Dan, imo, you've adapted well to the explosion of sensi-poo-ness expected of advice columnists over the past 5 to 10 years. Maintaining your distinct agressive and somewhat confrontational style but softening it just enough to not get canceled. Bravo.

I've often felt the same way about the name-calling, but just thought it was Dan's style. I like the explanation!

Elope! You shouldn’t have to borrow money for a wedding. We went to the courthouse and including our honeymoon and wedding outfits, spent about $1000. So worth it. Your wedding gets to be all about you and your love and not about your family’s drama or opinions. Focus on the marriage, not the wedding!

On this topic, I'm more with the reader than with Dan. It's entirely possible to be blunt without being dehumanizing.

I find myself agreeing with the person wrote this in.

A reader objects to all the sack-of-shitting and selfish-asshole'ing I do around here...

They are spot on about how name calling is not constructive and it actually it is destructive. I did not know that this was not an advise column where we should not expect unprofessional behavior and someone calling names.

Does Dan have to be nice to his readers or the subject of his readers? No but it does show a lot about him. It also gives me the door and gives me a reason to stop reading this regurgitated spew

@5. Always weird to hear from longtime readers who weren't actually reading the column.

Gawd, calling people names Dan? Well I never thought it should be otherwise, if they derseve it.
Then I’m a fair dinkum bogan from down under, so wtf would I know.
You’d think people who write to Dan are at the end of their rope and are ready for some straight talking. Which he and some others give. And freely too I might add. Some people are never satisfied.

Not quite "all the right reasons". Liking it when a partner isn't out publicly needs at least a good amount of tweaking.

Dan! You forgot to mention... How did you like CATS?? :)

Thanks, Dan, for your explanation of your kid-glove-less advice style. If people want wishy-washy advice that shows kindness and sympathy for both sides, asshole and victim, there are other columnists they can write to. Dan's no-nonsense tone is spot on. Keep up the good work, Dan!

Venn @8, I'm trying hard to see a positive spin on that particular problematic aspect to the letter. If, by chance, she means she likes the idea of helping someone come to terms with who they are so that they can eventually be more out, that's, well, a bit patronising but less sinister and controlling than wanting someone who is closeted so that she can have the power of a threatened outing to keep him in line...

Young and naive was my take on that LW. With not much clue about how being with a bi man would pan out in reality.
I think she did say she wasn’t wanting him to go off with men, she wanted to know he was bi, so she could enjoy his expansiveness, not that he would necessarily act on it. I’m going on my bad memory here, and too lazy to read the letter again.
That she got off on thinking a man was still in the bi closet seems, as Mr V pointed out in the thread, like cave man’s wife who was so chuffed he only showed his softer side to her.
Like a trophy bi partner, not one who actually lived it. Wherever she was coming from, if felt like fantasyland.

I (naturally) loved the Explanation.

And admired how succinct it was. I wish my own similar explanations here could've been so well-written.

But there is usually not an asshole and victim in bad relationships. Instead of exploring the problem and solutions, name calling quickly and irrationally blames the other person. It polarizes, and it pisses me off when Trump starts going off about losers and jerks and fake news, too. Contagious lazy thinking.

Kink monster just didn't seem to be willing to put in the effort to satisfy his wife's sexual desires. And the solution is to stop trying to rely on him for sexual satisfaction since he is unwilling/unable to perform. I think that name calling trivializes the seriousness. Being ggg backfires without reciprocation. Be good to others, but be good to yourself, too. Sex is no exception. It would have been more interesting to ask her why she consented to sex with little to no enjoyment for herself, that is the talk she should develop with her husband if she would like good marital sex, the first step is to stop being ggg also, until she feels some enjoyment and hope in her sex life.

How about a bar where the pool sticks aren't broken and you're not trying to ignore whatever is sticking your shoes to the floor and people use bathrooms...

Here's an educational video about the pearl-clutching types who write to sex advice columnists to express their disapproval over words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhnJru5HZlU

If you don’t want an unvarnished opinion peppered with occasional swear words, then don’t seek advice from someone who does exactly that. Don’t change a thing, Dan. Sometimes the truth hurts, and most times the people who need it need to hear it without euphemisms. Makes it harder to say, “Oh, that wasn’t a stinging rebuke, guess I’ll just ignore it.”

Anyone's opinion or feelings can be dismissed or demeaned. Or they can be engaged with thoughtfully and kindly.

Life is full of choices. Character shapes choices.

Making fun of things can make them feel silly and less threatening. If you can't engage with logic and mutual respect, it works better than nothing. Social alliances and forcefulness can be much quicker at destroying problematic people and ideas than logic and mutual respect. But love without mutual respect is toxic.

Generous humor helps, vitriolic humor boosts one ego at the expense of another.

@14 Philophile
"But there is usually not an asshole and victim in bad relationships."

True.

I guess that's why in a whole year of letters from people in bad relationships, I probably only write the word asshole a couple times.

All you got to do is scroll on by. Nobody forces anyone to read Dan’s threads. It’s the internet.

If Dr. Laura can be snippy, so can Dan.

@21 raindrop
"Dr. Laura"

Dan doesn't deserve to have the name of that lunatic invoked in his defense.

Eh, unless you literally can't afford to have some people over to your house for a party (which some people indeed cannot), you can afford to throw a party for your wedding. Maybe not the catered, fancy-venue, costumed party you want, but a wedding nonetheless. And I DO consider attachment to fantasy in the face of a contradictory reality childish, (as in, more characteristic of children than adults, for biological developmental reasons) so that'qs one of the few times when contrasting adults to children isn't unreasonably discriminatory.

As for insuting metaphors, I think they have utility, as noted in a recent comment, and I think Dan walks that line pretty well. There are literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of other advice columns; if calling people sacks of shit etc. offends your sensibilities, write to/read ones that place a higher value on being nice. We're not talking about an unfairly marginalized group, here; people who mistreat others are FIARLY marginalized.

Ms Fan - Sure, there are a number of less negative ways it could play out. And the context is clearly that someone who didn't have to come out would be paying her a huge compliment of trust. She still needs work, though, before I'd want a bi male friend of any out status to date her. I'll hope most of the questionable stuff just comes from naivete.

Thank goodness for Dan's style. I probably wouldn't have kept reading him otherwise. And I've learned tons from reading Dan so assiduously over the years. I'm almost certainly a better person for it.

John Horstman,
"We're not talking about an unfairly marginalized group, here; people who mistreat others are FAIRLY marginalized"

"Mistreat others" is vague. We all make mistakes. Violate a legal or sacred principle or behave dishonestly or with abuse of power, ok I share your idea that's really bad. But all I saw in the letter was a spoiled confused man and a sad confused woman. I actually thought the woman should respect her sexual desire better by refraining from engaging in sex that she doesn't enjoy far more often. And give a shot at rekindling the vanilla sex that her husband seemed to enjoy at one point by putting less emphasis on his boner. But Dan thought she should just give up the idea of having good (for her) sex with her husband... Depends if she'd rather get off without his boner or without him, I'd think.

Besides, most of my argument against name calling (I appreciate other profanity) is that it's lazy group think, it's used instead of and opposed to logic so often..

@19 curious
it doesn't bother me so much when the explanation is spelled out better I think, especially when rooted in legal or ethical precedent. Often there is no need to get colorful to impress when it's dead serious.. But I actually think it was lazy in the case mentioned..

Dan's language is perfectly acceptable for a sex advice columnist. There are always two arseholes (at least) in every relationship, and some combination of dicks and cunts. I have dated some truly selfish arses in my time (also, guys on hook-up apps, please do not send me a picture of your arse - if you think it is your most photogenic aspect ,you really are a massive arse). Honestly, I can a dick sometimes (guys who think "Hung?" is an appropriate first message discover that I can be a colossal dick if I choose). And I can empathise with the poor, miserable cunts out there, who, with a little guidance, could easily qualify for the uniquely Australian compliment, "s/he's a good cunt, really."

Dan’s primary responsibility is to write an entertaining column that will draw readers who will then see the advertisements. The fact that the advice is actually sound is a bonus.

PanSapian, the only time I have heard the C word, it’s kids, sometimes my sons, using it in a derogatory way. Which I shut down pretty fast.
If Dan was using that word in his answers, I wouldn’t be here.
Dan is not a therapist, what’s with the he’s got authority bull. Don’t put hero worshiping on Dan. He’s s fucking gay man for christ’s sake. Us women have had to teach him about our pleasure,
The thing is, unlike so many other men, Dan listens.
Love you Dan. Hope you and your mob have a stupendous xmas.

And women listen to Dan. It’s liberating, hearing from a gay man’s perspective. He’s helped me do upgrades on my sexual energies.

Fresh @29, yes. Advice is not Dan's product. Entertainment is. Those who write him do not pay him. Advertisers do, because he has a lot of readers, and that must be due to lots of us liking his style.

LavaGirl - 'Cunt' is the actual English word for the female sex organs, and is not inherently derogatory or insulting. To make it taboo suggests that female sexuality is so obscene it can only be discussed safely in dead, clinical Latin. It is a vulgar term, certainly and it is always insulting for a person to be reduced to genitalia. But the fact that we can comfortably talk about dicks, both literal and metaphorical, while rendering the c-word unspeakable seems to me to be yet another double standard. And if people are allowed to be dicks sometimes, why aren't we allowed to be cunts?

"There are always two arseholes (at least) in every relationship, and some combination of dicks and cunts."
Some just deal with the shit and hard work better than others.. You can't ignore a blockage.. But no one appreciates if you only let go and never rein yourself in..
Lol.

Good question PanSapian. A while ago CMD pointed this out and since I’ve tried to not use those words to describe people.
Calling someone a dick or a prick doesn’t have the same force of abuse behind it. And the cunt, the magical place where blood and babies come out and fingers, cocks etc go up, is part of the prime site of human’s biological creative powers. The word captures that power well, to me, cunt.
That it is the ultimate word of abuse says it all, doesn’t it. Such hatred towards cis women’s strength and power. As such it needs reclaiming. In my private world I do that, and I won’t tolerate it being used in an abusive way in my earshot.

I get so used to mouthing off here, being an ex Catholic like Dan is, it’s a freedom of clarity hard won. I have to be careful with this in my real world. Saying someone is a wanker, gender neutral, self evident, right. I must have said it a few times in front of my twenty eight year old son, and he told me finally it wasn’t appropriate.
Of course words have inherent meaning for us. In themselves they don’t. Tools by which a group of humans communicate. Don’t mess with that word, is my stance.

Maybe if "sack of shit" were a racial, anti-Semitic, LGBT-phobic slur, then LW would have a point. But the word doesn't work that way. Being a sack of shit is not something that you're born into. It's a choice, and if you're going to make the choice to behave like a sack of shit then you better be prepared to get called a sack of shit. And anyone who takes time out of their day to write a letter to Dan finding fault with him for calling sacks of shit what they are, is a sack-of-shit apologist. Which, in my book, is only a rung or two above being an actual sack of shit.

LavaGirl @37: A fair dinkum bogan allied with a with a relapsed dogan, advocating for the raw power of words. This is why I visit these pages.

Ms Lava - Putting aside the question of why or whether gays are less worthy of heroic appreciation, you and Mr Savage strike me as different sorts of "ex-Catholic". I was going to say he's put forward more for general observation, but on reflection I'm not so sure. He seems to have a very RC mind and just doesn't believe the particular dogma, whereas your mind strikes me as decidedly non-RC from most of your posts. I'd almost certainly agree with Mr S's calling himself a "cultural Catholic"; he reminds me of many of my bridge players whom I'd describe to be Cultural Jews.

People who write or call in to Dan, obviously read and/or listen to him, and should therefore understand the way he delivers his advice.
Message Ask Amy if you want a polite PG reply to your sex related issues.
His delivery is part of the charm, and wouldn’t be the same without it.

Of course, rudeness is part of Dan’s hustle, which is fine. It’s amusing sometimes. But I didn’t really buy the justification.... if I were drinking at a bar with friends and complaining about my wife, and one of them called her a sack of shit... that would not go over well with me.

as in, we would no longer be friends

Joeburner2 @42: if you were drinking at a bar, telling your friends that your wife was engaging in the kind of sack of shit behaviour we sometimes read about in these pages, and someone pointed that out, you'd be offended? Sounds like a setup to me.

@28. Pan. Surely there's not much difference in etiquette fails between an unsolicited dick and an unsolicited arse?

I think there's a place--a huge place--for advice that speaks to people in the language, and using the ready moral responses, they're accustomed to--that says things like 'he's being a jerk' or 'no, you're the asshole here'. Counseling, from my perspective, often fails because it asks people to think in a way they don't--it's hushed, solemn, even sometimes po-faced; it asks people to take seriously stuff they'd either normally laugh at, or refuse to engage with because they thought it ridiculous. It's a bit like a crash diet--it begins by telling people to be other than they are. There are better ways to get someone to change.

@44 you can get away with telling your friend that their new bf/gf is a sack of shit, but not their spouse of 20 years. (At least in my case.) There is a difference between an insult and a criticism. Friends have to recognize that insults to the spouse are felt personally by the partner. If the friend wants to call out sack of shit behavior, that’s fine and good, but they need to do it in a respectful way. (At least in my case.)

If Dan wants to use the bar analogy, he should modify it. He is really more like a drunk stranger you meet at the bar. A stranger in a bar can tell you exactly what he thinks. If he offends you, that’s really not his problem... you were the one who asked the opinion of a random drunk stranger.

In fact sometimes this is literally true, as he is known on occasion to write responses while drunk at a bar.

I even drunk strangers in bars and advice columnists should be respectful. However, expectations are lower.

I COMPLETELY disagree with the person complaining about Dans name calling. 100%. People are not here to have their hands held by a therapist, they are here for some no-nonsense advice from their bitchy queen pal. And I deeply resent the constant drumbeat of mediocrity from the hand-wringing wing of the left, they sound like 80s church ladies who do nothing but control everyone else behavior in the name of endless bland niceness.

It should also be said that even a stranger at the bar would pause before he called your loved one a piece of shot, to assess your size and strength. Online discourse has fewer consequences and is often ruder, which I think I am not the first to notice.

But it’s a worthwhile point that the original guy made—- even a snarky advice columnist should avoid using dehumanizing insults. There is a crucial difference between calling out sack-of-shit-behavior and calling someone a sack of shit. It’s probably a losing battle— the rude version just sounds snappier— but worth fighting.

@51 Dont worry. As I said, we prudes are on the losing side.

vennonminon @40 "Cultural Jews" -- I suppose one could accurately enough call me a cultural Jew, as I am, indeed, an atheist. But I engage with more of the religious aspects of Jewishness than I can explain with the adjective "cultural" -- avoiding pork and shellfish most of the times, lighting candles on Friday nights and singing the blessings, attending shul occasionally on non-holiday Saturdays (and wearing a kippah and tallis when I do -- if the guys have to do it, I should have to do it, and it's also a nice statement to wear a kippah as a woman, even in a more progressive synagogue), knowing all the prayers of the Friday night and Saturday services (I am also incapable of singing them quietly, though I try, but I'm told often I have a nice voice, so I guess that's fine), etc. In the end, I call myself a Jewish atheist, which, in addition to being a delightful oxymoron, occasionally confuses the crap out of people who don't get it.

When I was being emotionally abused by my brother, I actually really appreciated peers who told me he was being a gigantic asshole/dick/what-have-you (in addition to the more diplomatic "that's absolutely unacceptable" and the more clinically accurate "that's emotionally abusive" from mental health professionals), because it viscerally reinforced my experience and helped me to dismiss my guilt that the situation was my fault. Sure, the language was strong and not necessarily 100% accurate -- my brother is not a bad person and was acting out of his own deeply seated issues, some of which he has since grown out of -- but it was pretty necessary to shock me out of my self-hatred spiral and give myself a break. It didn't change the situation -- I couldn't leave my brother like an adult can leave a bad relationship (we were both minors or, later, very young adults reliant on our parents), and I couldn't work with my brother to improve the relationship because the nature of his issues made him extremely averse to engaging with (or admitting to) the problematic aspects of his behavior, but I could change my perception and lighten my self-blame. I could work on ways to avoid triggering my brother without thinking that if I did trigger him it was my fault. It also helped me retroactively let go of residual trauma after the abuse was mostly over. Part of this change in perception was due to significant clinical assistance of therapists, but part was also due to peers who called out my brother's actions in colorful language. There is time and a place for calling people such names to others they have harmed, and while I don't agree with Dan's use of the language absolutely 100% of the time, I think he's often right to use it.

Ms Muse - Yours seems an accurate self-label.

It may often be a tricky distinction, but I have a fairly easy marker; they'll make and keep their usual bridge dates on high holy days.