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
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli…
Dan Savage, dont get mad, get even~!!!
“Mr. Dan Savage, please do to the name Harper what you did to the name Santorum.”
AS A CANADIAN, please, Please do this!!
1. As a Canadian, I’m disgusted. I can’t even describe how sad I was when I saw that Harper won a majority (and how angry I was at Mr Ig for starting that whole clusterfuck and giving Harper a majority)
2. Slightly indignant, I mean come on Dan. You’re actually complaining because our goverment isn’t good enough to balance out how shitty your government is? Become a citizen here and you’ll be married again – voila.
Long story short, as shitty as Harper is, our goverment is still more gay friendly than yours. NEVA4GET
I didn’t know there was a ‘frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex’ after the act…That’s really gross and it makes the idea of anal sex even more disgusting. Thanks for reaffirming my initial cognitions regarding butt sex.
@54 & @56: Or how about Santorum Wiped By Mitt; Perry Err Lands on Bottom, Ends on a Sour Newt.
Film Update at 11!
@155, Not to worry, sex is only gross and dirty if you’re doing it right.
Otherwise, all bodily fluids ejected after the period of friction will be safely collected in sanitized jars and disposed of by robots. No muss, no fuss.
@156 EricaP: Okay. What are your suggestions for getting gross and dirty for the single women over age 45 who don’t have husbands / boyfriends / fuck buddies? I’m not comfortable with randomly throwing myself on somebody, though. I doubt that I’d do well in LTRs, either. I’m not hurting; it’s just that I enjoy being independent. Should I just get a dildo?
Over ten years, I have done some major healing, however. I’ve let go of a lot of things, forgiven those who have once hurt me, am still forgiving myself, and have moved on. My biggest challenge still is fully letting go of being made to believe that I am repulsively ugly, unloved, unwanted, and undesirable (picture having an older sister who was perfect little Miss Prom Queen / Martha Stewart/ Queen Elizabeth III and demanded all the attention; so sweet and good to her “adoring public” while being secretly vicious to you, the kid sister, and an annoyingly condescending oldest sister of 10 1/2 years seniority who keeps trying to sit on you like a mother hen. It was like a page right out of Cinderella).
So, for obvious reasons, I don’t rush out to go visit my sisters. I don’t want a truck to run over them, but I have had to establish boundaries.
I’ve also learned to accept that it’s okay to NOT be close to siblings.
Life goes on.
Shit—sometimes all I want is just to be held.
@150(Hunter), I don’t disagree with you, I merely point out that it’s not the case for my wife. You see, she doesn’t support terrorist or anti-ethnic measures; she simply decided she doesn’t like Baltic people because she got the impression in Riga that they don’t like her. (I don’t think it was a logical decision, but I guarantee this doesn’t imply she will take any actions against them.)
148 Mydriasis– And yet, my understanding was that when American couples wish to adopt, China was still a good place to adopt abandoned baby girls from. That doesn’t go with trading rice for girls from North Korea or chipping in for a joint kidnapped girl for a joint marriage. (Perhaps shared prostitute/sex slave would describe the situation better.) It would seem (and again, I’m not up on the situation there) that as the supply of females goes down, their value would go up, and production would increase. Yet I don’t know of couples trying to spend their allotment for one child on a female infant. Anyone know of a source for information on this? China is such an enormous country that I imagine a lot of the conflicting information comes from things being different in different regions and differences from urban to rural.
@158, maybe dating sites? At least you can look at profiles before deciding to date someone. Also, one thing that worked for me was having a number of activities — from language courses to book clubs — where I could meet other people who seemed more interesting than the average bar denizen.
I went for while through the male equivalent of your situation, since my older brother was Mr Athletic Hero With Many Girlfriends while being secretly mean to me, the bespectacled nerdy kid brother. It did help, in a Schadenfreude sort of way, that he got in trouble later on (alcoholism) so that I ended up being the successful one in the family. But up until my early 20’s, that wasn’t the case.
@148(mydriasis), but why do you think @128 above is ‘chomping at the bit for equality in everything’? Isn’t she simply stating she also likes sex? I don’t think she’s trying to imply she would commit big crimes if she didn’t get her needs met.
Besides, making rape simply depend on unsatisfied males is a bit simplistic.
Oh, Dan…you really are a brilliant writer…I always love your work, and this piece made me cheer over and over again! I am constantly amazed at the way those people flip everything. You know what I’m saying…”Republicans want smaller government/less government interference” but they want to legislate God into schools, and decide who can be married, and who can have health care, and who should pay taxes, and who should be rescued when the economy fails, and who should control women’s bodies…
They claim to be Christians, but turn their back on the poor, and cast judgement on everyone, manipulating and bribing, and exploiting anyone and everyone in order to gain power, and/or destroy anyone who disagrees or competes with them.
They “fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage” but cheat on their spouses, or divorce several times, and have horrendous legal battles over material wealth and custody of children (who were mostly raised by illegal immigrant nannies that they exploited, then deported in order to avoid paying)
They claim to be PRO-LIFE, but can’t get enough of killing anyone who has oil or other valuable resources, and they don’t want to risk their own lives, so they recruit poor kids, promising them adventure, great pay, free education, respect and honor,then send them off to kill and die and be maimed physically and mentally, and then deny any responsibility to care for them or their families, and deny them the right to be who they are and marry who they love…
I could go on and on. But I know you already know.
I just want to say thank you for not holding back. Thank you for making them uncomfortable…embarassed…and thank you for giving specific examples of how THEY are the bullies, and not letting them flip it on you.
You ROCK!
@160
All of those things were told to me first hand. Most of what I know about China, I hear from people who are from there, not from reading online. I don’t know if that makes my info more or less biased but I trust that it’s at least somewhat true. I didn’t say it was true across the entire country – just that negative effects of the ‘one child rule’ have already started.
Besides, I don’t believe what I wrote conflicts with what you’ve heard about adoption. But you seem to be implying that parents would be comfortable having baby girls with the intent of selling them into slavery and I just don’t believe that to be true. I think parents who are unfortunate enough to have a girl would rather her end up in America then as a sex slave. Wouldn’t you? Unless I misunderstood what you meant by “production would go up”.
@162
She was responding to 104. 104 was referencing the negative social implications of a society where there is an unbalance between men and women – where a large number of men are deprived of sex.
I absolutely did not imply that rape depends on unsatisfied males. And to go futher, I’ll explicitly say right now “rape does not simply depend on unsatisfied males”
But if we use China as an example. I don’t believe an excess of women and a shortage of men would lead to the same kinds of social problems that China is seeing.
It seemed to me that when he was referencing ‘violence’ some portion of that would be referring to rape. To my knowlege, it’s exceedingly rare for women to rape men.
She seemed offended to be left out of his statement. I’d argue that it’s not one you’d want to be included in.
@164, oh OK. I misinterpreted your statement because I hadn’t followed the (sub)thread on China that you mentioned.
It is interesting to speculate on what an excess of women would do. If it happened within traditional structures, I suppose this would (just like in the case of an excess of men) lead to more violence against women (who would be worth less), even though social stability might not be threatened in the same way that the excess of men does.
As long as the claim that most rapes are by men on women is not taken as an indictment of men, I have no problem with it. (I think this fact is as much, if not more, a consequence of the average difference in strength between men and women than of unsatisfied desire. [Leaving aside social factors, which in a complete analysis would of course also have to be considered.] If women were in average as strong as men or even stronger, things would change dramatically.)
Dan!!!
Best.
Column.
Ever.
(Jan 11, 2012)
My hat is off to you.
No one nails it like you do.
Thank you thank you thank you for this week’s column. You renew my faith in humanity. We WILL overcome this ridiculous point in history, thanks to people like you speaking truth to power.
Sign me,
Straight Friend of the LGBT Nation
@164, 165 – So I won’t go so far and insist that men’s unsatisfied sexual urges can lead to violence (although intrinsically I believe this is true). On the other hand, a man having a wife (assumedly a sexual outlet) and children does seem to placate male aggression. I recall reading that children actually lower male testosterone.
From a societal standpoint, it would seem best that a man have only one wife so that his resources and efforts are channeled to her and their children (usually only a couple of kids). If he is allowed more than one wife, his resources and efforts will be spent acquiring more wives, having more children that he may not be able to fully support, etc.
Monogamy – the king and the peasant each have access to one woman. Egalitarian, no?
So maybe the state has an interest in fostering couples as opposed to polygamous marriages.
As to EricaPs question of why we assume polygamy would mean 1 man multiple wives and not one woman w multiple husbands? A math problem: One man with 4 wives can give each of them 3 biological children, without any stress on his reproduction. One woman would be in for a hell of a ride if she had to bear 3 children for each of her 4 husbands.
Plus, would women really want multiple husbands? Does that sound remotely appealing?
Ok, my amateur psych musings are over. Back to the donuts.
My 12 year old son was recently assigned to write a paragraph about the top three finishers in Iowa. I don’t let him on the computer without my supervision, so we sat down together to Google the three candidates. We did not even have to click on your definition,it just comes up right on the Google page for my 12 year old to see. So , now I am having to expalin fecal matter ,and anal sex to my 12 year old. Not to mention why cyber bullying is accepted as satire if done by adults. Could you please just be a grown up and think about the consequences of your actions! Children are being assigned to recearch this and they are being confronted with a subject that is far above their age level. And it’s not like the parents are letting them mess around on the internet unattended. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that a child might be assigned to research a presidential candidate! You have a FB page, a blog, a radio show, appearences on The Young Turks, Olberman etc., many ways to get your message out there. Yet, you choose cyber bullying and it does not just hurt the man you are angry with, it hurts innocent children. Again, grow up and consider the consequences of your actions!!
#51, I don’t see the problem you do with the rhetoric on this issue. Same-sex couples are pointing out that what they want doesn’t require any kind of redefinition or rethinking of the whole institution of marriage. Rather, they simply want to join the same institution that has heretofore been officially closed to them. Polygamy, regardless of whether one is for or against it, would indeed require a major reorganization of the institution, and a reconsideration of why governments support marriage through official recognition at all. Indeed, the initial responses here–why not just obliterate any civil marriage, then? is every marriage then going to operate like a business group, which is VERY different legally on so many levels–indicate that is true.
The situation here is much simpler: same-sex marriage just IS marriage, as we have always known it. No further redefinition required.
Re: The discussion on China and the results of societies with an excess of men or an excess of women.
We’re going to run into the trouble that comes with any attempt to trace cause and effect in broad societal trends. It’s too easy to note that what affects society does not necessarily affect that guy over there. In general, disenfranchisement and crushing poverty leads to revolution against the ruling classes, but we all know someone who’s particularly beaten down who hasn’t risen up against anybody.
Similarly, historically when there are large numbers of men without access to women to marry, there’s a general trend towards violence against an outside group. That doesn’t mean that in microcosm an unmarried man is more likely to be violent. And the violence tends to be directed outward. It doesn’t mean that a sexually frustrated man is more prone to rape.
165– Societies with an excess of women tend toward the political left, a relaxation of strict sexual roles, and a tendency towards promiscuity on the part of both men and women. This happened as the baby boomers came of age in the late 60s and early 70s.
167– Anything remotely appealing about 4 husbands? It depends on what the expectation would be and the roles that would be played. Cooking, cleaning and being solely responsible for the care of the children of 4 men does not sound appealing. Allowing 4 men to support me and pleasure me sexually does.
I’m really tired of hearing these politicians described as having “family values.” Can we pick a better word? I’m thinking probably the same words they use to describe it when other religions try to force their rules on everyone. Fundamentalist values?
168 nilmom– If you think that knowing about anal sex harms a 12 year old but a presidential candidate who would seek to outlaw gay people’s existence does not, there’s your problem right there.
@167 MFM can be a great way to have two salaries and a homemaker. Note that in most of the cases I’ve seen, the homemaker was one of the men.
Also, even in a FMF, you shouldn’t think of it as the man “owning” two wives (as in traditional polygyny). The women may have sex with each other; they may have sex with outside men and women (the way men have long had sex outside of marriage).
In a society open to different poly options, you’d probably also see a bunch of MFMF, where the sexual configurations and division of household labor are none of our business.
@171/172 yes and yes!
Crinolines – I don’t like Santorum and would not vote for him. Why, because he is a bigot plain and simple. Still, my child should be able to do a Google search for a presidential candidate without running into sexual information of any kind. And let’s get real, if Santorum got elected (highly unlikely) that does not mean he could turn this country into a theocracy any more than Obama can turn it into a Socialist state as ideologues in the Republican party claim. So it remains that children should be able to do a reasonable Internet search without running into things far above their age level. My point was not to defend Santorum, there is no defense, my point is that there are more appropriate ways to get the point across.
175 nilmom– “My point is that there are more appropriate ways to get the point across.”
I agree. There are probably no funnier ways to get the point across, but there are more appropriate ones. If there were more national discussion in the media, even more discussion from the far Right, if the point had gotten across, there would be no need to resort to the tactics that I don’t consider to be bullying.
In the mean time, while we agree that there are more appropriate ways, let’s hear them.
@175
I understand the point you’re making, but sexual content is unfortunately very free and open on the internet, even when searching innocent things. I was around that age when the internet was new and exciting. I remember me and my friend typed random words we thought would be interesting with “.com” at the end.
We ended up with porn more than once.
And at twelve years old, most kids know about all that stuff anyway. From the playground or the schoolbus.
If this kind of thing worries you, have you considered some sort of software that blocks inappropriate content?
Auntie grizelda @158 – have you tried reading the book Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy by David D. Burns? It’s available for less than $10 on Amazon, and I highly recommend it. It may help you realize that it’s up to you to start telling yourself the truth, rather than repeating the ugly lies you were fed as a child. (I know it’s hard to believe, but Stuart Smalley was right all along 🙂
After reading that, the next step might be to figure out what you really want.
Are you most interested in getting more human touch? Then expand your criteria until you are able to find someone eager to share that with you. (Might mean being open to women around your age, or men outside your accustomed age-range, or people more overweight than you were envisioning.) Like ankylosaur said @161, dating sites are a good place to start.
Or are you more interested in orgasms? Masturbation is still the easiest way to get those – it may help to shop for vibrators, porn that works for you, or, yes, dildos, if you like that.
Or do you just want more human contact, not necessarily sexual? Ankylosaur @161 is right that group activities (volunteering? book clubs at the library? taking a class?) are good ways to meet people. And this will sound crazy, coming from me, but just getting outside, away from the internet, is bound to lead to more face-to-face human interactions…
@175/177 — Google Safe Search should suit your purposes:
http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/…
Why don’t you just watch your children? Or perhaps put in child locks on everything? Guess what, there is a lot more distasteful (smirk) stuff on the internet than santorum, or the definition of his name. Try parenting.
Adding to the (excellent) ideas in 178–
For more touch that’s not necessarily sexual, there’s massage. It feels good on sore muscles, and it just feels good too.
For figuring what you want, let me share something that’s been useful for me. I used to think I wanted to be radiantly happy. It took me a while to realize that accepting myself meant accepting the part of myself that often felt unhappy, unloved, and unwanted. I can be a dismissive, irritable, snobbish person with horrible social skills. It’s a lot easier to accept that about myself than to keep beating myself up over traits that aren’t likely to change.
Therapy and self-work can be about self-improvement, and therein lies a contradiction. It implies that you’re in need of improvement when you’re pretty good the way you are.
Ah, “inappropriate content.”
“Inappropriate” is such a handy word, isn’t it? It works for anything anyone at any time might possibly find slightly offensive. It also works to block other people who find certain content necessary and informative.
“Inappropriate” stops thought. Any time a concept or a visual comes through that causes concerstipation, anger, humor or all of the above can be eradicated through the use of “inappropriate.”
“Inappropriate” has been used mostly against people. Have you ever been the “inappropriate” person based on race or sexual orientation, or based on something biological that’s simply a fact of nature, not an offense to others? Hell, simply associating with you or using a word to describe you makes whole blocks of content automatically “inappropriate for children.”
Quite convenient, isn’t it?
I would like to suggest another campaign/ definition contest, for a few other words to mean other things maybe
not-fit-for-dinner-table-Conversation.
As we know we have a few Anti-gay/Anti-woman/Anti-poor/ Bigoted republican prospects in the running for the GOP nomination.
It would be great to have a spreadingromney.com, a spreadinggingrich.com, a spreadingronpaul.com, and a spreadingbachmann.com, and spreadingpalin.com while we are at it.
I think the savage love readership would be able to come up with a few ideas, for new meanings for the names of our leading bigots in the GOP.
Anyone have suggestions?
@182 “I can be a dismissive, irritable, snobbish person with horrible social skills.”
Me too!
“Therapy…implies that you’re in need of improvement when you’re pretty good the way you are.”
I like to use a plant analogy. Each person/plant is already lovely the way it is, but over time, it will grow and develop and blossom. Doesn’t mean it was defective before, just that we all have opportunities for growth.
Dan,
Good news, you’re married again!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli…
Even our (Canada’s) right wing conservative government had to bend or lose a lot of support at home and credit internationally.
I was talking to some US expat’s and I can’t fathom that a conservative business minded mormon as the moderate in the pack of republican nominees. Your centrist guy, Mitt, is still far to the right of our Conservative leader Harper, imo. Just can’t wrap my head around it.
@175: Sure, you get to want the internet to be a child-friendly place. All I can say is, good luck with that windmill, Mr. Quixote. Haven’t you heard of Rule 34?
Today, it’s Santorum you are complaining about. (By the way, did you miss the part where the candidate himself made references to man-on-child sex and man-on-dog sex, right in the middle of his speech about defending marriage? Is it not above their age level when he’s the one doing it?) What will it be next quarter, next research paper? You’ve just assigned yourself the task of shutting up whatever segment of the population that you find “inappropriate” at the moment — a supply which is for all practical purposes infinite. This is, of course, presuming that any of them should even listen to your imperial decree, and subside into embarrassed meekness, rather than telling you to improve your own filters instead of telling other people how to run their own lives.
Thank you for this fantastic article and penmanship Dan, I read it yesterday and I’m still laughing and crying.
Rick Santorum:
“To remove with your tongue, the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”
Keep being awesome.
Thank you for this fantastic article and penmanship Dan, I read it yesterday and I’m still laughing and crying.
Rick Santorum:
“To remove with your tongue, the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”
Keep being awesome.
Why give Santorum any further press? It’ll all be over for him soon anyway. Fuck it.
Thanks for writing responses (coughahemsarcasm).
The evidence is glaring…
Crinoline. I believe I already mentioned the many ways Mr. Savage has to get his message out, blog, radio program, he is an author and appears on many cable talk shows. Also, the media is not ignoring the fact that Mr. Santorum is a bigot, they discuss it ad nauseum on MSNBC and even Chris Wallace on FOX took him to task. Wallace gave several quotes then asked if Santorum had made them, when Santorum replied that he had Wallace smacked him down “Mr. Santorum these arguments you make against gays in the military are the same arguments once used by racists to try to keep the military from being intergrated.”
@Hunter78 If you think it is appropriate to let a sixth grader alone with the internet, then YOU are the fool. Thank goodness I was there with him, or he would have been taking his questions to the playground or the school bus as some have suggested and getting all kinds of misinformation. And since we live in Norht Ga. that could have really backfired for Dan’s cause. I’m quite sure the kids wouldn’t have said Santorum is a bigot, but that does not make cyber bullying acceptable. I’m sure he would have gotten some horrible anti-gay crap that the teenage boys around here tend to spew. Again, Mr. Savage is not thinking of the unintended consequences of his actions. Taking your argument to the basest level often just makes people lose respect for you and your opinion. Keeping things civil tends to help bring more people over to your side.
@EricaP Thank you. I’ll try it.
@167, oh, but you make the problem depend on old evolutionary factors — capacity to have children, support them, etc. All of those are not intrinsic, but merely technical problems, solvable with modern means and technology. With our new resources, modernity actually makes polygamous marriage very much possible.
This “santorum” thing is a real shame. It’s an ad-hominem attack, illogical, ignorant and tragic. It is bullying to all those other people named “Santorum”. It’s not debate, it’s not rhetoric, it’s not a coherent criticism of ideas, it’s crude, and it’s sad.
What’s sadder is that good debate, rhetoric, discussion of issues, etc., don’t work. Nobody cares about rational arguments. When did we reach such a state? When did it become true that the only way to hurt some piece-of-shit politician was name-calling?
This whole “santorum” thing just confirms my belief that the USA is done. Either we split into separate countries, or the morons who made shouting insults the only effective political technique will bring us all down with them.
So, Dan: I don’t know if I’m calling you a part of the problem or not. I think you and your Esteemed Readers did what needed to be done, and did it well. But the fact that the only effective forms of political discourse are shouting and slander means that we may as well give up.
@191, I think we disagree on what is “inappropriate” for a 12-year-old. As I recall, I already knew what anal sex was at that time, and realizing that fecal matter and lube might be involved wasn’t much further ahead. And, all in all, I’m a pretty decent 42-year-old now, despite that.
I would really like to know why you think this is inappropriate for your child, i.e., what kind of damage or harm would be done to him if you explained in detail what exactly Dan’s definition of “santorum” entails. I understand this is a very widespread opinion (‘children can’t know about sex! knowing about sex is only for grownups!’), but I never really understood the rationale behind it.
But this would be a digression. To address your question, there are a number of content-filtering programs available (e.g., NetNanny) which could block the results of whatever websearches your child did by keywords and other means. Such programs and others have been used to censor various things on the internet, from sexual content to political content to diverging ideas (e.g., in China). I am sure they would help you in solving this “problem.”
@191, I hope you realize that the main point of Dan Savage’s redefining santorum was not simply to get his message across — it was to do something that would make his bigotry (as reflected in that famous interview, and afterwards in other interviews and speeches) a point of discussion, not easily forgotten. Indeed Dan could have used all these other means, as other bloggers have done throughout the internet. I don’t think any would have ever achieved the same level of success — I sincerely don’t, when I consider similarly bigotted politicians and how easily their offending opinions could be forgotten.
The result speaks for itself.
‘his bigotry’ = Santorum’s bigotry, of course, not Dan’s. Sorry for the ambiguous reference in my previous comment.
Ah, the fresh breath of true RAGE, which lives inside me and flares up whenever I read a story about kids killing themselves, like Eric James Borges (http://tinyurl.com/7s3h5fp).
I thank you Dan, for giving such an eloquent and powerful voice to that rage.
Santorum is a jerk and he deserves to be called out for his bigotry and ignorance. Thank gawd we have journalists like Dan who are ballsy enough to take on such a moron. Not only when he was a senator but even now, when he steps onto the big stage. The republicans are grasping for straws. Is Santorum the best they can do?
Concerning post #171, I occasionally suspect that someone of Mr Ank’s temperament could make out quite a good case for homophobia actually BEING a Family Value (or at least a “Family Value”), but, as I haven’t Mr Ank’s temperament, I don’t think I’ll begin such an undertaking.
@186
I’d say Harper (in practice, not spirit) is actually more liberal than Obama. At least when it comes to Dan’s pet subjects.
re: your article. O Canada. 🙂
“Best argument against Rick Santorum’s opposition to birth control: The existence of Rick Santorum.”—-Frank Conniff
@161, @178, @182, and @185: Thank you all for your wonderful and helpful suggestions! I guess I am a bit shy about dating and dating sites, even though they’re hurtled at me online on a daily basis. I am thinking about volunteering; I recently helped campaign for my city’s mayor’s re-election. I’m looking to get more involved musically. I love live performances–particularly orchestras, jazz bands, opera & theatre.
Composing my second symphony is keeping me busy (and yes, checking emails and blogs, too) when I’m not playing my flutes or piano. Every so often I come up for air.
Thanks again! Well said by all three of you.
@161 Anklosaur—thanks, too, for sharing your sibling woes. Wow, can I relate! My current life situation also somewhat matches yours: my older sister, after having economic reality finally hit her in the face like a Santorum cream pie after living over 35 years of denial, now complains that “life is SO unfair”—-only because she has to join the rest of us in earning a living and paying taxes to keep and maintain one’s own home, and —eeek!—gasp!—shudder!!–actually scrub her own toilets.
I’m thinking of composing this into an opera buffa. What does everyone think?
@201: You NAILED it!!!! Bravo!!!