Sorry to hear about Terry's health scare... I hope everything's better.


@2: Thank you, Urgutha. Everything is fine now. He's 100%.


Monogamy is like religion; some people seem to be wired for it, while many of us are not. Or at least we're honest about it.

Even otherwise nonjudgemental monogamy people seem completed flummoxed by the concept of mutually consensual nonmonogamy.
If you love each other, it doesn't matter who does what with your !&@€.


Glad to hear Terry is doing well.

I endorse the specifics of Dan’s point. However, the larger issue of that Dear Prudence letter was about jumping all over allies (or people who round up to allies) over minor—and ever-changing— points of usage. Dan has certainly been on the receiving end of these public spankings, so I’m surprised to see him 1) not address the LW’s actual concern and 2) dish one out to Ortberg.

Dan is writing as if Ortberg kicked him out of Terry’s hospital room himself. Ortberg has earned the benefit of the doubt.


It's probably untoward to remark on a dispute between two "pros" as it were but I confess I'm mystified by Mr Savage's assessment of Ortberg as a "terrific" advice columnist who "carefully avoids loaded or stigmatizing language". My impression as a long time reader who greatly misses the wryly funny, consistently moral Emily Yoffe is that Ortberg is a rambling bumbler without identifiably coherent principles who quite regularly tosses off profoundly loaded accusations ("racist!" "sexist!" "fillintheblankphobe!") over the tiniest divot of language on the part of his readers - the only difference is that this one dinged his own queer "side" as it were!

Dan is about as close to a hero as this gone way around the block fifty-something married old gay guy could possibly have and even I don't agree with him 100% of the time - but when he passes judgement he holds everyone to the same standards of behavior, a basic moral principle that utterly eludes Ortberg as this only latest example shows. I guarantee he would not be anywhere near as magnanimous towards someone who made such an "error" as Dan is to him, pretty disqualifying for a columnist charged with adjudicating ethical quandaries if you ask me.

Yeah, yeah, I know, nobody did and I do not presume an answer here, I am just genuinely confused. All of which of course is to say, good shot Dan, you're still my (sort of) hero...:-)



Please, do we have to import the dumping on Daniel Ortberg to yet another publication? It's not unanimous and it's not really on point here. A lot of people disliked Emily Yoffe and complained about HER.


We've not seen or heard from our resident slog goofball (most recently under the wonderful moniker "Promethius" if I'm not mistaken) for a few days. This has gotta be like red meat for him though; guessing he'll be out with his (or perhaps, "their") unmistakable brand of shitpost soon.


Dan, everyone is confused about "immaculate conception" because it makes no sense. Granted, the rest of Catholic mythology (and Christian mythology, generally, and all religious mythology, generally) makes little to no sense, either, but that one requires an additional reversal of temporal causality, whereby Yahweh raping (or impregnating without consulting her first, if you prefer, though I would consider that to always be rape) Mary somehow negates the supposedly universal sin of human procreation long after the fact.


Glad to read Terry is ok and congrats on the nearly half century together.


I didn't realise Mary was born without original sin.
So much for all those yrs of catholic education. So God chose Mary to bear his son, while she was still in utero? Forward thinking.


Well, you know, LavaG, can't have a tainted incubator! Gotta make sure the womb is Jesus-worthy.

I'm glad to hear that Terry's tip top. He sent me a Tom of Finland thing today, and I have to say, I kind of like the floppier-haired, more approachable-looking version.

And please go easy on Daniel Mallory Ortberg. Overall, he's been doing a lot to reach a vast and perhaps more middle-ground audience.


@10 LavaGirl, I was confused by that. It sounded like Mary did indeed have to endure the unpleasantness of PIV (pre-marital, no less, when she should have been keeping her legs crossed, or just saying no, or any of the other preventative measures available to her), but that her V had been pre-blessed. If God had been a good guy, he could have pre-blessed her with a diaphragm. But then I guess there'd be no catholics. I wonder if Joseph's P was similarly blessed?

Very glad to hear that Terry is 100%.


Terry can really pull of an adoring gaze!


I have no idea what importing a dump on Ortberg means, I just signed up today but whatever, I'll cop: I am increasingly, vehemently pissed at being so "represented" by the likes of Ortberg, a supposed ethics (!) writer who can't be bothered to hold himself to his own highly accusatory standards for the space of a single column. This kind of "OK for me not for thee" thing happens constantly in the left LGBT media, it is precisely a species of moral hypocrisy that we spent generations fighting against, it is very much a big deal and we need to start pushing back on it before others start doing it for us, and to us. Again.


@12 furbar, Mary didn't endure the unpleasantness of physical intimacy, phew. The author is cross because people think the IC and Virgin Birth are the same. I did. But no. Mary was born without sin and gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.
Good point about Joseph though. Maybe he had to douse it in Holy Water first.


And now an old show tune from Kiss Me Kate:

Always True To You In My Fashion


"I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion."


@15.cont: What am I saying. No penis was involved in the making of Jesus.


Dan, yes the jet lag. You've sat with dying friends and lovers who had AIDS, you're pioneered a form of sex advice not quite seen before etc etc etc, so why you still allowing others to define you?
The other guy, who I know nothing about, meant sexually faithful per the monogamous contract. And you and Terry and other non monogomous peoples, are faithful per their contracts. Or not, then they are unfaithful.

Humans have no innate sexual social laws, like other animals do. If you read up on other cultures and their sexual/ social rules, a variety of ways are seen. We just get programmed by the culture we're in. And unprogrammed by doing it different.


Scary to read about Terry's health scare. Glad to hear it's over.

And I'm right there with you, Dan. I get so tired of hearing (most often from fellow queers) that my husband and I of more-than-twenty years aren't committed just because we're monogamish.


This was a lovely post, Dan. I really enjoy the affection that shines through when you talk or write about Terry.

And the whole immaculate conception/virgin birth conflation has irritated me since CCD class.


It's weird to me that God had to make Mary go through with a pregnancy and childbirth at all. I mean, he could've just had a chat with her, and then ta-da, there's a baby! But no, she's got to be pregnant and has to wander around all night in labor begging people to let her into their homes and then is forced to give birth a barn ffs.

Glad Terry is OK, the original argument sounds stupid, so does the other fellow's word choice.


" I pointed out that he was committed to monogamy, not his any of his spouses, whereas I'm committed to Terry."

As the kids say today, Oh Snap! Also, that is an adorable picture.


That picture is beautiful.. I am all teary-eyed ova-here! For real, the love that Terry has for you in that picture is palpable. I am glad he is at 100%


You and Terry always make me smile and feel happy. I am glad YOU BOTH have a relationship that works for YOU. That's the goal. Make YOUR relationship work. Everyone else's relationship is their problem and their business. You two crazy kids keep on keeping on (and anytime Terry wants to take his clothes off and post on IG is fine with me.)


Good for Mr Miller. I shall, though, ask Ms Cute whether she assessed Mr Miller's "approachability" from an OS or a gay perspective.

Mr Ortberg, though seemingly a step up from Ms Yoffe (except for being problematic about religion), does not seem to be winning hearts and minds that successfully. I did wonder whether he'd walk back some of the old gender-war shtick or just add "cis" to the mix. For some reason not yet pinned down, if asked I'd advise male friends not to date him, but not female friends.


Oh, and +1 to Mr Savage for bringing up one of my most successful roles. I recall that passage well.



Re; dishing out punishment to allies.

I have a hypothesis about that, actually.

One of the things that's obvious when looking at any disadvantaged group is that, almost by definition, they don't have access to the people who are actually the root cause of their problems(because the root cause tends to be people who are very rich, very powerful, or both).

This can be extremely frustrating as you have all of this anger that you can't point at the real source of your problems but you can get some release by venting it at people who at least look like(and maybe even act like in some very small ways) the people who actually caused your issue/s.

And so it goes. Allies, who don't realize what's happening, try to justify or excuse it as much as they can but it is what it is.


First of all, I'm so glad Terry is ok. That must have been so frightening for both of you. I entirely agree with your assessment of what a faithful committed relationship can be. Defining it narrowly to just one aspect is kind of a cop out and can let people off the hook from doing the work that's needed to make a partnership thrive. And yeah, that whole "you can't really be in love with your partner if your relationship is poly or open is just sooooo much bullshit. The Husband and I have been together for 10 years and he and his girlfriend have been together for, golly, 20 or something years. She was my matron of honor, and we three hang out pretty much every week. It's not every one's cup of tea but it works for us.


@26: Mr. Ven, I wasn't talking about approaching him sexually (and I can only always speak from the position as a straight woman); I just meant that he looked friendly and nice (and adoring of Dan) and I could see myself as being friends with him or approaching him at a party to strike up a conversation or if I were lost, asking him for directions.

Now, he looks more like Tom of Finland, or a Daddy in a leather bar. While I'm sure his personality is the same, more or less, I would feel more intimidated than encouraged to strike up a conversation with him were I to meet him at a party. He now sends out what to me is a more strictly (gay) sexual vibe. I have had some unfortunate experiences with men who look like leather Daddies who were disparaging of women and rude to me as a woman in what I thought were supposed to be ordinary, non-sexualized social settings.

I acknowledge that to a gay man, he may look equally approachable or equally desirable either way or both ways, as well as the fact that in one incarnation he would probably appeal more to some people and in the other, to others, and that there is likely a venn diagram situation, as well. I'm also sure that to plenty of women he looks better buffed-out. In any case, knowing him to be gay, I wouldn't ever have presumed to hit on him or expect him to show any sexual interest in me.


Loved the picture of Dan and Terry, but does anyone know the story behind the words on Dan's shirt?


@5 I don't think Dan is dumping on Ortberg as much as he was dumping on all the crap he gets for being non-monogamous and how it's not the same thing as being unfaithful.

I do think Fresh has a point, that this behavior of jumping all over allies for the smallest mistake is shit that really has to stop.


Ms Cute - I was just reminded of how careful I was in a recent conversation elsewhere about whether Mr Borg or Mr McEnroe had aged better.


Sister Mary will be losing her patience with me, sorry Sister. It was immaculate conception, so God had settled on who would be Mary's parents and her conception was fixed so 1) it was immaculate and 2) the foetus was female. The Holy Ghost/ Spirit's work I guess, God sending them down to sort the conception.


I used to love watching those guys play tennis Venn. Borg in his short shorts and McEnroe and his performances. Fire and Ice, those two.


If God interfered with Mary's conception along with Jesus's.. does that mean Mary is God's daughter? Oh. That sounds a little incestuous. Wish I hadn't had that thought.


Ms Lava - Apparently in the recent film Borg vs McEnroe, the actor playing Borg bears quite a remarkable resemblance to the real Bjorn.

And John lost a 34-year-old record today - he'd won 49 consecutive sets on carpet, the most for any individual surface. Rafa's clay streak is now 50 and still alive, as he's already converted two-thirds of his Triple Decima last year into Undecimas by winning Monte Carlo and Barcelona for the eleventh time each.


If that's not love, I don't know what is. My husband had to fly out for work overseas for a little while (not forever, but a bit) yesterday and we were both trying not to break down at the airport, although once we left, I broke down pretty hard. I can't remember the last time I did that. We do everything together, including dominating certain people we think are cool enough to 'make the cut' as subs. I wouldn't rule out violence if someone questioned that, though then I stop and think, oh wait, they're not him, so... do I really care what they think? No, I don't.

I'm not about to tell him he can't sleep with other people, or, far more likely, that he can't keep bullying/stepping on/cucking guys the way he's been doing for as long as I've known him (I thought in my own selfish way that I was good at being dominant until I saw him at work, that man is a true artist). I just want to make sure that when he does, he tells me about it so we can enjoy and laugh about it later. I can't think of a single incident in which he's broken trust/faith with me.


*questioned our relationship, I mean. Certain things, you just don't do, if you're smart. That would be one of those things.


Lavagirl, no. Mary was conceived the usual way but was born without original sin. So Mary really holier. And she kept ot up by doing God's will and bearing Jesus. Pulling this logic to its conclusion, because pain of labour is punishment for original sin, Jesus' birth was not painful for Mary.

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.