Dan Savage Is Coming For—For! Not On!—Your Children!


@104 Ooooo! I can answer! (I have a Masters in Seattleblues) "Because buttsex caused the fall of Rome." Or something...
Ms Canuck - No, no, no, no, PLEASE no!!! Seattleblues is the Zeroest of Kinsey zeroes who ever drew breath. Think of how you would feel if someone else posted that he secretly dreams night after night after hot Italian night of being dominated by you and Ms Kim and Ms Erica and many of the other female luminaries here until he doesn't know which end of himself is up.

We'll take Richard III instead if that makes you feel any better - I always thought a competent cross-examiner could have gotten him off the Princicide charge and everything else crumbles away if that falls.
Oh - and about the straight audience. Have I missed something, and is the whole premise of the program to be that it is designed for an entirely straight audience? In that case, it would depress me too much and I'll pass; it would be just like that fashionable equestrian all over again. Or is there some sort of ridiculous presumption on the part of the other side that nobody with a Kinsey score of 1 or higher watches MTV or attends university?
For all the talk about how monogamy is fine for the few who prefer it, I find that Savage frequently disparages monogamy. I don't understand why that is okay, any more than it is okay for the monogamous to disparage those who make a different choice. Aberrant? Since gays are a smaller percentage of the whole, would it be okay with Dan if we called them aberrant too? I mean, I think that's obviously insulting, so why does he call monogamy "aberrant"? It's also based on a lot of confusion about what biology actually tells us. Anyway, here's another example:

"Only those who are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy degree place a higher value preserving monogamy within a particular marriage over saving that particular marriage itself."
This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what people may value about monogamy. It's not the sex per se; it's the uniqueness of this bond, the special intimacy created, the deep trust based on the assumption that both people have honestly declared that they prefer this arrangement. When that's violated, it's not a problem because the monogamous person is too obsessed with sex!

It amazes me that I have to say this to an audience that seems largely progressive, but could we take difference seriously for a moment and try to have tolerance for the Other? Imagine what it's like: Say you've had a long-term relationship based on a mutual agreement to be non-monogamous. You value the uniqueness of that relationship, not just because you're enjoying the non-monogamous sex, but because of all that you share with your partner. Now, your partner suddenly decides that non-monogamy is no longer okay, and refuses to give you a choice in that matter. Do you feel betrayed or upset? Is your concern primarily based on your unhealthy obsession with sex? I'd say no. It's about the whole relationship, which you cannot separate so neatly from the choices made about sexuality.

Why, then, insist that this is what monogamous people are doing, when they value a certain way of having a relationship with another person? That's how I best experience love, and deep trust, and better understanding of someone. Okay, but it's "aberrant" and based on unhealthy obsession with sex? That's absurd.
vennominon, I most humbly beg your pardon, that comparison, which caused a delay in posting while I manually bleached my brain, is so utterly appalling that I will withdraw my former claim. The thing is, though, I don't really want him in my straight tribe, either...what can we do? (Maybe the invertebrates will have him, they're such small-brained sluts.)

Richard III? Well, if you must, but I'm not forcing you...and how odd that his soliloquy is still lodged in my pea brain from 10th grade drama, derp.
"Why is it that the women who preach the "fidelity above all else" line look like they'd rather suck on a lemon than have sex? And I'm just guessing, but I'd think their own husbands would probably love to follow Dan's example, open-relationship-wise, anyway."

Is this how we're supposed to react to people who take pleasure in different ways from us, who prefer different kinds of relationship from us? Because sometimes I hear guys comment on the ugliness of dykes, and it always struck me as a pretty stupid, offensive way to treat people.
@100: " That he's gay is his business, so long as he doesn't ask me to treat that as my obligation. But you see, he does."

How? Seriously, explain to me exactly how you are being asked to "treat [Dan's homosexuality] as [your] obligation?"

"Having chosen a lifestyle, he won't accept the consequences of the choice, and that honestly offends me."

He won't accept being treated like a second-class citizen. And that offends you? Hm. I'd appreciate your take on the Civil Rights Movement then.

@92, most swingers are white, republican, conservative and middle aged? does that sound like anyone on here? nah.
@ Seattleblues

Could you please outline the 'Morals' that seperate us Humans from the Animals like Dan Savage?
@94: "Being invited to the White House by Obama isn't a complement. It's an insult."
Come at me bro.
Well, Suzy, first off, you make it sound as though people like Maggie Gallagher are just happily living their monogamous lives, and mopping up the tears caused by bad Dan and his naughty band of "monogamish" followers...but that's not the case. Maggie Gallagher and the other sour lemon ladies like her have made it their mission to cause untold harm via their opposition to same-sex marriage, and adoption, and ENDA, etc., etc. Maggie Gallagher doesn't just "prefer a different kind of relationship," as you so sweetly suggest, she is actively hurting people. If someone like Dan, whose family is constantly denigrated by people like Gallagher, who can't marry his "boyfriend in America" because of people like Gallagher, who could, ostensibly, be fired because of people like Gallagher, then I'd say he's entitled to a little hyperbole. But think about this, Suzy: With over 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, maybe it's not as much hyperbole as you'd think.
Since Seattleblues seems to think that the only thing that matters in this world is money, it does my heart a world of good to know that, with this new deal, Dan will be making fabulously more than Seattleblues could ever imagine in his wildest dreams.

Suck it, bitch.
I'm usually willing to let your rants slip by with amusement, Seattleblues. I'm more than happy watch you dig yourself deeper. I find your insistence that you don't talk about your faith amusing. Fact is you've brought it up numerous times, here's a few dates curtesy of my photographic-ish memory (Nov. 27, 2010; January 3, 2011; March 20, 2011). I'm amused when you attempt a moral high ground and ignore your own slips into vulgarity (Nov. 23, 2019; Dec. 14, 2010; Dec. 15, 2010). I find your continued praise of your Italian home, village life, affluent schools a bore, though. I'm more than happy to let you be the poster child for Jesus and his church. So keep up the good work.

Let's get one thing straight you will cease attacking Dan's son. Slog history will easily reveal that Slog was created by Dan, that this his blog. You are attacking his son, by slandering his family and you will stop it. You would not like your own children reading about their family being attacked on your own blog.

I will trust Dan to speak for himself. But make no mistake your continued attacks and slander are evidence of your own poverty. Righteous, moral, and ethical people do not slander people they don't know nor do they have memory laps about their proclamations of faith, etc.

You, of course, may continue with your opinion of Dan. But, those if us here who have socialized with him in person can disagree with you. It is a free country.

Leave the minor child out of your rants. No-one likes a bully, especially one that picks on children.

It appears it is time for more pain medication, so I'm going to return to hibernation as I recover from surgery.

Do us all a favor, please. Bring out the good in yourself and leave Dan's son and his family alone. School yard bullies are more than enough for any child to deal with, and don't be a blog bully.
So what makes these "sour lemon ladies" so sour, other than "fidelity above all else"? Because your first comment makes it sound like their commitment to fidelity is the problem, and not just their damaging actions towards others. If your point is that women who are trying to restrict other people's relationships and harm them are doing bad, then great, I totally agree with you. Though I would still think it wrong to speculate about what their husband actually prefer.

Nevertheless, I value fidelity very highly, and I'm not getting the impression that's okay, especially when you seem to assign significant blame for the 50% marriage rate to this issue. My understanding is that money problems are lot bigger than sex problems in causing divorce, and not all sex problems are fidelity problems.
Yep, Kimmie's right, jackass - family's off limits in any civilized discussion. Attack Dan (or me, if that makes you happy) all you want, but only a piece of shit with no morals attacks someone's family.

Could you tell me how all of these animals behavior is unnatural? And many of these listed are revered in Christianity for being touch by God, such as the Lamb and Dog.


And I love that you learned a slight lesson from me pointing out your bigotry in another thread. April 2, http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
@Suzy, you seem sincere in thinking that Dan disparages monogamy. But most of what he writes, particularly "this aberrant lifestyle choice" and "unhealthy obsession with sex", is satire. You know, like a play on straight haters saying that the "gay lifestyle choice" is aberrant, and caused by an "unhealthy obsession with sex"?

"This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what people may value about monogamy. It's not the sex per se; it's the uniqueness of this bond, the special intimacy created, the deep trust based on the assumption that both people have honestly declared that they prefer this arrangement." So you're saying the best thing about monogamy is....honesty? Isn't that what Dan himself preaches? All he's saying is, monogamy shouldn't come *before* honesty. If you truly take offense to that, you're lying to yourself about why monogamy is so great.

And I think Canuck was just trying to say that you may be taking the tone of Dan (or Slog in general) the wrong way and judging unfairly because it. We're a rowdy, vulgar, sarcastic bunch here, and we like it that way. But really, nobody is attacking you, your lifestyle, or the social acceptance and legal rights accorded to you and that lifestyle. So...just relax, really. And stick around, our brand of humor may grow on you.
@119 "So what makes these "sour lemon ladies" so sour, other than "fidelity above all else

Gallagher has many problems, of which her commitment to fidelity, and the belief that it is the only way to achieve a happy marriage, is one (for that very reason.)

And you need to spend a little more time reading through Dan's archives. He may be exercising a bit of dramatic liberty in this post, but in general, he makes it clear that if both partners favour monogamy and exclusivity, then that's great. The problem is that he gets an awful lot of letters from people who are ending marriages because of an affair 15 years in, rather than acknowledging that 100% monogamy doesn't happen for everyone, no matter how hard they try. He advocates for honesty about that, rather than the "all or nothing" approach.

And okay, I'm going to be a complete catty bitch here and suggest that yes, I truly believe that Maggie Gallagher's husband has thought about having sex with someone else. Sue me.

@Canuck, that's not catty/bitchy, that's just good math.
@SB, You're fending the barbarians from the gates of Western Culture? That's funny. See, a lot of us barbarians are Westerners driven by Western ideas with roots thousands of years deep.

Kind of like how you don't have a monopoly on what it means to be an American, you don't have a monopoly on what constitutes Western Culture. Your understanding of our tradition is highly selective and exclusive, and seems to have hit 1914 and ossified. But have no fear, Western Culture will continue to grow and change, with or without you. Likely without you.

As far as a means of defending your idea of Western Culture from the barbarians, talking trash on Slog with us dogs and gorillas is one of the most ineffective methods conceivable. If anything you provide a handy lathe upon which we can sharpen our rhetorical knives. You're a punching bag, dummy.

I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his boyfriend. Not once. Never. I don't know anything about him except that two men adopted him through no fault of his own. Nor except very rarely in passing have I mentioned Savages boyfriend. You can tell yourselves I did if it makes you happy, but it simply isn't true.

However, words do have meaning. Mr. Savage is not married. The word does not legally apply to him in the United States, the nation in which he lives and whose laws apply to him. It just doesn't. You can wish it did, and work for a time when it will, and I'll respectfully disagree with the wish. I'll respectfully fight the attempt to demean marriage with everything I can muster. But I won't call a thing what it isn't. Mr Savage isn't married, and the relationship between him, his boyfriend and the boy is not what any definition I know calls a family.

And I would imagine you all had the same outrage when Bristol Palin was being run through the media mill, called a slut and so on because her mother ran for president, yes? No? Interesting.

Second, whatever your photographic-ish memory tells you I don't use my faith as a justification for positions. When others bring it up by falsely claiming I am using the Bible as a justification, I respond. When others make claims about Christianity that simply aren't factual, I occasionally respond. I have yet to quote a scripture about homosexuality or taxation or anything else except in such a response. However, Christianity informs a lot of my beliefs, as whatever you were raised believing or not believing informs yours. And?

I admit to slipping into exasperation and even occasional vulgarity. It isn't seemly, it isn't Christian and it isn't very adult. Mea Culpa.

Though it will mean nothing from a stranger, I do wish you the best of luck in your recovery.
"However, Christianity informs a lot of my beliefs, as whatever you were raised believing or not believing informs yours. And?"

No, your neurotic resistance to your own sexual feelings informs your belief, Seattleblues, but you just claim it is "Christianity".

But we see through you. You are not fooling anybody.
Love you Dan, but MTV is big steaming shit-pile, so I won't be watching your show.
@126, Kangaroos are not native to North America. If a Kangaroo enters the US, does it cease to be a kangaroo? Kangaroos are kangaroos in Canada.
e. ebullient...I do like to share my saucer of milk whenever possible... :)

gus! Where are you? Oot and aboot?
Good night, then...zzz.
Hey Kim!! Hope your hot date went okay...thinking of you...
Seattleblues? Your handle gives a bad name to Seattle. And that offends me.

"Dan and Terry and the supremely unfortunate young man they are raising are not a family. Nor is he respected, except by a tiny minority of left wing oddballs."

How many millions of readers does your weekly syndicated column attract, ***blues? When did you come to the party and discover that Dan was influential? Last week?

As for your comment about Dan's family, and my family, and all the many other families out there that don't partake of your crabbed definition of "family," I can only say that I feel sorry for you and your narrowness. I hope you have happiness in your life. I have no idea how you could, with that disease of the heart and brain that you show off here. Pathetic.
Perhaps you should re-read your comment today on another thread today, Seattleblues. Because, you most certainly attacked Dan's son by calling his fathers perverts. And, you attacked their family in January.

I did not say that you used your faith to justify your rants. I only pointed out that you personally announced that you were a devout Protestant Christian (look it up, you said it on January 3). Despite your labeling yourself, you get defensive when others bring it up. What do you expect, you present yourself as some kind of moral authority. You slander people you do not know and attack their families.

I get you don't like the fact that the word marriage has been redefined to include same-sex couples. Take it up with Merriam-Webster, etc., because they have changed the definition. And, no-one has appointed you king. You do not own the word marriage or family.

As to attacking the younger Ms. Palin, you are putting words in my mouth.

Thank you for your kind words towards my recovery. I wish you
success. You are always welcome to your opinion, just leave the child and his family (that includes his fathers) out. Think what you want, but keep it private. You are a better man than that. You love your children, and would not want your son reading someone calling you: mentally ill, deviant, pervert... No-one wants to hear their family slammed, even I don't and I grew up in a physically abusive one. Leave him and his family alone, please.
xo, Canuck. It went well, but I'm not ready to be back here yet. I just felt that I had to say something on DJ's behalf. No child should have to read his family being bullied, his father(s) being called names. And, I'm one who thinks family should be off limit, always. All families, mine, your's, Dan's, Palin's, Seattleblues'....
empty words, SB,empty words. full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. you have changed no minds, nor gained allies. Sloggers, as we have been affectionately dubbed, are a family of sorts, and have been since Slog's beginning. and, like a family, we are fiercely loyal to each other, and an attack on one is an attack on all. so spew all the bile you want, and hurl invective 'til you climax. it matters not to us. we will go on with our lives, loving and laughing, enjoying each other's company (quite a few of us are good pals in real life) toasting our triumphs, celebrating victories, giving out love and compassion in great measure, mourning lives lost, and most of all, LIVING, not merely existing. your vitriol affects us not.

@134 thank god for kim in portland, I say.
"But most of what he writes, particularly "this aberrant lifestyle choice" and "unhealthy obsession with sex", is satire."

That makes sense and could be true, and if so, I missed it. I started reading Savage based on links from Andrew Sullivan, back when "Sex at Dawn" was being debated by various people, and most of what I read from Savage seemed pretty hostile to monogamy. My sense is that he does think it's aberrant, and US culture pressures people, who are mostly non-monogamous, to conform to a false and ill-fitting ideal of monogamy. I don't believe monogamy is as unusual or weird or difficult as he seems to think. I often notice that he says things indicating a basic bias against monogamy or fidelity, and I don't see why that's helpful or necessary. Isn't it about people's personal choice?

"So you're saying the best thing about monogamy is....honesty?"

Honesty is foundational for the good stuff, but the best thing is the special relationship achieved after a long practice of (willing!) monogamy with your partner. I don't take any offense to the idea that honesty should come before monogamy--indeed, that seems essential! However, I read Dan to be saying more than this: that if honesty happens to come after monogamy, as it often does, then the monogamous person is going to have to accept the short end of the deal because, after all, monogamy is the unnatural choice that's being imposed on the more normal person. The assumption seems to be that the monogamous person is restrictive and uptight--by definition, closed to possibilities that most people would want.

"But really, nobody is attacking you, your lifestyle, or the social acceptance and legal rights accorded to you and that lifestyle."
I don't know about that. It seems to be a popular view that faithful monogamy is terribly difficult, somehow contrary to our biology, that people are depriving themselves of something very important if they choose it, and that slip-ups are normal and should be better tolerated. Someone like Douthat (with whom I don't generally agree) who defends monogamy seems like the outlier nowadays, the old fuddy-duddy who needs to get a grip on reality.

As far as legal rights, I don't know of any legal rights I have that a non-monogamous couple wouldn't also have, unless you mean someone who wants to marry a plural group. I also doubt that monogamy enjoys more than a thin veneer of social acceptance. I'm married and people often hit on me or my spouse even though they know we're married. When people cheat, the dishonesty involved causes at least much problem as the violation of social standards favoring monogamy. People don't seem particularly surprised when they hear of someone's partner cheating--again, the underlying assumption seems to be that most people don't really want to be monogamous and have to struggle to do it, so expecting fidelity is just courting trouble. If we took the same approach towards, say, same-sex attraction, it would be completely condescending and offensive.
Seattleblues @ 126:
"I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his boyfriend. Not once. Never."

Wake up, you dunderhead! You just did! In your own post claiming you didn't!
Wow. Just...wow.
You ignorance of your own failings is nothing short of historic! Monumental! Staggering in it's range and pomposity!
You called that young man unfortunate. How 'KIND' of you!
He went from being the child of a young, unwed mother who could probably sustain him to a life with people who cared for him and gave him a gift of travel, experience, food, shelter, and, it seems, endless snowboarding. If that's 'unfortunate', I wonder how many children across the world would give their left arm to be so 'unfortunate'! But I guess it is better to be raised by a straight married couple who beat you regularly and starve you than to be raised by those 'icky' gays!
Let's play a word game!
"I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his 'Jew wife'.
That wouldn't be an attack? Denigrating the relationship they share, and the devotion they have to their child?
That's not an attack?
"I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his mulatto wife."
Wow. Not much different when we change a few words.
You are a pedantic, inveterate liar. While I wish it upon no one, the world will not mourn the passing of your kind from this earth.

As is compulsory for anything even remotely gay related, an asshole christian will leave asshole comments. While doing so, they will claim moral superiority and at the same time be massively hypocritical. Surprise to no one, Seattle Blues.
MirrorMan @101 "A Jew who doesn't tell anyone he is Jewish is no less Jewish."
MirrorMan @138: ""I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his 'Jew wife'. That wouldn't be an attack?"

Are you Jewish? I am, and your examples make for pretty odd reading. I'm not taking offense, yet, but if you keep on using Jew/Jewish as an example of something insulting... I'm going to start taking offense.
Rest up, Kim! Glad it went well, and relieved that you'll be back here soon in fine form.
A part of your post was cut off. You forgot to put the details of what network your show is on, and the title and time.


Also, libido *will* out.
God bless Kim and her wisdom and compassion. Seattleblues, if I thought you capable, I'd direct you to learn from her example. Because, you vicious piece of crap, she is more a Christian than you can ever hope to be, and calling that into question with your snide little "whatever you were raised believing or not believing" comment, considering how knowledgeable she has demonstrated herself to be regarding her faith and the book upon which it is based, shows just how morally bankrupt and mendacious you are. You owe her an apology.
And one more time you horrible, horrible, man:
Every time you attempt to negate DJ's family, every time you refer to him as unfortunate, or the "unluckiest boy in the world", you are being a bully and you are hurting a child. I mean, you live in Seattle, why don't you just go over to his house and spit on him?
I second Kim and 5280.
Shut the fuck up about DJ's family
Oh, and as far as the banality of evil goes? Look in the mirror.
Kim, I hope the morning brings you good drugs, and a yummy breakfast. xoxo
I'm one of those rare people that has only had one partner. We've been together for 14 years. I also happen to be gay. My relationship has outlasted every one of straight friends' marriages. I'm aware it's rare, even among straight people.

I consider it to be as much a matter of chance as choice. Considering the chances of finding a person you're highly compatible when you're limited to maybe 2% of the population to begin with, it's like finding a needle in a haystack. I've placed such a high value on that find, that I feel no need to look for anyone else.

But I get that this is rare...to "hit the jackpot" so to speak so soon out of the gate. I'd never advise someone to stick with someone they're not really compatible with for the sake of maintaining some tradition. People shouldn't make sacrifices that make them miserable. People should make sacrifices when the payoff is bigger than the sacrifice...sacrifices that make them happier than they would be if they didn't sacrifice.
@133. I wish you a speedy recovery and I hope you are going to be around us very soon.
Wait -- Dan's gay?
I never attacked the unfortunate young man adopted by Savage and his boyfriend. Not once. Never. I don't know anything about him except that two men adopted him through no fault of his own. Nor except very rarely in passing have I mentioned Savages boyfriend.

Seattleblues, read what you yourself have written. Maybe you don't think repeatedly calling Dan and Terry's son "unfortunate" is an attack, but you have no evidence to back up your belief that he's "unfortunate".

Is there nothing in your faith that says it's wrong to bear false witness?
Dan only upsets and offends people who need to be upset and offended. I love how some folks who say they hate Dan, cling to every word he says. I've never posted a thing on any of Maggie Gallagher's sites. I don't think I've ever bothered to look at them, yet people who hate Dan spend hours a day obsessing on everything he says.
So why DOESN'T Danny point out that he HAS had sex with women?

Wouldn't that shut Maggie up?
@126: Bristol Palin campaigned for her mother. She put herself into the public sphere, and was soundly called out on her bullshit. I have yet to hear of The Kid stumping for Dan's latest book.
@150: Yeah, but that was OUT OF WEDLOCK.
While Maggie Ghallager has mischaracterized Mr. Savage's views, it is true that he has biases and blind spots. Take the endorsement of Sex at Dawn for an example. If an anti-gay or pro-monogamy book had come out with reasoning that shaky, he would've either ignored it or ripped it a new one, but SaD, however clumsily, supported his preconceptions, so he recommended it.
maggie is just mad because the only thing ppl want her for is to show gross clips of her looking like cathy bates in misery saying the most nonsensical things while the activists on our side get tv shows.Maggie go take out your frustrations on the hostess isle at the supermarket maybe once and while say your husbands name aloud without being afraid someone finds out he's indian
@153: I believe your question is an excellent one, but Seattleblues will never answer it, of it he does it won’t be in good faith. Instead of addressing the likely outcome of Dj’s situation had he not been adopted, Seattleblues will focus on some scenario in which the circumstances leading to his birth would never have occurred had his mother been sufficiently god fearing and/or bootstrappy. This of course would be hypocritical on the part of Seattleblues, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
As far as my personal circumstances go, thank you so much for asking after me! It has indeed been a cluster. Starting Monday they will be tearing out almost the entire ceiling in the entire unit, pulling up the floors in the living room, dining room , and kitchen, as well as pulling out most of the dry wall and the fire place. All my belongings are being packed to go into storage, and I will be staying mostly for the next 6 weeks at least with Boyfriend#2, since Boyfriend#1 lives in Portland, and that’s a bit of a commute. My cat will be staying with my parents. They offered to shelter me as well, but at 48, moving home, much as I love my parents, is something which I am disinclined to do.
All in all, it could be worse, and it will end up costing me some money I’m sure, with one thing and another. But I have wonderful people in my life who will pat my head and say there, there, and make sure I don’t end up living in a cardboard box. And I have Sloggers in my corner to cheer me on!
Lissa, at least your spring cleaning will be taken care of...

Seriously, good luck, unexpected renos are a complete pain, glad you have a spot to hang out!
I remember Lovechild claims of being superior parent without equal, then she let it slip that she would beat her children with a belt. Well it's what the Bible says to do!
Doesn't understand women or know what they're like? Heh.

Am I the only one who noticed that Dan Savage gets exactly this shit from ideological feminists like the Shakesville crowd? He doesn't follow the party line on either extreme (i.e. what people are supposed to accept as Holy Unquestionable Writ, independent of what folks are actually like) and so gets dissed from both sides. They both have an agenda (women are always This and men are always That, with varying Thisses and Thats between 'em) and they both HATE being called on their bullshit more than they hate anything else.
@ 156: His place is on Capitol Hill, a few blocks from the offices of the Stranger, and close to everything I love to do, so the situation has it's upside. As a matter of fact his Girlfriend#2 and I will be attending the Stranger fashion show, Worn Out, together tomorrow evening. I'm stoked!
Here is some more good news. The Arkansas Supreme Court just upheld the rights of same sex couples to adopt children.

@159 BeYOTCH! (Sorry, sorry! That just slipped out before I could stop it...) What I meant was, have fun, mingle, and report back asap!
Why are you folks wasting time with SB? Didn't the "Don't Feed The Troll" memo reach you?

Look, there's nothing wrong with debating somebody who disagrees with you completely, that's fun. There's nothing wrong with teasing somebody who claims to be a moral arbiter and always right; that's often fun. But to actually debate with somebody who's the internet equivalent of the obsessive conspiracy theorist on the subway whose sole response to facts or reason or differing views is to switch to Preprogrammed Answer Number Eight with an audible click behind their way-too-intense unblinking eyes is a collosal waste of time.

You're right, of course, seeker6079...but it's like that bag of M&Ms in the back of the cupboard, sometimes my willpower to resist just isn't strong enough. I guess he's so comprehensively outrageous in his views that it begs a response, but he crosses a line when he starts talking about Dan and Terry's son, and for that reason alone, I think, should be avoided. (I will try to remember this... :)
Glad to read you so soon, Kim. Take good care, I'm thinking about you.
@138 - I do wish it. I wish it very hard.
I'm (jokingly) disappointed in you, Canuck. With our election going on I had hoped that your taste for ceaseless moroninity (new word for today!) was sated. *sigh*
@152, Have you read Sex at Dawn? Its an examination of, among other things, how people remain attached to the institution of marriage and the notion that monogamy is our natural condition even as divorce and infidelity rates are at 50% or more. Its really an attack on cognitive dissonance.
My taste for moroninity (good one!) is rarely sated, seeker6079, humble donut-eating Canadian slut that I am...I do feel guilty, though, for encouraging SB...knowing what a big turn-on these debates are for him...ew, now I need a mental shower and flossing... :)
"humble donut-eating Canadian slut"

I am walking away from this keyboard right now.
I am going to put this on a t-shirt.
I will then wear the t-shirt.
And accurately.

(blows kisses)
Shoot, am I too late on the crazy train to pose more mini-slash?

** **

"I just think," venomslash continued, slowly rocking his hips, "that you would be a lot happier if you came out of the closet."

Seattleblues clutched the pillow tighter. "But I'm no--OH GOD YES! DEEPER! I'm not g--mmmm... gay..."
Pictures, or it didn't happen, seeker6079... xo.
@ Seattleblues:

Barbarians rape and pillage by right of force, because they have no appreciation for autonomy, personal, or property rights.

Social liberals, like Dan Savage, DO respect autonomy and personal rights. (Property rights are not a factor in this discussion.) He can only get people to pass through your "gate" via persuasion, in fact. Rational discourse, emotional appeal, both well-recognized, civilized, non-barbarian tactics. Anyone who joins him does so because they believe that that way of life is better.

Social conservatives, on the other hand, feel that convention or tradition is the best determinant of social relationships. People do freely join them as well.

It's all very civilized, isn't it?

*[I agree with the above poster, that social-liberal culture is just as Western as your version of Western culture. Small changes accumulate over time, and as a result cultures diverge...but are still part of the same root stock, just different traditions thereof.]
I've never bought one of Dan's books. I made it through 10 minutes of exactly one podcast. But I've known the guy for quite a while and usually get a fairly speedy response to e-mails (often with an "xo" at the end).

I can't say I know Dan well, but I think we see eye-to-eye on a fair amount of things. I agree that Dan's advice is more for guys than women, and that sometimes he blows it by a pretty wide margin (canned ham, anyone?). But he's still a good guy, and someone I consider a friend, and at his worst, he's done more to advance an open discussion of sexuality than anyone I know. Nothin' wrong with that.
@ seeker6079, you are right. But that metaphor irks me.

And @ Canuck, Kim in Portland, Gloomy Gus, and jenesasquatch -

As a longtime reader of Savage Love, but infrequent poster, I would like to say that you seem to be awesome people. Hi Gus! Speedy recovery, Kim! All the best to you, jenesasquatch. And Canuck, I imagine you have a veritable aegis of glitter unicorns. :)
@161: A) if I can find my camera, and B) if I can figure out how to get a picture in a comment, I will post a shot of my out fit for this event, and of any Stranger celebs I might meet, just for you!
Now I go to do battle in the swamp that was once my condo. Love ya!
I think that the goal in these exchanges--as is the goal in any political movement--is to win the middle. If we can get everyone to "show up" (that's a whole other bag of worms), then the side that wins and energizes the middle wins the fight.

Dan's followers don't count. Maggie and her followers don't count. Exchanges like this are for everyone else, IMO. Believe it or not, there are some reasonably good hearted people out there who needed to hear Dan explain how he understands women after Maggie "accused the gay guy of not getting women."
I think that the goal in these exchanges--as is the goal in any political movement--is to win the middle. If we can get everyone to "show up" (that's a whole other bag of worms), then the side that wins and energizes the middle wins the fight.

Dan's followers don't count. Maggie and her followers don't count. Exchanges like this are for everyone else, IMO. Believe it or not, there are some reasonably good hearted people out there who needed to hear Dan explain how he understands women after Maggie "accused the gay guy of not getting women."
@175: So what am I feliquid? Chopped liver? I see how you are (sniffles into hanky). But I agree with your assessment of the posters you mentioned whole heartedly. They are all indeed awesome people. Sloggers make me happy!
Canuck @172: Challenge accepted. Send your email to my screen name via gmail and we have a bet.
Glitter unicorns are my life, feliquid... :)

The last time I made a bet, I had to eat the tequila worm...so be kind...okay, email on the way...!
Ms Canuck - I appreciate your problem, and I must say you are an excellent sport. When your brain has been sufficiently bleached, I shall award you a virtual prize - perhaps you like shoes?

I suppose all the teams have enough problematic ones claiming admission without having even more heaped upon us from the others. The other way around is much more enjoyable, discussing which team gets to draft (just off the top of my head) Alexander the Great, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf or Iris Murdoch.
Oh yeah, vennominon, way to salt the entries...of course those people are on your team, sheesh! No fair. But perhaps we could set about designing a sufficiently boring, beige limbo for the undecideds whom neither of us want, like SB and Tom Cruise?

And shoes?! Of course I like shoes!! My biggest superficial regret in life, besides not taking a picture of my ass from when I was 17, is passing up a pair of Betsey Johnson 5" silver glitter ankle strap heels....sigh.
@ Lissa - You are most definitely not chopped liver! You're awesome. And I'm one of those Sloggers cheering you on while you wait for your "new" old apartment.

@ Canuck - I did want a pony when I was little, but that unicorn is way better!

And to all the others I forgot: You're awesome!

To those with whom I disagree, I find our honestly-held differences awesome. There must be other things we could bond over, like the weather or spring crocuses.

Finally, to those trolls out there who only take joy in being disruptive rather than engaging in sincere exploration, you are NOT AWESOME.

Back to work!
Maggie Gallagher has a son named Patrick who is involved in NYC's music theatre community.

I wonder if Maggie is aware of how much harder it is for children with notably anti-gay parents to Come Out?

Does she think she has provided a safe environment for her son, where he knows his mother loves him no matter what? That he'd feel confident in Coming Out to her, knowing that she spends her time and energy toward, and is indeed the very face of, America's current anti-gay movement?

I wonder....
I read this article, somehow linked through "The Frisky." It's not only college students that really really need Dan's help.
Yeah, um, WTF is a "moral imagination"? Things you imagine while you're being especially virtuous? Novel morals that you imagine?
Can Dan and Maggie CO-HOST a program? They could be like Siskel & Ebert, Hannily & Colmes, etc. Wouldn't THAT be fun to watch every week??
This response hits the nail on the head. It bothers me that the right wing has a monopoly on the term "moral" when you could argue that it's just as, if not more "moral" to acknowledge and work with people's inherent failings than it is to hold them to an unattainable standard. If leaders like Ms. Gallagher can't even keep it in their pants, then how do they expect everyone else to follow along?

And what child would rather have divorced parents than parents in a stable relationship who sometimes messed around on the dl? Not that I think kids would want or need to know about what mommy and daddy (or mom and mommy or dad and daddy) get up to in their spare time, but I reckon there are very few kids out there who want split families.

That said, I'm not too bothered by trolls like Seattleblues. What concerns me more is the casual misogyny thrown out in #46: "Dan lays out the rational, fair answer describing what the person should do and how that should be received, and straight men everywhere palm their foreheads because they know how things will *actually* be received. I would say, though, that in that disconnect the problem does not lie in the advice itself."

So the problem, then, is that women are all crazy, irrational bitches?
Ms Canuck - Then let it be a virtual pair of Betsey Johnson 5" silver glitter ankle strap heels.

I am reminded of one of my old jokes, that I was relatively indifferent to footwear but that I did like Shoes. (For anyone who recalls the children's television program ZOOM, a sort of reverse Fannee Doolee.) I'm not sure if I'd want to meet Gary Klebe now, though. It would be sad if he's aged badly.

I suspect you could probably trade Tom Cruise to someone who hadn't been paying much attention for a couple of decades or so...
@191 - I wasn't the poster @46 but I kinda get what he is saying and I don't think its is calling all bitches irrational.

What I think he is saying, and I concur, is that Dan gives great advice that we need to be honest and realistic about monogamous relationships because "libido will have out." And while that makes perfect sense to us, what @46 is saying is that message is often not received well by men's female partners. Even something as relatively harmless as porn consumption or occasional strip club attendance sets some people off the deep end. To paraphrase: "If he is with me he should only want to look at me naked."

If you think we are making up a straw man, click on the link @188 and see the lunacy for yourself.
@191 - I left without giving you props. Your first two paragraphs for the win.
@193 - I'll repeat to you what I said to @46:
Cultural change is slow and hard. Get progressive men to join forces and be honest and above-board about their porn, their masturbation, and, yes, their desire for other women. Push women to understand what (many) men want, just as feminists pushed men to acknowledge what (many) women want. You guys want the world to change for you. Doesn't work that way - ya gotta change it yourself.
I just posted this to facebook awesome!Maggie is such a bigoted fool!!!!!
@193: Thanks for the props! And I do concede that you bring up a good point with regards to porn/masturbation/strip clubs; Dan gets a LOT of letters from insecure wives/girlfriends and their boyfriends about that very topic. However, what bothered me about the comment @46 was that his comment wasn't framed around the great porn debate. He just mentioned "rational, fair" advice in general.

And I do think even bringing up the porn thing is making an unfair generalization. For every lady who feels threatened by porn, there are dozens who realize that dudes watch porn and that's not changing, and even some who watch porn themselves. Yeah, the link at @188 is a little cray, but more than half of the comments are from women who have no problem with strip clubs, and a few even posted about positive experiences they had going to clubs with their manfriends.
fierce!!!!! i'm so sick of this lady... when did she decide what's best for everyone else, when did we vote her as our thought police... enuff maggie, give it a break...
One thing you've got to remember, Dan-and I know you know this--is that this kind of Catholic, this kind of Christian--believes in "fidelity" for the sake of fidelity. They believe that chastity within a marriage is a virtue, and that the unhappiness it causes is a sort of mitzvah to please God. I am almost certain that they actually believe that a sexless marriage that ends in death is a successful and godly marriage.

Not that they actually DO that. Otherwise, their marriages would end in death a little more often (death by natural causes).

There is value, for so many people in our culture, in suffering. Righteousness. I think partly it's for the giant eternal orgasm they're supposed to get after their pretend deprivations on earth. I may believe them some day, if they weren't so fat.
Dan, did you ever think of doing a book about your sexual ethics? I mean, a huge amount of people already agree that you give awesome sexual education -- via podcasts, columns, and personal talks -- but have you considered a textbook format?

For example, I often recommend you to people, and to do that I had to compile a list of your YouTube videos, which was not easy to do. It would be much easier if I could just point them to a book.
Gluttony Gallagher makes the hysterical claim on her NOM (National Organization for Morons) site that Dan Savage is obsessed with her when CLEARLY she follows EVERY word Dan utters.
Who's obsessed with who?!
Oh. My. God. Dan! Have you read this article on Maggie Gallagher?

About halfway down, in reference to the elder of her two sons:
"Patrick, now 31, a New York University graduate and aspiring musical-theater librettist, would not be interviewed."

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this... might Maggie's son be a closet case? Not all theater people are fags, but the numbers are so much higher than the general populace. More research is in order...

Ah, from this article:

"Patrick is now a young adult, writing musicals in New York City. He identifies as straight, and given his chosen occupation, he spends a great deal of time with LGBT people. We offered Patrick the opportunity to tell his side of things, but given the obvious personal conflict he feels about the situation, he declined. Though Patrick doesn’t want to comment directly, it has become clear that his views differ from his mother’s. According to Patrick, Maggie has been very supportive of his career and has not obstructed her son’s goals and dreams – like a mother should. One thing Patrick did say, which I don’t think he’d mind sharing is “Maybe one day I’ll write a hell of a musical about this.” Patrick’s a good guy who doesn’t deserve to be in the middle of this – but we feel that his and Maggie’s story is an important one that demonstrates the strength of a “non-traditional” family."

I don't recall seeing you mention this before, perhaps it warrants a little something.