Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, June 11, 2012

By Josh Weed's Logic...

Posted by on Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM

...straight guys who want truly amazing, transcendent sex lives should marry gay men, right? I mean if this is true for gay-but-married-a-straight-lady Josh Weed...

"[When] sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway). So, in a weird way, the circumstances of our marriage allowed us to build a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know. Most of whom are straight. Go fig.

...then it should be true for straight guys too.

Basically any straight guy who wants a sex life that's as rich and fulfilling and amazing and spiritual and connected as the Gay Josh enjoys with Straight Lolly... should marry a gay dude. It's the only way to avoid powerful chems and infatuation and obsession and the rest of that actually-physically-attracted-to-your-spouse shit that, according to Josh, has wound up ruining the sex lives of most of the straight people that he personally knows.

You want a great sex life, straight boys? Take Josh's advice: find yourself a nice fag, someone you can connect with on a deeper level, and marry him.

 

Comments (76) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Matt from Denver 1
Except THE BIBLE!
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM · Report this
2
No, a straight man should marry another straight man. For truly amazing, transcendent sex lives™, neither partner should be distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession.
Posted by six shooter on June 11, 2012 at 4:44 PM · Report this
3
Here's my question: How does Gay Josh know that he and Lolly have "a better sex life than most people [they] personally know"?
Posted by Faber on June 11, 2012 at 4:50 PM · Report this
DavidC 4
No doubt I would have a better sex life since I would get a lot more sex. Just not sure I'd be physically able to participate - that whole 'hetero-attraction' gets in the way.
Posted by DavidC http://members.shaw.ca/karenanddavid/ on June 11, 2012 at 4:50 PM · Report this
kitschnsync 5
I've often wished that I was gay. But I guess if it is a choice after all...
Posted by kitschnsync on June 11, 2012 at 4:50 PM · Report this
6
I can see why Josh Weed can tolerate a heterosexual message, since he spends this entire interview jerking himself off.
Posted by shoegazn on June 11, 2012 at 4:51 PM · Report this
7
marriage*
Posted by shoegazn on June 11, 2012 at 4:52 PM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 8
LULZ.

This is why I love Dan.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on June 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM · Report this
Stiny 9
The raging Stockholm Syndrome in that man defies all comprehension.
Posted by Stiny on June 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM · Report this
Mattini 10
@3 I'm guessing Mr. Weed spends a lot of time asking about (and graphically visualizing) his straight male friends' sex lives.
Posted by Mattini on June 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM · Report this
11
Guy sounds like a fag.
Posted by Central Scrutinizer on June 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM · Report this
pugetopolis 12
Ah!!! Those powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession—those exquisite young jock armpits!!! A young punk’s pheromones—lingering afterwards in bed. The taste of haughty teenage virgin male vulnerabilities—squirting their brains out for a Lost Weekend. Marry me now, dude, how about a quickie marriage in Vegas? Plus I’m a Microsoft millionaire. I’ll make the divorce quite lucrative—even after a brief honeymoon, dude!!!
Posted by pugetopolis http:// http://www.snarke.com/ on June 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 13
When I was closeted, I gave straight sex a whirl. It was awful. Gay sex is superior in every way.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on June 11, 2012 at 5:39 PM · Report this
14
I'm all for individual people putting themselves in situations that make them happiest, but I think the relationship of this couple will be used to bully young, Mormon gay people into straight marriages.

As SOON as I heard of this guy, I ran to see what Dan Savage had to say about the subject. Too many things about the guy's coming out post threw me off. This includes his father, a bishop, being "supportive" of him, yet perfectly happy to see him married to a woman he met when they were children. It smacks of child indoctrination.

How he talks about kids in general is dumb. Not being able to produce biological children is a sacrifice? Maybe he's talking about adopting being tough, but I don't think so. He seems to imply adopted children can't really be yours at the end of day, even if you raised and cared for them.
Posted by 24Killers on June 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM · Report this
Fnarf 15
My dog is the only one who understands me.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on June 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM · Report this
16
4&5 have a great point. If I could have enjoyed anonymous gay men sucking my dick, my sex life would have improved immensely.
Posted by NateMan on June 11, 2012 at 5:48 PM · Report this
17
There were a couple of orange flags raised in that post, but altogether I think that's more to do with the mountain of disingenuous arguments from other bigoted/religious/closeted commentators. I think Josh Weed's written a (mostly) thoughtful post - he takes great pains to convey it as his own personal experience, and he's also pretty vehement in his direction to love/support and *not* judge anyone for choosing to do what makes them happy.

How about we just take him at his word, and stop making up stories to fit the gaps in our experience of how queers are supposed to act? I imagine that a gay man in a happy hetero relationship would suffer the worst kind of erasion, so good on him for coming out. You're basically cherry-picking the more clunky passages to ridicule him and I think that's pretty cheap.
Posted by truant on June 11, 2012 at 6:06 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 18

As my father's generation would say, either crap or get off the pot!
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on June 11, 2012 at 6:08 PM · Report this
19
OH! No she di'ent! Two snaps and a neck roll and she out!
Posted by Polemic-me on June 11, 2012 at 6:11 PM · Report this
20
I think josh weed just made me gay.
Posted by SamForViceroy on June 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM · Report this
OuterCow 21
Yeah Dan, six shooter totally called this one in #2 you cheeky bastard, trying to get straight guys to marry gay men. Now that's kinky.

Time to watch Humpday.
Posted by OuterCow on June 11, 2012 at 6:27 PM · Report this
22
Oh Dan, I do love you.

(When you decide to transcend the limits of lust, will you marry me?)
Posted by Margaret L. on June 11, 2012 at 6:28 PM · Report this
Ratatoskr 23
I'm bi, does that mean I can't have a ~~transcendent chemical-free sexual experience~~ because I like pussy AND cock???

Maybe I'll have to get creative...start having sex with people I don't find attractive, only indulging them in kinks that do nothing for me? WHAT FUN!
Posted by Ratatoskr on June 11, 2012 at 6:31 PM · Report this
24
@2: exactly. and gay men should only marry lesbians - maybe the sex is mindblowing for Josh Weed, but think about his poor wife who is too distracted by his cock!
Posted by mirth on June 11, 2012 at 6:45 PM · Report this
25
I think the really perverse thing about Josh Weed's stance is that while most Christians oppose homosexuality because it's "not natural" (despite scientific evidence to the contrary) Weed seems to accept that homosexuality is natural and yet believes God made him that way all so he could deny his own nature. Why would a benevolent and gracious god do such a thing? Yes relationships require sacrifice but to deny something so innate as your sexuality; would you be with someone who required you to deny your sense of humor or your gregariousness or your compassion? I really wish Josh Weed the best but I wouldn't wish his choice on anyone.

Also, Lolly is a heterosexual woman having sex with a man so why isn't she subject to all those chemicals of infatuation and obsession?
Posted by anonymousryan on June 11, 2012 at 6:46 PM · Report this
givesgoodemail 26
I figure the guy is probably a 4-4.5 on the Kinsey scale and/or isn't being as quite as honest as he wants to appear to believe.
Posted by givesgoodemail http://www.givesgoodemail.com on June 11, 2012 at 6:56 PM · Report this
27
By Weed's logic, my best friend and I should make the perfect married couple. In fact, many people have compared us to an old married couple. We have a deep spiritual and emotional connection with each other. We recharge each other, emotionally speaking. Even when we are thousands of miles apart, we often have the same feelings, thoughts, and situations happen to us. We are so close that many people have referred to us as "Borg", and being the Star Trek fans we both are, we adopted it as a perfect description of our connection.

So, according to Weed, she and I should be able to have great sex with each other - our emotional and soul connections should be enough for us to be able to have sex, right?

Wrong. We are both straight and have no desire to have sex with a woman, not even each other. We both love cock and that fabulous smell of "man" too much to truly enjoy sex with a woman. Perhaps if we had a strong enough psychological need to believe we needed to be together physically to somehow make us complete, we could have a passable sex life, but it wouldn't be the same as being with a man.

I do believe that sex is about more than the physical experience, but that doesn't mean you can completely discount it. The best sex I've ever had was a combination of the two - a deep soul-level connection with the intense physical attraction.

I've also had sex with a man whom I did love and felt we had a deep connection, but to whom I was not physically attracted - not even close to great sex, regardless of how connected I felt to him.

If Weed is truly happy that is great, but I believe he is lying to himself, either about his sexuality (perhaps he's really bi?) or about the quality of his sex life (does he have anything to which to compare the sex he is having with his wife?).

This wouldn't be a problem except this post will be used by those who believe homosexuality is a choice as a weapon against the legalization of same-sex marriages and possibly even adoption by LGBT parents.

If Weed wants to live in that situation, more power to him, but he should understand that his situation is not the norm for LGBT individuals and should not be held up as a standard for LGBT people to uphold.

Actually, I don't think his example is a good one for straight people either.
More...
Posted by SherBee on June 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM · Report this
28
#2 already won this thing.
Posted by Suzy on June 11, 2012 at 7:05 PM · Report this
29
A commenter at Towleroad says that Weed contributed an essay to an ex-gay book, so maybe he's not just some nice guy trying to live his life.
Posted by Joe Glibmoron on June 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM · Report this
BEG 30
@23 I guess that's where marrying the sheep and horses come in. No wonder the anti gay marriage crowd is so alarmed.

Or something >.
Posted by BEG http://twitter.com/#!/browneyedgirl65 on June 11, 2012 at 7:36 PM · Report this
Xenos 31
All I wanna say is that I have known
the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together

And I would rather die than know there is no chance that I will never -never- feel them again.
Posted by Xenos on June 11, 2012 at 7:53 PM · Report this
32
Once again for the cheap seats: This Josh Weed is a fucking liar. Nothing he says is true. Can we move on already?
Posted by tkc on June 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM · Report this
33
Dan stole my comment! # 78 on the other thread about this guy.

Just kidding, Dan. I suppose this is a case of warped minds think alike.
Posted by geminilee on June 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM · Report this
34
Ooooh, #12, do write more!
Posted by Tee-hee on June 11, 2012 at 9:08 PM · Report this
Michael of the Green 35
However he may have tried to keep himself in fantasyland, it's also likely that he's deluding himself about how fantastic their sex life is from his wife's point of view. What he's doing is depriving her of a complete sex life and full relationship, full of the desire and heady drive that everyone deserves.
Posted by Michael of the Green on June 11, 2012 at 10:30 PM · Report this
36
@35
"However he may have tried to keep himself in fantasyland, it's also likely that he's deluding himself about how fantastic their sex life is from his wife's point of view."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So far all that has been offered is his claim.
And even that is limited to ONE partner of his non-preferred sex.

And that claim seems to contradict my own experiences.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on June 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM · Report this
Dingo 37
There's enough material there for a dissertation.
Posted by Dingo on June 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM · Report this
38
This guy is a weirdo, but he should be allowed to be one. He has found a way to be happy and still follow his religion. Good for him.
Posted by Learned Hand on June 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM · Report this
Eva Hopkins 39
@ 38 - maybe good for his views, & good for his therapy practice, & a good week for the Mormons, because this guy says he's got this gay thing all sorted & handled..but not good for his wife..& I don't think good for him, either, IF he's actually gay & not bi.

Stockholm syndrome? You betya. He & his wife both. If they are somehow genuinely happy, then the world is astrange & wonderful place indeed. But this is like when I first saw "When Stella Got HEr Groove Back". I enjoyed it like any fantasy, but it didn't ring true, it tried too hard. & sure enough, the guy who was the make lead, the romantic interest in that tale? Turned out to be gay. Nothing against him, they turned out to be friends..etc..etc..but this reminds me of that, it tries too hard. I just don't buy it.

Dan..thanks for writing about this Weed..it's been bugging me for a coupe of days now.
Posted by Eva Hopkins http://www.lunamusestudios.com on June 12, 2012 at 12:02 AM · Report this
40
this post and the blog that inspired it, inspired a little thought experiment in me.. could I, in an upside down world where i was a) extremely religious and b) my religion prohibited my prefered sexual partnership have a relationship against that preference. The results don't say anything about what anyone else could or should do but kind of suprised me.. I'd define myself as a straight woman, all my sexual experience bar a few drunken snogs with my best friend have been with men. I already knew that I could be aroused by kissing a woman and have a bit of a fascination with breasts and my zumba teacher's bottom but had no interest in having sex with a woman and specifically am turned off by the idea of giving a woman oral sex hence not regarding myself as bi or pursuing any interests i do have as I felt I would be short changing my partner (seems a little unfair to snog them, play with their boobs then go, sorry, that's yer lot!). Anyway, thanks to the thought experiment I discovered that whilst oral sex would still be an issue I would actually be extremely aroused by the idea of fucking another woman with a strap-on! I never had an inkling of that before my thought experiment last night and now it's all I can think about and I'd love to try it out! so thank you Josh Weed you've opened me up to a whole new world of sexual fantasy and hopefully one day experience :)
Posted by UK girlie on June 12, 2012 at 1:23 AM · Report this
41
I still think he must be short changing his wife tho, I could never be in a full time lesbian relationship despite my new discoveries as my primary attraction is still towards men, but it does open up the possibilities for fun threesomes :)
Posted by UK girlie on June 12, 2012 at 1:29 AM · Report this
42
What about bisexual people!? Heh. They don't have a gender of people they're not attracted to. I guess they have to settle for people of the genders they are attracted to. So sad.
Posted by brendan on June 12, 2012 at 2:17 AM · Report this
43
If straight men start marrying gay men, I get dibs on Bradley Cooper.
Posted by Clayton on June 12, 2012 at 5:53 AM · Report this
44
Wow, this is, wow. What a sad and pathetic story, wow.

Cults like christianity have done unrepairable harm to the fabric of the human soul. I feel badly for the wife, she deserved someone who could actually love her and never got it. I do not feel badly for Josh, he is scumbag who took away her chance at a real life because he was not man enough to stand up for himself.
Posted by Kylere on June 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM · Report this
45
Could we please stop blaming Christianity and religion for when people do and say stupid things? Mr. Savage keeps pointing out that people are capable of morality without religion (even when no one has said they're not), they're capable of being silly, stupid, hypocritical and cruel without it too. Most of the conflicts over the years that have been attributed to religion, like the crusades, were really about us/them divides.
Posted by DRF on June 12, 2012 at 6:47 AM · Report this
Confluence 46
Of course his sex life is satisfying! Dude went from being a virgin who couldn't masturbate... to a dude that got to stuff his junk into a warm, wet hole (albeit, not a man hole). That's gotta be "transcendent" or whatever he calls it! You give a starving man some moldy bread, and that moldy bread becomes the Best! Thing! In the World!

Just checked out this guy's blog too and it's really creepy how much he's fetishized having a wife and kids. It's as if "wife and kids" is his kink. He doesn't even refer to his wife by name on much of his blog. It's just "Wife" with a capital "W" no less. His blog, overall, appears to be a giant platform on which to advertise his "wife and kids" fetish to the world. I guess the feedback he gets on it + his strict religion tenets are how he props his life up. To each his own, of course, but I find it kinda sad. Mostly, I'm just grateful for not having been born into a creepy, all-consuming religion so I can see it for what it is. Yikes!

Sloggers, you shouldn't find this guy a threat though. You should be happy for him that he's been able to live out his "wife and kids" kink!
Posted by Confluence on June 12, 2012 at 7:16 AM · Report this
47
@45 No. Because those people you mention use religion to explain their silliness, stupidity, hypocrisy and cruelty.
Posted by SCalmlyW on June 12, 2012 at 7:27 AM · Report this
Dingo 48
@45: us/them divides based on religion.
Posted by Dingo on June 12, 2012 at 7:31 AM · Report this
Fortunate 49
"Could we please stop blaming Christianity and religion for when people do and say stupid things?"

You can't ignore religion when someone attributes religion as being the reason they did something stupid.

I have little doubt that if it weren't for his religion Weed would be bedded down with a guy and not married to a woman, so you can't separate the religion from that.

Yes, people can be moral or immoral regardless of religion. But that doesn't mean you can ignore when people are immoral, or stupid, because of it.

'With or without it [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.' - Steven Weinberg

This applies equally well with otherwise intelligent people doing stupid things.
Posted by Fortunate on June 12, 2012 at 7:40 AM · Report this
50
I wrote this whole long thing and then the internet disappeared it. I don't feel like re-creating it, so I'll just say that I don't think this guy deserves to be vilified. Sure, his choice of religion over sexuality is super weird, but it doesn't sound like he thinks his choice makes sense for everybody. And it's unfortunate that he doesn't support marriage equality since he, of all people, should understand the importance of marriage. It seems like a lot of people on the internet think that this guy's sexuality coupled with his choice to exclusively bone a woman is an attack on....something. Gay rights? Good sex? I don't know. My impression of Weed from his blog post is that he's given a lot of thought to his sexuality, his religion, and his marriage. In order to be true to his priorities he had to give opposite-sex relations a shot, but that he doesn't think everyone should or can share his priorities.

Weed's post reminded me of that asexual awareness guy. Like, I think it's weird that he doesn't have or want sex and I'm not sure why he's sharing. But I guess it's important to that guy that people don't discount his experience.
Posted by newtongot on June 12, 2012 at 7:58 AM · Report this
51
@49 To amplify what you said, if Lolly hadn't been indoctrinated with that same religion she wouldn't have chosen to marry a gay man.
Posted by cgd on June 12, 2012 at 8:03 AM · Report this
Confluence 52
@49

It's not just religion, it's ideologies of any kind. Is "politics" all bad because of the existence of the National Socialists in wartime Germany? Political movements, remember, have also brought about things you likely support, such as gay rights. Labeling everything shit because it falls under the heading of "religion" is just plain dumb. Very simplistic thinking and very narrow.

Anytime a person surrenders himself to some greater perspective or movement, there's a danger, and that goes way beyond "religion."
Posted by Confluence on June 12, 2012 at 8:43 AM · Report this
Fortunate 53
Any movement can be dangerous, but religion is very different from politics.

Most religions are based on the concept that we are broken or incomplete and that in order to be fixed we need some kind of communion with some higher power or ideal. That in order to do that we need to adhere to some kind of tenants that are relayed to us through the earthly representatives of that power or ideal. And all this is taken on faith.

That is how religions fundamentally work. When politics goes south it is typically because the political movement has started to follow that same format, but unlike with religions that isn't fundamental to politics.

If someone surrenders themselves to a greater political movement there is the potential for danger, yes. But you don't have to surrender yourself to a political movement to be involved in politics. Religion, however, is based on the need of people to surrender themselves to the greater movement of the religion. That redemption for politics doesn't exist for religion. The baseline for religion is everything that can go wrong (but doesn't always) with politics.
Posted by Fortunate on June 12, 2012 at 9:16 AM · Report this
debug 54
@2 LOL, maybe there should be a movement of straight men marrying each other. I can't think of a union that would piss off more people:

Straight women, gay men, lesbians (I always imagine lesbians being pissed at straight men for some reason or another)

Other than the sex (open marriage anyone?) I can see lots of sports, video games, beer, electronics, cars, boats, etc.

For some reason the theme from the Odd Couple has started playing in my head...
Posted by debug on June 12, 2012 at 10:02 AM · Report this
55
Unless Lolly is also gay, why wouldn’t she have been distracted by all the lust chemicals? She presumably is still attracted to guys isn’t she? And gets to sleep with one, even though he’s gay. And she made it through to this transcendent phase.

I think there’s some anti-male subtext to this one. Basically all women are of course hardwired to have sex and love be the same thing but men are naturally incapable of this, and the only way to get them to this point is to take away the lust I guess.
Posted by Karey on June 12, 2012 at 11:20 AM · Report this
56
LOL. Acutally the sex could be hot (well in a fantasy sort of way -- oops the chemicals are talking). Seriously, Weed is demented. The crazies must love him. Did he say how much Viagra he needs to pull this off? He claims that only guys have ever turned him on. And he, a gay guy, is having better straight sex than straight guys who are really attracted to girls? The fucked up shit he tells himself is incredible. (Kind of hints at the Bachmanns). Tell Josh to keep his dulsional marriage idea to himself. Its one thing to force yourself to eat brussel sprouts it you don't like vegetables, but its another to deny your true nature and the forces that drive it. A marriage should be between two people who want to formalize the love they have for each other in a way that is consistent with their own shared values and goals and desire to make a life with each other.
Posted by ndattn on June 12, 2012 at 1:10 PM · Report this
Ophian 57
Oh, now the fundies are insisting that the secret to a truly satisfying sex-life is to sleep with people to whom one is _not_ attracted.

Consider that shark jumped.
Posted by Ophian on June 12, 2012 at 1:51 PM · Report this
58
debug, can't speak for all lesbians, but my best friend is a straight guy. My dad, brother, and nephew are all straight, I love them. None of my lesbian friends are angry at 'men' in general--although plenty of them do get pissed at specific men. Santorum, Romney, Dobson, Falwell, etc.

I will say that ten years ago, one of them ran a blog that had some sharp words around men who acted like children--but lots of non-lesbian women participated in it.

Your mileage may vary.
Posted by clashfan on June 12, 2012 at 6:41 PM · Report this
59
#17 nailed it.

I am dumbfounded by Dan forcing his agenda into the conversation. Which sucks, because up until now, his intelligent, higher road position has been what I admired most about him, and the reason I've followed his writing. To me, publicly crucifying a gay man for having straight sex and being happy (regardless of whether or not you believe it) is worse than crucifying a gay man for being gay. The anti-gay parties at least have ignorance on their side.

In fact, when a girl came to Dan on Savage Love and was terribly upset over the fact that she is gay and is terrified to tell her friends that she is attracted to men, he had the most compassionate and supportive answer for her. Why is this guy suddenly anti-gay for saying the same thing?
Posted by Tommyfoolery on June 12, 2012 at 7:01 PM · Report this
AirBuddy 60
@59 Despite the foul language I wouldn't classify this as a personal attack. Following up on the whole "logic" thing referenced in the title, this would really be an example of Reductio ad absurdum. It can be a cruel technique, for sure, but then, ummm, why exactly are you reading Dan Savage? If you didn't expect him to be calling bullshit on ideas he disagrees with? He's sort of opinionated, you may have noticed.
Posted by AirBuddy on June 12, 2012 at 8:36 PM · Report this
61
@60
That's what is bothering me. This particular situation is him doing the bullshit he usually calls out.
Posted by Tommyfoolery on June 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM · Report this
debug 62
@58 My mileage with lesbians is pretty low (We a nice couple on our block but I only see them out and about once in a blue moon). I just figured if any group would be sick of hetero male culture it would be the group that had zero interest in them romantically.

Anyway, was just an attempt at humor. Lesbians are cool with me. Rock on.
Posted by debug on June 12, 2012 at 9:09 PM · Report this
AirBuddy 63
@61 Umm. I think you may be reading way too much animosity into the criticism of Josh Weed. Far from "crucifying him" I think the general response, from Andrew Sullivan to Dan Savage, has been highly qualified support. Gay people are (by long practice) highly sensitive to the personal becoming all too easily political; it's only natural that the same intense scrutiny is going to be applied to this case as well.

Given the audacity and off-putting boastfulness of Weed's claim to know that his marriage "has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know," I think this particular attack on his post and its logic was justified. Take your example of the bicurious-or-whatever lesbian who called in to the podcast. As I recall she never boasted that the incongruity between her identity and her attractions made her somehow more authentic or just. She seemed genuinely and sadly worried about the judgement of others, and Savage attempted to affirm to her, much like what for the most part people are doing to Weed, that hey, whatever makes you happy, and fuck the haters. The difference being here that Weed's post is filled with so many little dog-whistling barbs that the whole "judge not lest ye be" clauses are deeply and very much invoked.

Aaaand, as for the probable real root of the matter of why we're here: Savage's feelings towards some of the major church structures. That's something that seems pretty well established, and all the NOM money about to flow into WA isn't going to help anytime soon. But, hey look,the bigger, ostensibly anti-gay fish to fry that also floated in over the weekend.

(Also, "agenda?" Are you going to go after Goldy with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion next?)
More...
Posted by AirBuddy on June 13, 2012 at 12:43 AM · Report this
geoz 64
The reason people hang their hats on this kind of absurdity is to defend another absurdity. The anti-gay rhetoric has no good basis, so any crazy who has overlap that allows the philosophy to continue is good enough: and now we have Josh Weed.
Now... if Josh is happy - fine - but it isn't generalizable.
Posted by geoz on June 13, 2012 at 6:06 AM · Report this
65
The sexual attraction or spark that Weed considers a distraction "that dwindles anyway" (speak for yourself, Josh) is what I consider the erotic glue that distinguishes partner-type relationships, and that which carries relationships these through the doldrums of child-rearing, mortgage-paying, etc.
Posted by Sally Hemings' daughter on June 13, 2012 at 7:15 AM · Report this
Mischa Vainburg 66
For some reason this whole thing strikes me as deeply icky. Perverse even. Now, I'm not one to judge other people's choices in the sexual realm, but something about fucking someone you're not attracted to and then extolling the virtues of said fucking has an intense "yuck" factor for me. Also the fact that he refers to his wife as "Lolly". Eew.
Posted by Mischa Vainburg http://squidbasedink.wordpress.com on June 13, 2012 at 9:12 AM · Report this
Fortunate 67
@66, I have no issues or see any ickyness regarding his choice to marry a woman, considering that it was done honestly and upfront from the beginning. What I find disbursing or perverse is the whole cultural situation that convinced him that this was his only, or best of very limited, option.

However, accepting that as perverse and creepy as most religious, and in this case specifically Mormon, views of sex and happiness are, since he is already in that place I can understand his decision. After reading his and his wife's account of how they ended up together it is actually very understandable.

But his insistence that somehow this has led to an even better and more satisfying relationship and degree of happiness just reeks of cognitive dissonance to me. He's making a very big sacrifice in order to adhere to Church doctrine which he has always been taught will make him happy, and so he has to work hard ignoring the negative and focusing and amplifying the importance of the positive in order to convince himself that his originally held belief was, indeed, true.

Or as Shakespeare put it, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Posted by Fortunate on June 13, 2012 at 9:33 AM · Report this
Confluence 68
@67

However, the thing is, marrying and sleeping with a lady really is his only option if he wants biological children so he's right on that. And he said in his blog how he's a "traditionalist" so, basically, he's incapable of honoring his authentic nature because it's not what most people do, traditionally. At his fundamental core, he needs to be a sheep, following the herd. If that's how they do it, then I have to be that way too. He's like a pair of GAP khaki pants: pure BLAH. It's good he recognizes this about himself, but he sounds incredibly lame as a person.

As for Weed claiming his relationship is better and more satisfying, well, that probably has a ring of truth to it. His wife-and-kids set up is more satisfying *to him* than if he had chosen an authentic life, honoring his natural inclinations. Because a sheep like him, *has* to be mainstream in order to be okay with himself. (Seriously, he sounds lame- like a Top 40 guy). But, again, he recognizes this about himself (which is good) so the sacrifice he's making is worth it, to *him*.
Posted by Confluence on June 13, 2012 at 10:13 AM · Report this
Fortunate 69
@68, I definitly get that, having swallowed the blue pill he is stuck in a system where this is probably the better of his choices and he has to believe what he has to believe to deal with it.

The problem is that in reading what he wrote he isn't putting up his statement that he has a better relationship in light of it being better for 'him'. He is clearly making what he thinks, or at least wants others to think, is some kind of objective comparison. That his relationship IS better than most of the people he knows.

That's where I call Bullshit.
Posted by Fortunate on June 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM · Report this
70
@51 I was as indoctrinated as Lolly and ain't no way in any of the three kingdoms I'm NOT marrying a straight guy who finds me sexually attractive and is GGG (and super hot. Nerd hot).
Posted by DC270 on June 13, 2012 at 11:59 PM · Report this
71
My ex-husband and I divorced partly because he finally confessed that he wasn't attracted to me (I'm not an unattractive person, I'm just not Asian.) I felt so angry that someone married me even though they weren't attracted to me. I guess it's cool that his wife knew that she does nothing for him physically before she agreed to marry him, but why on Earth would you marry that person? Having a partner that is attracted to me is something that's important to me. I guess it would fine to have a platonic marriage with someone you really bound with emotionally, but why would you pursue a physical relationship with someone you aren't hot for?
Posted by TiffanyPerkins on June 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM · Report this
72
There nothing "noble" about his lying to himself and that's the bottom line here. When he states that his sex life is better then most, who is he comparing it to, other gay men married to straight women? He only lives this life to make other around him happy (family, friends, religion) - that is BEYOND creepy on so many levels.

How does he know he could not have the same level of love, intimacy, happiness and family with a man he was actually physically in love with? Because others have told him it's not possible? That's the creepiest part of all! Here how it usually ends up. After years of denial he will fall in love. He will resist, he will fight it but like countless others before him his innate human desire for REAL love and sexual intimacy will take over! He will stop living his life for others who have never had to make the personal sacrifice they have forced him to make! No matter how much he think he was a WILLING participant - he was not, he's been brainwashed into believing that real love and happiness was not allowed for him! Someday his basic, real humanity will finally overpower his childish desire to be an obedient little boy and the true, real and terrible price that he has had to pay to make OTHERS happy will come crashing down on top of him! He will realize that he has been in self inflicted agony. He will be angry and frustrated that he was not allowed the simple happiness others take for grant. If he's young enough to still achieve real love in his life he will tell that fake wife, and those miserable people who forced him into accepting an unfulfilled relationship, to go screw themselves. And he will final allow himself to live beyond THEIR bigoted prejudices and, perhaps, finally find some real peace and happiness!
Posted by ButchPeaston on June 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM · Report this
73
There nothing "noble" about his lying to himself and that's the bottom line here. When he states that his sex life is better then most, who is he comparing it to, other gay men married to straight women? He only lives this life to make other around him happy (family, friends, religion) - that is BEYOND creepy on so many levels.

How does he know he could not have the same level of love, intimacy, happiness and family with a man he was actually physically in love with? Because others have told him it's not possible? That's the creepiest part of all! Here how it usually ends up. After years of denial he will fall in love. He will resist, he will fight it but like countless others before him his innate human desire for REAL love and sexual intimacy will take over! He will stop living his life for others who have never had to make the personal sacrifice they have forced him to make! No matter how much he think he was a WILLING participant - he was not, he's been brainwashed into believing that real love and happiness was not allowed for him! Someday his basic, real humanity will finally overpower his childish desire to be an obedient little boy and the true, real and terrible price that he has had to pay to make OTHERS happy will come crashing down on top of him! He will realize that he has been in self inflicted agony. He will be angry and frustrated that he was not allowed the simple happiness others take for grant. If he's young enough to still achieve real love in his life he will tell that fake wife, and those miserable people who forced him into accepting an unfulfilled relationship, to go screw themselves. And he will final allow himself to live beyond THEIR bigoted prejudices and, perhaps, finally find some real peace and happiness!
Posted by ButchPeaston on June 17, 2012 at 9:04 AM · Report this
74
Except the Bible...WHAT??? Used in a sentence: I would think homosexuality is wrong, except the bible also forbids shellfish and I loves me a shrimp cocktail. Wait a minute... maybe he meant to say ACCEPT the bible. Maybe they didn't cover that in faith based home school.
Posted by Amybjorge on June 24, 2012 at 11:16 PM · Report this
75
Matt from Denver:
Was that an admonition or a random sentence fragment? On one hand, if I were to use your post in a sentence, it would be something like: "I would condemn homosexuals, 'except the bible' also condemns shellfish and I love a good shrimp cocktail."
Conversely, it could be that they just didn't cover except / accept in your religiously based home school.
Which is it?
Posted by Amy Bjorge on June 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM · Report this
76
As long as he is cheating on his wife doesn't it seem fair that she cheats on him too. Send her my way and I'll show her a great sex life too, just like Josh is enjoying with doing both his wife and the other men in his life.
Also I am not sure when they rewrote the bible to read that adultery was ok, but since I am married to a female is it also ok for me to have sex with another female since I have no appetite for other men and do not care to be a pile driver.
Posted by JackKnauf on July 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy