I am writing to thank you. I remember reading your definition of “santorum”—”the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”—when it first appeared. I remember thinking it was a cute way to make fun of a dickhead politician. I never thought it would go this far. But after Iowa, Rick Santorum is in the spotlight again. And so is that frothy mixture. And that’s fucking awesome.
Jeff In Wisconsin
Don’t thank me, JIW. Thank Rick Santorum for making his bigotry crystal clear in a 2003 interview with the Associated Press. Santorum equated consensual gay sex with child rape and dog fucking, he stated that birth control should be illegal, he argued that states should be able to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people—gay and straight—for private, consensual sex acts.
Thank the Savage Love reader who, after reading that interview, urged me to invite my readers to submit new definitions for Santorum’s last name. And thank the Savage Love readers who—in their wisdom—selected “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex” from a crowded field of equally repulsive candidates.
I did my part: I counted the ballots, I created a website (www.spreadingsantorum.com) that eight years later remains the number one return when you google “Santorum.” But, again, if it weren’t for my creative, kinky, and hilarious readers, JIW, an otherwise distressing news cycle—a ranting, raving, washed-up religious bigot tied for first place in the Iowa caucuses?!?—would not have been leavened by such unintentionally hilarious headlines as “Santorum Surges from Behind,” “Santorum Runs Hard,” and “Romney Squeezes Out Santorum.”
Dan Savage is one sick, pathetic excuse for a human being. Truly a sad piece of sh*t. Especially trying to “insert himself”—pun intended—into the GOP presidential race.
Savage Isn’t Completely Kind
We redefined “santorum” back in 2003, SICK, long before Santorum was running for president. So it would be more accurate to say that the GOP presidential race has inserted itself into me, not the other way around. And, gosh, I hope there isn’t any santorum on the GOP presidential race when it pulls out of me—that would be so embarrassing!
Also embarrassing: Elise Foley’s gushing profile of Elizabeth Santorum, Rick’s adult daughter, that appeared on the Huffington Post before the Iowa caucuses.
“It is tough [being] a young surrogate for a candidate/father clinging to an older worldview,” Foley writes. “Her father’s stance on same-sex marriage and gay rights, in particular, has caused some friction from non-supporters. ‘It’s a policy thing,’ [Elizabeth Santorum] said of gay marriage… Opposed to same-sex marriage herself, Elizabeth said she has gay friends who support her father’s candidacy based on his economic and family platforms.”
Yeah, it’s tough out there for a ‘phobe—and it’s getting tougher all the time. Rick Santorum was nearly booed off a stage in New Hampshire last week after he insisted that legalizing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamous marriage. (The same argument was made against legalizing interracial marriage—and here we are, 44 years after the Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional, and Tiger Woods can marry only one busted Olive Garden hostess at a time.)
You know what else is tough? Gay widowers losing their homes after the deaths of their spouses because they don’t qualify for the same Social Security benefits as all other married couples. Also tough: seeing your wife deported because the federal government doesn’t recognize your marriage.
But, hey, Elizabeth Santorum isn’t a bigot—she can’t be! She has gay friends! And her gay friends support her dad!
Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his having equated consensual gay sex to child rape and dog fucking? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his opposition to gay marriage and any other legal framework—civil unions, domestic partnerships—that might provide legal protections for same-sex couples? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his promises to write anti-gay bigotry into the US Constitution, forcibly divorce all legally married same-sex couples in the United States, reinstate DADT, and ban adoptions by same-sex couples?
Who are these faggots?
To Ms. Foley and all the other political reporters out there: When someone like Elizabeth Santorum tells you that she has gay friends and her gay friends support her dad based on his “family platforms”—gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have families—your subject is making an astonishing claim. Your immediate response should be a demand for the names and phone numbers of these gay friends. Offer to quote these gay friends anonymously, to protect their privacy/stupidity, but tell the homophobe that you will need to verify the existence of her gay friends because you’re a journalist, not a stenographer. You’ll either catch the homophobe in a very revealing lie—what does it tell us about this moment in the struggle for LBGT equality that even bigots like Rick and Elizabeth Santorum perceive a political risk in being perceived as homophobic?—or land a fascinating interview with a crazy-ass faggot.
I’ve been a loyal reader for half my life. Today, a friend and I got into a debate about you. My friend says your campaign to redefine “santorum” flies in the face of your anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign. Would you please address this issue?
Google Problems
First, GP, the campaign is over: Santorum has been redefined.
Second, taking the piss out of a middle-aged bigot who has repeatedly and viciously attacked a tiny minority for personal and political gain—a man surrounded by people who support him personally, politically, and financially—is not the moral equivalent of beating the shit out of a vulnerable and isolated 13-year-old queer kid in rural Texas who is a member of the tiny minority that this powerful bigot has repeatedly and viciously attacked.
Third, circling back to Elizabeth Santorum’s blowjob on HuffPo: “[Elizabeth] is aware of her father’s so-called ‘Google problem,’ part of a campaign by columnist Dan Savage… ‘That just makes me sad. It’s disappointing that people can be that mean,’ she said.”
I’m sorry for giving you a sad, Elizabeth. You know what gave me a sad? Reading about Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond. The women, together 18 years, were vacationing in Florida in 2007 with three of their four children when Pond suffered an aneurysm. Langbehn and the children were barred from Pond’s room when they arrived at the hospital. A social worker informed Langbehn—who was distraught—that she wouldn’t be able to see her wife because they were in an “anti-gay city and state.”
Lisa Pond was not a “policy thing,” Elizabeth. She was a human being. And her wife and children were prevented from saying good-bye to her because people who agree with you and your father—people who doubtless felt empowered to act on their bigotry thanks to high-profile bigots like you and your father—persecuted them as Pond lay dying.
By being so mean as to oppose legal protections for gay and lesbian families, Elizabeth, you and your father are trying to make sure that other families headed by same-sex couples will suffer as Langbehn, Pond, and their children were made to suffer.
It is disappointing how mean some people can be, Elizabeth, it really is.
Time to follow through on your threat to redefine “rick,” Dan.
Matt Via Twitter
Already done: To “rick” is to remove something with your tongue—the “r” from “remove,” the “ick” from “lick”—which makes “rick santorum” the most disgusting two-word sentence in the English language after “vote Republican.”
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.
@fakedansavage on Twitter
I understand that in New Hampshire, Willard Romney is licking Santorum.
Very well said Dan.
As I type this, I see that Santorum is a distant 5th in New Hampshire and falling like a rock.
If I called you a “faggot”, or “pillow biter”, or “cum dumpster” would that be o.k? How come when you defend any criticisms, you start by calling names and trying to belittle people that have different views than your own. It’s rather ironic that gay people always complain and try to hurt straight people who have different views from them, but want laws made to protect them if a straight person says something that offends them. Typical “Libtard” hypocrisy. If you were really a person who didn’t discriminate, you wouldn’t label any person. Not gay, straight, African American, Native American, etc.
Dan, I second the first letter. Spreadingsantorum.com has made this primary season amusing and nauseating, instead of just the latter. I hope Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have thanked you as well, because they are certainly doing their part to help with project “Google Santorum.”
If I called you a “faggot”, or “pillow biter”, or “cum dumpster” would that be o.k? How come when you defend any criticisms, you start by calling names and trying to belittle people that have different views than your own. It’s rather ironic that gay people always complain and try to hurt straight people who have different views from them, but want laws made to protect them if a straight person says something that offends them. Typical “Libtard” hypocrisy. If you were really a person who didn’t discriminate, you wouldn’t label any person. Not gay, straight, African American, Native American, etc.
I’m interested in the definition of bullying. Especially, I’ve been interested in the way some people glommed on to the idea that bullying was any time anyone did something that they didn’t like to them personally. So a bunch of cliquish girls saying mean things about each other became bullying. I asked a school counselor about it. She said that the thing that distinguishes real bullying from any name calling is the power differential. 10 kids against one is bullying. One big kid beating up a little kid is bullying. Teachers choosing favorites and ostracizing others is bullying. In other words, it would be thrilling to think of the spreading santorum campaign as bullying. It would mean power has finally gotten where it belongs.
You missed day one of history class. Savage wanted to call the column “Hey, Faggot” but the editors nixed the idea. (Though they did allow letters to be addressed that way initially.)
“Sticks and stones…”
@3, 5: There’s a substantive difference here that you are missing. Being gay, straight, Native, black, whatever–those are states of being, inherent to the person. Beliefs are not, and if they are ridiculous beliefs then they are subject to ridicule.
As to your false statements of fact, well, I’ll leave you to figure out what they are.
I was eating when I read that last line…
My staunchly republican husband (small r, I’m slowly getting the repub stick out of his ass) giggles everytime he hears the word santorum (small s, because that fuckwad doesn’t deserve capitalization). Who exactly came up with the whole frothy definition? Wiki says it was the winner in a contest, but that was before I started reading Dan.
“rick santorum”
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
So, we’ll put you down as “undecided”, Dan? 😉
Seriously though, I was interested to see your reaction, and you did not disappoint. Well done!
@3 and 5: Tone argument. You lose.
Beautiful column. Vote away the scum! Obama 2012.
The new/ old definition of “Rick Santorum” has completely blown my mind..I’m giggling like a 12 year old boy before puberty. Well said Dan. Nothing justifies hate that drives 13 year old children to commit suicide. Also, no one is justified in a belief that teaches 13 year old children to deal out that kind of hate and cruelty.
Fuck haters – I heart Dan Savage.
Johnny D.
I would say that Santorum sucks santorum, but that’s probably a legitimate fetish, and he doesn’t deserve to be associated with the word “legitimate”.
I would really, really like to hear from these alleged “gay friends” who support Mr. Frothy Mixture. Srsly, I want to understand what would make anybody queer even think about supporting him. Unless, of course, they don’t exist…….
@3, 5 – are you actually complaining about name-calling while employing a form of ‘tard’ in your argument? EPIC FAIL. Also, go back to compassion school and see if you can discover why you flunked out. Bigotry ≠ ‘views’, you douchecanoe.
Column made of win (not a given) Dan. Well done.
Santorum is still railing against contraception and all the other stupid shit he opposes. I wish I could tell him that if he took my IUD while I was sleeping, I’d probably (1) Have a lot more anal sex with my husband and (2) Bang a lot more lesbians in order to avoid becoming pregnant. Santorum backfires. A pun in and of itself.
I’ve read the articles about Santorum’s 2003 speech a few times now, and while it does contain repulsive anti-gay and other extreme views, didn’t he literally say “it’s NOT like man-on-dog,” etc. (caps mine)?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that son of a gun and his mind-bogglingly extreme views has been made into a joke that damages his chances of gaining a position that will give him a chance to act on them, but “not” is a pretty relevant word.
I think Dan Savage is a great human being. Long may he reign.
DRF: I was confused about that too at first. But upon a second reading, it became clear to me that he was saying “[the definition of marriage] is not, you know, man-on-child, man-on-dog”. So he was likening gay marriage to man/child or man/dog by basically meaning “if marriage isn’t man-on-child or man-on-dog, why should it be man-on-man?”
@20:
You know when homophobic politicians come out as flaming faggots?
Rick Santorum has a different problem. He hates sex. Probably because he *wants* to have all the fun the rest of us are having with our filthy, depraved sex lives, like oral and anal and lesbian sex, but his mind was so fucked up by his religion that he believes that the only way to make his desires go away is by making sure *other* people can’t have them. Just like the closet cases who become homophobic senators trying to outlaw the gay. Which is why if elected President, he will legislate against oral and anal and lesbian sex, and empower the police to peek through your bedroom window to make sure you’re not having any of it. Because he also thinks you have no right to *privacy*.
So while you think Santorum backfires, you just fail to understand the *scope* of the problem he will become for you. Sorry, he’s *also* coming for your condoms and your IUDs and your alternatives to vaginal sex which also include gay nightclubs.
@ 21: No. He says marriage is not like man-on-dog, just like it’s not like homosexuality:
The “it” is marriage, not homosexuality. He’s quite clear that he’s not “picking on homosexuality”, he could just as easily have used bestiality as an example, it would be the same thing. According to him.
@6 Crinoline: Interesting points.
@7: Actually, Dan’s editor wanted to name the column “My Gay Friend”, but cringed on “Hey, Faggot” as the title. Instead, it was agreed that “Hey, Faggot” was okay as a greeting for Dan’s column and thus, the title Savage Love was born.
@14 spoon: I second that!!!
Dan–I’ve got one—now that he’s falling fast, and his shit has nowhere else to go, how about Santorum Runoff? Trickle Down Santorum?
Bless you, Dan, fellow readers, and bravo!!
@ 24: I think you misjudge 20. She’s saying his effort to stop her from using birth control, if successful, would just encourage her to indulge in anal sex and homosexuality. I think she fully understands what a shitstain he is, she’s just keeping her tongue in her cheek instead of his ass.
How do I change my setting to read Unregistered Comments? I know some of you Tech Savvy folk can help me…
Before Iowa and post Rupert Murdoch starting a Twitter account so he could endorse Santorum, I related the Google Problem story to all my friends and urged them to google Santorum…
@28 at the bottom of Dan’s response, right above the first comment, there are a few option buttons, asking you to choose if you want to view registered posters, unregistered posters, and whether you want oldest or newest posts first.
As of tonight he’s a distant fourth, so perhaps he and his Google problem can go the way of all santorum…
Ah Ricky!
He’s just a treasure trove of dumbassedness. Whether it’s marriage leading to dog orgies with 4 or 5 people, or going to college being “elitist snobbery”.
Man, I really wish they’d plop me in front of a camera with a question. Because, this whole issue of biblical homosexuality thing is mostly because it’s adultery. Along with any sex outside of marriage, and even thinking about having sex with someone you’re not married to. (That’s a bit more hardcore).
I just want to see him try and answer a question about how he’s going to stop heterosexual adultery as President.
One of my big problems with His Frothiness is his assertion that we have no inherent right to privacy. If that’s the case then what Dan has been saying for a long time – that Sanny, and his right-wing friends, are coming for all birth control and non-procreative or missionary style heterosexual sex. The idea of somebody being able to come into my bedroom and arrest me and my partner just because we aren’t “doing it properly” is the very antithesis of what the USA is supposed to embody – freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Oh, yeah, Frothy doesn’t believe in the pursuit of happiness either.
I also find his hypocracy to be beyond the pale. He talks about how states should have the right to criminalize contraception, homosexual behavior, and all abortions. (He would criminalize the very procedure that saved his wife’s life when she was carrying a non-viable fetus, which is a whole additional level of hypocracy.) Then, in the next breath he will also talk about how the states shouldn’t have the right to legalize same-sex marriage, if that is their wish. So which is it, Sanny? If the states have the right to make laws regarding the legality of such things as contraception and abortion, why can’t they make laws legalizing same-sex marriage? Or is he only for states’ rights if they are legistating in the direction that he believes is “best for our society”?
I can understand the argument that civil discourse would be better. Indeed it would. It would be much better if people had civil discussions about who is right and who is wrong, without redefining names and without making factually wrong comparisons between gay sex, bestiality, and pedophilia.
Santorum could try to defend his argument by appealing to the bible and claiming it’s the authority he respects. If the bible says these thigns are the same, so will he. Then the argument would be about whether or not you should always follow the bible. And so on and so forth.
And this could in principle be done in a civil manner. But given the emotions that power the various worldviews here, especially in America… It seems pretty damn naive to expect that people will always be civil in their public debates.
That is indeed a pity. But unless those who criticize Dan’s vehemence can tell me that they criticize also the vehemence of right-wing people (Glenn Beck? Hannity?), and what they’re doing to change that — I have to say it is similarly hypocritical to condemn things only when they come from the people you already oppose.
Changing the mud-slinging habits of American politics starts at home. If you say to your enemy “you stop first”, you’re just playing the same game again, no change.
I’m in Australia and heard Mr Santorum mentioned on the news the other night. My first thought was “you can’t say that word on television !”
I’m with 34. I thought, if I’m finally hearing Santorum’s name on the Australian news, it’s time for another wave of the frothy mix campaign…
When a kid getting bullied wins the fight, it doesn’t make that kid also a bully. Santorum started a fight with gay people and it ended with ruining his name.
Making fun of a politician who has the power to hurt/destroy human lives in order to call attention to his depraved beliefs/policies is not mean. It’s called grassroots politics in action. Duh. Maybe more people should have made fun of Adolf Hitler before he took total power.
Santorum and his ilk are so horrible that I don’t like to waste thought on him. I am interested in exploring where ideas like his come from. I’m interested in why people, now and historically, agree with him. We’ve talked about love and attraction. We’ve talked about reasons, evolutionary and other, straight people cheat in marriages. We’ve talked about genetic and/or societal influence on homosexuality. Yet a tendency towards persecution of homosexuality is something to be condemned, not questioned.
You’d think, on the surface, that if your brother, friend, neighbor, or son said that he wanted to have sex with boys, people would shrug and say whatever. From an evolutionary point, they’d say “more females for me.” But instead, going back to Biblical times and in many cultures, there’s hatred to the point of hunting people down and killing them. Why? I’m not satisfied with the idea, possibly meant to insult, that it’s just an aberration. It’s too widespread. You could almost call it natural. Why?
Dan, on the issue of Santorum, you are right, your naysayers are wrong.
End of story, the only people that back Santorum are not deserving of the title human.
That “Santorum Surges from Behind” headline came from the Philadelphia Daily News, and I can guarantee there was nothing *unintentional* about that hilarity. Those editors put a lot of thought into their clever headlines. There’s no way that wasn’t on purpose (along with numerous other Santorum headlines that have been coming out lately). Stewart and Colbert may be more overt, but a lot mainstream media types are trying to subtly have a laugh on this one too.
I am impressed that Mr Savage managed a double shot at both Mr Woods and Ms Nordegren at the same time. Or was it intended only as a shot against him? As she wasn’t an Olive Garden hostess, it’s not clear.
Well, that explains why most santorum froths at the ass but Rick Santorum froths at the mouth.
I just want to say thanks from a longtime straight reader from Pennsylvania. Rick Santorum is a national disgrace, but a particular embarrassment to those of us from PA. Thank you for doing all that you do to show that embarrassment for what it truly is: an idiocy far too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Let’s hope NH has spelled the end of this particular episode of political farce.
In my opinion, Rick Santorum, like most of the catholic clergy he parrots, is a self-loathing latent homosexual. I just don’t feel any threat to my male heterosexuality by gay people marrying or sharing full rights in society. It doesn’t make me think after years of being attracted to women, “hey, I think I need to start switching off.” And I don’t believe that gay men are going to suddenly start being attracted to women by denigration, obnoxious laws, or criminalizing their behavior. But self-loathing gays are terrified, because they need the world to hate gays to resist their own temptation to be who they really are. Rick Santorum tries way too hard to follow the company (conservative catholic) line.
Hi Dan, as a Dutch fan of your blog I enjoy every minute of the republican presidential-candidate election covering on our Dutch news channels.
We are aware of the surprising rise of (yuk) Rick Santorum, and many Dutch people start googling him to find out who he is (just like all the other republican candidates). With younger people here, Santorum’s (yuk) google problem has been known for some time, now the general public gets a taste of it (unintentional pun); only the fourth hit on google has information on the bigoted politican. The rest refers to (the origins of) the word Santorum as we all love and cherish it. Perhaps you already know this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comment…
Or better, the comments on this post. I didn’t post it, but I sure hope it helped with the google results!
All the best with your Savage Love!
Hm…it doesnot show the link properly: here again (it’s a post about Santorum having said that “Nobody has ever died because they didn’t have healthcare”
.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/o3cc7/santorum_no_one_has_ever_died_because_they_didnt/
FWIW, if frothyman gets less than 10% of the vote in NH, then he (and Gingrich and Perry) wasted capital in getting no delegates. Nothing will flush him faster than running out of money 🙂
So, if you really want one of his sweater vests, wait till he officially drops out before ordering one (they may discount it then too).
Peace.
I love the Joe Newton illustration this week!
I was so happy to see that Santorum came in just ahead of Perry at the bottom of the results in my town in New Hampshire. Also of note, this year no one was out holding signs as they always have in other years. I’m hopeful that the enthusiasm gap is the reason.
By the way, I’m pleased that the definition of “rick” is now established. Perhaps then the collateral damage to other people named santorum can be a little less?
Aaagh! Say it ain’t so! I just googled Santorum to help keep Spreading Santorum at the top, and found it had moved down to fifth place. Dan – please put out the word that we need a massive surge of hits to restore Spreading Santorum to its rightful number-one spot.