Columns Jan 25, 2012 at 4:00 am

Hopelessly Devoted


@ YOU ;-)~ : Don't think I will stop and be deterred for your ongoing, crafty campaign to sidestep my passionate and perhaps sometimes mortally-embarrassing public displays of romantic and carnal overture to your delicious soul of a person... I must have you: now! How can I sample your tantalizing goodness further? ;-D Playing hard to get, yeah? That ol' standby lol.. Maybe you're a gentleman. So am I. It doesn't mean I still don't wanna do it with you like mad right here like performance art....or something ;-D lol. Rock On & Stay Cool. So, as I was saying.....


Ignore me all ya want: I'm still gonna keep at it ;-D!

This is pretty crazy stuff you guys talk about. The one with MITM made me laugh and Dan's approach to the situation was good.
@Crinoline, who wrote:
I started noticing how often I assumed people didn't know about a problem when the chances were good they didn't know the solution. It applies everywhere, but I especially think of parents and teachers trying to help students in school. I remember being told over and over what awful things would happen if I didn't study more, raise my grades and learn the material. It was all about motivation, little about actual teaching.

Indeed, that's also been my experience. One thing I will be forever thankful for is that my parents didn't care about my school results. If I had had to listen to the kind of tedious explanation about how 'I'd end up mowing lawns or washing dishes for money' if I didn't get good grades, I probably would never have liked studying. (A cousin of mine, naturally quite intelligent and eager to learn, became disgusted with learning just because his mother kept trying to 'motivate' him with such negative images and to control all his study time. A pity -- this treatment dulled his natural curiosity and guaranteed that he would be just a slightly-above-average student.)
Anybody who has participated in the dominant position of doggy-style enough times can attest to that even the most hygiene-conscious partner can accidentally have a shred of TP near their ballon-knot.

But poo? No. No. No!
Sorry so ignorant, but WTF does +~+ mean??? I tried googling it, but there were no results!
Newt is already condoning woman-on-food sex. I mean, look at the man. He's a biscuit.
Unless the boyfriend is stinky and dirty every single time, LW1 could try a positive reinforcement approach rather than negative... Right after a shower, or on an occasion when she notices that things are seeming particularly good down there, she could comment, "wow, I love it so much when you've made such a wonderful effort to be clean and fresh for me! It really turns me on and makes sex so much nicer." Of course, she'd want to reinforce with especial enthusiasm. She could even add a comparison - "I've dated guys who never made that effort, and it's so much nicer to be with someone who does." Trying to maintain an image as the awesome hot guy who is super clean might be more effective and less embarrassing than trying to figure out how to quit being a dirty slob.

As a girl, an early boyfriend did this with me - commented "you're one of the cleanest, tastiest girls i've ever gone down on!" I'll never know if he said that because I had tasted worse at other times, or if it was just an offhand compliment. Before that, I think I was fairly clean, but not particularly meticulous. After, I always wanted to make sure that I was the cleanest and most pleasant.
Newt Gingrich: "Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?"

Bob Dole: "Because it saves them time."
Why is Bob Dole's arm so gimpy-looking?

Because it is.

Pigeon Park: Can you unregister so I can automatically unsee your posts, at least until the spasm of logorrhea passes? Is there a pill you can take?

Prairie-dogging is beyond the pale. That calls for a call to his case-worker. Really. How can you not know you're in mid-shit?

FWIW, this is a problem with women, too. I guess if you don't expect any attention back there, you don't spot-check for daggy bits.

Erm, unless I'm confused, isn't the LW referring to the area surrounding the anus? (Which isn't mucuous membrane)
@113: There's a greasemonkey script for SLOG somewhere. I have it but can't remember where I got it. It's pretty handy in cases like this...
@102: Talk about clearing your cache ...
@117: What version of Firefox are you running? I've got 7.0.1, and after installing I get bupkis. It says it's active, but no list and no pigeon-erasing button.
@107 & 110 -- I just remembered the Charmin Bears "Won't pass inspection" ad -- if they're still running that one, she could say to him when it comes on, "Oh, by the way sweetie....." Hoping the "turtle head" was a hemorrhoid or skin tag of course!

BTW, who's inspecting a bear's ass??!…
LOL, other than the bear's boyfriend I guess.
@ 117: Funny. I think Firefox took a complete shit around version 4, so I'm still back on 3.6. It hasn't been updated since April of last year, so maybe there's a problem with 7?

For anyone else who's looking for it, you can get it here:…
"It" = the greasemonkey script. Damn antecedents...
dan,your answer makes sense.Lots of people don't clean there butts.Mostly men.Women are normally cleaner because they wipe themselves after using the bathroom.I have been with someone who had tissue in their ass.So I politely told them to wash before sex and I led by example.I taught my sons that when using a public bathroom (when possible)wet some paper towels with with soap and use them after wiping your ass.Also never go to bed without cleaning your ass.If everyone used a "White" wash cloth at the end of the day and after showering ,they would be surprised at how much "Brown" surfaces.
98- ankylosaur--Dan's changing attitudes toward compassion don't concern me as much as his attitudes towards using his column for entertainment. Everyone who gives advice in a public forum has one responsibility to the questioner and one to the audience. In a world where ratings matter, it's understandable that the Dr. Phils and Dan Savages of this world will go towards the sensational or the low level that will gain them the larger audience base. Since I wouldn't read this column if I didn't find it entertaining, I get that. (I can't say the same for Dr. Phil. It's so dumbed down that I've gotten bored before watching a show straight through at the gym or car garage waiting room.) On the other hand, I become somewhere between annoyed and outraged when I think Dan is taking advantage of a letter writer in order to amuse his other readers.

And that's what I think happened with MITM. She asked an embarrassing question that was important to her. Dan gave an answer that wasn't in her best interests. Dump him for something that, while disgusting-- I agree with him there--, has a less drastic solution? It strikes me as irresponsible.

Dan has been the woman's advocate in the political arena, but he seems to fall short when advising them in personal relationship matters.
@ 113, aureolaborealis:

"Pigeon Park: Can you unregister so I can automatically unsee your posts, at least until the spasm of logorrhea passes? Is there a pill you can take?"

No, I won't, your dialogue is even less thought-provoking than my own and yes, I can take one of your mother's little yellow pills.

Why so bitchy? Keep scrolling if you don't wanna read me! I barely give a shit about what you write! I only responded 'cos you name-dropped me. Fuck you! I'm in love and you're being a cunt, so I win, and you can fuck off :-) .

Public service announcement: trolls go away faster if ignored than if engaged with. Even happy, perky trolls like me :-)
Inexpensive aftermarket spray bidets can be added to most toilets by home do-it-yourselfers at very modest cost. I don't want this to turn into an ad, but Google "Bio Bidet." Depending on the proximity to a sink, you might even be able to have warm water. It is just as good as a shower, if not better, and much faster. Highly recommended if any kind of butt play, or even proximity, is being contemplated.
PSA addendum: of course it only works if everyone is on board...
@125(Crinoline), I'm a bit more idealistic about Dan. I don't think he's doing it only for the money, or ratings, or internet hits. I think he actually cares, and he's also developing his own pop version of an ethical system for dealing with sex and relationship issues in general. Which is why I am interested in the changes in Dan's attitudes through time: I see the maturing.

I can see Dan's column as entertaining, but I prefer it because it's also thought-provoking.

Which is why I don't think he was playing this letter for entertainment value. Sure, he picked on the LW's wording of the question -- she was already in full OMG mode. But I think that, comparing his answer to other answers to similar situations in the past, it does reflect something about Dan's system -- he's really very much into bodily hygiene, and will do a question every now and then to get the point across (like the occasional anti-pitbull post). And I do notice that he's tuned down his boyish anger and displayed more mature compassion in many a topic, but not in this one. Maybe in the future, though.
@125(Crinoline), just to summarize: which is why I wouldn't call Dan's answer "irresponsible", because I don't think he was just trying to be entertaining (if this had been a real-life consultation -- say, if one of the tech-savy at-risk youth had asked him for advice on that -- I imagine he'd have given the same kind of emotion-laden answer). I find it more "wrong," actually (precisely because of the excessive emotion concerning a situation that is, after all, rather trivial), or "exaggerated" -- it makes me think of highschoolers -- or maybe anti-gay fundies -- thinking about anal sex and going "eeeewww."
Re: RAW's letter.

What's the deal with virginity anyway?

I've assumed that it is for others what it was for me: An experience that loomed large more for its emotional impact than for the physical one (though that was nice too). I could understand someone not wanting to be responsible for trying to stem the tide of such powerful feeling. (I'd have been glad to reassure that I wasn't going to imprint (great expression) as Dan says, but it wouldn't have made any difference.

For me, PIV sex really was a big deal that oral sex wasn't. I considered myself a virgin until full penetration. But in this world of shifting definitions, does that matter? I should think it isn't that big a deal for everyone.

That brings me to RAW's question. He's a virgin. It just hasn't happened yet. I'm not sure I would bring it up except in the most minor of passing conversation.
@ 127, EricaP: I am not a troll, I am minute. Thank you for noting the distinction ;) .
"Did Newt bounce the idea off his devoutly Catholic mistress first? Maybe right after he finished bouncing himself off his devoutly Catholic mistress"

"Did Newt bounce the idea off his devoutly Catholic mistress first? Maybe right after he finished bouncing himself off his devoutly Catholic mistress"

EWWW...images of "shitbuds", "dingleberries", and Newt Gincrich having sex suddenly and rudely branded into my brain! (OK, so it WAS with my consent, since I came here of my own free will.)

Wow, MITM, if he can't take it when you tell him he is SHITTING in your FACE as you give him oral pleasure (or that he might as well be, for all the good his last wipe/shower did), how is he going to take it when you tell him him his breath stinks or he has B.O. or he left the restroom with a trail of t.p. stuck to his shoe or his fly is open or he has a booger hanging out of his nose in public? Or even "hey, you're too drunk to drive, honey."

Don't you want a lover who accepts such "criticisms" (I consider them loving PSA's, myself..."private service announcements"...that I would be pissed as all HELL if MY loved one DIDN'T give ME if I were in a similar situation!) rather than getting all defensive and/or flacid when you point out the obvious-to everyone-but-him?

Yes, he'll be embarrassed, but how much MORE embarrassed will he be if you don't tell him and he finds out later, from you or (worse) someone ELSE that it was something you never alerted him to?

If his dick can't get hard for you after you perform this most loving of acts upon him (the PSA), then he has bigger problems than bowel control and hygiene and you probably don't want to go there.

A while back (don't ask me when) there was a letter similar to BBB's about a craigslist ad and Dan suggested that the finder approach the kinkster and say "Hey, more power to you, but you should know that I could identify you so someone else might be able to too". I think if BBB thinks his relationship with his little bro is solid he should do this. Just tell him that there are some identifying things in his photos and maybe he should drape a sheet over the couch, have a specific bedspread only for the photos, remove all jewelry first.
OK, so now we know all about man ass and dirty little brown helmets wanting to join the fun. I had a girl in my distant past who loved to present their pretty little ass upward for my choice of insertion points. I'll take vag like that anytime. Problem is that when a woman simply wipes her ass after defecation, the streaky left behinds can give a decidedly unsavory aroma when she's opened for pleasure. It's not just a guy thing, that dirty ass hole business. And the stank was enough for me to turn her over and do the missionary thing instead. For a good romp in a thickly, juiced up pussy, I will endure a lot, but draw the line at unpleasant odors that are easily dealt with beforehand.

The simple solution is to wipe your ass after defecation, followed by a TP wash using soapy paper, then a rinse with wet TP and finally a dry wipe. And if you have to use a public toilet, you just need to prep the TP before going to the stall. The bidet idea sounds good, but without a cleansing agent, the shit still is there, it's just wet and smeared. But if used in conjunction with a good soap wash/rinse, the bidet solves the problem of those little snowballs that TP can leave behind.

And you're not safe from it by deciding to simply forget about it and jack off instead. I remember that old 70s bondage porn that sometimes showed fine babes in strict bondage, but they'd be exhibiting snowy white TP buds scattered on otherwise fine ass cracks. Now those photographer's oversights are still out there haunting the stacks of vintage porn collectors' HOM magazines.

When will we ever learn...?
I often wonder why this rag tends to put the GOP in a bad sexual light and the Dem party as somehow holy and devoid of sexual corruption. Now don't get me wrong, Newt is a sexual pig and I still cannot fathom why otherwise good looking chicks would go for a fat old slob like him. Maybe Kissinger was right afterall. BTW, although I haven't seen the video yet, there's an actress playing Callista (love that name BTW) on Youtube who attempts to explain what women see in the bloated Newt. Heard the audio on Seattle FM radio and it was a hoot. "He puts on his size 57 pants one leg at at time, like any other man," she says.

I was as repulsed by Bill Clinton's sexcapades in the oval office. What a fucking distasteful thing to do, getting blown in the same place where greater men than him labored for their country. Hell, he'd probably be the guy having a blow job spew all over his girl's Sunday dress in the choir loft during the sermon. Hillary's looking the other way because she has no self-respect and his power will propel her onto the world stage. And you have Anthony Weiner with his unsavory internet pix sent to a college girl in Bellingham, WA as well as Barney Frank running sex-for-pay out of his apartment. Left, right or indifferent, sexual politics sucks and not in the good way.

Jackasses and elephants, they're all animals to me. Bunch of corrupt pigs across the board. I'm finished with picking a team and rooting for the big win. It's just a shell game and whatever your orientation, you lose.
Ted Rall has an interesting, and forgiving, take on Newt. Probably won't work, but he's clearly a better man, er, person, than I am:…
@139, I think the main point is that Republicans (and conservatives in general) make sexual politics part of their platform, since they are usually for laws that limit sexual behavior and condemn some of its forms. In order to do that, they claim to be defenders of a traditional way of life -- so, when it turns out a Republican who makes such claims was actually not practising what he preaches, this is relevant information. He markets himself as one who is against those who do such things, in order to appeal to those voters who are against such things -- and then he's caught doing them? That is relevant information, since it confirms that he is lying when he says he defends traditional values. Or at least that he has two standards: traditional values for the others, whatever I want for me.

Now, Democrats (or liberals) in general tend to regard one's private life as not important for politics. What Wiener did, for instance, may seem disgusting to you, but he never marketed himself to his voter as someone who would fight against this kind of behavior; so, whatever you think about it, it is not inconsistent, self-contradictory, or hypocritical. The same, mutatis mutandis, with the other examples you mention.

I'll be all in favor of disregarding the sexual politics of Republicans when they stop making the sexual also political.
What if the turtle headed BF is into being a dirty ass mofo? By not calling him on it, you might be encouraging him. He better stop it now, or GTFO.
Dan Savage: an inhuman creature subsisting on a diet of pure pud & santorum. It can be quite the cranky little pooswa if crossed, so steer clear if you should see it. You have been warned.

Another conservative commentator who comes on here to say how repulsive Dan Savage is and how everyone should steer clear. Then comes on again to say how repulsive Dan Savage is. Then a few hours later...
Not sure who you're talking about there James. I posted one time, spoke my mind & that's it. You must be delusional. You've got this lawyer suing two women for "slandering" him on the web, stating it's going to cost him work, & that's okay, but just cause ol Danny boy doesn't like what Santorum said, he has to do what he did to him, but they tell him nothing can be done about it. # one, how is that fair?# 2, doesn't your hero believe in free speech or must he smear people whose opinion differs from his, even when they're mostly correct? He like all the rest of his ilk will answer for all this crap when the time comes; I just wish I could be there to see them squirm, stammer & beg. He won't be able to google bomb God.

Post #1: January 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM

"Not sure who you're talking about there James. I posted one time, spoke my mind & that's it. You must be delusional."

Post #2: January 29, 2012 at 1:48 AM

@141, hey! You know some Latin, wow, I am really impressed. How about this-the left just skewered posse comatatus and our personal freedoms to speak our minds freely without some government hack listening and making book on us for later action. Perhaps a FEMA camp or worse, torture in some foreign military prison, signed into law by Obama and actually pushed by his administration in the first place. Gee, I thought the left was all for personal freedom.

You missed my point by a mile anyway, I say BOTH PARTIES are the scum of the earth. So go sit in front of your TV and watch the debates or whatever and enjoy your popcorn.

"Not sure who you're talking about there James. I posted one time, spoke my mind & that's it."

On his second post.

@146 "doesn't your hero believe in free speech"

Free speech means the government doesn't prevent speech.

Fellow citizens are supposed to talk back to each other.

When someone (Santorum) uses their free speech to spew nasty ideas, those of us who disagree are supposed to use our free speech to argue against the nasty ideas. That's how the system works. (The Nazis get to march in Skokie, and the rest of us get to write editorials about how we hate their ideas and still defend their right to march.)

Redefining Santorum is a legitimate use of Dan's right to speak freely against nasty ideas and make poop jokes.
@46 and @114
You should never use soap on mucous membranes such as the anus and vagina.

BlackRose is quite right. I should have said "ass hygiene" instead of "anal hygiene." However, I'm a firm believer in daily soap for the surrounding area, if not the delicate butt cherry itself.
Erica, while pissed is actually right in acerting that both political parties work in tandem to fuck us. It's like wrestling, they hate eachother for us, have a beer together backstage after the show and the same person cuts both of their cheques.
@153 Yes, both parties work together to fuck us. But one party will appoint supreme court justices who will ban anal sex, contraception, and abortion before moving on to banning Islam. And the other side won't.
@149(ironvic), I speak fluent Latin. Si vis, possumus hanc disquisitionem latine discutere... Sed non credo, ut mecum latine loquari possis. What a pity.

I haven't missed your point, which is just the old cliché "they're all pigs, what's the difference." I've told you what the difference is: some of these pigs base part of their political success in claiming they want to fight the pigs, and yet they are themselves pigs, whereas others don't claim they want to fight pigs. You decided this difference isn't important, but hey, that's you, not me.

I don't like popcorn, but you're free to imagine me eating it if this satisfies some of your urges. Have a good day.
@154, indeed. Since politics is the art of the possible, I've been often left wondering why people will play the division game without realizing what the consequence is for their own goals. Insisting on ideological purity or on rapid change usually gets you quickly out of the game; and yet people will go on insisting that, unless I can vote for a party that is a True Representative of the One True Truth With All The Right Ideas and contains only the crème de la crème of honest sincere politicians.
@ mydriasis: you too must be delusional. Everything I said in my response to James was true. How is that a fail? I must admit adding some things in my response, but my first post was exactly as I stated: one post, one comment,that's it. Learn to read & reason.
@ Erica P: slandering someone with completely false statements, or definitions in this case, isn't free speech. What I did is exactly like what danny did to santorum, only in a far less public way. Turn about is fair play,isn't it? And by the way, dan spews nasty ideas with his very life. If I disagree with someone, I discuss it with them, I don't slander them with complete untruths in a very public forum. That's for the weak of mind & spirit. I only did what I did to make a point,which has been proven. He didn't simply talk back to santorum, he lied about him in a very public way, which I would think would be legally actionabe, but everyone is afraid of insulting the gays. Too much freaking PC in this failing country. If you can't take an insult, which by the way wasn't made directly to him, then grow up & be a man instead of having one.
@158 if I build a bridge or a town dump and name it after you, that's not slander. Assuming I have the authority to name it, then it really has your name, and it's not a lie.

Dan came up with a new definition, and named it in honor of Santorum. It's in online dictionaries, because that's really the new meaning of the word. No lie.

Dan doesn't suggest seriously that Rick Santorum is actually "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." Dan knows Rick is human, and therefore not actually made of santorum. But santorum is made of santorum; that's true by definition.
@158, even though EricaP beat me to it, this bears repeating: this is not slander, this is simply a redefinition. When a scientist's name gets used as a new measuring unit -- pascals, farads, ohms, newtons, etc. -- nobody is suggesting that there is any natural relationship between the person whose name was used and the actual physical quantity it measures.

Creating the word santorum based on Mr Santorum's name is therefore not slander, but a redefinition. In Mr Santorum's case, one that was motivated by his anti-gay record, which is stellar.

From what I can see, if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you don't discuss it with him -- you're certainly not doing it here. You're spewing accusations and outrage; you're not discussing reasons or offering arguments. You're yourself doing what you accuse Dan of doing, and you're using terms and vehemence you would probably object to if they had been used against you, or against Mr Santorum.
My reasoning & argument is that you're all full of shit & "You're yourself doing what you accuse Dan of doing" was exactly my point. Just imagine, honestly, if you're able, how any of you would feel if you googled yourselves & saw such a disgusting "definition", & your family & friends had to see or hear it. Your type probably deals with something of this nature regularly, so you wouldn't care. Calling this a "redefinition" of his name is probably the lamest argument I've ever heard. It's attempted revenge, pure & simple. Any other excuse is pure bullshit. Catch a clue instead of a load.
Look, Rick Santorum decided to build a political career on scapegoating gay Americans. He saw sliming and crapping on a community as a way to make a name for himself. So, Dan Savage has made sure that name will indeed be associated with something slimy and crappy.

Two wrongs may not make a right, but it damn sure makes it even.
@97 Xweatie,

In our (subdivision) of the Protestant branch of Christianity, we:

A).  Recognize the concept of divorce.  As long as the partners won't be committing bigamy, though they may have to do a church mandated pre-marriage counseling course, there are no restrictions to "of age" marriage by the church.

B).  Inferred in the above is recognition of marriages done outside of the church, because they have to be legally terminated after having been initiated somewhere.  Vis a vis the RCC's denial of validity of non-RCC marriages, we just roll our eyes and sigh.  

Because we end up getting a fair number of former RCC followers, we simply accept their (the RCC) indifference towards us, and carry on.  In fact, in the UCC, same sex in-church marriages are performed (by congregation in states where legal).  To our great benefit, because the RCC doesn't accept women as ministers, we get former RCC women that have the calling to serve.  To put it all together, you could have a same sex marriage performed by a pregnant minister as long as those being married are legally permitted.  That is, however, most assuredly not the case for most mainstream Protestant divisions.  The stringency of orthodoxy can be mostly dependent upon the individual minister and congregation.  When I went "church shopping" for our wedding, I encountered the "orthodoxy pledge" mindset, but that was a rare experience.  Even amongst "fire and brimstone" Lutherans, I never encountered that kind of thing (growing up).  And as far as the "woman must obey man as man obeys God" thing, well, everyone has somebody that is a little different in their family tree.

@152 Sea Otter,

What about baby shampoo (for those delicate membranes)?

Personally I never get any irritation from using soap or shampoo when I wash down there. Now cheap toilet paper, or last night's spicy peppers...
@161, that is not your point: that is your mistake (i.e., you're being hypocritical by criticizing in others what you do yourself). How I would feel if I had had such a redefinition? Well, you're doing it to me right now, so there's no need for me to imagine it. It's simple: you're wrong. You have the right to do it, of course -- your opinion, no matter how vile (as O'Reilly would say), is free.

Yeah, that's basically it. I feel that you're wrong in slandering me (us?). But feel free to go on being wrong. As far as I know, it's a lot easier to deal with than cancer.

And at least now, if you want to understand why Dan did it... all you have to do is look at the mirror. You're doing the same -- that means you know why. And if you think you're right in doing it to me (us), well... then maybe he's right in doing it to Mr Santorum. Who knows? Weirder things have happened already.
@51: Apropos of absolutely nothing, James Garner is still alive. James Arness is the one that just died. Agree with the sentiment, though. Nuck Fewt, indeed.
@16: I don't know. Maybe it's just me?
A bit off topic, but I thought Sir Savage and Co. would enjoy today's unfortunate Santorum headline from the St. Louis Dispatch:

Santorum touts jobs plan in front of overflow crowd in St. Charles County…

sorry to comment on something off subject but when i try to send an e-mail it comes back error... On the Jerry Sandusky molestation situation: Since all the experts say that molestation victims in turn molest, it begs the question who molested Jerry Sandusky in the showers when he was ten years old? And could it have been his mentor Joe Paterno and when Joe foresaw the shitstorm that was comming down the pike it literally scared him to death?
@170 -- Full article here:…

Relevant excerpt:

"Sandusky was an only child, raised in one of the most respected families in the town of Washington, a picturesque community of about 13,000 that is within a half-hour's drive of Pittsburgh. Art and Evie Sandusky taught their son to work hard. They often worked two jobs apiece, and they lived in a tiny apartment above the Brownson House, a recreation center that kept kids off the streets and engaged in sports. Art was Brownson House's director, an athletic man who stood about 5-foot-10 and always took time to listen to any problem; Evie worked the concession stands, coached the cheerleaders and put together plays for the children.

That old brick building is sort of a frozen snapshot of Sandusky's childhood. The tiny gym with the wooden floor is still there, and so are many of the fixtures, including a couple of outdated candy machines that crank out selections for 50 cents. In the entryway is a large framed picture of Sandusky's smiling parents. Outside, there's an old field where the children play football and lacrosse and whatever else they want. It's called Art Sandusky Field.

"Art and Evie were great people," said Dan Petrola, who replaced Art as the Brownson House director after Art retired in the mid-1980s. "I mean, he was my mentor. He taught me a lot about running activities and dealing with people. He was genuine. A very caring person. And he was very good at what he did."

Petrola, like most people these days, hesitates to say much about Jerry. He'll say that he used to drop by when he was near the area for recruiting visits and that his parents "thought the world of Jerry." He says, at least twice, that Jerry didn't work with children at the Brownson House."

I don't think Jerry Sandusky knew Joe Paterno till his college years. There's a lot of stuff named "Sandusky" in "Little Worshington." But I hear the town in Ohio is petitioning to change its name to "Cedar Point!"
@161: Normal, I'm with Hunter78 here.
Rick Santorum is NOT a "gift", but a whiny sack of runny bullshit.
And unfortunately, like a toilet with bad plumbing, he's still running.

@169: Thanks for sharing!
@ankylosaur: Oh, so it's slander when I do it, but it's "redefinition of his name" when danny boy does it. I knew the double standard. I just needed it verified by you guys. And by the way, attacking someone just because you disagree with their opinion is childish & wrong no matter how you look at it. Just like kids in the schoolyard; someone calls you a name, & you have to come back at them one better. Pointless, silly & infantile. I would expect no less from your kind. I did what I did simply to make a point. Point made by your own statements. Not just yours, but others as well. And by the way, what santorum said about bestiality & incest was wrong, but his basic feelings about same sex physical relationships are spot on. Not just biblically, but in so many other ways. You guys are sick & you will find out just how sick on judgement day. I know most of you are atheists, or you wouldn't be doing what you are, but believe me, it will come & it won't be pretty. Think of me while you stand before your creator to explain your transgressions.
@Erica P: "Assuming I have the authority to name it, then it really has your name, and it's not a lie." That's just it, he didn't have the authority to rename or redefine his name. He is simply childishly retaliating against someone he disagrees with. If you can't take the heat, get out of the gay kitchen. On a lighter note: How do you get 4 queens to share a barstool? Turn it upside down.
I always likes the funny and sexy blog, I am very enjoy this.

Grow up.
@ You;-)+~+: I love you!
Latin experts, help me with the logical fallacy presented in 170. It's the one that goes:

Since those who were abused grow up to become abusers, if one is an abuser, he must have been abused.

It's a twist on the usual that goes:

Everyone who is an abuser went to elementary school, therefore if you go to elementary school, you'll grow up to be an abuser.

What's the short Latin phrase for it?

(I'm assuming that the "all experts say" part is already called into question.)
I just listened to this week's Savage Love podcast with Ira Glass. Thank you for having him on and combining my two favorite voices in one episode!
@174, one needs authority to name a bridge. One only needs chutzpah and imagination to come up with a new definition.

@178 maybe secundum quid?…

@173, the double standard is yours, since you're the one doing the attacking and slandering here, while at the same time claiming people shouldn't attack and slander others.

It's not surprising, though, that you claim others have double standards while wielding a double standard yourself. That's what double standards are for -- to have the fel eling one is righteous, while allowing oneself the leeway not to be fair, isn't it?

As for gays going to hell... I always wondered: isn't eternal punishment enough? You guys still have to come here and make jokes (the kind of jokes Jesus would love to spread throughout the world, right?), and dispense accusations, throw mud... in other words, you guys still have to do everything to hurt people who you believe are already condemned to eternal damnation. So you think eternal damnation is not enough? Is your faith so weak that you really think you need to do this, instead of letting your god do the work?

Oh wait -- there is an explanation. I think you guys actually get off on doing this. It's a frequent kind of sadism found among religious people: the pleasure of casting stones on others, even others who are already condemned to eternal damnation. The pleasure of being a bully. Again, what you accuse Mr Savage of, eh? The two of you have much more in common than you think...

So you have a fetish for going nyah-nyah-nyah in front of those you think are going to hell, right? But wait -- fetishists all go to hell... Which means...
@Crinoline, I think that would be the informal fallacy called Falacy of Accident:

X = one who went to elementary school
Y = one who is an abuser

(a) All Y's are X's
(b) A is also X
(c) Therefore, A is also Y

(the same structure remains if X = one who was previously abused)

The fallacy being, of course, there the fact that all Y's are X's cannot directly reversed: it does not imply that all X's are Y's, only that the set of Y's is contained within the set of X's.

The Latin name for this falacy is "A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid", or
Dicto Simpliciter" for short.
@ 183: I think the propensity to become an abuser after being abused yourself largely comes down to how strong one's character is to resist passing on abusive behaviors to others..

Some people have endured the most unspeakably-horrible abuse, and fought their ways back to heal themselves while not passing the buck of abuse onto someone else, as it was done to them once..

Abuse of any kind: sexual, physical, emotional, mental... Some never recover from the damage, some spend their whole lives trying to recover..

Who knows WTF happened to Jerry Sandusky where he became such a child sex-predator? Whether he was abused himself or not, he obviously is so fucked in the head that he kept doing that to innocent kids..

Some people can overcome enough, others cannot.
It takes all kinds...
Thanks. I keep thinking (hoping?) that half the blog comments would disappear if kids learned logic and logical fallacy in the public schools. But then I have trouble remembering the details myself. I can generally spot a ridiculous argument and sum up with "do the math."

If every abuser has several victims, and if all victims grow up to become abusers, then the growth of abuse is exponential, and abuse quickly becomes normal.

185-- You're right, and then we've got the next question: Where does strength of character come from, and then we're off and running on the whole of the human condition. Of course we're all influenced by our experiences. Of course we all bring something different to our experiences which changes outcome. This is so ordinary as to be trite. I'm a little curious about the forces that formed Sandusky, but in the long run, he's responsible for his actions.
@183, Crinoline's example fits the definition of the fallacy of accident, and also that of affirming the consequent, depending on whether you see it as a logical claim about propositions (involving specific variables), or as statistical claims about the corresponding domain sets:

P = one is an abuser
Q = one goes to elementary school

If P then Q
Therefore P

Dicto simpliciter:
X = one who went to elementary school
Y = one who is an abuser

(a) All Y's are X's
(b) A is also X
(c) Therefore, A is also Y

These are related fallacies. (Can you by the way think of an example of a dicto simpliciter that couldn't be remodelled as a non-sequitur, or vice-versa? I've tried for some fifteen minutes and couldn't come up with one.)
(Unless, of course, the difference between a dicto simpliciter and a non-sequitur is seen as one of frequency: Y's often are X's, but not always. A definite always would make these fallacies equivalent. Yes, indeed, the difference is then in the temporal quantifier.)
Oh, and as for my "do the math," you wouldn't get an exponential increase in the number of abusers if each abuser was abusing the same several victims. But now, while I'm trying for silly, I'm making myself uncomfortable. I need a better example for making this absurd.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who are guilty of a double standard seem to cry double standard. I simply posted what I did to make a point: that anyone can verbally or physically attack anyone they disagree with. First you say what dan did was "redefining" the name. Then it's slander. Well, which is it? I know what the truth is & that's all that matters to me, but you guys can't seem to keep your story straight. Just can't seem to disagree with someone without lashing out at them. Reeks of insecurity I'd say. I got exactly the response I thought I would. Thank you for being so predictable. Point made. That is all.
@190 lol
Is Newt in an open marriage now?
Amen to the Gingrich "debacle"! It's the whole glass house and stones scenario. Oh and thank you for the "santorum" slang, priceless!

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.