Sexy Advice Column Costume


hmmm, I was expecting a "Dan Savage" costume... though I guess rippling muscles and a t-shirt might have taken more explaining.
Absolutely love the outfit, the necklace, the mask. Well done, girl.
...I don't know if second wave feminism and their misdirection of sexual freedom is precisely the cause of the divorce rate shooting up. I would imagine the patriarchal institution of sexual freedom exclusively for men for the past two-hundred years, coupled with the introduction of easily obtained no-fault divorce in the 70s (thanks, feminists!) is the true reason for the spike in the divorce rate.
Oh what a beautiful outfit! Well done!
Yup, the horrible, smelly, second wave- feminists are entirely to blame for all of our unrealistic expectations surrounding monogamy. Before feminism, men were totally cool with other guys fucking their wives.
please don't hassle Danny about non-monogamy.

He runs like a scalded cat from polygamy.....
Cute costume, but jokes that are more than half serious tend to fall flat. And even if she were presenting evidence to support a theory that Mr Savage could be trending in a bi direction, what on earth makes her think her crush and her costume would suffice to lure him into breaking up his family? People who think that they "deserve" the attention or affection of celebrated people can be very unsettling, although at least this LW has the decency not to be blatantly nasty/threatening about/to the person she wants to replace.

Before the first stone is thrown at me, I'll quickly say that a half-joke about a quick romp purely for the purpose of refreshing his outdated personally acquired expertise on matters concerning which he is so often questioned wouldn't have made me half so grumpy. A semi-serious offer of this sort comes across better when it keeps the overreaching to a minimum.
Jesus Christ. Her nasty comment about those feminists on whose shoulders she stands is almost as loathsome as her writing "skills."
@9: Oh come on, I came of age during the end of the second wave, when Andrea Dworkin was at her peak, and it was (among other things) a total buzz kill. Every bit as sex-negative as the fundamentalist Christians. One of the things I loved about Dan's column back in the early 90's was that it provided a genuinely progressive counterpoint to the second wave that provided roles for men to play besides the villain.

Maybe it was a necessary step, but it was definitely no fun, and it is not beyond criticism.
Love the costume! Beautifully done, especially with the Savage Love headlines at the top of the dress.

My take on it is that her letter is light hearted and respectfully playful. I think all of us looking at this blog can admit that we hold Dan in high regard, and it is likely not even sexual crush but an admiration crush. And even if it were, it's ok to admit that we have innocent crushes on people!

Besides, if DS put this on the slog, doesn't that indicate that HE liked it?!?
Love the costume! Beautifully done, especially with the Savage Love headlines at the top of the dress.

My take on it is that her letter is light hearted and respectfully playful. I think all of us looking at this blog can admit that we hold Dan in high regard, and it is likely not even sexual crush but an admiration crush. And even if it were, it's ok to admit that we have innocent crushes on people!

Besides, if DS put this on the slog, doesn't that indicate that HE liked it?!?

Just because Savage liked it doesn't mean all of us like it even though we like him.
@10. I agree that Dworkin was, in a lot of ways, a horrid woman. I don't agree with anything that she had to say about porn or feminism or men. But being a feminist who was a leader in the anti-pornography movement is not the same as being a part of the second wave feminist movement. That had already happened by the time she came into the picture. Her time was the very late 70s-80s, after most of the battle had already been fought and won. Second wave feminism had its heyday in the 60s and early-to-mid-70s.

Second wave feminism was about equality, just like first wave feminism. Comparing its mission and what it accomplished to what a crazy, fucked-up radical like Dworkin had to say about porn isn't fair to what those women and men did for us in the 60s. Yes, Dworkin considered herself a feminist. But she was fringe.
She might have been fringe, but her brand of man hating feminism was pretty widespread - I encountered my share of it, and I certainly did not move in radical circles.

And second wave feminism didn't really get rolling in the mainstream until well into the seventies, when the average woman on the street was really thinking and acting. All of those middle aged housewives who started standing up to their husbands in the mid seventies were part of the movement, too, even if they were not leaders.
Sexism was widespread too, and we don't label all the men in that period who might not have been 100% behind the women's movement as women hating.

The Feminine Mystique was written in 1963. The majority if civil rights legislation (including Title VII) came about in the mid-60s and NOW was formed in 1966. It's because of these huge moves forward that those 70s housewives, when they woke up, had the power to speak up. Like I said earlier, we (and the LW) stand on their shoulders. Those 70s housewives did too.

That being said, this conversation has led me to do some reading, and I'm disappointed in how many feminists whom I admire got behind Dworkin's anti-porn movement. It's kind of shocking what the 60s women's rights movement turned into in the 80s. I wish we could label that in some way, so when some clueless letter writer in a clever Halloween costume takes a shot at "second wave feminism," kneejerks like me would know what she's talking about.
Great costume, not so great letter. There aren't many fashion designers who are philosophers in the same time, anyway. Galliano made it much worse.
How come all these people who are doing the whole sexual freedom 'n kink thing come across as asexual graduates of some high school drama club?
Yes, I fall in love with sex organs instead of people. UGH. Being bisexual doesn't mean you're any more "enlightened" than the rest of us.
Even if you're just kidding around, don't say stupid crap like that.
This is our kitchen! Very messy, late in the throes of our Halloween party...
Second Wave feminists were asking questions that needed to be asked, and they were taking stances that had never been taken before. Yes, they were extreme, and there was an appropriate backlash after just one short decade--so let's not pretend to ourselves that they were the ones causing a rift between the sexes, nor were they the ones dampening sexual mores. These were both problems that existed long before Friedan came around, and I doubt they would have been dealt with had the second wave not illuminated them.

Also, I'm fairly certain plenty of people got laid in the seventies despite Dworkin, so I doubt she crashed anybody's party.
"If you ever become more "enlightened" and "fall in love with people, not sex organs," you know where my crush lies. "

oh, phuck off.
Hahahaha! Very cute costume! I'd read her torso.

Wow, what a bunch of sour, ill-humored posters. Stop taking yourselves so seriously.
Mr Alan - Yes, but you're already "enlightened".

I actually gave her the benefit of the doubt on that possible line of examination; it's not the sort of thing people tend to say semi-seriously, and I took it as a full joke. By the way, in case I was included in your post, I'm not taking myself seriously; I'm taking Mr Miller seriously.

Ms Pink, I agree with you that there are innocent crushes. There are also appropriate ways to express them, and I think she went a little too far for this to be considered respectful. I'm putting this letter on a scale which I thought of over the summer after reading a long post and comments started by a woman of some renown whose husband, in a more fame-producing profession, has groupies who say really nasty things about her, which, to her credit, this LW does not say about Mr Miller. But to appear to imply that, without a change in circumstances or ground rules, the only thing holding Mr Savage back from breaking the boundaries of monogamish is going a little too far. A joke about something presumably permitted by someone's public presentation is one thing; "falling in love" crosses the line.

If I had time, I'd go into the double standard here as well, and propose that people with an opposite-sexer crush on same-sexers should be mindful of how the numbers game has been used to oppress same-sexers, which, fairly or otherwise, is not a factor for those expressing a same-sex crush on an out heterosexual.

There is wiggle room, I'll grant, in that "falling in love" was part of a thematic quotation. It's possible that the LW got tangled up and couldn't find a more respectful expression.
I will point out that Dan Savage chose to post this, and it's probably not imposing on his marriage. And YT is obviously referencing a recent discussion about whether bi-sexual people are "more enlightened" because they "fall in love with people not sex organs."

I think ya'll are just mad that YT managed to flirt with Dan more effectively than any of us.
Mr(?) Weather - Not here; he's not my type.

It's very convenient to be able to play the shell game as to which of several things one says really carries a kernel of genuine meaning. As far as its being posted goes, appropriateness is not judged solely by effectiveness.

And it's not the sort of thing that ever bothered me personally, as I faced overt attempts by outsiders to sabotage a relationship of mine. It's mainly a Team Homo thing. Recall Sir John Middleton, for whom the increase by two to the number of inhabitants of London was something. Given how the numbers game has been used to oppress me, I take offence when anyone makes a careless or clumsy joke about something which would effectively reduce the membership of Team Homo by one. That is opposite-sexer (I am determined not to erase those of the bisexual persuasion) privilege not just in spades but in full-on no-trumps. And it ought to be a 101 equation that Inappropriate + Privileged = Offensive.

(I shall spare the assembled company a parallel example of how I might costume myself as Swiss chocolate.)