101

Amen. I actually agree with everything you said, and you said it much better than I could.

Maybe I just need to write longer posts...

@ 100 - I'm not reading too much into your posts, I'm answering your words.

I haven't encountered jerks who treated me like crud, I'm answering your words.

I'm not projecting non-existant people's cruelty unto you, I'm answering your words.

Maybe you should think things out a bit more before you write. That would be a good example of self-control.

Fortunate, that's not what he said. That's what he reminded you of.

"I don't feel that non-monogamy is for me and am worried I will have a hard time finding a partner who shares that."

But that's not what he means. The "it" in "How is he supposed to say it?" refers to "How is he supposed to express that non-monogamous relationships strike him as superficial?" He doesn't believe that non-monogamy just wouldn't work for him. He believes that it doesn't work for anyone. "I believe nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" is actually a pretty noninflammatory way of stating that.

Is there any way for someone to say, "I think nonmanogamy is bad/harmful/etc." that wouldn't strike you as inappropriate? I gather you'd rather he didn't believe this, but it seems that he does.

As for whether or not I'm trolling, I've been posting responses to Mr. Savage's columns for years, and debates like this one have been rare. Feel free to look at my posting history.

Ricardo, you've assumed that I'm Judeo-Christian, which I didn't say. You've assumed that I believe self-control is the same as self-repression, which I didn't say. You've assumed that I think that if I don't repress myself I'll be the least moral person in the world, which I didn't say. You've assumed that I'm sexually unsatisfied and don't want anyone else to have fun, which I didn't say. The list goes on. So yes, you ARE reading things into my posts that are not there.

105

He doesn't believe that non-monogamy just wouldn't work for him. He believes that it doesn't work for anyone. "I believe nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" is actually a pretty noninflammatory way of stating that.

What do you mean for the Letter Writer to mean by the word "work" in this context?

@105

Well then he's wrong and naive for thinking that, which is why he's encountering hostility. What works for one person doesn't always work for another. Duh.

>...debates like this one have been rare...

The only "debate" is the one you made up out of thin air. This is Occam's razor shit: kid writes a snooty, uptight and accusatory letter, people get mad and berate him, you show up saying LW is completely right to act that way and doesn't merit the hostility he's getting. Now isn't that kind of silly?

Since you like to look up definitions of words, how about you look up the word "despise" and then comment on his use of it, which till now you have so nimbly avoided doing =)

@105, No, that is what he said. Those were exact quotes copied and pasted from his email to Dan. He said those things. There is really no way to misinterpret them, and everyone other than you seems to have no problem getting what he is saying.

He's being absolutist and judgmental. If that is how he really feels then that is the part he needs to get over. I don't doubt that he is sincere in his beliefs, but that is the part that MOST people are talking about when they suggest he needs to grow up, not his wanting monogamy.

@107 I will clarify. "Debates"/"arguments"/"conversations" like the one in this thread, in which many parties have multiple replies have been rare.

If his letter were snooty and accusatory, then I wouldn't defend him, but it isn't. Regarding "despise," he says, "I despised you ... I have come to respect you." He's saying that he USED to hate Mr. Savage but doesn't any more.

@106, by "work," I meant "to be good for"/"to function"/"to be healthy," etc. Just general stuff. Mudkips used the expression ""I don't feel that non-monogamy is for me," and I meant for "work" to be equivalent to that.

Using that same expression, it would be, "By, 'I believe that all open relationships are superficial,' he's not saying that he thinks nonmonogamy isn't for him. He's saying that he thinks nonmonogamy isn't for anyone."

And yes, I'm interested: Is there a way he could have expressed this belief that would have been less offensive to you than "I believe all nonmonogamous relationships are superficial"?

It seems that this kid's options were 1. say "I believe ... superficial" 2. not talk with Mr. Savage about his issues with nonmonogamy or 3. pretend that he believed something else.

@ 105 - The only thing I did assume was that you were sexually frustrated. Eh, you sound so uptight that a little provocation seems in order!

I did not say that you are judeo-christian, but that you hold judeo-christian values. That is quite obvious from your posts. (Don't you read them before you send them?)

Your equation of self-control with self-repression is also quite obvious from your posts, and so is the disdain you display towards those who show "self-permission" (as if that notion contradicted that of self-control), which explains my comment about your apparent need to repress yourself.

Self-control is not about stopping yourself from doing something, it's about deciding, after analysis, if you should or shouldn't do it. Promiscuity is therefore not synonymous with lack of self-control. You just assume that it is. And that says an awful lot about you, even though you might not be aware of it.

Fortunate, the words "anyone is better than anyone else" and "inferior" do not appear in LW's text. That part is your interpretation. He's not saying that one type of person is better than another. He's saying that monogamous relationships strike him as bad.

Correction to 110 - I meant "apparent need to repress yourself and others."

He said that people in open relationships lack self control. Clearly he thinks he is better than that.

And I think that you meant that he is saying that Non-monogamous relationships strike him as bad. And yes, but that is judgmental and you can't separate out "non-monogamous" relationships and the people in them. If non-monogamous relationships are bad, then the people in them are doing something bad.

It may be interpretation, but it's not the kind of interpretation that needs a Rosetta stone to come to. Pretty much everyone but you has figured it out. You are trying to put so much spin on it that you are going to give yourself whiplash.

Remember, I kind of sympathize with the kid, but there is no doubt he is being pejorative in his remarks about non-monogamous relationships and the people in them. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you. But I have read all your spin and I can't arrive at the same place you apparently have.

110

DRF, is using semantics to bat away a lot of arguments, rather than refuting them. The exact definition of "Promiscuous" does in fact include a lack of controlled decision making.

I totally get that you are using the word to mean "sexually expansive" not "indiscriminate" and your points are clear. But derailing the discussion on to the literal meaning of one word rather than the substance of the sentence is an effective means of avoiding actual discourse. It's just giving him an opening.

In other words, I've decided to stop feeding the erudite and very polite troll. Just a thought.

Oh, and it is possible to make a cogent argument for monogamy as a superior principle, which the Letter Writer didn't even try to do and what my very first post to this conversation asked about.

I don't endorse this column, but I recognize it as a sincere attempt to marshal a coherent argument for the superiority of monogamy, not as an individual choice, but as a moral principle. Something that's been absent from this thread so far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/opinio…

@110 Every assumption in that list came straight from your posts, Ricardo. I did not express any disdain toward self-permission. That is you projecting your assumptions onto me again. What I said was that self-control and self-permission were not the same thing.

Promiscuity is, by definition, indiscriminate sex and therefore indicative of a lack of self control.

If telling you guys that you're wrong to call LW "twerp" and "stupid" is repressing you, then yes, I am trying to repress you. The reaction on this thread to LW's letter has been drastically disproportionate to its content.

Clarification: Ricardo, there is no need to scold me for contradicting your preferred definition of "promiscuous" when it has already been established that we are not using the same one.

@ 116 - I didn't call the LW anything except "young" (you really don't read before you comment, do you?). I just called you out on your equation of promiscuity with lack of self-control.

The definitions of promiscuity and self-control that you use only reveal the judeo-christian prejudices of the lexicographers... and of those who choose to adopt those definitions.

The argument that monogamy is a superior moral position is also based in judeo-christian tripe (certainly not in biology!).

And I believe the barrage of comments against your posts should be enough to indicate that there is something profoundly offensive in them; they positively seethe with contempt. You're just so sure of holding the higher ground that you can't even begin to see that.

Now I'm done answering you. Have a nice, long, prejudiced existence.

Actually I both read and checked, through CTRL-F. The kid gets called "twerp" five times by post fifty-seven.

"Judeo-Christian prejudices of lexographers"? Then write a letter to Webster and Oxford English Dictionary. I'm sure they'll tell you how they research the updates for their entries. It's the language. If you want to make the case that the English LANGUAGE has been influenced by Judeo-Christian values, I'm sure it has, in places, but I wouldn't be able to say whether "promiscuous" itself has.

The idea that monogamy is morally superior comes from the thousands of years in which a woman's reputation for fidelity was the only known paternity test. As to whether it's personally or psychologically superior, I'm holding out for a controlled, multi-decade study with clear operational definitions.

The "barrage" of responses to my comments indicates only that you, ECD and a few other people were interested in responding to what I've said. It got us a close examination of a few relevant words, a link to a somewhat interesting NYTimes Op-Ed, and what I hope were multi-person rereads of the original text in question. Can't say this didn't make anyone think.

I suspect there are more heterosexual 'swinger' couples than gay couples in open relationships.

I also suspect that there are more 'cheating couples' than either monogamous or swinging couples.

Dan, for how many years are you going to use that "40 years old" line? Because it seems that it won't be too long before you have to change it to "50." Just sayin'.

@123 - I would also like to see Dan cop to his real age more frequently. He looks so fantastic for it. But hey, it's his party, he can lie if he wants to.. ;)

Add my voice to the chorus of those thinking the LW is young & judgmental, but eh - he'll figure it out. Dan & Mr. Hooper were both very considerate & eloquent in their responses to him.

This may wind up being who this young man is, for a very long time. Maybe forever. If he finds someone with who shares that view, good for them. Or he may find as he ages, that his views on this..what's the word all the politicians use?..evolve, over the years.

LW, if you have read this far down, know that people can be 100% equally respectful of each other, in love with each other & worthy of each other, whether they are mongamous, mongamish, or open. I'm older than you & have loads of gay guy friends. I'd say about a third of those in couples are monogamous. They're happy.

If people sound mad at your original letter it was because of the strength of the language you used in judging other people's relationships. If monogamy feels like a great fit when you're out there dating - good for you! You were right. But it doesn't mean that the friends you meet along the way who aren't monogamous are doing something wrong. What works for you, works for you; what works for someone else, works for them.

Live & let live..and glad you are out of the closet, now.

"Strength of the language"? I don't know if there was any milder way for him to say what he said. He used "I think," "I feel" and "I believe" statements like crazy. The only less confrontational thing to do would have been for LW to not ask Dan Savage his question at all or pretend that he didn't believe what he believed.

I get that people feel threatened by the fact that this young man holds anti-nonmonogamy views, but it isn't as if he was careless about how he phrased his statements.

@ 125/DRF: Sir or ma'am - where did you come from? You seem to have landed @ Slog to take up the position of contrarian.

Yes - "strength of the language", as in, where the kid starts off by saying after he watched the video about monogamy & open relationships, he "despised" Dan. That's not strong language? 'I disagree with your relationship! Therefore I despise you.' *eyeroll* That's the statement of someone judging others because their choices are not the same as his. Which is funny, because I bet he won't like it when others judge him for being gay.

Other people have cut & pasted his statements already.

I don't feel threatened at all by the young man's statements & opinions. They are his to have, & as I said just above you, he may hold that position as he gets out there into the world, dates & gets older, or he may not. But he's making false equivalence by saying all non-monogamous relationships = sleeping with everything in sight. That ain't necessarily so.

More importantly, losing the judgmental attitude - only THIS way of doing relationships is the RIGHT way - will be important if he wants to have tight friendships. Don't wanna be in something non-monogamous? Then don't be. Duh. But being all high & mighty about the One True Way to do things is an attitude that will be perceived by friends he'll meet along the way & likely won't endear him to them.

He should be true to himself, & chase after the kind of relationship he wants. Just accept that others' path may be equally valid, even though they differ from his own.

Regarding "despised," the LW says that he used to despise Mr. Savage but changed his mind after learning more about him. That's not bad.

Question: Is there anyway that this letter-writer could have indicated that he believed that nonmonogamous relationships are bad/superficial that would not have offended you? WAS there a nicer way to express that belief?

Please note "I believe all nonmonogamous relationships are superficial" and "I don't want a nonmonogamous relationship but support others who do" are not the same belief, and--the relevant part--wouldn't have gotten the same response from Mr. Savage. Because THAT is the point of writing to Mr. Savage. This was an invitation to a discussion, not an attack.

Ms Hopkins - Thank you for bringing up "despise". I started a similar post yesterday but had to kill it halfway through. Can we agree to disagree about his looking fantastic for his age?

Ms F - While I admire the gallantry of your defence, given that the LW says he despised Mr Savage on the basis of having seen all of one video clip, it is a difficult case to make that it is inappropriate to call the LW a twerp, which I am not doing. His coming to respect Mr Savage is a point in his favour, but being willing to despise someone on such a hair-trigger opens him up to a similar response. You might have better luck trying inaccurate.

A few quick takes:

[You seemed to suggest that monogamy was only for heterosexual people.] It takes a bit of a reach to conclude that.

[It rubs me the wrong way because, as a community, gay people are still fighting for our rights.] I can see why Mr Savage and those among his readers who have done far more for The Cause than Johnny-Come-Out-Lately would call this at least very newby.

[Frankly, Dan, it's the acceptance of open relationships in the gay community that makes me not want to connect with the gay community AT ALL.] Who can't visualize him picking up all his marbles and stomping his way home in high dudgeon?

[Because now I have to wonder if my future partner is going to leave me because I don't want to “swing,” or if I will never find a partner because I want a closed relationship.] Now this is the one part of the letter that shows the LW at his best. Here he has a glimmer of what a precious gift monogamy can be to give a partner and be given the same in return. If there had been a lot more from this angle in the letter, I suspect that it might have done a good deal for the overall impression.

[The one thing I never heard you talk about in that video is self control.] And of course that one video constituted Mr Savage's entire body of work?

[I don't see any loyalty in open relationships. Far to often I hear about relationships where one partner wants an open relationship and the other doesn't. What kind of relationship is that?] Weird sentiments to pair; they don't really mesh. The first sentence would have been less judgy phrased as a question, even with "I don't see any" appended. It would at least not predismiss the opinions of those who have seen loyalty in open relationships. As for the second sentence, Mr Savage's being an advocate for closed relationships instead of for open relationships wouldn't do any such couple any more good, would it? It would simply mean that the LW would have an authority on his side to use as a weapon.

The LW seems to think that, if there were no support in the gay community or from Mr Savage for open relationships, his potential future partner who wants an open relationship would just give in and have a (supposedly) closed one. If the LW would be happier that way than just not dating someone who wanted an open relationship, that would not really be a point in his favour. Perhaps he thinks his PFP would be genuinely happier not having any choices or alternatives to examine, or even giving up his own desires as the relationship price of admission. Unfortunately, Mr J is already married.

[I believe that all open relationships are superficial.] Perhaps, as Ms F suggests, there isn't any good way to make that statement without offending people. It's an offence-giving belief, particularly out of the mouth of Johnny-Come-Out-Lately. Had a Gay Elder made such a statement, one might well assume that at least he had some sort of point and a fair amount of anecdata in support.

[I would appreciate a response.] Unlike all those other LWs who are just venting without anything of particular importance to say or ask, I am Oh So Serious and this is Oh So Important.

Mainly, this seems an immature letter, which is fine. I have been monogamous all my life, but, with only this letter upon which to form an opinion, I would lean against wanting my younger self to date the LW. But perhaps he shows better in a different light.

Note LW's use of expressions like "seemed to suggest." He is acknowledging that his conclusion is a bit of a reach. His whole letter is full of language like that: "I believe," "I don't see," "It rubs me the wrong way." This is not a hostile, stupid or twerpish letter. People are taking mild and reasonable language and picturing a "twerp" who "takes his marbles and stomps home." They're projecting a lot of nastiness into this letter that just isn't there.

"I don't see any loyalty" doesn't predismiss the possibility that others have seen loyalty. And the question "Is there any loyalty" doesn't mean the same thing.

"I would appreciate a response." That's just polite. The kid's whole letter is a little formal.

Mr. Vennominon: I think Dan is in great shape. We can agree to disagree if ya like. Your analysis of the LW's words is a lot more patient & thorough than mine. I wish to meet you someday to have tea & little cakes.

Other thoughts, then bedtime!

Kid doesn't sound "nasty" to me, just judgmental & inexperienced.

Also, I don't think promiscuity = lack of self-control. One can be very ethically & carefully sexually active, even if it's with lotsa people.

FWIW, although not a gay guy like the LW, I've had both open, monogamish & monogamous relationships. The ones in which I was most comfortable aren't all one type, but rather were the ones in which my partner & I at the time felt free to talk to each other about wants/needs. Like the LW, when I first started dating I was a 100% monogamy all the way kinda person.

The first time I had an open relationship, I was nervous about it, but it turned out to not be the open-door, my partner being with someone new every weekend, thing, that I thought it might be. It was a once in awhile variable & I look back on it fondly.

YMMV.

@ DRF - you seem very invested in this. You're now reminding me of the letter writer. Monogamy doesn't particularly need defending, y'know. It's still the default relationship setting for most of the country. This one pocket of the 'net questioning that has lots of like-minded souls on it, as there's not greater acceptance of different structures of relationships.

Just like when you were talking about the difference between legal & religious marriage in the other SLLOTD thread, a point has been reached where you wanna just have the last word, like a concern troll. Your repeating things back over & over is broken-record-like. Repetition doesn't make something more true.

I don't consider "kid" nasty either. But "twerp," "I'd like to smack him," and "Oh as soon as he grows out of his stupid little phase he'll be okay" is pretty nasty.

The dictionary definition of promiscuity includes "indiscriminate in choice of sexual partners." So yes, it does mean there's a lack of self-control involved. If you that someone can have many sexual partners without fitting the definition of "promiscuous," then that's a separate issue.

I'm not defending monogamy. I'm defending LW. If he'd written in saying that he was uncomfortable with monogamy and thought all monogamous relationships were restrictive and that he was shy of entering his community because he thought he'd never find the nonmonogamous relationship that he dreamed of, everyone on this thread would have been cheering him on to accept himself for who he was.

If you really thought that continuing to respond on this thread is bad, then you wouldn't still be doing it.

"If you really thought that continuing to respond on this thread is bad, then you wouldn't still be doing it." You sound about 12 years old. OK, you may have the last word. I'll let others engage you, or not.

A Slogger came u p w/ a script for blocking a single user's posts from their view. I think it was because they were annoyed by someone who always posts their blog address in their sig, but it was handy for Loveschild & Seattleblues as well. Anyone know where I can find that script? Don't fancy having every thread turn into semantic battles.

Also, whatever happened to Uriel-238? I miss him.

Ms F - As I stated earlier, the LW himself opened the Nasty Door. As Helen Morgendorffer once said, Judge and be judged.

"Where is loyalty in open relationships?" or "Is there loyalty (because I don't see any)?" strikes me as much more in the spirit you are attributing to him without materially altering the meaning. There are at least as many definite, direct sentences (which lend force to the intepretation that "I don't see any loyalty" carries the unspoken implication, "therefore there isn't any"), some of which reveal offensive beliefs or comprise ridiculous presumptions from a Johnny-Come-Out-Lately. (The latter aren't a question of fault; we all were at one time - perhaps this might be where, if I were in Hostile Mode, I'd have something to say about Unseemly Straightsplaining.) I did not mention this earlier, but I can see how the letter could be interpreted as having a flavour similar to that of respectable, assimilationist, corporate-type gays complaining about how the queens and the freaks in the Pride parades were Ruining Everything! Not a Nice Mindset.

Sorry, but capitalizing the AT ALL is definitely stompy. Were the phrase uncapitalized I'd have been on the fence about it as not really necessary.

And personally I would precede, "I would appreciate a reply," with, "Thank you for your patience and attention," particularly if I were putting it directly after a question that was more snarky than it had to be. It could be a personal style point, but the inaccuracies, false equivalences and presumptions in the letter tend to forfeit the presumption of good will.

I would agree with you that he is *trying* to be reasonable, but he keeps getting in his own way and not making his best case. A good rewrite from someone like Mr Fortunate would have made the letter much more palatable and the LW much more appealing.

Dan finally wrote a reasonable comprehensive response (plus Jeremy's) and then I open the comments and see all of these idiots making fun of the writer and talking down monogamy.

Don't you people see that you are being just as sanctimonious? The writer's point is that for so long Dan has seemed to promote non-monogamy. Between all the monogamish posts to the extended book review regarding man's evolutionary predilections against monogamy.

I can see how confusing to young gay people to hear constantly that marriage equality is the most important thing ever and you may only vote for president based on that issue---while at the same time making fun of anyone who takes marriage vows seriously.

All the writer is asking is that monogamists be as respected for their choice as this column always demands for the non-monogamous. Dan finally stood up and did so eloquently and thoughtfully. Too bad you regular commenters didn't absorb the message.

Ms Goth - Very clever of you. If I were in Quibble Mode, I'd ruminate on the exact nature of taking marriage vows seriously, but then there are a lot of people I'd like the power to kick off Team Monogamy because I like to take pride in my team.

But I am not in Quibble Mode because you have finally assisted something quite different to spring to mind. I now completely understand how Billie Jean King felt right after Margaret Court agreed to what became the Mother's Day Massacre (and indeed, given what has transpired with Mrs Court, it might be much more entertaining to ruminate on whether at some level that match might have been thrown).

I guess Dan gets enough of these emails to feel like he needs to clear this up once and for all.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against monogamy. I have been in monogamous relationships and for me monogamy is on the table. However, so is non-monogamy.
But this "I believe all open relationships are shallow" bullshit is what gets to me. I don't have the reserve that Dan shows here, as my reaction to something like this would be a knee-jerk "oh, fuck you". The idea is that we all have the right to say "this is how I'd like my relationship to be" and then see if we can't find someone with a similar idea that we have chemistry with. I would never look at two people that are happy together and say "you're doing it wrong."

Practically speaking, the problem with non monogamy is that you open the door to comparing your long term partner with your other sexual partners. It's human, because you can't control how you feel, you can only do your best to control your choices (which is hard enough). Also, when allowing sex outside your partnership you have no way of believing that your partner is going to keep your agreement. Sex is a powerful thing--that why so many guys like it so much.

The gay mafia again talks about the hetro world judging yet you do the same thing here. To many cynical sluts that want everyone to see things their way. Gay men don't do monogamy because our cutlure doesn't respect it. I have known some relationships of all types that work well long term but that doesn't change the fact that most of the successful ones are not open relationships. Our culture is over sexualised and I am not going to pretend I don't sleep around. I just don't play pretend I'm about loving relationships if I don't respect my partner enough not to even try to stay monogomous as long as possible. No wonder STI infection rate is higher that the hetro world and all the other problems like mental issues. Really dissapointed how hypocritical many of you who responded are. How dare this young upstart challlenge your ways by suggesting monogomy is better and then daring to say that most gays just want to seek pleasure. Must admit I don't blame those like me who do coz you Gay mafia like it that way and don't want to have your behaviours exposed like if would if gay men aspired to monogomy