I’m going to Barack Obama’s inauguration in Washington, D.C., on January 20. I’ve spent eight
years, one month, one week, and one day waiting for this. (But who’s
counting?) However, I am looking for suggestions for a respectful way
to protest the participation of Rick Warren. As a lifelong
Episcopalian, I really don’t want to engage in an antireligious
protest. (FWIW: I was annoyed with some of the antireligious people at
the anti-8 rallies. We need all our allies for this fight, so don’t
trash the engaged, progressive religious folk!)

While my friends want me to throw shoes,
that ain’t gonna happen. Ideally, I’d like a peaceful, gracious way to
protest Warren’s participation that won’t undercut this great day, a
way that can be picked up (and publicized) by folks on the Mall. Any
suggestions?

Faithful Obama Girl

Whatever you do, FOG, don’t do those things
you, um, already said you don’t want to do. No one should boo or throw
shoes or do anything disruptive. The American Taliban love to pretend
that they’re the persecuted ones around here, and booing or
throwing shoes or even just turning your back on Warren—the
gay-hatin’, right-wing Christian bigot Barack Obama invited to give the
invocation at his inauguration—will invariably be spun as an
attack on people of faith, as a vicious assault on prayer itself, as
the moral equivalent of a syphilitic rent boy pissing directly into the
open mouth of a crying baby Jesus.

Instead, borrow a page from those
long-suffering gay Catholics. To register their displeasure with the
pope’s revealing obsession with gay sex, gay marriage, and gay shoes
(the douchebag wears Prada), some gay Catholics wear rainbow sashes to
mass. Perhaps folks disappointed by Warren’s participation could
coordinate a similar sartorial protest? Everyone wear a button with
that rainbow-striped version of the Obama logo? Wave little rainbow
flags during Warren’s remarks? Head to the Mall in nothing but rubber
chaps?

And speaking of Rick Warren, pastor of
Saddleback Church and author of The Purpose Driven Life…

My life’s purpose over the last week was
reading thousands of proposed new definitions for “saddlebacking” sent
in by my readers. As with the new definition of santorum crafted by
Savage Love readers (“the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is
sometimes a byproduct of anal sex”), the new definition of
“saddlebacking” has to be some act that (1) needs a name but doesn’t
already have one (we can’t just rename “reverse cowgirl,” people) and
(2) is naughty enough to discomfort, say, a Reverend Warren, but
something that actual people might actually do because that’s the only
way the actual word will actually get used.

So I’ve disqualified proposed definitions
that were too literal (“putting an actual saddle on someone’s
actual back and actually riding them”), too gross (“to
crap on someone’s back and then sit on it, moving forward and back
while making horse-riding-related noises like ‘giddyap!’ and ‘whoa!'”),
too complicated (“one person on all fours with a strap-on strapped to
their midsection, a second person riding said strap-on, and a third
person hitting the first person from behind while holding on for dear
life/giving a handjob to the second person”), or too bitter (“when you
give someone some kind of basic human right, like marriage, and then
take it away again after a few months”). Here are the proposed
definitions that made the cut:

(1) “Logically, if ‘barebacking’ means
having butt sex with no condom, then ‘saddlebacking’ should mean having
butt sex with a condom.”

(2) “Saddleback (verb): to submit someone to
any kind of humiliating, unreciprocal sex act, either literally or
metaphorically, consented to by passive partner due to
submissive/masochistic tendencies, desire for approval, or other darker
motive. E.g., ‘I don’t know why Obama is letting Rick Warren
saddleback him into presiding over his inauguration.'”

(3) “The saddleback position involves
placing your lubed dick between the butt cheeks of your partner. This
position can be performed on your sides or on top of a facedown partner
(maybe with a pillow under his or her hips). My favorite way of
finishing up the saddlebacking is to lift up and come on my wife’s
sweaty back. The saddleback is a nice compromise position when your
partner won’t allow anal entry.”

(4) “To saddleback is to rail against gay
sex in public while secretly indulging in the same in private. Ted
Haggard? Total saddlebacker. Larry Craig? Saddlebacker. Rick Warren?
Probably a saddlebacker.”

(5) “‘Saddlebacking’ should be the term for
the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in
order to preserve their virginities. ‘After attending the Purity Ball,
Heather and Bill saddlebacked all night because she’s saving herself
for marriage.’ Please, please adopt this definition!”

(6) “Saddleback (verb): to ejaculate on the
back of a partner at the culmination of doggy-style anal sex.”

(7) “Before being invited to give the
invocation, Mr. Warren was most noted for his book The Purpose
Driven Life. Therefore, ‘to saddleback’ is to fuck with a purpose,
i.e., to procreate. A heterosexual couple asked if they’re trying to
have children could reply, ‘No, we’re not ready for kids yet, but we’ll
probably start saddlebacking next year.'”

Those are the nominees, ladies and
gentlemen. But before we open the polls for a vote—you’re going
to pick the winning definition!—let me quickly handicap the
candidates:

(1) I like the idea that “sex” is understood
to include condoms and that sex without condoms—bareback
sex—needs a special term. But tons of people suggested that
“saddlebacking” should be the opposite of “barebacking,” so here it is.

(2) Seems a bit tortured and unlikely to come into common usage,
but I like the point the reader is making with this definition, so I
included it.
(3) Technically this kind of
assfuckery—butt-cheek fucking à la titty fucking, with no
actual penetration—is a form of frottage, but like a woman doing
a man in the butt with a strap-on dildo (dubbed “pegging” by Savage
Love readers), this particular brand of rubbing off could use a name of
its own. (4) One of my favorites—but does a Haggard or Craig
tumble out of the closet often enough for the term to come into use?
(5) Hilarious—and an entirely appropriate way to honor Reverend
Warren, who is a proponent of abstinence education, the “sex ed” that
has convinced so many Christian girls and boys that buttfucking isn’t
actually sex. (6) A common move—and not just in porn—that
could use a name. (7) Makes sense, so here it is. But I imagine Warren
would approve of this definition—except when lesbians used it
(even you, Melissa E.!).

Okay, Savage Love readers, “saddlebacking”
is in your hands now. Vote for your favorite definition from the list
of nominees by sending an e-mail to saddleback@savagelove.net. You
must include “saddleback” and the number of your preferred definition
in the subject line to have your vote count (“saddleback: 1,”
“saddleback: 2,” etc.). Vote now!

mail@savagelove.net

455 replies on “Savage Love”

  1. “butt cheek” sex, like tit-fucking, already has a ton of names associated with. I just discovered them this week, in fact, during some totally inappropriate internet browsing. Some of these are:

    Rearjerk, hotdogging, and buzuri (the Japanese description, I guess).

  3. absolutely #5. I grew up in the church and I know plenty of those people. They’re self-righteous about their virginity, but they’re some of the biggest sluts I’ve ever met. No joke.
    The girls are tragic characters because they think they need to somehow put out or the guys they’re ‘pledged’ to will lose interest so they demean themselves with all sort of sexual craziness that they may or may not actually enjoy.
    And the boyfriends are comic characters because their girlfriends will do CRAZY kinky shit that nobody else in high school (that I knew of) was doing, and they dont know how lucky they have it, except for the lack of vaginal intercourse, which they put on such a pedestal, I can only assume they’re a little disappointed when they finally get it.

  4. um, no place special- i have read every single savage love and Dan does things like this all the time. if you don’t like his style then go away- Dear Prudie gives away advice every week on Slate!

  5. I’m a little late to the game in submitting nominations for what to name saddlebacking. I can tell you what saddlebacking means to me. Saddleback is an action that creates in me and other gay people that feeling of injury and anger. It makes me just want to rise up and say ‘Stop f–king saddlebacking me!’ Clinton did it. We spent the last 8 years being saddlebacked on a daily basis. Obama did it when he chose the Rev. Warren. Every person who voted for and supported Prop 8 saddlebacked me. When I saw “Milk” I saw that they were being saddlebacked and that saddlebacking was viewed as an ok thing in society. Well no more! Now that we have a name for it we can demand that it stop! To all who wish to saddleback me, just pack up your saddlebacking ways and go home!

  10. Unfortunately 5 *is* brilliant and I can hear it now. “Of course not girl, I ain’t letting him get the goodies till we get engaged, but when he’s really horny, we do some saddlebacking… I gotta keep him hooked on the line to reel him in, ya know?” But I’m going to vote for #2 – we really do need a descriptive-slang word for that kind of coercion.

  20. Hm, I voted before I read the comments. Looks like it’s gonna be 5, eh?
    I guess this definition is like the “half a virgin” comment in Mean Girls.

  24. I know it’s late to add a new suggested definition, but it just hit us. Does anyone watch Boomerang on tv? They have these little in-between bits showing wind-up toys walking, joined together, one behind the other. Like Magilla Gorilla and his owner. As if they were joined at the groin and still up and shuffling along.

    Sounds like saddlebacking to me!

  25. I think #4 is the best for pissing off Rick Warren and his type of people. It’s true that a Larry Craig doesn’t happen that often, but it would be fun to accuse people of being saddlebackers when they act like Rick Warren.

  28. Hmm, hard to choose between 1 and 5…1 is just so logical, but I agree that “sex” ought to include condoms without a qualifier.

    5 it is.

  29. 5, for sure –

    and to the poster was up at the top who said that religious teenagers having buttsex because it’s not “real sex” is a passing phenomenon, i couldn’t disagree with you more! the catholics have been doing it for fuck knows how long, and they will forever more.

  34. I don’t believe that in the many years I have weekly looked forward to my dose of “Savage Love” I have ever been as disappointed with such a total waste of space. The reality is, no matter how much we dislike the choice of Rick Warren, the decision has been made, the invocation is going to happen and remarkably enough life will go on. Warren is getting more attention for his selection than he deserves and he’s such a fame pig that he’s totally wallowing in this attention. I say let it go – that will greatly disappoint him and his followers who are all hoping for yet another reason to single us out for their bigotry and hatred. Pick your battles carefully, save your strength for winning the war.

  36. Please noooooooo. There are a lot of people living in the Saddleback Valley, and in the Santa Ana Mountains (sometimes referred to as the Saddleback mountains), who would really rather not be connected with that church. The church is a relative newcomer.

  42. Okay. Call me crazy but it’s looking like #5. Great. Thanks for playing. Chris M hit the nail on the head: Can we move on and let Rick Warren go back to his church now? I’m hoping next week’s column is back on track.

  49. I agree that No. 5 does have cachet. However, In the interest of maximizing saddleback‘s chances of widespread adoption, it seems No. 3 is the best choice. Please consider this reasoning:

    The term santorum succeeded because of it simplicity and usefulness: It is straightforward and merely descriptive.

    While No. 5 is very good descriptively, doesn’t it also carry with it a moral/political argument? The argument itself is valid–abstinence-only education is bunk, and places young people unnecessarily at risk. On the other hand, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with buttsex, done in a safe, sane, consensual–and informed–manner. This is all too complicated for one simple verb to handle. Forcing saddleback to do double-duty as a political argument and a descriptive term dilutes its impact.

    On the other hand, No. 3 is straightforward and uncomplicated; it merely describes the act of interbuttockular frottage.

    And No. 3 is not devoid of subtle political relevance: The man who submitted it describes the act as a “compromise”–which is apt, considering Obama’s apparent willingness to compromise with homophobic nutwing Evangelicals.

Comments are closed.