Columns Sep 25, 2013 at 4:00 am

Clueless and Clitorless



I'll admit the misoginy part as obviously heterocentric, but not the racism part, nor the raping and pillaging part. I'm sure male children or youths are raped by soldiers or "owners" just like female children and women are. And by that I don't mean, they are raped by gay soldiers or by gay "owners" - but they are raped by rapists.

Other than that, is it heterocentric (in a bad way) to say that heteros only have sex with heteros and gays with gays, so the postulated "great equalizer" effect of sex would have no effect on heterosexuals murdering gays ?

On your other point, I've been reading Swift lately - that accounts for the "smothering arms of England". I doubt you would object to this historical use.

I have no knowledge of present-time Ireland nor of its links to England, and I would not engage anyone on it. I was merely referencing the fact that, at least for now, Ireland is not actively trying to get out of Europe, though it's known for having tried for centuries to get out of the UK.

And frankly, I'm tired of the French bashing on the BBC and on Sullivan, so sometimes I feel I'm allowed a little rant against Proud Englanders.

I want to add that I'm not ranting against all Englishmen, far from it - only about those who think that England is the best thing that ever happened to humanity. Many Frenchmen have the same obnoxious feeling of their own country's importance and I hate it with passion, too.
I think all the scorn being heaped on LOFD is completely uncalled-for. He says nothing at all that is judgemental of his dates. All his says is "it won't work"...

The truth is that socializing with people who are less intelligent or less well-off can be very depressing. Even if the "higher-status" person acts as neutrally possible, often the other person takes on persona in response of jealousy, self-pity, etc. Often these people won't have much in common, which is a downer in and of itself.

How about giving him some advice instead of "you are a bad person and don't deserve companionship!" ?
Oh, LOFD has set off a stink bomb, and the source of the stench isn't income, intelligence or education. It's class. That's a third-rail of American life, a subject that makes everyone a little crazy, even our usually compassionate host.

We shut the door on potential love interests all the time for the most capricious of reasons and nobody takes us to task for it. Too old? Too fat? Wrong color? Not your "type"? Too bad! It's almost certain we'd have found common ground and perhaps even happiness with these rejects had we given them a chance. Sure, the pious will call us ageists or shapeists or looksists or racists, but for the most part we get a pass.

Add class to the mix, though, and it becomes a free-for-all. Not knowing that class is a radioactive topic, LOFD has been naive enough to talk about the problems he's having finding someone of his own socioeconomic background. OK, let's all take a deep breath and relax. Just think of it as LOFD's second coming out.

Look, LOFD has grown up in a cultural bubble. Now that he's out of the cocoon of his privileged family and education, he's a traveler in a foreign land. He's asking himself "Who are these people?" and "Where's my tribe?" Having been surrounded all his life with people of his own socioeconomic group, LOFD's in culture shock.

It would have been great if LOFD's parents and schools had taught him to embrace diversity, but that rarely happens. Because we're human we have an acute need to be with our own kind. When we encounter someone for the first time, we perceive key differences in nanoseconds. And, as history shows, we have very hard time seeing past them. Nothing in LOFD's experience has prepared him for having to fend for himself socially in the off-leash dog park that is American life.

If LOFD were straight, the institutions of his class would probably see to it that he met the right girl, er, woman in due course. But those institutions aren't working for him just now because he's gay.

So my advice to LOFD is to remember he's a double minority (a status that gets other types of people bonus points in LGBTQ theory-land) and it will take time for him to find a kindred spirit. They're out there. You'll find your niche. Keep looking and be yourself.

@71 Called BS on Anrew of Arabia much better than I did.
LOFD, if you equate rich and successful with smart and informed, you should rewatch the Republican debates.
Ms Sissou - I can see why you'd think I was objecting to "homophobia would remain", but that wasn't it. My expectation would be that homophobia would be essentially unchanged even if there were some alteration of attitudes.

What I found heterocentric was that you seemed to assume that the effect on opposite-sexers and same-sexers would be identical. I admit on a reread that I did conflate your "having sex" with the general discussion of "having sex with people outside of one's intellectual/class/economic comfort level". If you meant yours more generally only, then I retract most of my point.

I might still ding you, though, for putting "misogyny" first in an anti-Sullivan argument. That made the post appear (to this same-sexer at least) as if you were viewing Mr Sullivan's entirely same-sex encounters through an opposite-sexer lens. To turn your question around, why would anyone expect Mr Sullivan's trysts to have any effect on misogyny? His opinion of women would be no more altered by them than your homophobe's opinion of gays would be by trysts with women of colour. No biggie, and I don't substantially disagree with you - it's just a ding.

Given your previous appreciation of Miss Austen, I didn't think you intended a very condemnation of all things English. But rant well and with style, and I shall at least appreciate your form whatever I might conclude about the substance.

As for Sullivan-bashing, my main quarrel with him is that he is king of the Assimilationists, while lacking the foresight to see that Overassimilation just creates a vicious circle.
M? Davey - You remind me of Rumpole when Liz Probert is terribly distressed to discover that her live-in SO, Dave Inchcape, has been hiding the terrible secret from her that he's an Honourable. Rumpole, fresh off the case of proving that Hilda's second cousin's aristocratic husband didn't kill his philandering mother by finding her and calling her as a witness, has to convince Mizz Liz that Dave had a Deprived Childhood.
Thanks Dan. Most especially for the "abortion is not a horrible, horrible thing. It's a medical, medical thing."
Men who are anti-choice have no business enjoying non-procreative sex. Ladies, don't sleep with those hypocrites!
Dear LOFD,

if only there were arranged gay marriages - my mother's friends have such handsome and eligible sons. But alas, gay + kind + handsome + intelligent + old European money + je ne sais quoi doesn't seem to be a very common combination, so I've settled for gay + kind + je ne sais quoi, that's already hard enough to find.

Good luck with getting over yourself, if I could so can you :)
Wow, I've been reading this column and watching your videos on youtube for some time but I finally feel compelled to say I LOVE YOU DAN SAVAGE. Your response to that snobby, elitist asshole LOFD is AWESOME, one of the best things I've ever read!

Also spot on about abortion " not a horrible, horrible thing. It is a medical, medical thing."

I think that 23 y/o homo is using terminal snobbery and uniqueness as a way of masking what's really going on. Fear. He fears himself thus he fears intimacy which is basically surrendering to allowing another person to really know you. He doesn't want to be seen because he's not fully accepted what people might see. His socio-economic drivel is just grandiosity which a way to counteract a sense of low self worth. Love doesn't know socio-economic boundaries and even if he found someone who is equal to that aspect of himself they can never truly love him based upon that, nor can he. Impressed? Maybe, but that's never to be confused with love. When he is willing to risk who he truly is instead of just a superficial mask then he will find people to date. Right now what he's offering is doing exactly what he subconsciously wants it to do and that's keep people and real intimacy at bay. Very sad.
Suggesting a woman get a biopsy on her clitoral area? Why? She's not experiencing any pain or discomfort and, as her partner writes, she has an easy time orgasming! So what's the freakin' problem? Yay for biological diversity!!!What's wrong with you, Dan?!?
I love all the Auntie Mame references in the reply to LW1. Haha, it seems most people have missed them though.
CLIT, is it possible that your girlfriend could be exaggerating or faking some orgasms? She might need support to be able to talk openly about it.
Might the woman without a clit be a circumcised woman? Female circumcision was as commonplace as male circ at some points in history.
@86 lolorhone: Thanks. I had another blood test yesterday.
We'll see how normal (ha-ha!!) I really am the next time I go back to see my amazing ND.

@107 I second that! Bingo! That's basically the overwhelming majority of the GOP, though. There they sit in their big, cozy "Members Only" station, but somebody moved the railroad an insanely long, LONNNNNNNNG time ago.
I wonder what the GOP will do when all THEIR rapidly devalued safety net funds go poof?
Dan, I love you to bits, but your reply to LOFD made me cringe. It was rude and mean, and made you no fucking better than him.

And I for one, can relate to a degree. I don't agree with everything he said, and do agree with a lot you said, but at the same time, I have dated guys that don't make as much money as I do, or have as much spare, and it does put a cramp on the relationship when you want to go do things together, and that other person can't afford it, you feel like you have to pay and carry them a little financially, and you have to be superhuman for that not to cause some resentment.

So try seeing it from his pov, if there are incompatibilities there, it simply doesn't work. While yes, I think LOFD is a bit of an ass, I also want to applaud him for being honest about some things which do actually matter when it comes to LTRS and not just casual dating.
I can't help but noticed LOFD never said he came from a higher socioeconomic status, for example full ride could mean scholarship. I've always thought that I would like to end up with an educated person raised in an immigrant family, like I was, as we'd likely have the same set of values. This actually happened and we share very similar perspectives on many things. Part of the reason I thought such was taking note that my closest friends came from similar backgrounds as mine. Not that I always get along with everyone who came from an immigrant family, but it is also rare that I've bond with someone from an upper socioeconomic class. LOFD seems be getting a lot of slack from people making some assumptions about him - doesn't that seem a bit ? Read between the lines, it sounds like a young man who finds despair that he won't find his perfect match. Perhaps more applicable is advising him that he's young, many people don't find their partners till later on in life and so for now, especially since he just came out, have some fun! Explore gayhood, explore some relationships, because honestly, sometimes you won't know what you want till you know what you don't want.
"I could have been so much worse a human being if I'd been straight."

Eeesh! He's awful enough already.
@96: Sure, orgasms are physically powerful- they bring forth life, or at least relax your shoulders. But the hearts and minds of bigots are not conquered by the ass of the righteous. After all, the bigot is not well versed in feeling empathy or logical thinking.
Points for multiple Auntie Mame references!
The real question is, "Where is the video of Debby chasing you around with a vulva puppet, and why isn't it on YouTube?"
@123 lolorhone,

"@96: Sure, orgasms are physically powerful- they bring forth life, or at least relax your shoulders. But the hearts and minds of bigots are not conquered by the ass of the righteous. After all, the bigot is not well versed in feeling empathy or logical thinking."

Yes, you're correct.

My point of view in making the 96 post had everything to do with the hypocrisy of denial.  I'm sorry if this seems breeder-centric, but every human artifact and human came about due to at least an ejaculation.  But this also creates and underscores our "togetherness of origin", and that, I think, addresses your points.  I'm not so sure that the asses of the righteous haven't done a lot more than we give credit (or at least couldn't), the way we've been so brainwashed.

At the beginning of LOFD's letter, I could somehow understand his concern. I have been on dates with stupid people (I remember at least one guy who was stupid, I couldn't have sex with him afterwards and never contacted him despite the fact that he was pretty hot) but what annoyed me with LOFD's letter was more the fact that he mentioned not wanting to date someone with a different socioeconomic status. That's when I truly realized he was a bit full of himself. Many people are not from wealthy background but they end up having successful careers and life.
In any case, I love Dan's response.

As for the Andrew Sullivan's bit, I think some of you kinda missed the point. I think his general message was that "getting to know people that are not part of your social group is a good way to lose your prejudices against them, whether it's through sex or any other sort of social interaction, " as said by @87 although it doesn't mean that people who have sex with Blacks can't be racist either.
You could almost write a whole book about what happened to me.
@120, you don't have to be "superhuman" to avoid resentment in that situation. You just have to be grateful for the money you have, and generous in wanting to share your good fortune with friends and lovers who have less.
Married @128:

I'm sorry if this seems breeder-centric, but every human artifact and human came about due to at least an ejaculation.

It's not breeder-centric, it's true.

But this also creates and underscores our "togetherness of origin", and that, I think, addresses your points.

It addresses my points only if you've got some goddamn sense. My point was less to tear down the power of sex, and more to express my utter cynicism at sex's ability to transform bigots as claimed by Sullivan. I take as evidence of this his experience with the righteous ass of black men in his youth failing to make a heinous and fraudulent piece of race-baiting pseudo-science like The Bell Curve repugnant to him. Of course interacting with "the Other" demystifies and lays the stage for dialogue and empathy. But you have be open to that (and fundamentally- not selectively, fundamentally- decent) to begin with. And, if you'll allow me just a bit more cynicism, if one has earned the title of bigot they are almost certainly not fundamentally decent.
" transform the bigoted" Not "bigots as claimed by Sullivan". He simply claimed that sex with "the Other" was across-the-board transformative.
I've read this column for some time now and I've watched many of Dan Savage's videos on Youtube, and I finally feel compelled to say: I LOVE YOU DAN SAVAGE. Your response to that snobby asshole was EPIC, absolutely spot on!

Also thank you for saying that "Abortion is not a horrible, horrible thing. It is a medical, medical thing."

@vennominon 108 : I wonder whether your post tests my intelligence or my knowledge of English, because I don't entirely get it. So in trying to explain my meaning I'm going to have to throw brevity overboard (not that I'm any good at it anyway).

"What I found heterocentric was that you seemed to assume that the effect on opposite-sexers and same-sexers would be identical"

For me sex is a mutually consented-to physical activity involving genitalia, and resulting in shared agreeable feelings. I fail to see how having sex could have different psychological effects on opposite-sexers than on same-sexers.

Do you mean that two same-sexers would identify more easily with one another than different-sexers, because society has taken care to bring up females and males so that they'll never be tempted to identify with one another ?

I myself find no difficulty in having empathy and identifying with a male's social position and/or his plights, and even with his orgasmic sensations - although I admittedly don't and will never experience, in real life, the sensations of a penis hanging from my underbelly. I can easily identify with like-minded males of vastly different backgrounds, just like I can with like-minded females. With different-minded people, it takes an effort, and I usually hate the feelings I bring back from the experience ; I seldom simply can't.

"To turn your question around, why would anyone expect Mr Sullivan's trysts to have any effect on misogyny?"

I was not meaning to adress his example of same-sexer trysts, but his theme of "trysts with the Other". I felt that Sullivan was not focusing on homoeroticism and what it could bring to the understanding of Nations, but that he was taking his own sex experience (which is same-sex) as an example of the Power of all forms of Sex against Bigotry. If that feeling of generality was mistaken, then my reasoning falls, of course.

My reasoning on "Sex with the Other destroys Bigotry" went like this : take the example of a heterosexual misogynist engaging in het sex. It is a true "tryst with the Other". But we know that het misogyny is not cured by het sex, at all. Therefore "Sex with the Other destroys Bigotry" is false.

Sure, using an hetero example is not very elegant in an anti-Sullivan post, but I lacked culture to find a similarily striking same-sex situation. And for people who believe that truth comes with numbers, surely misogynists males having sex with females suffering from misogyny is the more widespread kind of sex in the human race, maybe not by frequency, but by sheer number of participants.
Why aren't men pushing for approval of RISUG? We hear these complaints all of the time - "I'm anti-abortion, can't enjoy sex without worrying, I don't want to get tricked into being a father, I don't want to get stuck with the child support bills" - but there is never any action.

Push for approval of RISUG in the US, or go to a reputable doctor in another country to get it. Just quitcherbithcin and take action already.
Ms Sissou - I'll respect it as a difference of reasonable opinion for the most part. You actually illustrate my point about the Other. The nautre of What Sort of Other is different for opposite-sexers than it is for same-sexers. Opposite-sexers are boinking an Other Gender; same-sexers are not; any other Other may or may not be shared in either sort of encounter.

I can't off the top of my head recall who here among the women (looking for a corresponding example) is an Absolute Kinsey Zero, but such a woman has ALWAYS had sex with The Other. I have never had sex with that kind of Other. While I agree with your conclusion about not destroying bigotry, I don't think you can universalize from your example, particularly because I'll agree with your numbers. My quantity of Oppressor-Oppressed boinking will be much lower than that of Ms AKZ. If we agree that all women suffer from misogyny, then ALL her sexual experience includes an oppressor-oppressed element that could be entirely lacking from mine. Is it possible that Sex with AN Other might affect me differently from the way it affects either Ms AKZ or any of her partners, given the significant difference just cited? I don't think Sex with The Other Cures Bigotry, but it could well have a different effect on same-sexers than it does on opposite-sexers, especially as we have more non-orientational based others. Trying to universalize on Ms AKZ's experience, based primarily on an aspect of Sex with the Other that I have never experienced, at least appears to be unwilling to look at whether SWTO has a different effect in our lives.

I am sure you've had conversations going about some aspect of women's lives when along came someone to redirect the conversation and centre the experiences of men. Though you were nowhere near being in the same league as the Men's Rights Advocates I see elsewhere, this felt like something of the same sort. The LW is a same-sexer. The columnist and the well-known person mentioned as an example - the same. The key point of the Sullivan anecdote was arguably the quote about being gay being for him a moral blessing.

The point, while intended as universal, was felt sufficiently grounded in same-sexer perspective that it just felt recentred when the perspective was neither examined nor acknowledged.

It might be a question of standing, too. Mr Rhone made a comment similar to yours, which struck me as a more effective debunking just because of identity. He can presumably speak with more authority on this question than either of us.

It would be interesting, don't you think, to hear from some of those with widespread experience both OS and SS? Mr Sullivan goes too far, but there might be something.
@137 So, if I understand well, a given of same-sex encounters is some level of Sameness, felt by both participants, and Sullivan's argument is that this Sameness spills over the Otherness of skin color or other factors - while there is no such Sameness to be experienced in heterosexual sex, because, duh, different sexes ?

I agree that we need bisexuals to solve that.

I would cynically expect all kinds of humans to be egotistical in bed, and more focused on their own pleasure than on that of their partner, be they same or different sexers (since we're talking about hook-ups, not love or actual relationships), but sometimes cynicism is wrong.

I'd very much like to know.
sissoucat, @138: "I agree that we need bisexuals to solve that."

At your service, ma'am. *tips pink hat*

I don't know that my anecdotal evidence has any special insight, but the short of it is that--in my opinion--Sullivan is full of shit. I think the point that plenty of misogynists have sex with women is apt.

For me everyone is an other [i.e. they aren't me], and their physical, demographic, economic traits are dwarfed by that fundamental otherness. I don't feel more "other" when having sex with an Asian woman than with a Caucasian man. To me that kind of reasoning seems ridiculous. As a white male myself, who would be more "other" to me: a white female or black male?

I think sex can be one of the most intimate acts two humans can share, but obviously two people can fuck and go their separate ways without so much as eye-contact. It's even possible that sex is one of the least equalizing endeavors as it can be inherently exploitative, unlike working/living/finding common cause with someone different than one's self.

[Aussi, lolo peut utiliser "mon" avec moi. Nous sommes internet-marié.
@ lolo: Comment va-tu, mon acajou? *faisant les bises*]

Ms Sissou/Mr Ophian - I think we're all about equally anti-Sullivan, though for different reasons.

Ms Sissou - I'm not necessarily pushing an answer; I'm more willing to consider possibilities. Same-sexers apparently go outside of the socio-economic box more often than opposite-sexers. We can look at why and we can look at what the effect might be or whether there wouldn't be any effect at all.

Mr Ophian - Thank you for your authoritative testimony. You have illustrated something, too, which was causing me a bit of disquiet. I can more or less relate to part of what you say, having never found any partner of colour to be any more or less other than anyone else, but then I never really viewed anyone of any particular colour as any more of an Other than anyone else. (I so rarely feel that I have anything in common with anyone human that everyone is Other, much more so than for most people.) How far can either of us really speak about someone who had an Other-based fear of a particular group? We are perhaps on safer ground if we just deny him the credit he seeks for getting over that problem because his having that problem was a moral failing on his part in the first place - the Big Whoop reply, more or less.
@ vennominon:

Having not read Sullivan's piece [I don't have the time to read something that will make me grit my teeth just now], I will continue to pronounce authoritatively.

I think, perhaps, for Sullivan being gay and wanting to date/get laid broadened his horizons, but I don't really think there is a greater point there.

I do think being queer can, in general, engender or fertilize empathy, as any experience of being the minority, the disfavored, the alien can. But then I consider anyone who has not experienced exclusion to be under-privileged.

"I so rarely feel that I have anything in common with anyone..."

The egalitarianism of alienation. By Nature and/or Nurture I've never had any capacity for group identity, be it a nationality, gender, sports team, &c. Not that I don't see gender, color, tax-bracket in others--those are traits people have--but since I don't know how to feel like one of Us, the other in question is not then one of Them.

Good grief, as a straight woman I'm very glad to hear the first letter writer's gay because at least I'm not going to encounter him in dating! Hello, you're not alone because others don't match up, you're alone because you put people off by being such an unbelievably conceited numbskull. Income is not a metric of how much fun someone is to be with!
Ophian @139: I am wonderful, mon chapeau rose. And I agree with you wholeheartedly on the Sullivan thing. Sex is what you make of it, and no kind of sex with any kind of "Other" (however one might define that) is a magic ticket to a transcendent and universal humanism. The exception, of course, is between dreadlocked gay black men and yogic Caucasian bisexuals in pink hats. But everybody knows that.
Yes, yes, Ophian and lolorhone, flirt all you two want. But if you two get married, you'd better invite all of us to the wedding or face our wrath.

As far as the point of otherness, raised by Mr. Vennominon and then picked up by Ophian (distinct from the Sullivan points): I think that every one is other from everyone and thus has the feeling of alienation breached momentarily and fleetingly by encounters of varying sorts with varying sorts of people. But to paraphrase George Orwell in Animal Farm, all animals are different. But some animals are more different than others.

There's difference of race, of age, of sex or gender, or culture or ethnicity, of nationality, of language, of religion. There's the compelling difference of exoticism and there's the off-putting of difference of discomfort. There's difference and there's alienation. I'm a white, middle-aged, Jewish straight woman, the true Zero on the Kinsey Scale Mr. Ven alluded to earlier. In my being, I provide many points of difference or dissimilarity, Yet none seem so profound to me as the relatively simple one of gender. Whether a man is gay or straight, no matter what culture or ethnicity he comes from or identifies as, no matter what shade his skin, or what religion, the most profound difference from me always seems to be in his maleness.
@ lolo: You know, sometimes I like my men like my coffee: dreadlocked, reading DFW, listening to PJH.
@lolorhone : ooh, dreadlocked too ! I wanna see that.

@Ophian thank you so much for your input - and congratulations for your internet marriage, I wouldn't dare to pronounce on your actual personas but as far as your internet personas go, I think both of you got a winner there.

Bisexual heh ? Dommage que je n'aie pas dix ans de moins, pour pouvoir vous draguer sans mauvaise conscience. Vous êtes appétissant... Then again, I wouldn't dream to compete with your awesome relationship with lolorhone !

Alienation : I've never felt I belonged either, and I've a hard time putting myself in the shoes of people who seem to do. I default to thinking they're just pretending. But the idea of "them" does come by, when I realize I'm adressing a misogynist, a homophobe or a racist - maybe because they're oppressors, maybe because their hate is not grown out of their own experience, but has been learned by living inside a group who shared the same prejudice.
@Ophian: That must be a damn fine dark roast you're sipping on is all I'm saying. I'm just as particular about my cream.


How's the PJH research going? I get a toaster oven if I make one more fan of hers. : )
Thanks for addressing abortion when the anti's are raging on their "40 days for life" aka "40 days for harassment" campaign at clinics that offer private, safe and affordable abortion services.
@lolo...have been listening to PJH Pandora radio all this evening. The toaster is yours. Also, you mightn't be the only one particular about your cream.

@nocutename, "as the relatively simple one of gender..." I can't put my finger on why, but that experience of "maleness" as opposed to--I suppose--"femaleness", is something I don't understand. That which is of principal obviousness to you, escapes me.

@sissoucat, vous pouvez draguer avec suis certain que mon mari ne serait pas vexé.
@Ophian: Awesome. I shall play To Bring You My Love while I toast everything bagels to a rich golden brown...also, the cream thing goes south in terms of metaphor fairly quickly so I'm just going have to call you mon mari chaud and be done with it. My apologies : )

@sissoucat: Je ne serais choqué si vous n'avez pas flirter avec moi aussi. C'est agréable d'être invité à la fête, même si vous ne pouvez pas aller... Tell me if I messed that up, it's been awhile since I wrote a full sentence in French.

@88 Thanks! Hopefully my grammar will improve with time. I sill have a fridge with more than a few 6.9 IPAs so I can't promise anything...

I never considered he might have issues interacting with people in general. That would be a much more complicated situation.
And yes, feel free to say "duh" to 151. I know I did.
Still Thinking @88: You're very welcome!
@127: I agree. The visual I get is plenty amusing, but oh, if only there were a video to along with it.
Ophian, I hope I'm not offending you and I don't mean to sound ignorant, but do you think you're bisexuality somehow makes you bi-gendered a bit? I guess people who identify as queer also don't feel that gender binary.

One of the reasons I like reading this column and its attendant comment thread is that I feel like I get a window into the male mind. And it always seems somehow fundamentally different from the way mine or most of the women I know experience sexuality. Let me add all the qualifiers. I know there's no monolithic male way of being, nor a lone female point of view (I often don't share the majority presupposed "female" point of view). Still, I often feel that the vast majority of men and women just react to sexual things in a way that's essentially different from each other, whether they're gay or straight. Even though you have represented yourself as pretty close to a Kinsey 3 if my memory is correct, you seem to me to be very male in your reactions to sexual matters, which leads me to think that what I see as essential differences has more to do with gender identification than sexual orientation.
Ms Cute - Perhaps Mr Ophian is an agent of the Radical Bisexuals who are out to Destroy Gender (I've seen the Agenda and that is actually there). Unfortunately, I forget what the group is called.

I think "genderqueer" might be more accurate in the last sentence of your first paragraph.
While I similarly hold my nose at LOFD's prudishness, I'm amused at the suggestion that we modern gays are above the "isms" that plague our straighter brothers and sisters. Sullivan aside, how often have we segregated ourselves into separate clubs, separate beach retreats, and even separate "gay rights" organizations lest we rub elbows with those of another color?

And, that certainly is never enough - we cement additional ones into acceptable behavior all on our own. Where else is it acceptable to tell someone they're too fat, too femme (even if the one saying "no" is similarly endowed). God forbid anyone intentionally acting "stereotypical" should want to get laid (no one could actually ever be BORN that way).

I've even seen Cardinal Savage counsel an overweight teen on MTV about "expectations."

So - yeah - SOFD is out of line, but he isn't rowing that slightly fascist boat on his own. We're all a bit not so nice when it comes to who we want to bed. Mr. SOFD is just playing it at a much higher level.
@158: I don't think people are coming down on him solely for having unreasonable expectations. It's that he seems to think that his disastrous dating record is the result of some kind of 'lonely at the top' syndrome- that his intelligence, salary, and overall high perch in life makes him deeply incompatible with a large swath of the population. In reality, it's his own deeply off-putting presumptuousness and insufferable condescension that destroys any commonality between him and his potential mates- not to mention the commentators here.
Mr. Ven @ 157 - destroy gender? What do you/they mean by that?
M? Thinking - Well, social constructs can be destroyed, can they not? I don't remember many of the specifics, but the point was that the way society is gendered works against bisexual people, and the radical goal extended sufficiently far that, if memory serves, in effect if not in actual policy, gender would be so de-recognized that nobody would rule out hypothetical partners or decline actual offers on those grounds.
@13 - Notorious clit shrinkage? I know that anti-depressants can kill your libido or inhibit orgasm, but I've never heard of SSRIs causing clitoral atrophy.
Mr. Ven - I guess I'm failing to see how the way society is gendered has more of a negative effect on bisexuals than it has on anyone else.
@165 - that's not a gender, and it doesn't just apply to gays and most people don't identify as one or the other.

So no, they haven't.
@157 - I like the idea of destroying a concept. When they finish destroying gender, maybe they can set about destroying ridiculousness.
@13 & @163: Perhaps if the anti-depressants kill libido so completely that the clitoris never becomes the slightest bit erect, it might appear to have physically atrophied. But it's hormones that cause physical changes.

Here's a laundry list of SSRI side effects. It doesn't mention any morphological changes. Though it does list vaginal numbness and clitoral priapism (continuous erection). Yikes.
@131 Erica, Try it for long enough, and tell me something different. I have done it myself most of my adult life, and yes, it gets old.
I have been supportive of several partners with less than me, and it gets very very old. I am not superhuman, you might be, if it doesn't bother you. Either that or you have just got very lucky in your choice of partners. That's nice, I wish you continued luck with that. I haven't been so lucky.
I feel a burning need to confess a long-standing internet crush on lolorhone...

@Chandira: you feel like you have to pay and carry them a little financially, and you have to be superhuman for that not to cause some resentment.

Wow. Replace "superhuman" with "human", and I think your statement would be more accurate. Given that even high earners can suddenly find themselves without a job, maybe you should stay out of the dating pool altogether.

FWIW, I've been the primary breadwinner in my relationship for 15 years, and it's a source of pride for me, not resentment.
Is it just me, or are the people who complain most about other folks "feeling entitled to sex" also the same people who blow a gasket whenever folks don't want to fuck *them*?

Don't want to fuck a dumbass? Elitist.
Don't want to fuck a bum? Classist.
Don't want to fuck a fatass? Fat-shaming.
Don't want to fuck everyone? Repressed Prude.

But of course you're not an entitled asshole... only straight white men can be entitled. It's a privilege thing, you wouldn't get it.
It amazes me how gay guys incourage one another to let go of any sort of standards when looking for a partner. I've had to hear this over and over again, along the lines of: we're a minority, being overly selective won't get us anywhere. Great, let's just give EVERYONE a chance then, right? As long as they're hot, of course, that's the only standard you're entitled to have as a gay guy. Everyone will understand you for not dating someone ugly. Ew. But this one's cute. He works at McDonald's and has never read a book, so what? Maybe he's the one.
Most guys I know ARE giving pretty much EVERYONE a chance, and though their sex lives may be very diverse, their love lives are without exception a fucking shambles. Maybe it's time to realise that's not getting us anywhere, it only serves to satisfy some activist's ideology of a universal gay brotherhood.
Dear LOFD, you may be full of it, you may not be, in any case there's nothing wrong with knowing what's important to you in a man and selecting people accordingly. Dan Savage is full of bad faith.
So confused, you give advice to mini-andrew sullivan to not be like andrew sullivan, then you back it up with andrew sullivan...
@176: Gold star : )
My Uncle Jackson got an almost new green GMC Canyon only from part-time off a computer... learn the facts here now
@1- I am sure he just thought it was implied. I have met some gals like this and I am sure it is the same with guys. serious self esteem issues or some other issue but an issue no less and a total turn off for anyone with a shred of self-esteem. Guy better get used to his own company til he grows the fuck up.

    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.