78 If you think it is appropriate to let a sixth grader alone with the internet, then YOU are the fool. Thank goodness I was there with him, or he would have been taking his questions to the playground or the school bus as some have suggested and getting all kinds of misinformation. And since we live in Norht Ga. that could have really backfired for Dan's cause. I'm quite sure the kids wouldn't have said Santorum is a bigot, but that does not make cyber bullying acceptable. I'm sure he would have gotten some horrible anti-gay crap that the teenage boys around here tend to spew. Again, Mr. Savage is not thinking of the unintended consequences of his actions. Taking your argument to the basest level often just makes people lose respect for you and your opinion. Keeping things civil tends to help bring more people over to your side.
@EricaP Thank you. I'll try it.
Posted by nllmom on January 13, 2012 at 1:11 PM · Report this
192
@167, oh, but you make the problem depend on old evolutionary factors -- capacity to have children, support them, etc. All of those are not intrinsic, but merely technical problems, solvable with modern means and technology. With our new resources, modernity actually makes polygamous marriage very much possible.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 13, 2012 at 4:35 PM · Report this
193
This "santorum" thing is a real shame. It's an ad-hominem attack, illogical, ignorant and tragic. It is bullying to all those other people named "Santorum". It's not debate, it's not rhetoric, it's not a coherent criticism of ideas, it's crude, and it's sad.

What's sadder is that good debate, rhetoric, discussion of issues, etc., don't work. Nobody cares about rational arguments. When did we reach such a state? When did it become true that the only way to hurt some piece-of-shit politician was name-calling?

This whole "santorum" thing just confirms my belief that the USA is done. Either we split into separate countries, or the morons who made shouting insults the only effective political technique will bring us all down with them.

So, Dan: I don't know if I'm calling you a part of the problem or not. I think you and your Esteemed Readers did what needed to be done, and did it well. But the fact that the only effective forms of political discourse are shouting and slander means that we may as well give up.
Posted by something on January 13, 2012 at 4:46 PM · Report this
194
@191, I think we disagree on what is "inappropriate" for a 12-year-old. As I recall, I already knew what anal sex was at that time, and realizing that fecal matter and lube might be involved wasn't much further ahead. And, all in all, I'm a pretty decent 42-year-old now, despite that.

I would really like to know why you think this is inappropriate for your child, i.e., what kind of damage or harm would be done to him if you explained in detail what exactly Dan's definition of "santorum" entails. I understand this is a very widespread opinion ('children can't know about sex! knowing about sex is only for grownups!'), but I never really understood the rationale behind it.

But this would be a digression. To address your question, there are a number of content-filtering programs available (e.g., NetNanny) which could block the results of whatever websearches your child did by keywords and other means. Such programs and others have been used to censor various things on the internet, from sexual content to political content to diverging ideas (e.g., in China). I am sure they would help you in solving this "problem."
Posted by ankylosaur on January 13, 2012 at 4:51 PM · Report this
195
@191, I hope you realize that the main point of Dan Savage's redefining santorum was not simply to get his message across -- it was to do something that would make his bigotry (as reflected in that famous interview, and afterwards in other interviews and speeches) a point of discussion, not easily forgotten. Indeed Dan could have used all these other means, as other bloggers have done throughout the internet. I don't think any would have ever achieved the same level of success -- I sincerely don't, when I consider similarly bigotted politicians and how easily their offending opinions could be forgotten.

The result speaks for itself.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 13, 2012 at 4:54 PM · Report this
196
'his bigotry' = Santorum's bigotry, of course, not Dan's. Sorry for the ambiguous reference in my previous comment.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM · Report this
197
Ah, the fresh breath of true RAGE, which lives inside me and flares up whenever I read a story about kids killing themselves, like Eric James Borges (http://tinyurl.com/7s3h5fp).

I thank you Dan, for giving such an eloquent and powerful voice to that rage.
Posted by DutchButch on January 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM · Report this
Jabosan 198
Santorum is a jerk and he deserves to be called out for his bigotry and ignorance. Thank gawd we have journalists like Dan who are ballsy enough to take on such a moron. Not only when he was a senator but even now, when he steps onto the big stage. The republicans are grasping for straws. Is Santorum the best they can do?
Posted by Jabosan on January 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM · Report this
199
Concerning post #171, I occasionally suspect that someone of Mr Ank's temperament could make out quite a good case for homophobia actually BEING a Family Value (or at least a "Family Value"), but, as I haven't Mr Ank's temperament, I don't think I'll begin such an undertaking.
Posted by vennominon on January 13, 2012 at 7:09 PM · Report this
mydriasis 200
@186

I'd say Harper (in practice, not spirit) is actually more liberal than Obama. At least when it comes to Dan's pet subjects.

re: your article. O Canada. :)
Posted by mydriasis on January 13, 2012 at 9:32 PM · Report this
201
"Best argument against Rick Santorum's opposition to birth control: The existence of Rick Santorum."----Frank Conniff
Posted by ejc on January 13, 2012 at 10:03 PM · Report this
202
@161, @178, @182, and @185: Thank you all for your wonderful and helpful suggestions! I guess I am a bit shy about dating and dating sites, even though they're hurtled at me online on a daily basis. I am thinking about volunteering; I recently helped campaign for my city's mayor's re-election. I'm looking to get more involved musically. I love live performances--particularly orchestras, jazz bands, opera & theatre.
Composing my second symphony is keeping me busy (and yes, checking emails and blogs, too) when I'm not playing my flutes or piano. Every so often I come up for air.
Thanks again! Well said by all three of you.

@161 Anklosaur---thanks, too, for sharing your sibling woes. Wow, can I relate! My current life situation also somewhat matches yours: my older sister, after having economic reality finally hit her in the face like a Santorum cream pie after living over 35 years of denial, now complains that "life is SO unfair"----only because she has to join the rest of us in earning a living and paying taxes to keep and maintain one's own home, and ---eeek!---gasp!---shudder!!--actually scrub her own toilets.
I'm thinking of composing this into an opera buffa. What does everyone think?
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 13, 2012 at 10:14 PM · Report this
203
@201: You NAILED it!!!! Bravo!!!
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 13, 2012 at 10:16 PM · Report this
204
@203 Don't thank me. Thank comedian Frank Conniff, formerly of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and currently of "Cinematic Titanic." You remember the character of "TV's Frank"? That was him. He came up with the bon mot, and I'm just passing it along.
Posted by ejc on January 14, 2012 at 3:14 AM · Report this
205
This "santorum" thing is a real shame. It's an ad-hominem attack, illogical, ignorant and tragic. It is bullying to all those other people named "Santorum". It's not debate, it's not rhetoric, it's not a coherent criticism of ideas, it's crude, and it's sad.

Saying Rick Santorum is an asshole isn't ad hominem, dumbass. Ad hominem is saying Rick Santorum is an asshole, that's why he's wrong about gay marriage.

When you don't know what you're talking about, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Posted by Aquaria on January 14, 2012 at 4:30 AM · Report this
206
This "santorum" thing is a real shame. It's an ad-hominem attack, illogical, ignorant and tragic. It is bullying to all those other people named "Santorum". It's not debate, it's not rhetoric, it's not a coherent criticism of ideas, it's crude, and it's sad.

You clearly don't know what an ad hominem is, moron.

Ad hominem is saying Rick Santorum is a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter THUS that's why he's wrong about gay marriage. Calling him the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter alone is NOT ad hominem.

When you don't know what you're talking about, sit down and shut up.
Posted by Aquaria on January 14, 2012 at 4:37 AM · Report this
207
202- Auntie G-- What does everyone think? I think you're spending too much time on your sister's irrationalities and complaints when we all have plenty of our own. Her financial woes are a learning and growing experience for her, not final proof that you were right all along that she never deserved her favorable treatment.
Posted by Crinoline on January 14, 2012 at 5:23 AM · Report this
Lechugo 208
Hey Dan, just wanted to share.

This week in Chile, Ñuñoa's mayor Pedro Sabat accused the girls of and internship school of making the building a whorehouse during it's occupation this year (in the context of the educational conflict here).

They organized a "slut parade" to protest against his bigotry because, you know, he didn't have any proof of what he was talking about.

Wanna see some sexual disidence and pride for one's own sexuality? This is the news report by El Mostrador in spanish. See the pictures. Some of these signs say:
"Nor silence, nor demureness, i'm a whore, so what?"
"Sluts, maybe. Dumbs, never!"
"I'd rather like a whorehouse than an intelectual jail"

Just sharing, hope you like it.
http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/…
Posted by Lechugo on January 14, 2012 at 6:18 AM · Report this
209
Griz,

Maybe it's your personality?

Posted by Hunter78 on January 14, 2012 at 8:19 AM · Report this
mydriasis 210
@209

Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by mydriasis on January 14, 2012 at 9:19 AM · Report this
211
Auntie G-You just need some TLC and a big ol' hug, followed by a mind blowing orgasm. Hope you keep open to the possibilities and let go when the time is right for you. Here on this forum sex and politics are so damned mixed up-the left hates the right and the right hates the left, but in bed, when you're just feeling naked with another, none of that crap matters. Just two people gettin' it on and enjoying each other.

May you find what you seek and if not, may it find you.
Posted by ironvic on January 14, 2012 at 9:32 AM · Report this
212
@202 Grizelda,

Perhaps the (anti-)heroine, reduced to cleaning santorum from toilets due to her finances being destroyed by the evil machinations of a robosigning Big Bank...

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 14, 2012 at 9:33 AM · Report this
213
207- I didn't express myself well. What I meant to say is that your sister probably was favored, and you're right that she never deserved favored treatment. My point is that that doesn't matter. For years I walked around thinking that if I could only convince the evil doers in my family that they were wrong, everything would be better for me and I'd stop blaming myself. After all, once they understood that they were to blame, it would all be okay.

Now I realize that a thunderbolt could come down from the sky exclaiming that they weren't special, that they were finally getting what they deserved, that they had no right to complain, etc. etc. Except it wouldn't make any difference. I'd still be the somewhat anxious person I am with my ups and downs. They'd still be leading the lives they're living. I'm still looking for the perfect relationship and the meaning of life. So are they. In the mean time, I recommend a massage and some chocolate.
Posted by Crinoline on January 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM · Report this
214
Why would the Olive Garden need one-busted hostesses? I tend to eschew stereotype-breeding, katsup-flavored Italian-wannabe crud, but the two times I've been to OG, all the hostesses appeared anatomically typical.
Posted by DRF on January 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM · Report this
215
Just about choked on my oatmeal this morning, as I heard this soundbite on NPR, by a spokesman for the Christian Evangelicals meeting in Texas, announcing that they have chosen to back Rick Santorum for the Repuglican presidential nomination:

"After vigorous and passionate discussion, Santorum emerged..."

Can't make this stuff up!
Posted by it gets better and better on January 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM · Report this
216
@207 & 213 Crinoline: I never said I was any smarter or better than my older sister or anyone else. Actually, I consider my sister's current financial woes a learning and growing lesson, too, and definitely not how I want to end up. But you're right---it really doesn't matter. I've happily gone onward without having my older sis, brother-in-law, or youngest nephew in my life, mainly because I prefer to focus on those in my life who are caring, positive, and supportive. Living in a different county helps a lot.

I was actually relating to anklosaur's (see @161) post about his sibling relationship with his brother.
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 14, 2012 at 5:38 PM · Report this
217
@215: LOL!!!! That's great!!
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 14, 2012 at 5:40 PM · Report this
218
@204 ejc: Consider Frank Coniff thanked! And thank you for passing it on.

@209: Hunt, I know I'm outspoken, but did I step on your toes again? You must have some pretty sensitive feet.

@210: mydriasis: LOL!! You go, girl!

@211 ironvic: God bless you!!! Thank you and likewise! A big hug back!

@212 Married in MA: OMG--you've met my sister, Marie Antoinette??

@213: A massage and some chocolate sounds good, too!! Thanks!
I'm going to be very relieved when I no longer have to be concerned about raging hormones anymore.
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 14, 2012 at 6:03 PM · Report this
219
Well, seems like here's another Santorum family values conundrum.  Remember the Sen. Ensign sex scandal?  Doug Hampton, who lost his job, his wife, and will likely be going to jail because of his ex-best friend and boss, stated frothyman wouldn't ask Ensign to step down.  Hampton has publicly stated frothyman doesn't truly support family values because of the support he gave Ensign against Hampton.

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 14, 2012 at 6:12 PM · Report this
220
Why isn't Santorum in a sanitarium? Or a sewage treatment plant?
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM · Report this
221
@168: I'm a mom too, of a 15 year old girl and 10 year old boy. I am very pro-Dan Savage, and I spread his definition of santorum as often as I can. I do this because kids not much older than yours and mine are KILLING THEMSELVES because they are living in a world where the right, led by people like Santorum, demonize gays, which creates an environment in which kids feel justified in bullying gay kids. If it were not for Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" campaign, and the attention he's brought to this issue (and let's face it, repurposing Santorum's name in such a provocative way did bring lots of attention to the issue), more kids might die.

So I'm OK with explaining the story to my son, so that he can stick up for kids at school if they are bullied, even though no one actually likes to talk ass juice. But I'd rather have a gross conversation with him now than try to explain why a classmate of his might have chosen to kill himself because he couldn't stand the bullying anymore.
Posted by gayfriendlymomma on January 14, 2012 at 9:51 PM · Report this
222
@199, I suspect such an argument could be made along the same lines of the argument for virginity, or strict monogamy, also being Family Values, mutatis mutandis.

I'm not sure how to interpret your comment about my temperament. I hope I didn't offend you with anything I said. It certainly wasn't my intention.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 15, 2012 at 1:14 AM · Report this
223
@202, you're welcome. An opera buffa? :-) A little comic relief might be better. When I think of it, such situations of rivalry between siblings are better for comedy than for tragedy. (My brother, when he was 18 and I was 12, would sometimes make me answer phone calls from one girlfriend -- to tell her he was sick or something -- while he was going out with another. I used to get angry at him for that, but now it strikes me that it would make a funny scene in an early Woody Allen movie.)
Posted by ankylosaur on January 15, 2012 at 1:22 AM · Report this
224
Mr Ank - Not offended at all. I meant that you're much more of am purist than I am, and far more dedicated to being right regardless of collateral damage. You probably have a tenth of the problems of instituting unlimited-partner marriage solved already, whereas I would claim due to lack of time that there was no point even in deciding whether it ought to be instituted, let alone how to do so - unless the idea of divorce taking on proportions not seen since the days of Henry VIII struck me as an excellent addition to my long list of Unwritten Plots.

I see your point, but your argument is more neutral than mine. I meant that there are specific evils to Family Values - that nobody ever addresses or even seems open to addressing, given the way that the phrase is always trotted out to the accompaniment of twanging harps - and that homophobia is an attendant consequence. That was why I didn't want to go into the matter deeply - far too many people here would approve of the conduct in such examples as I could provide of same-sex couples using homophobia against each other in the cause of pereceived advantages for their children. It was not a battle I thought worth fighting.
Posted by vennominon on January 15, 2012 at 5:11 AM · Report this
225
Thank God the Broncos lost. If they had gone on to win the Super Bowl, we'd be inundated with this sign of divine intervention.

Posted by Hunter78 on January 15, 2012 at 6:04 AM · Report this
226
The sporting reference reminds me - is anyone in Australia and able to keep us filled in on Margaret Court and whatever controversy may surround her during the Australian Open.

For those who don't follow tennis columnist Jon Wertheim (I'm a little surprised Mr Savage hasn't had anything to say, but Australia might be off his radar), Mrs Court (the top player of Billie Jean King's era and, counting the years before the Grand Slam tournaments admitted professionals, the all-time leader in major titles) became a pastor. She had been in the habit of issuing anti-gay statements every few years, often directed against Martina Navratilova, whom she's called a bad role model.

With a same-sex marriage bill on the horizon in Parliament, Mrs Court has provided the opposition expected of her. Tennis Australia has released a statement that her personal views are her own and are defintely not shared by the organization. The Facebook page "Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena" has formed with the intent to display Pride colours during matches on the third show court, encouraged by recently-retired, several-years-out doubles champion Rennae Stubbs.

I am greatly looking forward to seeing how ESPN covers or ducks the issue, and particularly the response of Chris Evert. But I'd love inside information from anyone in Australia.
Posted by vennominon on January 15, 2012 at 8:43 AM · Report this
nocutename 227
The whole "Family Values" thing really irritates me.
As if we were all one family with a shared set of values. Whose family? Whose values?

One of the biggest advantages the intolerant bigots of America have given themselves over the past several decades, lies in their ability to co-opt the rhetoric first and apply all the strongest and most positive descriptors to themselves: "Pro Life" (not really, not quality of life, maternal life, or the life of convicted murderers. Just pro-fetal-life); "Family Values."

Years ago, when my kids were 11 and 6, we took a driving vacation from the San Francisco Bay Area to Seattle. How did we entertain such young kids? We played classic road trip license plate games, we sang along to songs (mostly show tunes), we listened to audio books (Charlotte's Web," and "Anne of Green Gables"), and we listened to lots of old "This American Life"s, which then became the topics of far-ranging and very interesting conversations the family had. The kids made friendship bracelets in the back seat with embroidery floss, or drew pictures, or read books. The one thing that was not allowed was for someone to close herself off via earbuds or headphones--to isolate herself from the family aurally. If someone wanted to hear "her" music, she asked, and we all listened to it--and I learned to appreciate something new.

When at Seattle, we met another family of tourists, who had three kids, and had driven a comparable distance in their huge, gas-guzzling Humvee. They were quick and proud to tell us how they'd managed the trip: their vehicle was equipped with individual DVD players, and each kid watched his or her own movies, ears plugged in so no one else "had" to hear, and, thus Disney-fortified in their consumer-cocoons, they made the trip. It became apparent during the course of our conversation, in which they made derogatory remarks about my home, and my presumed politics (though I made polite, non-committal noises, and said nothing negative about where they lived or what I assume the general political climate there to be), that they were good Christian conservatives. I was outraged that they and people like them had cornered the market on "family values."
More...
Posted by nocutename on January 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM · Report this
228
Dear Dan,

I'm aware it's a little too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube but I urge you to reconsider your "Santorum" stance.

#1 I would like you to explain how what you're doing is any better/different/more acceptable than what he's doing. What makes his behavior bullying while yours is not? You want people to accept you and your fellow LGBTs yet when someone doesn't this is what happens? Admittedly, there is a terrible mean-spritedness to his lack of tolerance but at this point your behavior has stooped to his level too. I think in some ways it's even worse because he doesn't put himself out there as a cheerleader for tolerance like you do.

#2 This man has a family including school-age children. Do you not think at some point they are going to pay the price for your "Santorum" definition? And probably, unfortunately, in the form of bullying? The very behavior you purport to be attempting to put an end to?

Mr. Santorum is a disgrace to humankind and for that he should be called on the carpet. But for the reasons above, I wish you had found a better way to do it. I used to hold you in such high regard and with deep admiration but unfortunately I'm finding it more difficult to do so and it pains me.

Many of your devoted fans such as I have written to you about this. It's high time you addressed our concerns.

Thank you,
Donna
Posted by LuvLife on January 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM · Report this
229
I heard a tv reporter describe Rick Santorum as a "devout Catholic". Haven't Catholics been maligned enough, what with the pedophile clergy scandal?! I don't support his homophobic views, but what riles me as a hetero female is his using the wife as a baby-factory. Apparently he needs to prove his heterosexuality by producing nine spawn who are using more than their fair share of the planet's resources.
Posted by Mermaid on January 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM · Report this
mydriasis 230
@227

Thanks for sharing.
I always appreciate hearing from parents that do things right, and I couldn't agree more.
Posted by mydriasis on January 15, 2012 at 11:26 AM · Report this
231
@193 "But the fact that the only effective forms of political discourse are shouting and slander means that we may as well give up."
------
Pish tosh. It was ever thus. Go read some history, not the stuff aimed at kids that has to pass classroom politeness standards. Shouting and slander are the least of it. And yet through the mud good stuff passed, things improved incrementally, and a generation later a polite, sanitized version of the disagreement could be presented in school books as though it was all a civil debate.

It's not the end of days. It's just politics as ever practiced.

Posted by IPJ on January 15, 2012 at 11:58 AM · Report this
232
@228:
#1 Bullying is defined by power. Larger against smaller, the many against the few, older against younger. So when a US Senator attacks a small minority, and a US sex columnist fires back, one does not claim that the sex columnist is bullying the poor powerless Senator. What his action has done, elaborate poop joke that it is, is keep Santorum tied firmly to that interview. A hundred polite columns would not have had nearly the effect.

#2 People named Gay, Hooker, Fuchs, and dozens of other things have had to cope with inconvenient last names. People who want to bully a kid will find something. I suspect a whole lot more kids are being bullied for being perceived as gay than for being named Santorum. And Dan has actually done something to help the former group.
Posted by IPJ on January 15, 2012 at 12:00 PM · Report this
233
#232 Thank you for answering without flaming me, seriously :). I happen to agree with much of what you wrote. That said, however, it still doesn't answer my questions.

Yes, bullying is defined by power. But it is also defined by a lot of other things. Maybe "bullying" wasn't the exact word I should have used. My point was more that why is what Santorum (the person LOL) does any worse than what Dan has done? At this point it smacks of revenge and an extraordinary attempt to humiliate him for his opinions, wrong as they may be, and again I ask you, how is that any different especially when his family is bound to be collateral damage?

And now, his children/innocent family members who have nothing to do with any of this can google their last name and this is what comes up?? - that is just CRUEL!!For sure, many people have grown up with inconvenient last names, myself included. In fact, I spent much of my childhood being teased for it. But does that mean it is okay to deliberately put a child in that position by giving internet ammunition for anyone in the universe with a computer as Dan has done?

I respect your opinion but I'm sorry, you can try to explain it anyway you want, but I think both Santorum and Dan are wrong in their own way and honestly I just don't see how anyone can justify doing to someone else what was done to them because it helps a small minority group or in the name of social justice or whatever one calls it.
Posted by LuvLife on January 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM · Report this
234
@223 anklosaur: Although it has been done many times already, I'm thinking of creating yet another modern take of Cinderella, this time combined with an Empress's New Clothes theme, obviously using fictionally named characters. Wouldn't that be a hoot, though, if I got offered film rights, or at least, got the opera buffa performed locally? I agree---I'd rather make this a comedy. The only tragedy is that it would still be based on a true-life situation.
By the way, again like your older brother, my older sister (such a "dainty, delicate flower") routinely feigned illness to get out of housework---just in time to go out on her next date. Guess who always got stuck with the dishes?

@227 & @229: I agree. Well said!
@232 re @228: Thanks---you beat me to it.
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 15, 2012 at 1:31 PM · Report this
shw3nn 235
@233 "My point was more that why is what Santorum (the person LOL) does any worse than what Dan has done?"

Steady now. These are the two things you are comparing.

"Your surname describes something disgusting."
VS
"Who you are and how you love is disgusting, wrong and sinful."

Posted by shw3nn on January 15, 2012 at 1:35 PM · Report this
236
@227 nocutename,

It isn't surprising that you find audiobooks and family travel so intrinsic.  Reading aloud to your child can be one of the most intimate (family appropriate) acts possible, and a good audiobook can get close.  I consider myself very lucky to have had a young family during the period J. K. Rowling released her work.  To have created books that caused families to wait in line for midnight release parties in costume is a phenomenon I fear won't happen again (in my lifetime).  We had years of family travel sharing the same headspace, powered by her words brought to life by the mastery of Jim Dale with such vividness and intensity that I accidentally missed the turnoffs on the highway (without complaint that I had inadvertently extended the journey).  Adding to my personal enjoyment was the opportunity to experience my children's growth in logic and reasoning directly during the years of discourse we shared (and even wonder when my 7 year old blurted out "Harry is a horcrux" during the "Order of the Phoenix" (something I also had deduced, but wouldn't have expected a child to be able to)).  

In counterpoint, to have had her (Dame Rowling) work burned by the frightened little minds (I mean, ethical witchcraft?!) just points out how limited these people are.  What is even worse is that the luxo-SUV family probably was in debt to their eyeballs.  And that is the tragedy of the kind of people that desperately want to believe they are better than anybody, even if it means attacking people for reasons that have nothing to do with reality, needlessly going into debt, or even losing coherence with their stated goals (caring for the poor, the imprisoned, supporting civil rights under the Constitution???).  Everyone knows terrified animals are dangerous, to themselves and everything and everyone around them.  That population, and behavior, is exactly what frothyman, and the rest of the teabag terror machine, is counting on.

So next time you're planning your family vacation, remember that logic, reason, and family values are available without additional cost at your public library for those of us that believe community is made of shared resources.  

Peace.
More...
Posted by Married in MA on January 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM · Report this
237
@luvlife #233 I totally get what you're saying. While the replies have raised valid points I've yet to see anyone directly answer your questions. Love, love, love Dan but we part ways on this issue & I too see him in a different light now.

What he & y'all are saying not in so many words is that bullying is ok if it's to correct a social injustice & yes it is bullying since Dan is using ridicule esp. on the internet to mock someone's views however misguided said views are.

As far as the affected kids, how can anyone say just because many people are teased about last names it's ok for Santorum's kids to suffer that same abuse? Because their father has archaic & ignorant views?

I mean, it's great Dan has made it his life's mission to educate people on the subject of gays rights & all like that, but at that price?

Seems to be it smacks of vengeance & humiliation more than education.

So not cool. Surely he could've found a better way.
Posted by skiingjoe on January 15, 2012 at 2:21 PM · Report this
238
@233 "I respect your opinion but I'm sorry, you can try to explain it anyway you want, but I think both Santorum and Dan are wrong in their own way and honestly I just don't see how anyone can justify doing to someone else what was done to them because it helps a small minority group or in the name of social justice or whatever one calls it."

Then don't bother framing the sentiment as a question when you wanted to make a statement. Asking something implies you're receptive to what someone else has to say. Yet I hear so many people recently use it as a means of implying they're "openness" so that the closed minded filth that spews out of their mouth is just palatable enough that you can't chew them out without losing face.

Oh, and that "whatever one calls it' is equality.
Posted by mygash on January 15, 2012 at 2:28 PM · Report this
239
@luvlife #233 I totally get what you're saying. While the replies have raised valid points I've yet to see anyone directly answer your questions. Love, love, love Dan but we part ways on this issue & I too see him in a different light now.

What he & y'all are saying not in so many words is that bullying is ok if it's to correct a social injustice & yes it is bullying since Dan is using ridicule esp. on the internet to mock someone's views however misguided said views are.

As far as the affected kids, how can anyone say just because many people are teased about last names it's ok for Santorum's kids to suffer that same abuse? Because their father has archaic & ignorant views?

I mean, it's great Dan has made it his life's mission to educate people on the subject of gays rights & all like that, but at that price?

Seems to be it smacks of vengeance & humiliation more than education.

So not cool. Surely he could've found a better way.
Posted by skiingjoe on January 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM · Report this
240
Sorry, their. Forgot to change it when I rewrote the sentence.
Posted by mygash on January 15, 2012 at 2:44 PM · Report this
241
@233 and 239, #235 brought up the best point. None the less, it isn't an "opinion" or a "misguided view" when people are able and willing to make your very existence a living nightmare. Comparing the act of making up a funny definition using their last name with that is like comparing egging someone's house with a drive by shooting.
Posted by mygash on January 15, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this
242
@233, 239:
I was bullied using mockery of my last name, which is in fact a perfectly innocuous name. But as a geek-before-it-was-cool, they were going to go after me for something, so my last name, physical appearance, and anything else they could grab was up. So now kids named Santorum make it easy for their persecutors, just like kids named Gay or Fuchs or Hooker. Or anyone unfortunately sharing a name with an embarrassing quasi-celebrity, ruining it for everyone named Sheen or Kardashian. A popular kid named Santorum will find they experience far less mockery than a nerd named Smith.

"My point was more that why is what Santorum (the person LOL) does any worse than what Dan has done?"
-----
Santorum: Homosexuals in long-term committed relationships are just like dog-raping pedophiles.
Savage: That was vile, and I will be using an elaborate poop joke to draw attention to your vileness. (Whoa. It actually worked.)
Internet: Oh whoa, poor Santorum, innocent victim!

If someone types elaborate vile comments about the president, that person is not "bullying" Barack Obama. Because the president has more power. If a group of kids team up to type vile comments about one, many against one, popular against socially marginalized, that's bullying. If the kid at some point types back, let's say they find a way to figure out and publish the IP address, they are not 'bullying' by exposing the names of the people who thought they could dish out abuse with impunity. Blowback against a bully does not turn the bully into a poor little innocent who deserves only politely written editorials.
Posted by IPJ on January 15, 2012 at 3:14 PM · Report this
243
Do we know that Rick Santorum's children are being taunted on the playground because their last name means frothy mix? Could be, but we don't know.

It's a funny thing about taunting and who gets chosen as the victim. There's a supposed reason: a name, being fat, being skinny, being smart, being dumb, a limp, a lisp, etc. The kids at the bottom of the pecking order think that everything would be different, everyone would love them, that they'd have loads of friends if only they had a different name or weren't sissy or if their parents didn't have accents or smell of garlic. But if you look around, there's someone else, possibly someone in the same class, who has the same name or is equally fat, skinny, smart, dumb, limpy, lispy, garlicky, or with greasy hair, and that person doesn't get it or doesn't get it as bad.
Posted by Crinoline on January 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM · Report this
244
@233, 239: Rick Santorum made his last name disgusting by being a homophobe. It wasn't Dan's fault. If you want to blame someone for tarnishing the name Santorum, blame Rick.
Posted by BlackRose on January 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM · Report this
mydriasis 245
@243

As someone who was bullied pretty viciously in middle school, I'd have to agree. I got made fun of for really obscure things since I was in a program for intellectually gifted kids (so being smart wasn't 'bad'). I wasn't fat (quite skinny, but never made fun of for that), no glasses (contacts), no weird last name. I was just... well, unhappy and precocious. That was really the only unique thing about me. So people come up with things to make fun of. I even remember getting made fun of for having a "bubble butt" one day.

Who's laughing now?
Post puberty we all made up, though. True story.
Posted by mydriasis on January 15, 2012 at 6:15 PM · Report this
246
@245 mydriasis,

I was bullied during middle school, but it was limited to physical annoyance stuff (and then I got big). I wasn't aware of it at the time, but it seems that middle school girls can be particularly vicious using psychological attacks. It's good you can laugh about it now.

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM · Report this
247
Mr Married - Minor point of order: "Dame" and "Sir" don't take surnames only, or at least they didn't when I got dinged a third of a grade for the same thing some years ago. Also, I'm not entirely clear about this, but I gather that recipients of the OBE don't acquire (or don't use) the title Dame, which accompanies GBE or DBE. Agatha Christie, Iris Murdoch, Muriel Spark and Helen Mirren, who are all Dames, all were made DBE. Of course, JKR still has time; many have had their honours upgraded to a superiour rank, or at least had the offer extended. If memory serves, Dame Helen Mirren declined a CBE but later accepted a DBE, Vanessa Redgrave accepted a CBE and later declined a DBE, and Geraldine McEwan declined both.
Posted by vennominon on January 15, 2012 at 9:34 PM · Report this
248
@247 vennominion,

I stand corrected: Madam Joanne. Of course I can't forget Dame Judi either.

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 16, 2012 at 12:11 AM · Report this
249
@244 BlackRose: Thank you!! I couldn't have said it any better.
@245 & @246: Thank you both for sharing your stories of school age angst!
My 30 year high school reunion is this June. It's so true! Amazing, isn't it, how cruel kids can be to each other, or, sadly, single out anybody for whatever reason, just because they're so afraid of differing from the accepted social "norm", then years later, can laugh about it together?
10 years ago I had initially dreaded going to my 20 because it was right after my divorce (I have a real "Christy Masters" type in my class who brags constantly about how perfect her life is--marriage, kids, house, you name it). When I showed up, everyone was not only glad to see I'd left a bad situation, but---welcome to the club!---just about everybody was divorced and /or remarried. We had a blast!
I wouldn't miss this one coming up, and am already wondering what the "40" will be like.
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 16, 2012 at 12:54 AM · Report this
250
@224(Mr Ven), oh, I see. I like to think of myself as a theoretician: I like to imagine how non-existing situations could be posited and what would make them stable or unstable, not per se because they are attainable from our current situation (or even better or desirable), but just to understand how things could be changed without causing collapse. What is really important to society? Family values? Religion? A sense of purpose? Happiness, or the pursuit thereof? Structures with which the individual can identify?...

Unlimited-partner marriage (like unlimited-partner enterprises) will be instituted if sufficiently many people need it, i.e., if there are enough people who suffer because of its absence as to make it a cause not necessarily célèbre but at least visible. Just as in the case of same-sex marriage: once society came to a stage in which the idea was no longer conceptualized as inherently disgusting (a stage, by the way, which Eastern European countries are still far from...) , then equality activists started working on it and making people think about the issue. I don't worry about how this will happen for unlimited-partner marriage: I merely observe and wait.

"Family Values" are always supposed to be so important, right? But what few people say is that "family values" depend on a definition of the family. They don't need to -- we also have a code of honor and ethics for economic behavior (be honest, don't steal, treat your partners fairly, etc.), which does not depend on how many people can be or not be associates in any given enterprise. "Family values" could in principle be similarly independent of the form of the family -- they could stress ideas like love, honesty, openness, commitment, cooperation, etc. Unfotunately, "family values" conservatives tend to see anything that isn't exactly equal to their traditional vision of the family as being the same as pure anarchy, equivalent to an apology of 'man-on-dog-cum-child-rape' relationships. It's this lack of any flexibility, this my-way-or-the-highway, my-family-values-or-no-values-whatsoever attitude that makes me feel desperate sometimes.

I say this because I actually do believe in values (= ethic/moral principles on which rational people of good will should be able to agree). It's the axiological ('axiology' is the philosophical study of values) fundamentalism that I really wished could change. But as long as people are afraid of the unknown, they'll make stupid assumptions ('could it be a tiger is hiding in that bush?' 'isn't what you're proposing the same as accepting child rape as normal?') that simply stop any discussion.
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on January 16, 2012 at 7:56 AM · Report this
251
@Mr Ven, who wrote:
I meant that there are specific evils to Family Values - that nobody ever addresses or even seems open to addressing, given the way that the phrase is always trotted out to the accompaniment of twanging harps - and that homophobia is an attendant consequence. That was why I didn't want to go into the matter deeply - far too many people here would approve of the conduct in such examples as I could provide of same-sex couples using homophobia against each other in the cause of pereceived advantages for their children.


That's actually an interesting topic, Mr Ven. And since most people here aren't really in battle mode -- discussions often are not really 'battles' -- I don't think it would be bad to see examples of what you mean.

Many features of the current traditional vision of 'family values' would seem to at least be in synchrony with homophobia. Someone in another SLOG thread a while ago mentioned how one of the first questions certain people ask when confronted with a gay couple is, "but who is the wife?" -- suggesting that, if one can't see who "the wife is", then there is something disturbing in the relationship, a vague threat against traditional heterosexual marriage ("if they don't have wives, maybe our wives will stop being wives too, at some point?").
Posted by ankylosaur on January 16, 2012 at 8:01 AM · Report this
252
@LuvLife (and others with similar opinions), here is what I think is the jist of the answers to your claim:

You're saying that what Dan is doing (redefining Mr Santorum's name) is equivalent to what Mr Santorum is doing (supporting the oppression of a group of people).

They are saying it is not. These are very different things.

What they have in common -- and which you perhaps react to -- is that both hurt.

So think of this. When people fight, both sides hurt each other. It doesn't follow from this that the Nazis and the French Résistence are at the same moral/ethical level. Yes, the Résistence killed people, sometimes innocent ones. Yes, collaborationists were persecuted, hurt, killed. But if one compares them with what they were opposing -- the collateral damage (innocent people killed by Résistence bombs, acts of sabotage, persecuted collaborationists, etc.) is much too small, compared to the people who were helped, and the final goal of liberating France from German occupation.

So: when you say that Mr Santorum's children may suffer -- you are talking about a few people, and you are mentioning potential, not actual suffering. Whereas when Mr Santorum supports anti-gay policies and maintains the idea that homosexuality is a sin and leads to hell, he contributes to a climate that victimizes many more people, and has led already to an increasing number of real, actual (not potential) crimes and suicides.

So I ask you: can you really in all honesty say that what Dan Savage is doing is the same as what Mr Santorum is doing? Is what Mr Savage is doing really the moral equivalent of what Mr Santorum is doing? Do the number of victims and the gravity of the crimes really make no difference?

I don't think so. And I'm sure that, if you think more about it, you'll come to the conclusion that they're not the same thing.

It is good that you wish people wouldn't hurt each other. I also would like society to be such that nobody ever attacked anybody else, and all discussions were kept at a high level, without any damage, direct or collateral, friendly or unfriendly fire. I'm sure the French Résistence also would have preferred that there never was any Occupation, that the French and the Germans actually never fought each other but had kept good relations that allowed for civil dialogue and well-measured arguments. Alas, that was not the case.

We don't chose the world in which we live.
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on January 16, 2012 at 8:20 AM · Report this
253
@LuvLife, I'll even go as far as making the following prediction: if Mr Santorum disappears from the political landscape (as he probably will) in the next couple of decades, I am quite sure this redefinition thing will be forgotten. The word doesn't look stable enough to survive; like so many other slang words from the past, it will quickly disappear once the battle that motivated it was fought to the end.

Homophobia, however... will continue for a while longer than that. At least I don't see why it should disappear when other, older targets like racism and sexism are still around.

Again -- is this really the same thing? Are we really talking about moral equivalents here?
Posted by ankylosaur on January 16, 2012 at 8:26 AM · Report this
nocutename 254
Sometimes I think the analogies get pretty far-fetched here.

I'm a mom and I've been thinking about the discussion that has been going on about whether Dan's keeping the redefinition of santorum is unfair to his kids or others with the same name, or whether finding the website that a search assigned by teacher led to would be traumatizing. And if so, what then?

Although I don't think it is particularly useful to liken the spreading santorum movement with the French Résistence of WWII, I do think that the issue of collateral damage applies. Rick Santorum seeks to vilify gay people and denigrate them in the most vile possible way. He also would like to regulate every single sex act that takes place between married, heterosexual couples. He spews hate maliciously and intentionally. Children who may share the last name and be teased for it, even Mr. Santorum's own, while they might be the intended target of a playground teasing (not the same thing as bullying, by the way), are not Dan's intended target. In fact, Santorum *as* a person isn't even the target. It's Santorum the candidate, Santorum the political figure who wants to gain power so he can strip rights from people and deny rights from people, who seems to have a hard time understanding the constitutional right to privacy, and who wants to legislate sex and reproduction, who wants to write legislation and enact laws based on his belief that allowing two loving individuals of the same sex to marry is comparable to child rape or beastiality.

That is what the spreading santorum movement is about--a visceral reminder of the truly vile and hate-driven ideas of a man who wants to be the president of the United States.

So it is a shame that name-calling has gotten into this, and yes it will be too bad if some unfortunately-named children get teased. And it is unfortunate that the discourse is tinged with poop. But the stakes are high, and the point is to remind people--voters--that Santorum's ideas by which he justifies controlling their private lives are pretty shitty.

As to the objections raised way back @168 by nllmom that her 12-year-old son was forced to see references to anal sex (which had to be explained to him), I would say that if my 12-year-old daughter had been given an assignment which resulted in her stumbling upon the spreading santorum site, I would take the opportunity to explain why such a site exists. I don't know that all 12-year-olds do know about the existence of anal sex or its mechanics, but they certainly do know about hate and bigotry, and I would thank the teacher for giving me an opportunity to educate my child about the existence of anal sex (so I could make sure that no weird mis-information is being received) and more importantly, about how crucial it is to know a lot about a candidate's views when considering voting for him or her. I would turn the homework assignment into an impromptu lesson on civil rights.
More...
Posted by nocutename on January 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM · Report this
255
Mr Ank - I used to be more like you, but one too many days spent concluding that there was no solution to a theoretical problem for which a solution would have been of no practical use whatsoever cured me of the habit, especially given that I had any number of theoretical problems for which a practical solution would prove to have a definite use.

I think I'll still pass on the examples, though - they would make Hamlet and Macbeth look like novels written by Angela Thirkell, and it's too early in the week for such skulduggery.
Posted by vennominon on January 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM · Report this
256
What an accomplishment! Decades from now, when Santorum's kids have kids, possibly gay kids, you can be proud of the torment they will endure at the hands of school bullies. This is a high point for the LGBT community. It's your "I Have A Dream" speech! It shows all of America what you're made of...a frothy mix of shit.
Posted by stillonline on January 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM · Report this
257
@254, analogies do get far-fetched -- but let us not forget that there is a point behind them.

The point of an analogy is, of course, that things can be compared qua genus, even though of course there are relevant differentia between them. Inasmuch as the argument depends on the genus, the analogy is successful; if, however, it depends on the differentia, then it may fail.

In America, one often seeks to disqualify analogies by complaining that the comparanda are of 'such different nature' that even comparing them is offensive or useless (colateral emotions linked to one of the comparanda may be (illogically) extended to the other; in the case of a 'weasel analogy,' that, rather than actually discuss the genus-related sameness, may have been the intention). Like everything else, however, this same tactics can be overused: because of the possibility of emotional extension, one forgets or ignores the sameness, and acts as if there was none -- call that a 'weasel analogy refusal,' yet another rhetorical device found in American political debates.

Since Nazism and homophobia are phenomena with such different historical consequences, it is easy to dismiss an analogy between them simply because of their differentia -- which, in terms of concentration camps and civilian casualties, are distanced by several orders of magnitude and intensity.

But the genus similarity should not be thrown out with the bathwater. The main point is that there is a difference between the kind of damage done by the system of stereotypes and prejudice that Mr Santorum defends, and the kind of damage done by the santorum redefinition on Santorum's family, or any people of the same family -- just as there was a difference between the kind of damage caused by the Résistence and the kind of damage caused by the Occupation.

Any attack on Mr Santorum will hurt him. Even if it does not spill on anyone else in his family, it will also hurt his family, by virtue of hurting him. If opinions such as Mr Santorum's are ever banished from the mainstream, they may very well become reasons for bullying at school -- maybe someday Santorum's children will be bullied because of who Santorum is, redefinition or no redifinition.

The only way to prevent suffering for Santorum and for his family would be never to attack him. The only way to prevent any possible potential future bullying of his children is never to say anything negative about their father. This, however, would make fighting against the man and his opinions impossible -- it is therefore not a reasonable option.

Fighting hurts. Fighting back also hurts. Both imply the possibility -- and reality -- of collateral damage. Unless politico-cultural adversaries in America agree not to fight anymore, I don't think this can ever be fully avoided.
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on January 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM · Report this
258
@256, did this happen to Jim Crow? Or to Charles Boycott? Or to Charles Lynch?
Posted by ankylosaur on January 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM · Report this
259
Hey,

I swear I remember Dan saying that he had R. Santorum used to be college roommates. Is this true? Can anyone point me to where he's said this?
Posted by JP2012 on January 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM · Report this
nocutename 260
@257: I don't forget the point behind the analogy, and I am not one of those saying that Dan has eclipsed the bounds of decency by creating spreading santorum. I agree that collateral damage in this case is tolerable.

We're on the same side.
Posted by nocutename on January 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM · Report this
nocutename 261
@259: I think this was a joke.
Posted by nocutename on January 16, 2012 at 12:20 PM · Report this
262
@260, OK.

I think what those who criticize Dan are missing (@256, etc.) is that comparing Rick Santorum's support for anti-gay bigotry and Dan Savage's 'poop joke' about him is indeed comparing things that are several orders of magnitude apart.

And my honest impression is that the complaint comes because Dan's move actually (and quite unexpectedly, to me at least) worked. I don't know if his name will be forever associated with the (now eponymous) frothy mix, but there is some chance it will be associated with anti-gay bigotry -- who knows, in the same way Jim Crow's is with racism. Would the critics above oppose to that -- to Santorum's name being forever linked to his opinions? So that laws that restrict marriage to straight people could be called 'Santorum laws' in the way segregation laws were called 'Jim Crow laws'? (Of course, 'Jim Crow' was not the proponent, but the target; but still...)? Would the critics be against that? Probably not -- and yet this would be as good a source of bullying as the poop joke.

Posted by ankylosaur on January 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM · Report this
Helenka (also a Canuck) 263
To everyone who has been discussing whether it's fair for Dan to have reacted to an attack from Santorum by giving santorum a hitherto unknown definition, I'd like to offer the following for consideration.

Those of you who think it's unfair for Dan to have done this and that he should have made a more polite rebuttal instead (to a vicious attack by a vile man) are labouring under the delusion that we are still living in the good old days – when there were public debates that were honest attempts to sway opinions. When logic might truly prevail over unruly emotions.

Unfortunately, even in those days, polite didn't work. Polite only extended the racism or homophobia. Think of Rosa Parks or the Stonewall riots. They fought back and ended up changing history. It wasn't necessarily pretty and it didn't happen overnight. And it wasn't "polite".

Today, we may offer homophobes study after study after study demonstrating how children raised in same-sex homes are no different from those raised in opposite-sex homes. No, wait. Actually, many are better off. Yet the eyes of homophobes glaze over, their ears are filled with a loud humming noise and they sing la-la-la to themselves. Anything to NOT acknowledge what's in front of them. Even worse, they'll be presented with pretty strong evidence that equal marriage does NOT destroy society, that same-sex parents do a damned fine job AND then try to pass the most offensive, restrictive and anti-human laws banning recognition of anything other than traditional marriage. I'm looking at you, Iowa, in particular. Remember Zach Wahls, the impressive 19 year old who spoke before the Iowa House about his two moms. They may have heard him, but didn't bother to listen.

In any case, please consider the real difference of what Santorum is doing: whether overtly or not, he encourages hatred of LGBT people, a hatred that not only fuels discrimination but can easily turn into physical attacks, some of which result in death (through murder or suicide). OTOH, all Dan has done with "santorum" is to ridicule "Santorum". Nolo contendere. [No contest.]
More...
Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck) on January 16, 2012 at 1:37 PM · Report this
lambcannon 264
Just now on MSNBC Hardball, Michael Steele made the following statement:

"People are underestimating the juice that Santorum has going into this race."

Steele kept on going with no irony.

Just thought you'd like to know.
Posted by lambcannon on January 16, 2012 at 2:57 PM · Report this
265
To Helenaka - you need to read some history! (to compare Dan to Rosa Parks is comparing Newt Gingrich to MLK)
It was peaceful resistance that changed the minds of the great middle earth. What Dan has done is show the vulgar underbelly of gay advocracy.
Posted by stillonline on January 16, 2012 at 3:20 PM · Report this
266
@260 You're right. Long after Santorum has left the scene -- #SavageWords will be associated with the LGBT community. And hey! It's only words right? Like .....
Posted by stillonline on January 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM · Report this
267
The story about Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond gives me a sad too. Thank you, Dan for explaining loudly, clearly, and repeatedly what the consequences are of some people's "policy things."
Posted by Pixel on January 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM · Report this
268
Also note that it's not considered bullying when someone speaks of a savage attack or of a lot of annoying noise sounding like it's coming from savages. If we're worrying about Santorum's children getting taunted on the playground because their name means santorum, shouldn't we be doing the same for all the kids named Savage?
Posted by Crinoline on January 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM · Report this
269
Dan can't unconnect the santorums. The hits are caused by previous hits, and they can't be sucked away, only over-whelmed by other hits.

The argument can be made that if Rick Santorum had just faded away, like he should have after being heartily rejected by the voters of Pennsylvania, people who knew him, Dan might have considered an apology to people named Santorum. But Rick didn't fade away, and he's become a symbol to people who think they are better than we.

Santorum deserves to be called ass frosh, as he is so very concerned about dick into male ass.

Posted by Hunter78 on January 16, 2012 at 5:03 PM · Report this
270
@ankylosaur,
I don't think there was a real "Jim Crow"; that was just a character made up for blackface minstrel shows:
>>> Three stock characters were among several that reappeared in minstrel shows throughout the nineteenth century. "Jim Crow" was the stereotypical carefree slave, "Mr. Tambo" a joyous musician, and "Zip Coon" a free black attempting to "put on airs" or rise above his station.>>>
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/jackson/mins…
Posted by EricaP on January 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM · Report this
271
@256 stillonline,

If you are so concerned about the damage that name calling creates, then surely you should extend your condemnation to Sen. Santorum as well as Mr. Savage. Don't forget the reason that Santorum's name was converted into a naughty joke was because of Santorum's attacks upon the LGBT community. Make no mistake, this was a political counterattack by one of the LGBT community's defenders (It get's better) upon one of the LGBT community's most imminent oppressors, and a highly effective one at that. In the historical perspective, this was a relatively mild rebuke that doesn't do anything worse than remind people of Santorum's relentless intolerance. Bullies like Santorum are used to having their way, picking on perceived easy targets. This time the LGBT community, and their supporters, fought back.

Peace.
Posted by Married in MA on January 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM · Report this
272
If anal sex is an objective good, pursued by good men with good intentions, shouldn't the byproducts of anal sex be good?

Why is anyone here disgusted by the definition offered by Mr. Savage? Why does Mr. Savage find his own definitions the MOST disgusting phrase in use?

I think that by admitting that the definition is disgusting, you are ceding ground to those who think like Mr. Santorum. The only difference between your positions is the physical point at which you draw the line of disgust.

Afterall, the mixture of semen and feces is the best possible physical byproduct of anal sex. On the other hand, the best possible physical byproduct of marital sex is a human being. I can certainly understand why he doesn't want the two conflated.
Posted by eduardo on January 16, 2012 at 11:06 PM · Report this
273
Well, stillonline, you clearly missed the point of my post. That's OK, I didn't think you'd get it anyway.

Go on, believe what you will, live peacefully and try not to get too angry over things. Dan is doing his part in changing the minds of the great middle earth, even if you don't think so. Live long and prosper.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 16, 2012 at 11:29 PM · Report this
274
@272, by your logic, the best by-product of marital sex is not a human being, but a mixture of semen and pee. Which again, by your logic, wouldn't be disgusting, right?

Oh wait -- you're being ironical. OK, I get it. Now go, and sin no more.
Posted by ankylosaur on January 16, 2012 at 11:32 PM · Report this
275
@234 re @223 anklosaur: Here's a little update: I'm jotting ideas for a bel canto opera buffa satirizing manipulation, greed, and spitefulness among siblings, using fictionally used names and locations. I'm thinking of Mozart / Rossini era costumes and that the scenes and script could depict any time period. And of course, we can't forget The Wicked Queen.
This and my second symphony ought to keep me out of trouble for a while.

@272: I'm disgusted that Rick Santorum is considered a human being!
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM · Report this
276
@272,

It is only disgusting because it is messy.
Posted by Married in MA on January 17, 2012 at 4:53 AM · Report this
277
Dear Dan,
You are a legend. Spreading Santorum is both the funniest and most impressive thing I have ever seen online.
Jack
Posted by OcbJack on January 17, 2012 at 5:24 AM · Report this
278
@274,

I don't follow. All semen probably carries at least trace amounts of urine and certainly some is mixed with trace amounts of urine, but unless you are attempting to penetrate a urethra, I don't know why that mixture would be considered the best possible byproduct of marital sex, as opposed to the creation of a human being.

@276

I don't find your statement compelling. All sex is "messy" as bodily fluids are necessarily involved. I think that few would argue that all sex is a matter of disgust.

Posted by 272 eduardo on January 17, 2012 at 7:54 AM · Report this
279
I also don't understand how some here can be "against" polygamy but "for" homosexuality.

The polygamist feels attracted to more than one person and wants to legitimize their attraction with the weight of law. They want the same legal rights afforded other marriages.

Without an appeal to authority or tradition, there is no means possible to deny them their desires. It is hateful to try and should have its own term: polyphobia.
Posted by 272 eduardo on January 17, 2012 at 8:00 AM · Report this
shw3nn 280
@272

A) Santorum is not the best possible byproduct of anal sex. It's avoidable and often avoided. It's really the worst possible byproduct. It's what happens when you don't prepare correctly.

B) "If anal sex is an objective good, pursued by good men with good intentions, shouldn't the byproducts of anal sex be good?"

We are essentially talking about thinking poo is gross. It is not gross because it's frothy. It's gross because it's poo.

Poo is not the byproduct of anal sex. Poo is the byproduct of eating. The byproduct of anal sex (SOMETIMES) is that the poo has a certain texture.

Do we have to pretend poo isn't gross lest everybody think eating is sinful?
Posted by shw3nn on January 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM · Report this
281
@280

Please list for us the other physical by products of anal sex so that we may determine whether it is best among them as I assert, or worst, as you do.

By saying "prepare correctly", aren't you standing in judgement of a particular form of anal sex -- that which makes no such preparations?

Like it or no, we are NOT essentially talking about whether poo is gross. If that were the case, Mr. Savage might have simply come up with a new definition of feces to fit his calumnious impulse. He didn't. He specifically makes us consider the mixture of substances and mentions the human body as the place where it occurs.

This is an appeal to disgust and is recognized by many here in the same vein. If the neologism offered by Mr. Savage appeals to disgust, we must ask what that disgust is predicated on.

Even if 280 is correct, it begs the question: Why is poo disgusting? It is natural and normal and universal. We must not appeal to authority or to tradition in the aversion to poo. Without any reason to think poo disgusting, we must coin a term for those who do. I suggest: Poophobia.
Posted by same eduardo on January 17, 2012 at 10:20 AM · Report this
282
@3, there is a difference between prejudice, and just plain judgment. Rick Santorum is prejudiced. He judges gays before knowing anything about them. We have judged Santorum based only on things he has said himself. We are now being mean to him. But not because of what he is, but because of WHO he is, who he has shown, proven, and proudly declared himself to be. Not a straight, not a Christian, but an anti-gay politician bent on devaluing gay people and stripping them of all their legal rights.
Posted by charlie on January 17, 2012 at 11:28 AM · Report this
283
@272, the best possible byproduct of anal sex is intimacy, closeness, a physical reinforcement of love. Lovemaking, no matter who does it or how, has a purpose. Or are you claiming that a stain on a sheet is the best possible byproduct of straight sex past menopause?
Posted by charlie on January 17, 2012 at 11:31 AM · Report this
mydriasis 284
@280

"It's really the worst possible byproduct."

I think anyone with HIV would beg to differ. (Or are we talking about byproducts unique to anal sex)

Otherwise you're right on the money.
Posted by mydriasis on January 17, 2012 at 11:34 AM · Report this
285
I propose that gay people who support Rick Santorum in particular, or the GOP in general, be referred to with the following term:

"santorkommando"

http://tinyurl.com/333dov
Posted by iowaclass on January 17, 2012 at 11:40 AM · Report this
286
283-- tsk, tsk. If you're going into the realm of intimacy, closeness, and a physical reinforcement of love, you might as well mention orgasm as a byproduct. But 272 was ahead of you. It specified PHYSICAL byproduct. i.e. babies are the byproduct of the sex act, and a woman's contribution in gestastion, gestation which, by the way, requires food, digestion, metabolism, and shit, is irrelevant. Don't try to argue with these people (unless it's fun for you). You might as well note that santorum makes good fertilizer so the byproduct could well be roses.
Posted by Crinoline on January 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
shw3nn 287
@281 First off, feces is a health hazard. That's why it's generally better to be disgusted by poo than attracted to it, assuming of course that maintaining your life and good health is a goal you have. I mean, really, who am I to say that being sick or dead is bad? That would be me standing in judgment of those who are no longer living, one of whom is my mother. I like being healthy so I'm rather glad that I think poo is gross. If I wanted poo for breakfast every day, well, I'd need better health insurance.

Nor did I claim we were talking about whether poo is gross. The reason those of us who find it gross do is because it is poo, not because it is anal sex related.

But, I do think there is a reason Savage chose something that is widely considered 'gay' and is also disgusting. I think it's clear on its face why, actually. Like it or not, you are missing something really obvious.
Posted by shw3nn on January 17, 2012 at 3:24 PM · Report this
288
@275 (auntie grizelda): for some reason I like the idea of having not only 18th-century costumes, but actually having the story happen in the 18th century, too. The relationship between Mozart and Salieri always struck me as an interesting model for my family relations -- with a later role reversal, à la Ugly Duckling. (In the beginning I felt I was playing Salieri to my brother's Mozart, since he was so much more socially successful; later the roles were reversed.)

I hope you can keep yourself out of trouble sufficiently long to also be happy. (Not that it's a very successful endeavor. I've tried to stay out of trouble all my life, and somehow trouble always managed to find me. :-).
Posted by ankylosaur on January 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM · Report this
289
@288: You know me, anklosaur---I'm just a happily wild, crazy woman--with a twinge of Wile E. Coyote thrown in for good measure. I avoid Road Runners to keep out of trouble.

I like your idea of keeping with 18th century costumes and set designs, and the Mozart / Salieri metaphor. What are your thoughts on The Wicked Queen as appearing somewhat like Marie Antoinette (i.e.: 'Let them eat cake')?

Meanwhile, my older sister ("Marie") is still living in denial after 35 years of having life handed to her on a silver platter. This ought to be some delicious fun!
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 18, 2012 at 3:47 AM · Report this
290
Re Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond: there seems to be no limit to the disassociation from humanism and reason incurred by that thing known as "the Law". Gov't is a BAD top who ignores all safe words.
I'm a middle aged vanilla woman. In my youth, I used to vacay in Mykonos, and most of the guys I met had an "International Gay Guide" or something to that effect. Does that still exist? I mean, why spend your tourist dollars on non LGBT friendly places?
VOTE WITH YOUR MONEY, IT'S THE ONLY THING THEY UNDERSTAND.
Posted by sunnydais on January 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM · Report this
291
Hi, Dan. Me again, after a long time. You know I am an ardent supporter of yours (even though you put the kibosh on my "Dan Savage for Pope" campaign), so why the kick in the teeth? I'm pro-choice, pro-GLBT rights, pro-teaching-Dan-Savage's-doctrines-in-all-public-and-private-schools, etc., etc.,

I also happen to be a registered Republican, ardent in some ways. I have been campaigning AGAINST Santorum (the person). I am not sure what to do about the rest of the candidates, but I am doing what I can against Ricky boy.

So don't lump all Republicans into one evil group. That's be like lumping, oh, I don't know, all Gays into one group because of the actions of one person (or several) who happens to be gay.

I'm working it here, trying my best. Don't persecute me because I happen to be mostly Republican.

Besides, where better to change an institution than from inside?

Marcus
Posted by wetspot on January 20, 2012 at 9:37 AM · Report this
292
@291: Your post is one of several reasons why I try not to generalize.
But equally, don't persecute me because I happen to be mostly left-center.
Thank you for squeezing out Santorum. If you could oust Romney, Gingrich, Perry, ad nauseum, too, that would be great.
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 20, 2012 at 7:02 PM · Report this
293
283

Those are byproducts of monogamy.
And the opposite of those things are the byproducts of cheating.
With permission or without.....
Posted by Cheaters are Shit. Walking Talking Santorum, as it were..... on January 20, 2012 at 10:57 PM · Report this
294
Hey Danny!

They were talking about you on CNN tonite!

by name!

(we know how much you get a hardon about being on CNN....)

Pierce Morgan had on Rick; and the wife and kids
(damn lovely family, we must say.
you know Danny,
you could have married a nice catholic girl and had a houseful of kids as well.....)

So the daughter was saying how she prays for your depraved pathetic soul.

She seemed like such a nice kid, you almost wonder if god would answer her prayers.

PS....oh, hey, Slog fanboys- were your ears burning too?
(and still the yellow discharge? eeeeew....no, just kidding!)
Cause Morgan said people who mock the Santorums for how they grieved the loss of their child are first rate assholes.
are you going to let him call you first rate assholes?
Farting Monkeys! to your email!!
Posted by Fame&Fortune on January 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM · Report this
295
According to Dan Olweus, who is an eminent researcher on bullying, there needs to be a power imbalance between the victim and the bully. Dan Savage doesn't have a higher social status than Rick Santorus therefore he cannot be accused of bullying him.
Posted by F.White on January 22, 2012 at 8:42 AM · Report this
296
Looks like Dan Savage has intricate knowledge of what comes out his behind when he uses an orifice for a purpose that nature did not intend.He just decided to name it with a good man's name simply to destroy his future.
Posted by knowall95 on January 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
297
If Santorum gets rid of the sweater vest, will his followers start wearing Brown Shirts? The Mayan 2012 prediction of disaster: Gingrich/Santorum (Gingrich would never be behind anyone). Romney? Look at what "his people" did with Prop. 8. F*** 'em all. I vote Libertarian!
Posted by alexdali on January 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM · Report this
298
Just to drop a note, Santorum's fundraising site is titled:
Conservatives
Unite
Moneybomb

So now not only is he frothy, he's also having donate people to CUM. I'm giggling.
Posted by ALorenaE on January 23, 2012 at 9:53 AM · Report this
299
*having people donate to
Posted by ALorenaE on January 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM · Report this
300
Bless you.
Posted by LisaLou64 on January 24, 2012 at 3:42 PM · Report this
301
Amen my brotha and thank you. Very well said.
Posted by Christopher Zacharias on January 24, 2012 at 9:35 PM · Report this
302
@298: Thanks for sharing! I'm giggling, too.
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 24, 2012 at 9:55 PM · Report this
303
What do we think about the open-minded liberal who bashes something they don't like? Hypocrisy?// The same exact thought process that labels Rick Santorum a bigot. He believes in something AS strongly as you believe in the opposite- that does not make him a bigot, it makes a different world view that in liberal media you don't accept... But to be that open-minded liberal YOU MUST accept his point of view even though you don't like it.

I think a lot of you have a lot of pain towards religion. And while you don't want to repressed or told your lifestyle is wrong, you blame that on the WHOLE of Christian religion. Do you have a problem with religion or being told you might be wrong? Sounds like a 2 year-old tantrum because you clearly don't understand another persons point of view and all you can do is respond with hatred.
Posted by thestranger on January 25, 2012 at 4:12 PM · Report this
304
What do we think about the open-minded liberal who bashes something they don't like? Hypocrisy?// The same exact thought process that labels Rick Santorum a bigot. He believes in something AS strongly as you believe in the opposite- that does not make him a bigot, it makes a different world view that in liberal media you don't accept... But to be that open-minded liberal YOU MUST accept his point of view even though you don't like it.

I think a lot of you have a lot of pain towards religion. And while you don't want to repressed or told your lifestyle is wrong, you blame that on the WHOLE of Christian religion. Do you have a problem with religion or being told you might be wrong? Sounds like a 2 year-old tantrum because you clearly don't understand another persons point of view and all you can do is respond with hatred.
Posted by thestranger on January 25, 2012 at 4:20 PM · Report this
305
How do you know those headlines were unintentional? Reporters know all about Santorum's "Google Problem." Putting puns and references into headlines is a very old custom in journalism. As long as it sounds innocent to people who aren't in on the joke, they're in the clear, even if they write for a family newspaper.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on January 25, 2012 at 10:10 PM · Report this
306
Savage's Google posting is a turn off to sympathy for the homosexual community. While it my be attention getting, it leaves such a bad taste as to motivate otherwise neutral people to speak out against his hate message. Stressing division in the country is not the way to bring it together.
Posted by Tucker.bear2 on January 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM · Report this
307
Dan Savage: an inhuman creature that subsists on an almost exclusive diet of pud & santorum. Found only in the captivity of a warped mind, this creature can be quite the cranky little puswa when crossed, so steer clear if you should run across it.
Posted by Normal Human Being on January 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM · Report this
308
Odd oversight on youtube re: santorum.

How is it nobody has made and posted a video of some brownish, gooey substance? No need to show or specify where it came from (avoiding any rules about graphic sexual content). Call the video "santorum" and link to spreadingsantorum.com.

That would shore up a significant gap in the campaign.
Posted by no santorum on youtube? on January 29, 2012 at 2:55 AM · Report this
309
I just heard Suzanne Malveau on CNN describe Rick Santorum as "bringing up the rear" in Florida polls.
Posted by Jafsie on January 31, 2012 at 8:06 AM · Report this
310
"Eruere et venite mecum ante."

A great motto to live by...thanks Ira and Dan!
Posted by A Motto To Live By on February 2, 2012 at 12:46 PM · Report this
311
Maybe Ira's motto should be:

Revello!

Ejacualte on meum pectora

(Pull back! Ejaculate on my breasts)
Posted by Ira Glass' Moto To Live By... on February 2, 2012 at 1:25 PM · Report this
312
Hmm. Dan, is that santoram on your face? Why would a nasty guy like you name the stuff on your dick after your enemy? I don't get it? You are a truly pathetic hypocrite. And truly mean.
Posted by dirty dean on February 8, 2012 at 4:25 AM · Report this
313
It is a shame for Chicago that this fu...ng Prick Savage is originally from Chicago. He has an undeveloped sick brain to do & say what he does
Posted by Anti faggots on February 11, 2012 at 6:39 AM · Report this
314
Canada loves Dan Savage and all the good you do in this world!
Posted by Giggity on February 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM · Report this
315
@3,5. If someone is attacking your very right to exist, and have a life with the same liberties that are granted to everyone else, They do not simply fall in the category of "people that have different views than your own". Were the Nazis simply "people that have different views than your own"?
Posted by Slervo on February 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM · Report this
316
I am tired of the news media repeating that Santorum has "blue collar roots" and will win over middle class union workers.
Since the 1970s, Santorum has been a republican college/law school student, intern for a republican senator, House representative, senator and lobbiest. His father was a doctor. His grandfather worked in a coal mine but that doesn't make Santorum a coal miner.
He hates Unions, teachers, and welfare recipients.
Posted by Holiday on February 20, 2012 at 9:13 AM · Report this
317
CNN Arizona debate this evening (2/22/2012) at roughly 108 minutes into the debate - CNN cuts to the only shot outside where the public is holding up signs. In the center screen one sign reads "Frothy Santorum. lube & fecal matter".

The camera zooms into this sign then they cut to commercial break.
Posted by CNN airs "Frothy Santorum" sign Arizona GOP debate on February 22, 2012 at 7:56 PM · Report this
318
Hi Dan:

Big fan yada yada.

I came up with this this afternoon, just jerking around. See what I did there?

Regardless, if it gets all memey, you heard it here first. Link with time stamp after the break.

"A frothy and slippery mixture
was named for a Republican fixture
When he finally comes out
There can be no doubt
That some guy will say "wipe off your dick sir."

https://www.facebook.com/tim.steil/posts…
Posted by TimSteil on February 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM · Report this
319
Wow, look at the hate. And you wonder why we are forced to keep our distance from those on the left. Just look at your hate and intolerance. And yes, you can compare homosexual sex acts to other obscene sex acts like incest, child sex, and animal sex, it is all actions the person CHOSE to engage in. Yes homosexuality is a choice, and always has been a choice
Posted by End the hate on February 27, 2012 at 9:03 AM · Report this
320
The S man (no, definitively NOT Super)is just misunderstood. If we give the loving couple 25 tries for each kid conceived, the poor slub has had sex a grand total of 200 times his whole life. That is; if you believe that he has never (ever) used any form of birth control and just decided to have sex because that is what people do. ( OK, so I will include him in the the wide net of the definition of "people.")
200 times HIS WHOLE LIFE!
Now, I am sure there is no confusion about why he is what he is. See: George Bailey telling the old banker what a miserable excuse for a person he is in "it's A Wonderful Life."
Why can't every single ultra whatever all go live in the same place? They all have the same syndrome: People enjoying life(or trying to)are to be brought back to a world of continued suffering of our...his,( Santorum's and his ilk )
own making. The sad part is that the world will never be free of these creatures, the real "Devils" of the world.
Posted by Robert91 on March 1, 2012 at 5:13 PM · Report this
321
The S man (no, definitively NOT Super)is just misunderstood. If we give the loving couple 25 tries for each kid conceived, the poor slub has had sex a grand total of 200 times his whole life. That is; if you believe that he has never (ever) used any form of birth control and just decided to have sex because that is what people do. ( OK, so I will include him in the the wide net of the definition of "people.")
200 times HIS WHOLE LIFE!
Now, I am sure there is no confusion about why he is what he is. See: George Bailey telling the old banker what a miserable excuse for a person he is in "it's A Wonderful Life."
Why can't every single ultra whatever all go live in the same place? They all have the same syndrome: People enjoying life(or trying to)are to be brought back to a world of continued suffering of our...his,( Santorum's and his ilk )
own making. The sad part is that the world will never be free of these creatures, the real "Devils" of the world.
Posted by Robert91 on March 1, 2012 at 5:16 PM · Report this
322
Ahhhhh! Did you see the Daily Show? The term Santorum has made it to the big time. Feb 29th, Jon Stewart defines it, and shows supporting clips. Brilliant! You rock Dan!
Posted by LA76 on March 2, 2012 at 12:05 AM · Report this
323 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
324
I am an Aussie that is way behind in world politics so th first time I ever heard of 'Santorum' was when I started listening to ur podcast last year. Now when I hear about him on th news all I can think about is ur definition and hav to double take and think what it is really about :) defs makes th news interesting
Posted by AlexN on March 9, 2012 at 4:26 AM · Report this
325
So, if Newt Gingrich won the vote in a state caucus by winning a debate (debates, being spoken events) against RS, one could say "Newt Gingrich ricks Santorum".
Grossest 4-word sentence ever......
Posted by Steve I. on March 12, 2012 at 6:16 PM · Report this
326
As a 2003 reader of The Onion and Savage Love, I want to say, "You're welcome!"

Posted by illuminatus on March 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM · Report this
327
Headline just read on MSN: Santorum says no pink balls

Pretty stellar headline, I say.

Link to article if anyone cares: http://now.msn.com/now/0329-santorum-pin…
Posted by jsluna on March 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM · Report this
328
Headline just read on MSN: Santorum says no pink balls

Pretty stellar headline, I say.

Link to article if anyone cares: http://now.msn.com/now/0329-santorum-pin…
Posted by jsluna on March 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM · Report this
329
Dan, I love the stuff about Santorum. Might be interested to know, that while I myself am straight I support Gay Marriage. I am, like your Dad generally a conservative on fiscal issues, but not on the social ones. Have voted in different times for people out of both parties(Clinton, and Obama for example). Santorum represents to me half of what is wrong with a lot of those who call themselves Christian, but never live up to the example of Christ himself. Keep up the great articles. By the way, ever thought of running for office?
Posted by Paul Hoiland on April 2, 2012 at 8:25 PM · Report this

Add a comment