Dan Savage on Slog
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Originally published 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
My response after the jump...
Friday, May 24, 2013
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Originally published May 3, 2007:
I'm a 42-year-old straight guy, married 15 years, no kids. I love my wife, and I have remained faithful. Recently, I opened a Second Life (SL) account, and created an avatar/alter ego for myself. I created an SL account with a female avatar because, although I'm straight and comfortable with my gender and sexuality, I've always fantasized about being transformed into a beautiful woman and having sex with other beautiful women. SL allows me an opportunity to explore this fantasy of being a lesbian, and also lets me engage in types of fantasy sex-play I would not normally do in real life (RL), such as BDSM, multiple partners, and anonymous sex.
I laid down some ground rules for myself: (1) I would NOT form a partnership in SL. (2) I would NOT, under any circumstances, discuss or reveal any details of my RL with anyone. (3) I would NOT form emotional relationships with other avatars. I have followed these rules to the letter.
My wife knows I have an SL account, but that's it. She's made it clear that she considers sex in SL to be adultery. I disagree. I see it as a form of user-controlled porn—so long as I follow the three rules above. I only go on SL when she is not at home, and I do not spend time in SL when I could be with her. We have a normal sex life, although she's not as GGG as she was when we were first married. She's grown more conservative—personally and sexually, not politically—as she's grown older. I love my wife very much, and I want my marriage to last. But sexually I'm more adventurous than my wife, and SL allows me to express that side of myself without any RL adultery.
Nevertheless, Dan, I feel guilty. My wife would not be happy (understatement of the young century) if she knew of my SL activities. And I hate lying to my wife. Yet, at the same time, I'm having so much fun—I am exploring fantasies I never could in real life, with a smoking-hot female avatar I'll never be. Should I come clean? Close down my SL account?
Second Lifer In Need Of Real Life Advice
My response after the jump...
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:42 AM
I am a 26 y.o. gay man living in Europe. Some weekends ago I went to visit a friend to another city and we went out to a party where I met a gay couple in their mid 30s. We clicked and by the end of the night they proposed me a threesome. (It was an excitement idea! They were very hot!) Unfortunately I had to decline because the friend I was visiting is a friend with benefits and we agreed on "fun together or not fun at all."
The issue is that I gave these guys my cellphone number and one of the guys—a guy that is hot as hell and way out of my league—wanted to have fun with me but without his partner. He was planning on coming to my city only for this reason and was waiting for me to confirm. I asked him if his partner agreed on this and he told me that he didn't know if his partner would have agreed and that he was not planning on telling him. (They have been together for more than 8 years!) I have been with guys in open relationships but I have always declined the cheating setup and this was clearly a cheating setup so I declined. The guy was not happy and called me a prude.
This is not true, Dan! I have a lot of fun with guys but I just don't like the idea of being the one that a guy cheated on his partner with. In a "Grindr" set up with limited information, this would have been less of a problem for me, but here I knew who his boyfriend was and their relationship status. My male hetero friends, that are all in couples, told me that I did right. My male gay friends, that are all single at the moment, thought that I should have gone for it, that I am too uptight and, yes, prudish.
Am I a prude? Enlighten me, Dan. Please.
The Gay Prude
P.S. Sorry about my English!
My response after the jump...
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:27 AM
It's amazing how all the GOP outreach to women...
Louie Gohmert just told a woman whose fetus had no brain function that she should have waited and given birth anyway.— Irin Carmon (@irincarmon) May 23, 2013
...can be undone by one Republican representative at a just-us-boys congressional hearing on abortion.
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM
...it's from someone who claims to be a Christian.
Thanks for the change of pace, Indianapolis Bisexual Solidarity.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones explained to his audience today how the government could have been behind the devastating May 20 tornado in Oklahoma. On the May 21 edition of The Alex Jones Show, a caller asked Jones whether he was planning to cover how government technology may be behind a recent spate of sinkholes. After laying out how insurance companies use weather modification to avoid having to pay ski resorts for lack of snow, Jones said that "of course there's weather weapon stuff going on—we had floods in Texas like 15 years ago, killed 30-something people in one night. Turned out it was the Air Force." Following a long tangent, Jones returned to the caller's subject. While he explained that "natural tornadoes" do exist and that he's not sure if a government "weather weapon" was involved in the Oklahoma disaster, Jones warned nonetheless that the government "can create and steer groups of tornadoes."
Steve Benen at Maddowblog:
Now, I realize that fringe figures are going to share nutty ideas all the time, and it was probably inevitable that some nonsensical allegations about the Oklahoma tornado would pop up.... This caught my eye, however, because of recent developments—we've seen Republican officeholders in state legislatures, the U.S. House, and even the U.S. Senate take Alex Jones' ideas seriously. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) intends to run for president—of the United States—and he's been a guest on Alex Jones' show. In other words, the guy raising the specter of Obama using "weather weapons" to kill Oklahomans is the same guy helping influence several Republican policymakers in 2013.
Maybe it's just me, but I find that rather alarming.
I find it alarming too. I mean, President Obama—who can't control Congress (not even the Dems in Congress)—can control the weather. He's weaponized the weather. And why is the president killing Oklahomans? Just for the fuck of it. Want proof that this wasn't a "natural" tornado? Back to Alex Jones:
According to Jones, this possibility hinges on whether people spotted helicopters and small aircraft "in and around the clouds, spraying and doing things." He added, "if you saw that, you better bet your bottom dollar they did this, but who knows if they did. You know, that's the thing, we don't know."
Anyone who watched the news saw helicopters flying around the edges of the tornado in Oklahoma. They were television news station helicopters and they were tracking its path. The reporters and pilots in those helicopters were risking their own lives so they could warn people in its path. And if the Obama administration is hellbent on killing Oklahomans with "weaponized weather"—you know, just for the fuck of it—why is FEMA paying to build storm shelters in schools and private homes in Oklahoma?
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:36 PM
But there atheists in Moore, Oklahoma:
Says BoingBoing: "This is CNN."
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Originally published July 26, 2007:
I'm a 31-year-old attractive single woman, and I recently went on Match.com and found a guy. Our e-mails and one phone conversation went well and he seemed kind and was okay-looking in his picture, so I met him for drinks. It was disappointing, to say the least. He looked 15 years older than his picture and was socially awkward to the point of sheer misery. He told me he didn't want to eat cheese because he "had the craps," announced to the waitress that this was our first date, yawned when I talked about my job, and said, "I could tell you were really into me the minute you walked in the room."
Standard bad date so far, right?
Here's the bizarre part: On the phone he'd said, "The most beautiful sound in the world is applause. I hope I can hear you clap for me sometime." He is a music teacher, so I thought he was referring to applause after a performance. But when we met in person, he asked me to clap for him, for no reason, in the restaurant! I asked him why, and he said he just really loved the sound of clapping. I ignored his request, finished my drink, and said it was nice to meet him but I didn't think this was going to work. I shook his hand good-bye in the parking lot and at this point he asked again for me to clap—but now in a whiny voice, literally begging me to do it. The worst part? I did it, just to shut him up, before speeding away in my car. I'm simultaneously creeped out and intrigued.
Have you ever heard of a clapping fetish?
Clap Off The Clapper
My response after the jump...
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:43 PM
...while giving a reach-around to Republicans. Un-fucking-believable.
Sen. Patrick Leahy withdrew his proposed amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have recognized the marriages of same-sex couples for immigration purposes on Tuesday night, after several Democratic members of the committee stated that they would not be supporting it.... Leahy offered the amendment a half-hour earlier, saying, “I don’t want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country.” He added, “Discriminating against people based on who they love is a travesty,” noting that he wanted to hear from the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators about why they didn’t. Sen. Lindsey Graham went first, saying he opposed the inclusion of gay couples’ protections in the bill.
“If you redefine marriage for immigration purposes [by the amendment], the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart,” he said. “It would be a bridge too far.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein cited Graham’s comments, then, saying, “I think this sounds like the fairest approach, but here’s the problem … we know this is going to blow the agreement apart. I don’t want to blow this bill apart.”
Dems were afraid—Dems are always afraid—that the Republicans would walk away from immigration reform if legally-married same-sex couples were included. Says John...
Really, Rs are going to walk away from immigration reform when they are DESPERATE to woo back Latinos.really?
— John Aravosis (@aravosis) May 21, 2013
Breaking: Spineless, gonadless, clueless Dems refuse to call GOP bluff. Film at... oh, never mind. Who needs to see that rerun again?