Savage Love Podcast
Check out the all new Savage Lovecast site!
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
-
May 15
Shorties -
May 8
Reading Comprehension Fail -
May 1
Move On -
Apr 24
No Problem -
Apr 17
Dick Holes
More from Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...?
-
Senate Democrats Fuck Over Bi-National Gay Couples...
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral
Books by Dan Savage
American Savage
It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living
The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family
Things I've Learned from Women Who've Dumped Me
Skipping Towards Gomorrah
The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant
Savage Links
- Babeland
- Fleshbot
- Good Vibrations
- Joe Newton/Savage Illustrations
- Planned Parenthood
- Spreading Santorum
- Planned Parenthood's Teen Wire
- Kinsey Confidential
- Carnal Nation
- Tiny Nibbles
Want a Second Opinion?
Contact Dan Savage
Savage on YouTube
Loading...
Project Postcard
December 4, 2008
My girlfriend and I have been on-and-off for almost two years. I took her back after she cheated on me. Now she wants a threesome. I am not down with sharing her, but I am willing to do it because otherwise some other girl will do it for her. I told her that I want to be stoned, because I don't think I can handle it sober. She got mad because she doesn't like drugs. Then what am I supposed to do?
Lesbian With One Real Dilemma
You're supposed to wake the fuck up already.
You can be in a monogamous relationship with someone, LWORD, or you can be in a relationship with this woman—but you can't be in a monogamous relationship with this woman. She's already proven herself to be inept at this monogamy stuff; she cheated on you, you took her back, and now she's pressing you to bring in the occasional third. You may not be down with sharing her, LWORD, but she seems intent on being shared.
Here's the question you should be asking yourself: Do you want this woman in your life badly enough to overcome your aversion to sharing? Agreeing to a three-way—so long as you're baked—doesn't count. A three-way involving a woman; her reluctant, resentful, self-medicating girlfriend; and an innocent bystander is unlikely to (1) be much fun for anyone involved (particularly your unlucky third) or (2) put an end to your girlfriend's desire for share time.
Your girlfriend is seeking to fold her desire to sleep with other women into the structure of your relationship: three-ways now, perhaps some degree of openness later. She gets points for being honest this time, but she loses points for being manipulative and controlling. (New pussy for her, no pot for you? Please.) And if this three-way is a disaster and you refuse to have others—which may be the outcome you're subconsciously hoping for—I predict that your girlfriend will just go back to cheating on you.
So returning to my original point: If you want a girlfriend you don't have to share, find another girlfriend. If you want this girlfriend, learn to share.
And invest in a vaporizer.
I recently read the novel A Melon for Ecstasy for an English class, and an interesting debate came up. It's about a guy who is attracted to trees and goes around drilling holes into trees so that he can "seal the deal." Though he feminizes the trees, he cares nothing about actual human females. The debate centered on this question: Is this man heterosexual? Or is he really gay? Is he having vaginal sex with a woman or anal sex with a man?
RF
If the male protagonist in A Melon for Ecstasy is having sexual intercourse with lady-trees—"feminized" trees—then the male protagonist is a true-blue, red-blooded, lady-tree-fucking straight boy, RF.
But it doesn't surprise me that a room full of mostly straight college students would seek to cast doubt on this character's heterosexuality. "Heterosexual" for many young people is practically synonymous with "normal." Introduce college-age straight kids to a not-so-normal heterosexual character, and they'll spend the rest of the afternoon searching for evidence that the dude is gay. He can't be straight—he's not normal! This explains the ability of some in your class to look at lady-tree fucking and see, of all things, "anal sex with a man." Isn't santorum bad enough? Do we have to worry about splinters now too? (Queer-studies kids who read homosexuality into obviously straight fictional characters are, for the record, just as annoying.)
I have to disagree with your response to SHEESH, the guy who asked his Dom to show him that her dildo was clean. He is right and the Dom is wrong. Period. You should never let anybody stick anything into your body unless you know where it's been. Just because somebody is a bottom, he doesn't have to be reckless. This isn't about being uppity. This is about staying healthy. So, bravo for Mr. SHEESH.
Critiquer
I was inclined to side with SHEESH, as I said in my response, until he indicated that his Dom, who had asked him not to contact her again, was a Savage Love reader. If SHEESH was using my column to get back at his Dom, well, how badly did he behave during his sessions with her? (And remember: We only had SHEESH's version of events to go on.) But like I said in my column: "[If] she is unwilling to pause, step out of her role, and renegotiate a scene that's already under way, SHEESH... you are well rid of her."
Your response to SHEESH belittles the rights of submissive men (myself included). Maybe this sub had a bit of an obsession with hygiene, and his mistress (let's not forget who is the employee here) asked him to leave out of self-righteous pettiness. However, it doesn't even matter what actually happened because you have empowered dominant women to demand more and give less.
Unsatisfied Male Sub
Thanks for sharing, UMS, and I'm sure all the pro Doms out there appreciate the reminder about who the employee is. Moving on...
I don't know what PRO Dom that idiot SHEESH is seeing, but ALL pro Doms worth their weight in latex use CONDOMS over dildos. ALWAYS. This pro may have just not gotten around to throwing the condom on it, and she saw this as an opportunity to get rid of a bore. But shared toys always need a condom for EVERYONE'S protection.
S&M 101
Thanks for SHARING, S&M 101...
Thank you! I'm a professional Dominatrix in NYC, and I all but gave your response to SHEESH a standing ovation. I mean, really: Does he expect anyone to believe that she would just throw away a quality client for shits and giggles? In this economy? Gimme a break. He was obviously a douche. After the recent legal/press issues that NYC pros have had to deal with, it was great to see someone have our back in print. First Barack Obama gets elected, and now Dan Savage shows pro Doms some love!
Anonymous Whip-Toting Flog-meister
Thanks for sharing, AWTF. And speaking of Barack Obama, and in the spirit of dominance, I'm going to order everyone out there reading this to send a postcard to Obama, reminding him that (1) he made promises to the gay community (repeal DOMA, scrap DADT) and (2) he needs to keep 'em. Send your postcard to:
President-elect Barack Obama
Presidential Transition Office
Kluczynski Federal Building
230 S Dearborn St, 38th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
More info at Jointheimpact.com.
Share via
3
I don't believe that someone interested only in engaging sexually with trees can be considered either heterosexual or homosexual. Nope, that guy's just a tree-f**ker!
4
I'm sorta surprised you didn't tell LWORD to DTMFA. Her girlfriend doesn't really seem to care about her that much, she wants a threesome or she'll probably just cheat again, and like you said, she wants a third but won't let LWORD have a joint? You've definitely said DTMFA for less than that.
Still, I always love your column and this one was great as always!
Still, I always love your column and this one was great as always!
6
a vapourizer is a way of smoking cannabis without smoking it. It heats the material and you breath in vapour, not smoke.
best: http://www.gotvape.com/
second best: http://www.silversurfervap.com/
best: http://www.gotvape.com/
second best: http://www.silversurfervap.com/
7
come on, Dan, having sex with trees is GAY. That means said tree-fucker would be GAY. And thus subject to the restrictions of Prop 8 in California. Where they have some pretty damn big trees, by the way.
10
Dan, I don't know if you read these comments, but I wanted to say that, regardless of the dom/sub dynamic, bleach doesn't always kill HIV or Hep C. Simply don't share. In future scenarios, she should force her sub to walk into a sex shop and buy himself a new, clean dildo.
11
Another excellent column, Dan. And a vaporizer is a device to inhale vapors from cannabis without 'smoke.' I can't make 'em work, but I've never had a good one.
14
I'd have said arborosexual was the proper word. And, while some trees have one gender or another, most are hermaphrodites; so hetero or homosexual isn't really appropriate for most of them.
15
I didn't read the book, but I'm wondering. Is the guy drilling holes into trees the only evidence that he's "feminizing" them? I guess my question is: is feminizing them data or interpretation? I need to know more about why the readers think he's feminizing the trees. Cuz drilling holes into trees could be anything -- those holes could be vaginas or bungholes. We (as in those who haven't read the book) just don't know.
16
What's with the "first comment!" posts? Serioualy, what's the point?
And, uh... trees are phallic symbols, DOY! So the protagonist(?) of The Melon Humper is clearly a latent homosexual. He feminizes Doug Firs because he's trying to reinforce his assumed hetero identity.
(think about it... Doug? totally a gay name!)
And, uh... trees are phallic symbols, DOY! So the protagonist(?) of The Melon Humper is clearly a latent homosexual. He feminizes Doug Firs because he's trying to reinforce his assumed hetero identity.
(think about it... Doug? totally a gay name!)
17
For fuck's sake Dan, once again you've missed the point entirely. It was never about his 'attitude,' it was about the fact that if you're having a potentially soiled piece of plastic shoved up your ass, it should be fucking clean. That's all you had to say, yet you still won't fucking say it. Instead you post an asinine letter from some dumb bint who calls herself 'flog-meister' as a way to balance the argument back in your favor. If all the mistresses in NYC act/think like her, then I think it's safe to say every mistress in NYC is a fucking idiot.
And Dan, we know you have a gigantic bloody fucking tampon up your ass about prop 8. I know it's just sticking to the sides of your anal cavity, irritating you and making you think that if you don't take it out maybe you'll get toxic-shock syndrome.
Dan, take the fucking tampon out. Every civil rights movement in history is two steps forward, one step back. Being a bitchy, arrogant prick (other than the one we used to know and love) is doing nothing for your cause and frankly, is alienating THIS reader.
I need a break from you, Dan. I already had to cancel the subscription to your podcast because I got sick of the crappy sound, the inane callers, and your terrible, terrible advice. Your printed column was once a highlight of my week, now I simply think, 'how much has he jumped into the deep fucking end this week?' I can't take any more of your whining. You're worse than fucking SHEESH.
And Dan, we know you have a gigantic bloody fucking tampon up your ass about prop 8. I know it's just sticking to the sides of your anal cavity, irritating you and making you think that if you don't take it out maybe you'll get toxic-shock syndrome.
Dan, take the fucking tampon out. Every civil rights movement in history is two steps forward, one step back. Being a bitchy, arrogant prick (other than the one we used to know and love) is doing nothing for your cause and frankly, is alienating THIS reader.
I need a break from you, Dan. I already had to cancel the subscription to your podcast because I got sick of the crappy sound, the inane callers, and your terrible, terrible advice. Your printed column was once a highlight of my week, now I simply think, 'how much has he jumped into the deep fucking end this week?' I can't take any more of your whining. You're worse than fucking SHEESH.
18
As a graduate student in Queer Theory, I'm not sure I like what you say about our hermeneutics. There are many different ways of reading texts - queering them is one of them.
As you seem to be someone of intellectual acumen, I think I should add that Queer Studies does not look at heterosexual (or rather, heterosocial?) characters as if they were gay. Instead, queer hermeneutics points at antinormative patterns of behaviour, speech, or any other kinds of idiosyncrasies, and strives to demonstrate how heteronormative readings can and should be questioned.
As you seem to be someone of intellectual acumen, I think I should add that Queer Studies does not look at heterosexual (or rather, heterosocial?) characters as if they were gay. Instead, queer hermeneutics points at antinormative patterns of behaviour, speech, or any other kinds of idiosyncrasies, and strives to demonstrate how heteronormative readings can and should be questioned.
20
Just a note: Obama said he supports repealing DOMA, not that he would repeal DOMA as an agenda item. And yes, there is a difference.
On a related note: If you want gay marriage to be legal, simply follow these steps:
1) Push for civil unions--in every state or nationally--that have all the characteristics of marriage. This should not be that hard, as most of the Right has conceded civil unions to support their bigotry on the marriage issue. Even douches as douchy as Michael Medved have come out in favor of them.
2) Get a lot of people civil unionized.
3) Call civil unions "marriages," to the press, to your friends, on your blog, on the radio, etc. Have your straight friends, sympathetic politicians, and celebrities call it marriage too.
4) Everybody starts calling it marriage, just like everyone calls a tissue "Kleenex" or a photocopier a "Xerox"
5) Now that it is a fait accompli- there are gay couples that have all the rights of marriage, and everyone is calling it a marriage- there is no way to stop the legality of gay marriage. Christianists are forced to hate on something else.
Seriously, it's not that hard. The right has decided to make the gay marriage debate a semantic issue. I would suggest the gay community not take the bait. This end-around is so easy gay marriage could be legal in a couple of years, instead of legislated away decades.
On a related note: If you want gay marriage to be legal, simply follow these steps:
1) Push for civil unions--in every state or nationally--that have all the characteristics of marriage. This should not be that hard, as most of the Right has conceded civil unions to support their bigotry on the marriage issue. Even douches as douchy as Michael Medved have come out in favor of them.
2) Get a lot of people civil unionized.
3) Call civil unions "marriages," to the press, to your friends, on your blog, on the radio, etc. Have your straight friends, sympathetic politicians, and celebrities call it marriage too.
4) Everybody starts calling it marriage, just like everyone calls a tissue "Kleenex" or a photocopier a "Xerox"
5) Now that it is a fait accompli- there are gay couples that have all the rights of marriage, and everyone is calling it a marriage- there is no way to stop the legality of gay marriage. Christianists are forced to hate on something else.
Seriously, it's not that hard. The right has decided to make the gay marriage debate a semantic issue. I would suggest the gay community not take the bait. This end-around is so easy gay marriage could be legal in a couple of years, instead of legislated away decades.
21
Wow. Just a month after the election and a month and a half before he takes office and already you want people to bitch about what is and isn't being done by President-Elect Obama for the gay community. I'm a gay man who voted for Obama because I believe he sees the big picture quite well and I'm going to give him a chance to actually BE THE PRESIDENT for a little while before I start complaining.
22
hey, Wow,
did you know that *every week* the date on the column matches the date it will appear in print?
dumbass
did you know that *every week* the date on the column matches the date it will appear in print?
dumbass
23
Fucking trees is not gay, dan is right. The guy likes LADY trees. He's sticking his dick in the 'tree's vagina' not its asshole. He's not fantasizing about trees with penises, which woulc be gay. He'd probably be sucking off a branch then.
24
To Wow!
"As is pointed out every week, the column date is the same as the printed publication date. That's why it is always posted a day or two ahead."
But there is always someone who smugly emphasizes that he knows how to use a calendar. Amazing!
To the rest of us who are aware of this obvious fact, or just don't care, you, Wow!, look like the dumbass. Nicely done.
"As is pointed out every week, the column date is the same as the printed publication date. That's why it is always posted a day or two ahead."
But there is always someone who smugly emphasizes that he knows how to use a calendar. Amazing!
To the rest of us who are aware of this obvious fact, or just don't care, you, Wow!, look like the dumbass. Nicely done.
26
i dunno. telling your partner, "fine, we can have a threesome but you better let me get stoned first because I really, really don't want to be doing it in the first place." sounds kinda manipulative to me.
27
hey Mr Me-
the big problem here is that marriages aren't kleenex. not just any brand will do. I got myself married in CA and now call myself married (and everyone i know agrees with me that i am "married"), but it doesn't mean i have any of the rights of marriage in the state where i live. if i get civil unioned where i live, it won't transfer when i move out of state. so there still needs to be a change in legislation nationally. if we are going for national civil unions, why not just go for the whole deal? i want to file taxes as a married person, damnit!
the big problem here is that marriages aren't kleenex. not just any brand will do. I got myself married in CA and now call myself married (and everyone i know agrees with me that i am "married"), but it doesn't mean i have any of the rights of marriage in the state where i live. if i get civil unioned where i live, it won't transfer when i move out of state. so there still needs to be a change in legislation nationally. if we are going for national civil unions, why not just go for the whole deal? i want to file taxes as a married person, damnit!
28
The cadillac of vaporizors can be found at http://www.de-verdamper.nl/
I've had one for about a year and the only by product is delicious hash. How can you go wrong?
I've had one for about a year and the only by product is delicious hash. How can you go wrong?
29
in response to the "fun healthy way to consume weed"
it may be fun, it isn't healthy, ever. sorry to disappoint.
it may be fun, it isn't healthy, ever. sorry to disappoint.
31
Soon-to-be-ex-fan has a valid point. This column used to be something I looked forward to and had to minimize immediatly if I thought someone was going to be able to see my monitor at work.
I mean what would my 'friends' at work think if they saw me reading about Furries or men that would pick pubes out of the urinal, go home, boil them and then masturbate with the aforementioned pubes in their mouth. That, sadly, is a thing of the past.
Dan is now all about Prop. H8 and has become the Rush Limbaugh of advice columnists. Where has the Savage we once knew and loved gone...?
I mean what would my 'friends' at work think if they saw me reading about Furries or men that would pick pubes out of the urinal, go home, boil them and then masturbate with the aforementioned pubes in their mouth. That, sadly, is a thing of the past.
Dan is now all about Prop. H8 and has become the Rush Limbaugh of advice columnists. Where has the Savage we once knew and loved gone...?
32
Agreeing with bergamot, here. Someone sexually attracted only to trees is neither gay nor straight. Those categories are both pretty clearly founded on attraction to human beings. A good topic for discussion here might be why the students are assuming simple binary categories to begin with. There's more to sexuality (and most other things) than just two positions. Ba-dum-bum.
33
People calling out Dan for harping on Prop 8... with nary a mention of it in the article.
Le sigh.
Le sigh.
34
Married in October-- I don't see anything in your post that contradicts what I'm saying. Remember, though, there's such a thing as precedent. Right now, ballot initiatives are failing, therefore setting the law backwards for years to come. Now prohibition of gay marriage is specifically in the California constitution making it tough to challenge in court. This is not a great leap forward for gay marriage movement. Why not push for national civil unions, call it marriage, then, once its generally accepted as such, make it official, instead of charging into the fight on the religious right's own turf (that is, the semantic difference between a marriage and civil union). Words mean something, but its not worth setting the movement back for them, especially when there's an easy solution. Call the right on the civil union bluff and the whole game is over.
35
On the difference between civil unions and marriage, setting aside for the moment that civil unions can encompass as many, or as few, rights as a state decides, there is a bigger problem. The many laws in our country that give benefits to married people use the word marriage - not civil union. If civil unions are to be legally treated the same as marriage (e.g. same inheritence rights, hospital visition rights, pension rights) it will require the amendment of scores of laws in every state, which is something that simply is not going to happen. An easy example is that NY recognzies all marriages performed in other states, with no exception for gay marriages. That was existing law that required no amendment. To have it cover civil unions would require an amendment, which will involve a big battle. Moreover, as Married in October said, without federal recognition of gay marriage, we still don't get the most important rights (e.g. exemption from federal inheritence tax, social security rights). That will only come when we have a supreme court that is ready to rule that it is a violation of the federal constitution to deny gay people the right to marry. That may be a long time coming, but let's keep pushing. Sometimes it's two steps forward and only one step back. For those who think it's irritating for Dan to go on about Prop 8, continue your much more important discussion of whether someone who has sex with trees is considered gay or straight.
36
Right on with your response to RF. You voiced pretty much everything that went through my head reading that. I mean, WTF? Trees aren't gay men, they're trees!
If he views them as feminine and thus attractive, then the inside of his head is clearly wired in a heterosexual manner. The poor guy's just got his human/tree wire crossed, is all.
If he views them as feminine and thus attractive, then the inside of his head is clearly wired in a heterosexual manner. The poor guy's just got his human/tree wire crossed, is all.
37
Out the 1,052 words Dan wrote or published in this column (not counting the Presidential Transition Office mailing address), just 52 of those words concerned President-elect Obama. (That's 5%.)
Five percent of a column spent on civil rights issues does not a Limbaugh make, as another commenter has asserted. And what about Santorum and ITMFA? I appreciate the political bent that this column sometimes takes (and it often turns amusing).
Finally, where exactly was Dan complaining about/to Obama? A friendly reminder--continuing to make one's voice heard--is not a complaint.
Five percent of a column spent on civil rights issues does not a Limbaugh make, as another commenter has asserted. And what about Santorum and ITMFA? I appreciate the political bent that this column sometimes takes (and it often turns amusing).
Finally, where exactly was Dan complaining about/to Obama? A friendly reminder--continuing to make one's voice heard--is not a complaint.
38
The guy overly fond of trees most clearly is engaging in sexual activity with something other. He's an extreme case of heterosexuality. All the paraphilias seem to be essentially heterosexual. And of course the healthiest of sexual attraction is one where the otherness and the sameness of the beloved work together.
I'm thinking that we need to ditch altogether the terms "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" and use instead "gynophile", "androphile" amd "anthrophile".
The guy who stays home every night surfing the porn sites, the Greeks had a term for people who keep to themselves. It's Latinized to "idiot" unfortunately.
I'm thinking that we need to ditch altogether the terms "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" and use instead "gynophile", "androphile" amd "anthrophile".
The guy who stays home every night surfing the porn sites, the Greeks had a term for people who keep to themselves. It's Latinized to "idiot" unfortunately.
40
Let's see here:
Heterosexuals are attracted to opposite-sex people.
Homosexuals are attracted to same-sex people.
What do these two groups have in common? The PEOPLE bit. Surely someone who is attracted to trees falls outside of the category of "people who are attracted to people" and is therefore NEITHER heterosexual nor homosexual! Am I the only one who finds it strange that some are insisting he must be one or the other? I mean, he's not attracted to people at all!
Heterosexuals are attracted to opposite-sex people.
Homosexuals are attracted to same-sex people.
What do these two groups have in common? The PEOPLE bit. Surely someone who is attracted to trees falls outside of the category of "people who are attracted to people" and is therefore NEITHER heterosexual nor homosexual! Am I the only one who finds it strange that some are insisting he must be one or the other? I mean, he's not attracted to people at all!
41
Hey Dan, it's LWORD. I broke up with my girlfriend last week. While I find myself extremely hurt, reading your column assured me that I can't be with her, and DTMF was the best thing I could do (even when you didn't mention it). Thanks.
LWORD
LWORD
42
"and his mistress (let's not forget who is the employee here) asked him to leave out of self-righteous pettiness."
Wow. Can we have this added to the dictionary under Topping From the Bottom? I bet this ass can't keep a girlfriend, either.
Wow. Can we have this added to the dictionary under Topping From the Bottom? I bet this ass can't keep a girlfriend, either.
43
Dan, I love your column! I look for it online every week.
I wanted to show everyone this video i found for Prop 8, it is sooooo funny! Hope you all enjoy it!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508…
I wanted to show everyone this video i found for Prop 8, it is sooooo funny! Hope you all enjoy it!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508…
44
A friend said this the other day - I think it brings great clarity to relationships:
"I try to accept what people have done, what they are doing, and who they choose to be, and then I ask myself whether I want more of their actions in my life.. the answer is usually clear."
"I try to accept what people have done, what they are doing, and who they choose to be, and then I ask myself whether I want more of their actions in my life.. the answer is usually clear."
45
I think the point is that in his head, he might be giving the trees the personalities of human women or men -- ergo, hetero or homo.
What? The stuff you're THINKING during sex doesn't count anymore?
What? The stuff you're THINKING during sex doesn't count anymore?
46
LWORD: This seems like an obvious DTMFA situation... am I missing something?
SHEESH: Sharing dildos? Fucking gross. Slapping a condom over a used dildo? Still fucking gross.
SHEESH: Sharing dildos? Fucking gross. Slapping a condom over a used dildo? Still fucking gross.
48
I don't want to piss on anybody's pride parade, but I hope Obama ignores these postcards for at least a little while. I totally agree that the president elect needs to keep his promises to the gay community once he takes office, but I think everyone can agree that there is a feww more pressing items on his to-do list as he takes on the project of fixing the gigantic shit-heap that is George Bush's America.
49
yeah, what "he's got wood" said. Human and therefore Male and female don't come into the tree attraction unless he's boffing hollies. and that's just ow.
50
"come on, Dan, having sex with trees is GAY"
How is this possible? Does a tree magically assume the same sex as the person fucking it? Or are you using 'gay' as a derogatory term?
It must be the latter. My advice to you, stackman, is that you keep your ignorant and oppressive comments to yourself.
How is this possible? Does a tree magically assume the same sex as the person fucking it? Or are you using 'gay' as a derogatory term?
It must be the latter. My advice to you, stackman, is that you keep your ignorant and oppressive comments to yourself.
52
Sounds like a stupid book. Can't writer's just write a good story instead of having to have some kind of stupid sensational aspect that would shock most people but to me is just a big yawn? Wow, he f*&s trees. What a brilliant concept. or maybe it is the publishers and the public. At any rate, he can't be straight or gay, he is a fictional character. the author can intend him to be gay or straight, in which case they would say it or give clues if they want to to be a mysterious issue.
53
The library hasn't put the book in my hands yet, but I hear it's quite funny. It will be even better when all the dendrophiles come out of the woodwork and demand marriage rights. The antihomonuptialists will really be stumped.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect the reason this character attributes human genders and/or names to his trees is that he just isn't quite at ease yet with being involved that way with something so out of the mainstream--and/or his thought-ways still stem from binary stereotypes. I understand there are a lot of objectophiles/objectum-sexuals who stick humanoid genders on their objects--but not all. From here it seems...dishonest. Some folks, like me, find that conventional notions of gender go against our grain.
Dan, your column has been a favorite of mine for eons. But I am sick of politics, and glad that the readership is once again branching out into new subjects. RF, thanks for telling me about the book -- I hope to be leafing through it soon.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect the reason this character attributes human genders and/or names to his trees is that he just isn't quite at ease yet with being involved that way with something so out of the mainstream--and/or his thought-ways still stem from binary stereotypes. I understand there are a lot of objectophiles/objectum-sexuals who stick humanoid genders on their objects--but not all. From here it seems...dishonest. Some folks, like me, find that conventional notions of gender go against our grain.
Dan, your column has been a favorite of mine for eons. But I am sick of politics, and glad that the readership is once again branching out into new subjects. RF, thanks for telling me about the book -- I hope to be leafing through it soon.
54
Yes, mail Obama a postcard, but don't try and do it from the Loop (Chicago), they removed all the USPS post boxes and will not allow any mail unless it's dropped off at the Post Office on Dearborn. Add that to the no delivery trucks, insane amount of security and general mess it's made of my neighborhood! He needs to HURRY and get into the White House-for more reasons than one :)
55
Not sure how much you're aware of what just went down in Canada, but I thought you might like the new definition below, which one of my web contacts relayed yesterday:
Prorogue: a new swear word that means: a break from work to fuck the majority of one's co-workers
Prorogue: a new swear word that means: a break from work to fuck the majority of one's co-workers
56
No, bleach does not "always" kill HIV, but the one place where it does not is usually in the context of needle-sharing.
If you bleached down a toy, there is no way there is remaining HIV on there. Let's not hyperexaggerate here.
If you bleached down a toy, there is no way there is remaining HIV on there. Let's not hyperexaggerate here.
58
I'm an idiot and can't read your articles! I need an acronym legend on your columns page.
Please....
I'm not alone.
Please....
I'm not alone.
59
How do you feminize a tree? I've never met a tree that exhibited any gender. In any case trying to assign a sexual preference to this act is subjective. I think this letter is fake.
61
Good on you LWORD!
I'm still not sure just by reading your letter and Dan's thoughts whether you needed to DTMFA or she you, or both, but if sharing is such a deal-breaker for you and dope use is such a deal-breaker for her you're both clearly well rid of each other.
Don't worry, it's not like either of you has some extreme kink or a drug addiction that breaks the deal for most people, or can't stand something most people can't live without. Here's hoping you'll find someone better for you soon!
I'm still not sure just by reading your letter and Dan's thoughts whether you needed to DTMFA or she you, or both, but if sharing is such a deal-breaker for you and dope use is such a deal-breaker for her you're both clearly well rid of each other.
Don't worry, it's not like either of you has some extreme kink or a drug addiction that breaks the deal for most people, or can't stand something most people can't live without. Here's hoping you'll find someone better for you soon!
62
Re: to the comment about trees as phallic symbols. I'm gonna to tie up my special red shoes and demonstrate some semantic slight of hand. I can say that trees are the most emphatic expression of the human female... in less than an essay.
What we see of a tree is only half it. There are two structures...One up, one down, but both dendritic...both globular when taken in aspect. The matrix where they meet, a metaphor for the human heart, is the ground. So, one globular mass and another. Does that remind anyone of anything?
Yes folks...trees are boobies. And anyone who has sex with trees is not only having sex with a female...but titfucking.
Please tip your bartenders.
What we see of a tree is only half it. There are two structures...One up, one down, but both dendritic...both globular when taken in aspect. The matrix where they meet, a metaphor for the human heart, is the ground. So, one globular mass and another. Does that remind anyone of anything?
Yes folks...trees are boobies. And anyone who has sex with trees is not only having sex with a female...but titfucking.
Please tip your bartenders.
64
get rid of all mention of marriage from our government. only have reference to civil unions. Even hetero couples will have to get civil unions to have the same legal rights as they get now with marriage. Separation of church and state, and as long as there's no legal or rhetorical discrimination in our government, couples shouldn't care what others call their emotional partnership.
65
Dan, your response to RF is equally annoying. To say that a person who fucks trees (and feminizes them) is straight is ludicrous: the man is a tree fucker who likes his trees to be female. This does not make him straight, much like a man who fucks trees and likes to make think of them as male is not gay. Your response is classic case of reductionist thinking. The kind that belittles people and makes there desires for one thing into a desire for something else, say rape fantasies.
There is no necessity between gender preference and the fantasized "gender" of the object that is fucked to be the same.
I suppose one could pose the question to you: Why do you need your straight people to only fuck the opposite gender even if the gender is imagined? Or again why do you need you gays to only fuck those of the same gender even if the gender is imagined?
Cheers
There is no necessity between gender preference and the fantasized "gender" of the object that is fucked to be the same.
I suppose one could pose the question to you: Why do you need your straight people to only fuck the opposite gender even if the gender is imagined? Or again why do you need you gays to only fuck those of the same gender even if the gender is imagined?
Cheers
66
--->Bramblerose wrote:"and his mistress (let's not forget who is the employee here) asked him to leave out of self-righteous pettiness."
Wow. Can we have this added to the dictionary under Topping From the Bottom? I bet this ass can't keep a girlfriend, either.<---
1) He employed her services, therefore she WAS supposed to do what she was being paid for, dominate him, not expose him to infection or disease. It’s not topping from the bottom if he paid her to dom him. Ultimately he IS in control, he pays her for the illusion of not being in control, while still having the right to stop the encounter. Even if this weren't a business agreement, no one has the right to use dirty toys on anyone with out consent and they shouldn't be berated for saying no to it. Insulting someone or implying they are doing BDSM incorrectly by saying they are "topping from the bottom" (which is seen as 'bad' in the BDSM community) is just telling other people that they shouldn’t say no to unsafe practices just because the person initiating them calls himself or herself a Dom. We are people first and whether you pay for BDSM or you practice it freely, you should never sacrifice your safety for anyone.
2) No matter how much sanitizing you do to a toy there is always a chance something could be on it, even if you use a condom, there is the chance that the condom could break, or the part of the toy that isn't covered could come in contact with the body. Insertables should not be used on multiple strangers.
Him bitching to an advice column that this woman reads was probably fueled by reasons other than the misuse of a toy in paid-BDSM services, but paying someone to dom you should not negate safe, sane and consensual play.
Wow. Can we have this added to the dictionary under Topping From the Bottom? I bet this ass can't keep a girlfriend, either.<---
1) He employed her services, therefore she WAS supposed to do what she was being paid for, dominate him, not expose him to infection or disease. It’s not topping from the bottom if he paid her to dom him. Ultimately he IS in control, he pays her for the illusion of not being in control, while still having the right to stop the encounter. Even if this weren't a business agreement, no one has the right to use dirty toys on anyone with out consent and they shouldn't be berated for saying no to it. Insulting someone or implying they are doing BDSM incorrectly by saying they are "topping from the bottom" (which is seen as 'bad' in the BDSM community) is just telling other people that they shouldn’t say no to unsafe practices just because the person initiating them calls himself or herself a Dom. We are people first and whether you pay for BDSM or you practice it freely, you should never sacrifice your safety for anyone.
2) No matter how much sanitizing you do to a toy there is always a chance something could be on it, even if you use a condom, there is the chance that the condom could break, or the part of the toy that isn't covered could come in contact with the body. Insertables should not be used on multiple strangers.
Him bitching to an advice column that this woman reads was probably fueled by reasons other than the misuse of a toy in paid-BDSM services, but paying someone to dom you should not negate safe, sane and consensual play.
68
I love the comments. such an interesting fanbase of bright, eccentric, off base weirdos, hippies and freaks. There is always a lot of cleverness, and humor for days. Oh and ocassionally a hostile angry fuck. Whenever I need to forget my hassles it's such a stree-reliever to read Dan and the fam.
69
Dear Daniel Savage,
I wish to write in secrectcy. I wish to aquire your address so I can give you complements of my life. I live in Bonanza, OR, practicaly no homos. Its quite here, too quite. I read your book, The Commitment. It was good, & funny. If you wish to provide me w/ info, My email address is wolf.jake1@gmail.com . I don't really support homos, But I know it is inevitable. We must learn to accept them, for they are part of life, like toxic waste is part of life.
I wish to write in secrectcy. I wish to aquire your address so I can give you complements of my life. I live in Bonanza, OR, practicaly no homos. Its quite here, too quite. I read your book, The Commitment. It was good, & funny. If you wish to provide me w/ info, My email address is wolf.jake1@gmail.com . I don't really support homos, But I know it is inevitable. We must learn to accept them, for they are part of life, like toxic waste is part of life.
70
What kinda moron would fuck a tree? It ain't hot, it ain't cool, it ain't nothin! What a dumb-ass topic to discuss!!!
71
> Why do you need your straight people to only fuck the opposite gender even if the gender is imagined? Or again why do you need you gays to only fuck those of the same gender even if the gender is imagined?
I get where you're coming from, but since this is about sexuality and sexuality has mostly to do with subjective identification, you can't be so black and white about trees not having gender, either. Someone who exclusively feminizes the trees he's fucking is a tree-fucking straight boy. Someone who doesn't care what gender the trees are as long as they're lovely and fuckable is just a tree-fucker. And a guy fucking trees just because it feels good is only masturbating in an interesting way. What's so funny is that all of the above -- including the girl-tree-fucking -- has to be specifically "gay" in the eyes of a bunch of frat boys.
I get where you're coming from, but since this is about sexuality and sexuality has mostly to do with subjective identification, you can't be so black and white about trees not having gender, either. Someone who exclusively feminizes the trees he's fucking is a tree-fucking straight boy. Someone who doesn't care what gender the trees are as long as they're lovely and fuckable is just a tree-fucker. And a guy fucking trees just because it feels good is only masturbating in an interesting way. What's so funny is that all of the above -- including the girl-tree-fucking -- has to be specifically "gay" in the eyes of a bunch of frat boys.
72
Don't just nod and agree, SEND A POSTCARD to President Elect Obama. It only takes a minute, but sends a big message... and the more the better!
73
"it may be fun, it isn't healthy, ever. sorry to disappoint"
um, in what universe are you basing your statement?
"smoking is bad" sure no problem there, the burnt crap in you lungs is INSANE
but "TCH is bad"
nah, now you are just a NUT
for proof of my position?
try to find a single study, anywhere, that actually tested the dangers of nicotine or TCH, AFTER removing the smoking part
another way to ask this, does pot brownies cause cancer? or jsut get you high
does the nicoderm patch cause cancer or just put nicotine in your blood?
sry, but there is a difference between dangerous and "we think it is wrong to get high"
/sigh really hate the haters
//love the slashies
um, in what universe are you basing your statement?
"smoking is bad" sure no problem there, the burnt crap in you lungs is INSANE
but "TCH is bad"
nah, now you are just a NUT
for proof of my position?
try to find a single study, anywhere, that actually tested the dangers of nicotine or TCH, AFTER removing the smoking part
another way to ask this, does pot brownies cause cancer? or jsut get you high
does the nicoderm patch cause cancer or just put nicotine in your blood?
sry, but there is a difference between dangerous and "we think it is wrong to get high"
/sigh really hate the haters
//love the slashies
74
I am months late to the party, but I have to say that your advice about the tree fucking was way off.
The issue shouldn't be whether the character was heterosexual or homosexual. Both of those answers are not even wrong.
It's like asking whether a pedophile is straight or gay. They are neither. They are attracted to kids, not adult males or females.
The better question for the class would be whether the character prefers oaks or firs.
The issue shouldn't be whether the character was heterosexual or homosexual. Both of those answers are not even wrong.
It's like asking whether a pedophile is straight or gay. They are neither. They are attracted to kids, not adult males or females.
The better question for the class would be whether the character prefers oaks or firs.
76
Pete, I think you meant THC?
Anyway, it's been proven that if you use a vaporizer, you're able to cut a lot of the carcinogens. I've been tearing it up with Da Buddha. http://www.vaporizerkits.com/products/Da…
Anyway, it's been proven that if you use a vaporizer, you're able to cut a lot of the carcinogens. I've been tearing it up with Da Buddha. http://www.vaporizerkits.com/products/Da…
RSS
Twitter
Comments (76) RSS