What would you pour over them? Syrup?

"Devoted reader" needs to lighten up. Have a brownie!

DO NOT EAT 5280'S BROWNIES.

You have a good time, princess. You deserve it. As for that letter to Adam and Eve, that jerk is an idiot. Fuck him. I'm going to go out and buy one of their products just because they support your podcasts. And go easy on the brownies.

"Because that's the way I hole." is the best.

@2: Meanwhile, S.T. needs to lay off the brownies for a while.

Other than comparing vaginas to a can of spam thrown on the sidewalk and once comparing a question about vagina jewelry to asking a vegan to go to a steak house and comment on the wallpaper, I can't possibly imagine what Dan has ever written that could be taken as anti-woman. And I don't consider those anti-woman. I consider them 1) hilarious and 2) the honest blunt opinion of a man who likes touching cock a lot and has no interest in touching vagina. Maybe I missed a column where told all women to take off their shoes, submit to a nazi gangbang, then get in the kitchen and cook all those big beefy nazis some bratwursts. lil help?

Damn it, now I'm craving brownies. Guess it's a baking night.
On topic, I consider myself a bit of a feminist but I fail to see how Dan can be interpreted as anti-woman in the slightest. I would be interested to know which things Dan has said/written/done that made S.T. feel that way.

On the plus side, S.T. only thinks you're anti-woman, not anti-women.
So who is it, Dan, the woman that you have such a grudge against that's got S.T.'s panties in a bunch?

... I hope it's Palin!

Wow, as a woman who has read your column since it began and listens to the podcast, I never ONCE thought of you as "anti-woman.". Also please, please DO post, podcast and write drunk! You are hilarious. Damn, what's wrong with these people? Buncha whiners.

Also, have fun on your vacation. Woot.

@9 - my take away was Dan as "Anti-Woman" in purple spandex, balled up fists on his slender hips, with a rainbow cape and AW in a pink triangle emblazoned on his chest.... head tossed back in a sinster laugh, of course.

@5 my thoughts exactly!

@11 now there's an image i won't easily be rid of...

I dunno, I think Dan can often go the misogynist route of treating the vagina like it's a disgusting meathole instead of what it is. (No, not a beautiful flower, it's genitals, it's just genitals, it doesn't smell or taste funny but it's also not something I want to paint a pretty picture of either, just like a penis.) It's a cultural problem too, but Dan isn't helping with the whole canned ham schtick. On the other hand, none of his advice encourages misogyny or sexist attitudes or even disgust with the vagina. (I think one of my favorite responses consisted mostly of repetitions of HER CLIT. You have to touch HER CLIT. HER CLIT, Rob, HER CLIT.) So I think Dan's pretty much in-touch on this one.

I was laughing before I made it past the jump. Enjoy your vacation with your family, Dan. Chow down on the medicinal brownies, and come back safe and refreshed. We need you!

@15: Waittaminute. You're not the real 5280's long lost son, are you?

Dan is about as sexist and racist as the average liberal -- which is not as sexist and racist as the average right-winger or centrist, but is still somewhat sexist and racist.

Dan's response to concerns about this sort of stuff is always the same -- to ostentatiously refuse to take it seriously. "Don't be such a fucking pussy -- OOOOOOPS -- don't be a ballsack, teehee!" Dan has shown again and again that he is either unwilling to seriously consider that something he has said might be problematic, or else that he just doesn't care.

The recent podcast is a perfect example, when a woman called in annoyed at Dan's phallocentrism. His response was half "ha ha well if you say so" and half "I don't give a shit, phallocentrism is what made this podcast great". The woman was right about Dan's response having been skewed toward prioritizing male sexual fulfillment.

And Dan is absolutely clear that he does not and will not consider such concerns in good faith -- he is all giggling defensiveness when anyone tries.Poe oe°ne

Probably not, TVDinner, since I don't have a long-lost son. At least that I know of.

I find it interesting that a so-called regular customer would find Dan's column so repellent. Maybe those products touted "for when you're alone" didn't deliver the promise and he's too pent-up to think (forgive the term) "straight"?

I hope that you're consuming an excellent Irish whiskey, Dan. I'm known for indulging my Irish side while on holiday and pulling willing victims into the vortex with me. Drink up, darlin'. Cheers!

Dan's an angel, S.T.! A saint, even. He can't do any wrong. Anything pointed out as "temporarily wrong" from Dan can, through might, be made right or justified later.

So, like, give it up already. His unendingly, unquestioningly loyal readers and listeners shall never stand for your bitter tears — or even mild criticism.

@7: That was one of his best columns (and no, I don't consider it anti-woman in the least)!

A lot of people, in particular oversensitive and insecure people, tend to confuse honesty about women's differences and limitations (as a group) with misogyny. It is a cognitively and emotionally immature individual who says, "But that statement about women as a whole doesn't apply to ME, so rather than trying to understand what's meant by a generalization and proudly acknowledging my unique differences, I am going to accuse you of sexism!"

Dan doesn't know you, kids. Your entire identity to him is limited to the words in your e-mail or voice mail. He uses generalizations about your gender, your sexual identity, your age, your living situation in order to try to give you advice fit for an actual human being. If this advice does not apply to EVERY SINGLE PERSON who can relate to any of the aforementioned characteristics, you should not be shocked and scandalized. Get the fuck over yourself, already.

I think S.T. is an unsatisfied WOMAN.

Why is she listening to the podcast if she hates Dan? How would she know enough about him to know he's anti-woman, homophobic and misogynist if she hadn't been reading SLOG and listening to the podcast? Where else would she get the idea he's out of his mind?

Here's the real problem. She wants him. She wants him in the worst, bad to the bone way. But, she knows she can't have him. She knows enough to know that he'd never have her. And now it's all his fault.

Dan, you have a stalker! Run! Oh wait, no, just hide!

I don't think Dan is anti-woman or pro-woman. He takes each question as it comes, and calls people of all types on their BS. He's much less anti-female than the other leading advice columnist biddies are anti-male, and I should know because I read them all, even if just to shake my weary head at their pearl-clutching.

I could really go for a brownie right about now...

Dan, the only reason I ever visited Adam and Eve is because they advertise on your podcast. So I just wrote them to let them know that.

I know that Dan caught a lot of shit from feminist quarters when he wrote/spoke about the concept of 'implied consent' and one's sexual obligations to a partner. Yeah, a lot of women have been told, and are still being taught, that it's a woman's duty to fulfill her husband's sexual needs without caring about her own (or even recognizing she has her own). That's anti-woman and misogynist in the extreme, and I think there was an overreaction when Dan said you have a responsibility to keep your partner 'milked.' Dan didn't really pay attention to gender - whoever you are, whatever relationship you're in, you *have* to at least recognize that your partner has sexual needs, and a big reason people get involved with each other is to get those needs met. And if you're unwilling or unable to fulfill those needs, don't date. Or only date people like you.

I actually think Dan is extraordinarily feminist. Maybe not in the radical, destroy-the-patriarchy way some would like. But I think, whether Dan realizes or not, he's been far more subversive to the patriarchy than any other individual man I can think of.

After all, the patriarchial values promote female chastity until marriage, monogamy afterwards, the primacy of male desire over female desire, and an aversion to anything that isn't het vanilla intercourse.

Dan says fuck all that. It's cool if that's what you really want, but you don't *have* to want it. You're not a bad person for being kinky, or a bad woman for masturbating or watching porn. Everyone should be able to explore their sexual desires, and shouldn't feel obligated to stay in a sexually frustrating relationship. In Christian relationships, lust is a sin, and a man who loves his wife will not lust after her body, but love her spirit. In liberal-feminist relationships, lust is shallow, and someone who really loves their partner will overlook the fact they're not sexually attracted to them. Both are restrictive and lead only to misery.

Dan promotes the idea that sex and sexuality should be a joy for everyone, and no one should have the right to define or judge your sexuality except you (all caveats to consent and non-exploitation applied). And that, I think, is the loudest death knell for the patriarchy and why I love Dan so much, even if I don't always agree with him. Someone who does what Dan does is allowed to make 'don't be a pussy -- teehee, I meant ball sack' comments, because, in the wider scheme of things, his work is so, so, so much more than that.

Oh--and also. I sort of agree with the bonus question. I mean, I don't care if you're drunk and stoned every time you write a column. But you do have a slightly annoying habit of telling us about it as if we would care. It's always something, Dan. Oh, you have a cold this week. Oh, you're really high off of cupcakes. Etc.

How about we just assume that you're under some kind of evil influence every time you write/podcast, and you can let us know on the special occasions when you're sober?

@4 and @27: Nice, and I agree! That's how I found out. Think I'll go off and do the same.

My first vibe(s) ever were from Adam and Eve, and only because Dan endorsed them. Thanks to Dan, I'm not afraid to walk into a sex store anymore.

Hilarious that this person is decrying Adam&Eve for advertising on Dan -- how many hundreds of customers have they gotten that way? And they're about to lose one?

That being said, I love that I can rely on Dan for some consistent feminism. He explains his thoughts carefully and logically on issues of empowerment and fairness, even if we don't always agree with him. You can't say that for a lot of feminist websites -- If I don't see their logic and I ask them to explain, I always get called a fascist or a face full of moral outrage without any explanation of why larger people should be celebrated more than average-sized people or why moms are better than women who haven't procreated or why children are considered a "heavily oppressed" group.

Just want to understand. I might end up even agreeing with them. But without the patient explanation like the one Dan always, always supplies, I'm SOL on feminist sites.

hazakaza @14:

I dunno, I think Dan can often go the misogynist route of treating the vagina like it's a disgusting meathole instead of what it is. (No, not a beautiful flower, it's genitals, it's just genitals, it doesn't smell or taste funny but it's also not something I want to paint a pretty picture of either, just like a penis.) It's a cultural problem too, but Dan isn't helping with the whole canned ham schtick.

This is something I never understood about the whole canned ham kerfuffle (hi, Telsa!). How does Dan considering vaginas to be disgusting meatholes make him a misogynist? Why is the bar for non-misogyny set at "must not be disgusted by any part of a woman's anatomy?" I've heard plenty of times from women that they don't find men's genitals to be attractive, and even some who seem to be disgusted when they say so. I wouldn't say that any of them are "misandrists" or anti-man.

And when it comes down to it, if Dan or anybody else described male genitals as "disgusting meat tubes," I don't think most men would bat an eye, whether from offense or hurt feelings or a sense that it's an anti-man sentiment. I'd call the ones who did oversensitive.

Just like you can disagree with some of what Obama has done or not done and yet still be pro-Obama, it's possible to dislike certain aspects of womanhood without being anti-woman.

Imagine saying to somebody "If you find a penis disgusting, then you're a bigot and you're contributing to society's problems." Imagine saying that to a lesbian. Cringe-worthy, huh? But turn that around and plenty of people are comfy saying that to a gay dude about a woman's genitals. I find that pretty weird.

I don't think you're anti-woman in the slightest, Dan. You sometimes say stuff that's a bit off, in my opinion, from a feminist point of view or lacks sensitivity/perspective when it comes to women, but that's okay; I myself quite respect that you're not playing along with some prescribed feminist rhetoric and are actually speaking from what you feel to be true. And sometimes, you really, really get it right in a way that few people do.

I think a lot of people have problems with the fact that you're a prominent gay personality who isn't surrounded by, and devoted to, a small flock of fag hags. Culturally, we're more comfortable with gay men who are asexual, or whose primary emotional attachments seem to be with women. But you have a husband. And a son. And no "special women" in any sort of primary role in your life. Can you see where insecure women are going to have a problem with this?

@23 - That is an irritating reaction to generalizations, but one the other hand, I do understand this sort of oversensitivity when it comes to how people view women. Dan's generalizations really are generalizations, but far, far too often, people don't recognize that women have the same capacity for individuality that men do. It's really strongly reinforced in certain areas of our culture.

Like this: http://www.xkcd.com/385/
(Written by a man...woot.)

Oh Dan, your faithful flock here will always support you. But it's also clear that you've earned that support. So fuck S.T. and (her) ilk - some people don't recognize when someone's on their side because their 'side' is a tiny, tiny little island surrounded by politically incorrect sharks. It's a whiny, adolescent way to look at life.

As for the disclosures of drunkenness, stonedness or whateveredness, I for one appreciate it! It's a human element, and this is what makes blogging different from more studied forms of writing. Disclose away!

Now if y'all don't mind, I'm going to go downtown and get my drink on. Yay Judge Walker!

S.T. should go back to her kitchen.

Dan is "anti-woman" in that "ew, girls have cooties!" sort of way. Which I just think is funny.

Giving out advice is serious business. Because, you know, these people are paying you for it, right?

People need to take it easy. Also, Dan bashes heterosexual (or "heterosexual") men the most.

The thing is this idiot in the letter probably doesn't even read dan's advice, column or blog. S/He probably read on some leotarded feminist blog how he's anti-woman... But I sure as hell don't know how he can be anti-gay XD That just takes the brownie.

Well, so Adam and Eve sold one less Fleshlight because some dingdong thinks you're homophobic. I'm sure their bottom line is suffering horribly.

And I want a medicinal brownie.

I suppose somebody might perceive Dan as anti-woman if they hadn't read anything by him since, I don't know, 1992. Homophobic, I just don't get. Maybe the guy is thinking of Michael Savage?

Some of Dan's earlier columns could be seen as anti-women - or at least not very woman-positive. But for the last few years I've been consistently impressed by how he calls out sexist bullshit when he sees it. I wish he'd cut it out with the vaginas-are-gross stuff (and the canned ham comment was pretty terrible IMO), but other than that...

As for homophobic, I have no idea where that's coming from. Maybe @41 is right and they're thinking of Michael Savage. That would make a lot of sense, actually.

If I was sure it would help me write with such panache and humor, I'd have me some medicinal brownies, and may go on a vacation, too.

Christ! I was wondering where Dan-o was. Last week both Olbermann and Maddow were gone and then Dan disappeared. I thought they'd been kidnapped.

Dan is a man. Dan is a man who really likes other men. Dan likes dick. Therefore, his mindspace is filled with manly things. It seems rather like a no-brainer to see that Dan has less of a deep understanding of all things ladylike than perhaps we women. There are times when I really don't agree that much with him when some lady's issues have seemed trivialized; but on the whole, Dan Savage gives well thought out, smart and funny advice. Some people are haters. I say fuck em.

As a girl who likes girls I never had an issue with the "canned ham" comments and always thought of them as on a par with the "girls are icky" mentality.

besides, boys are gross...

Actually i think often when Dan is harsh with one woman for being stupid it's taken as having an issue with *all* women, whereas when he calls out one man for being stupid it's him having an issue with this one man.

I think pussies are wonderful and tasty. I laughed out loud the first time I heard "canned ham dropped from a great height". And I don't laugh out loud at very much.

I can't figure out why people get offended that a gay man doesn't wanna look at vulvas. I really can't. Dan has said things that I think are problematic, and occasionally said things I think are unjustifiable (anyone remember the Tard Supper?) but this just isn't one of them.

@ 45 - Dan's "mindspace" is filled with theater, cupcakes, and "All About Eve". Now c'mon, just how "manly" is that?

You forgot DICK. Dicks are very manly :)

I have a canned ham dropped from a great height, urm, I mean vagina, and I agree with Dan. However, the people who I'm in relationships don't feel that way so that's all that matters. Why does everyone care what Dan's opinion of the visual of a vagina is? I don't particularly want him to fall in love with mine, and if he's out there changing people's perceptions of vaginas, then they must not have had a strong liking for them in the first place. Sheesh.

This made me smile today - my most recent Adam and Eve package arrived in the mail a few days ago and the husband and I have been looking forward to playing with the new toys! Huzzah for them supporting my favorite columnist.

1. I don't like canned ham. Nor do I like vaginas or labia (except my own).
2. I love brownies. Especially the special ones.
3. Whiskey should be required when sorting through Dan's mail, methinks.
4. Every time Dan lets me into his little world, be it his current health condition, his current sugar fascination, or his current crush, it's like being able to stalk him without the guilt.
5. I will be ordering one extra time this year from Adam and Eve to make up for the douchebag who wrote that letter.

so there.
Down with the Haters!

I've decided the leave-me-the-fuck-alone-I'm-on-vacation SLLOTDs is another manifestation of the asshole Dan Savage. I'll take a little of the asshole Dan Savage if I can have the gay-as-hell, sweet-as-hell, sensible-as-hell Dan Savage the rest of the time.

Dan, are you aware of the time-honored "Best of" journalistic tradition? Ann did it...

@ 50 - Yes, they are. Yes they are.

Actually, I think one of the essential things about being gay, one of the things that being gay is "about", is a celebration of maleness (both self-directed and other-directed) in all its variations. Hell, why do you think we want to party all the time? "Hallelujah, it's rainin' men!"

Might it be related to this post (which I saw floating past on Twitter a couple of days ago) http://www.thelesbianmafia.com/home/male…

Ah, I can't post links.

Well it was an article having a go at Dan because in podcast 197 (about 20 minutes in) he said that female sexuality was fluid and blamed it for lesbian-identified women who stop identifying as lesbian. So you've basically got the actual lesbian mafia after you now.

I'll try the link one more time... (remove the line break)
http://www.thelesbianmafia.com/
home/male-fantasy-movies-gay-male-misogyny/

I think that Dan, at his best, is a remarkable advice columnist. I probably agree with his advice 90% of the time. However, as a gay man I think that he does not fully understand the woman's side of the hetero male/female dynamic. Gender tends to trump orientation on these issues. Dan has said some things that I regard as, not actually misogynist, but offensively anti-female regarding certain relationships.

Nobody is perfect, though, and people should not definitively rely on the advice of a stranger to make their decisions for them.

Who is perfect? Certainly not Dan. Or me, or you, or S.T.

But all in all, when I look at the alternatives; at the people who might be dishing out advice and comments, and what [i]their[/i] biases would/could be; I think Dan is an awfully good choice.

I also don't always agree with Dan. Who does? But I agree sufficiently often to see that he is a very perceptive individual who doesn't go for surface appearance and tries to go as deep as a few lines' worth of e-mail will allow him. And even when I don't agree with him, I can see what is making him give his advice -- and frankly, it ain't misogyny, misandry, homophobia, heterophobia, or any other crap. It's just his life experience (like all of us).

I wished there were more people like him out there.

Thanks for posting the link, @57. At least the original complaint makes more sense now. S.T. heard Dan claim that lesbians sometimes shift to heterosexualilty, and sees that as homophobic and misogynistic against women.

I've not read for a little while and so have got some LOTD catching up to do, and as such, am not quite sure what DR's referring to, but will say those columns you've done in the past whilst sitting at the bar, or getting liquored up on a plane are always amongst my favorites. Though they do also tend to make me jealous and consider spiking one of my afternoon work beverages.

Dan is one of the people who has helped the feminist cause the most.

Some fucking people sit around in their little anarcho-hippy love communes and accuse anyone not as militant feminista as they are of being All That is Wrong in the Universe.

If you think Dan Savage is the worst thing to happen to homos and women, I have some redneck neighbours in dirty wife-beaters sitting in pickup trucks that you need to meet.

Dan, you rock! Keep doing exactly what you do!

And I bought from Adam&Eve just because of your podcast, like many MANY other people.