PDA

View Full Version : Gay celebrity Dan Savage on marriage: No monogamy if you don't like it.



Elspeth
01-10-2012, 06:41 PM
Now that gays are getting the legal right to marry, Savage would like to trash the concept of monogamy--for straights.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html?pagewanted=all

[quote]...Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.

“I acknowledge the advantages of monogamy,” Savage told me, “when it comes to sexual safety, infections, emotional safety, paternity assurances. But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.”

The view that we need a little less fidelity in marriages is dangerous for a gay-marriage advocate to hold. It feeds into the stereotype of gay men as compulsively promiscuous, and it gives ammunition to all the forces, religious and otherwise, who say that gay families will never be real families and that we had better stop them before they ruin what is left of marriage. But Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs. Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners. And that, Savage says, destroys more families than it saves...

....“The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitar*ian and fairsey.” In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”

In their own marriage, Savage and Miller practice being what he calls “monogamish,” allowing occasional infidelities, which they are honest about. Miller was initially opposed to the idea. “You assume as a younger person that all relationships are monogamous and between two people, that love means nothing can come between you,” said Miller, who met Savage at a club in 1995, when he was 23 and Savage was 30. “Dan has taught me to be more realistic about that kind of stuff.

“It was four or five years before it came up,” Miller said. “It’s not about having three-ways with somebody or having an open relationship. It is just sort of like, Dan has always said if you have different tastes, you have to be good, giving and game, and if you are not G.G.G. for those tastes, then you have to give your partner the out. It took me a while to get down with that.” When I asked Savage how many extramarital encounters there have been, he laughed shyly. “Double digits?” I asked. He said he wasn’t sure; later he and Miller counted, and he reported back that the number was nine. “And far from it being a destabilizing force in our relationship, it’s been a stabilizing force. It may be why we’re still together.”...

Apache
01-10-2012, 07:29 PM
Gee, NEVER saw this coming along...


Nope, sure didn't :rolleyes:

JB
01-10-2012, 08:12 PM
I'm not sure what he's saying or what he wants done.

The concept of open marriages, swinging, etc. is not new. If you are married and in that type of relationship then your marriage will be fine (generally). If you are married and you want monagomy that type of openness will not work for you. There are no secular laws regarding being married and boinking someone on the side.

You could say the same thing about drugs. If you like to smoke crack and your wife doesn't, your marriage won't last. If two married people are crackheads they probably get along swimmingly.

I'm not advocating any open marriages or even gay marriage and I condone monogamy in marriage but Savage is not providing any revelations or new ways of thinking here.

Elspeth
01-10-2012, 08:44 PM
I'm not advocating any open marriages or even gay marriage and I condone monogamy in marriage but Savage is not providing any revelations or new ways of thinking here.

But it may be that these things are far more common in gay marriages than straight, and Savage is trying to normalize adultery in straight marriage.

I had a gay female friend who married her girlfriend when San Francisco started handing out marriage licenses for gays back in the early 2000s. When I went to congratulate her, she explained that it was an open marriage, and that they operated on the basis of "show, don't tell." They both had affairs outside the marriage. Needless to say, they went through a very nasty breakup several years later, and my friend was left with no place to live. So open marriages are no guarantee either.

JB
01-10-2012, 09:00 PM
But it may be that these things are far more common in gay marriages than straightNo doubt.
and Savage is trying to normalize adultery in straight marriage.If that's his agenda then he needs to be smacked down, ridiculed and summarily dismissed.

I wonder how he got to adopt a kid with this attitude that it's all right to go and bang anyone I want to as long as my gay lover is OK with it. Must have forgot to mention that part when he was being interviewed.

noonwitch
01-12-2012, 11:13 AM
I don't think that Dan Savage or any group of gays can normalize heterosexual adultry more than the entertainment industry already has.

txradioguy
01-12-2012, 11:21 AM
But it may be that these things are far more common in gay marriages than straight, and Savage is trying to normalize adultery in straight marriage.


Thei point of forcing the majority of America to accept gay marriage all along has in part been to deconstruct the traditional normal sense of what a marriage is.

This is just part of it.

Elspeth
01-16-2012, 02:55 AM
I don't think that Dan Savage or any group of gays can normalize heterosexual adultry more than the entertainment industry already has.

A propros, I heard a recent NPR program about a website that keeps information on adulterous liaisons and asked some of its members to journal about what led them into adultery. For the males, it was (unsurprisingly) about sexual practices (things their wives wouldn't do, for example), and for females, it was about the attention, the wooing. I'll see if I can find the link. The guy who ran the website insisted that these adulterous affairs would "help" marriages stay together. I found that not credible, but it surprised me how many places the idea of trying to stick to your marriage vows is taking a beating. There's a concerted effort, and Dan Savage seems to be part of it, to weaken marriage to the point of irrelevancy.

Elspeth
01-16-2012, 02:56 AM
Thei point of forcing the majority of America to accept gay marriage all along has in part been to deconstruct the traditional normal sense of what a marriage is.

This is just part of it.

I never used to think that, but I am beginning to see how that might be true.

Odysseus
01-17-2012, 11:49 AM
I never used to think that, but I am beginning to see how that might be true.

It is. If you see the gay marriage debate as part of the continuum of attacks on marriage and family, from no-fault divorce to abortion on demand, you see that the legal and moral weight of the culture has been used to weaken every bond that forms families and keeps them together. A family that can raise its own children and provide for them doesn't need a nanny, much less a nanny state.

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 01:30 PM
I'm not sure what he's saying or what he wants done.



He's a columnist who alternates between human interest stories and discussing awkward and uncomfortable things in a very nonchalant way. He's also immersed in a Berkeleyesque subculture, so he's guaranteed to annoy anyone outside the bay area at one time or another.





I'm not advocating any open marriages or even gay marriage and I condone monogamy in marriage but Savage is not providing any revelations or new ways of thinking here.

He isn't saying anything new. He fancies himself a sort of Mark Twain character.

txradioguy
01-17-2012, 01:33 PM
He isn't saying anything new. He fancies himself a sort of Mark Twain character.


He may fancy himself the next Clemens...but in reality he's the poster boy for hate speech.

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 01:37 PM
But it may be that these things are far more common in gay marriages than straight, and Savage is trying to normalize adultery in straight marriage.


I don't think he is. I think he's saying that it is common in heterosexual marriage. Some people like to compare their standard of perfect heterosexual marriage to their worst portrayal of homosexual marriages. And timing being everything and with a Mormon running for president we also need to talk about plural marriage.

In other words- stop pretending that the "ideal" is the norm, it simply isn't. Statistically, most men have had a sexual relationship outside their marriage. It's the stuff divorces are made of, and we all know what the divorce rates are.

Divorce itself is part of this discussion. A person who has been married three times, is not a monogamous person in the strictest sense of the word. Her virginity is not restored by court order. She is a woman who has had three husbands. The fact that she didn't have them all at once might mean something to you, but it's a workaround of the rules. It's called serial polygamy.

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 01:38 PM
He may fancy himself the next Clemens...but in reality he's the poster boy for hate speech.

Example?

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 01:43 PM
I wonder how he got to adopt a kid with this attitude that it's all right to go and bang anyone I want to as long as my gay lover is OK with it. Must have forgot to mention that part when he was being interviewed.

Do adoption agencies allow divorced and remarried people to adopt?

txradioguy
01-17-2012, 01:51 PM
Example?

Well we can start with the Santorum Google bomb.

He has contemplated how he'd like to "f**k the s**t out of Rick Santorum."



DAN SAVAGE, SEX ADVICE COLUMNIST: Unfortunately not exactly like it. I wish they were all fucking dead!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/16/dan-savage-hbos-real-time-i-wish-republicans-were-all-f-king-dead#ixzz1jjc4SlMp


Just this past May, Savage demanded that a Canadian politician "Suck my d***, John." That politician's crime? He held an opposing position on the gay agenda. Five months earlier, in a single Newsweek article, Savage said "F**K John McCain," and called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "c**ksucker."

http://www.mrc.org/cmi/cmi/articles/2011/Media_Love_Antibullying_Bully_Who_Wishes_Republica ns_Would_Fking_Die.html


DAN SAVAGE: Hitler treated gay people the way these right-wing bigots would like to treat gay people, gay soldiers the way these right-wing-

KEITH OLBERMANN: Mm-hmm.

SAVAGE: -bigots would like to treat gay people and gay soldiers. They were driven out of the armed forces. They were locked up in concentration camps, and they were murdered.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/05/28/olbermann-links-mccain-anti-gay-extremists-guest-claims-gays-military#ixzz1jje0Lgkr


Shall I continue?

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 01:52 PM
A propros, I heard a recent NPR program about a website that keeps information on adulterous liaisons and asked some of its members to journal about what led them into adultery. For the males, it was (unsurprisingly) about sexual practices (things their wives wouldn't do, for example), and for females, it was about the attention, the wooing. I'll see if I can find the link. The guy who ran the website insisted that these adulterous affairs would "help" marriages stay together. I found that not credible, but it surprised me how many places the idea of trying to stick to your marriage vows is taking a beating. There's a concerted effort, and Dan Savage seems to be part of it, to weaken marriage to the point of irrelevancy.

Seems to me that the "concerted effort" you refer to is the one to have an honest discussion, a discussion which sends some people running and covering their ears.

As Dan pointed out, male monogamy is not the historical norm. Things have changed over time, a huge one being that a man can now be held responsible for a child born to woman other than his wife, even if he doesn't acknowledge the child as his own. Prior to this, only the fidelity of the wife was an issue, because the man had an interest in only being father to children who were actually his. Once again, it is very clear that marriage law is property law in its origin and regardless of how many layers of religion a society may have slathered on it after that.

I think there are some 150 languages currently considered useful in the world today. I would bet that each one has a word for "mistress' or "concubine". How many of them have a similar word for a male? Few, I think. Because when a married man has a girlfriend, we call her a mistress. When a married woman has a boyfriend, we call her a tramp.

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 02:03 PM
Shall I continue?

If you like. I think there is a difference between hate-speech and stupid-speech. I suppose they could overlap.

The idea that a cranky uptight bitch like Santorum could benefit from a jungle jump is hardly original, it's simply historically directed at women.

Odysseus
01-17-2012, 03:58 PM
Seems to me that the "concerted effort" you refer to is the one to have an honest discussion, a discussion which sends some people running and covering their ears.

As Dan pointed out, male monogamy is not the historical norm. Things have changed over time, a huge one being that a man can now be held responsible for a child born to woman other than his wife, even if he doesn't acknowledge the child as his own. Prior to this, only the fidelity of the wife was an issue, because the man had an interest in only being father to children who were actually his. Once again, it is very clear that marriage law is property law in its origin and regardless of how many layers of religion a society may have slathered on it after that.
Male monogamy isn't the historical norm, which is why we need an institution whose function is to try to mitigate male libido. The reason that female monogomay is more critical has to do with issues of paternity. Think of the word "cuckold", which is the word used to describe the husband of an unfaithful wife. The origin of the term comes from the cuckoo bird, and its habit of laying its eggs in other birds' nests so that they will undertake the effort of raising them. The major biological difference between males and females is that males are predisposed to spread their DNA as broadly as possible, while females are predisposed to nurture and care for their far less numerous children. This is why males tend to be foragers or hunters, while females tend to be nesters. Given the above, a society in which men are free to pursue their instincts without restraint is going to be chaotic and dangerous. Men will compete for women without regard for longterm consequences, and women will be treated as commodities or toys. For an example of what that looks like in a western (non-tribal) context, just take a walk through any bad neighborhood. The feral children raised by single women and food stamps are the direct result.

So, how do we prevent this? Simple: Marriage. Men have to agree to constrain what previous ages referred to as our "baser" impulses, in order to provide for our families. It is property law, but it has a moral component to it. We see a man who fails to meet his obligations as a failure, financially, morally and ethically. We use allegedly outmoded ideas like "shame" to compel men to conduct themselves according to the moral code that has evolved through centuries of trial and error. However, it's not enough to simply punish men who fail to keep up the standard, we have to also reduce the pressures on those men from outside. That is why the man who cuckolds is seen as a predator and treated accordingly, while the cuckolded husband is seen as a victim.


I think there are some 150 languages currently considered useful in the world today. I would bet that each one has a word for "mistress' or "concubine". How many of them have a similar word for a male? Few, I think. Because when a married man has a girlfriend, we call her a mistress. When a married woman has a boyfriend, we call her a tramp.

And we call him a gigolo. Admittedly, it's fallen off in recent years, but the 2004 John Kerry campaign removed much of the stigma and demonstrated how one can be a kept man and still hold a job, although admittedly not a very demanding one.

The difference in language reflects a critical difference between the genders, which is that men and women seek different things from their relationships. Men tend to seek physical gratification, and are willing to provide financial and physical support in return for it. Women seek emotional commitment, and are willing to provide physical gratification and houshold support in return. But, this doesn't take into account the critical beneficiaries of this, which are the children, who get a stable environment and material and emotional support from both parents. The point is that a man who violates his marriage vows will be seen as a cad (another anachronism), who is siring progeny without concern for their material well-being, while a woman who violates her vows is seen as bringing in another man's issue, to be cared for by fraud.

In other words, it is economic, but the economics are based on the very real differences between the genders.

txradioguy
01-17-2012, 04:43 PM
If you like. I think there is a difference between hate-speech and stupid-speech. I suppose they could overlap.

The idea that a cranky uptight bitch like Santorum could benefit from a jungle jump is hardly original, it's simply historically directed at women.

And right on cue you defend something that you would be hollering from the rooftops about were the person saying the rude ugly hateful things a hero of yours and who happens to be a part of and vocal supporter for your pet cause.

Color me shocked. :rolleyes:

Hypocrite much?

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 04:49 PM
Male monogamy isn't the historical norm, which is why we need an institution whose function is to try to mitigate male libido. The reason that female monogomay is more critical has to do with issues of paternity. Think of the word "cuckold", which is the word used to describe the husband of an unfaithful wife. The origin of the term comes from the cuckoo bird, and its habit of laying its eggs in other birds' nests so that they will undertake the effort of raising them. The major biological difference between males and females is that males are predisposed to spread their DNA as broadly as possible, while females are predisposed to nurture and care for their far less numerous children. This is why males tend to be foragers or hunters, while females tend to be nesters. Given the above, a society in which men are free to pursue their instincts without restraint is going to be chaotic and dangerous. Men will compete for women without regard for longterm consequences, and women will be treated as commodities or toys. For an example of what that looks like in a western (non-tribal) context, just take a walk through any bad neighborhood. The feral children raised by single women and food stamps are the direct result. .

Throughout the known history of marriage in most of Europe, Asia, and North Africa, marriage and society have incorporated concubinage, mistresses, plural marriages and the freedom of men to have sex with women other than their wives as long as those women were not under the protection of another man or society through another convention. The institution of marriage did not evolve to control men, it evolved to define ownership and inheritance.

As for feral children, one theory has it that the way capitalism works in our society is affecting the gene pool, carrying some in one direction and some on a "collision course with neanderthal man (or something like that)". The theory is that as the best and the brightest team up with other best and brightest, they leave the worst and dimmest to procreate, carrying the gene pool in reverse.

Novaheart
01-17-2012, 04:55 PM
The difference in language reflects a critical difference between the genders, which is that men and women seek different things from their relationships. Men tend to seek physical gratification, and are willing to provide financial and physical support in return for it. Women seek emotional commitment, and are willing to provide physical gratification and houshold support in return. But, this doesn't take into account the critical beneficiaries of this, which are the children, who get a stable environment and material and emotional support from both parents. The point is that a man who violates his marriage vows will be seen as a cad (another anachronism), who is siring progeny without concern for their material well-being, while a woman who violates her vows is seen as bringing in another man's issue, to be cared for by fraud.

In other words, it is economic, but the economics are based on the very real differences between the genders.

Bolded- do you really think that statement is supported by culture, history, and literature? We routinely accept that great men of the past had multiple wives, or a single wife and multiple paramours. We have celebrated love affairs between great men and their mistress, occasionally even their boyfriend. Historical we view the wife as a matter of duty for great men. No one confuses royal marriages with love, except the idiots who followed around Diana and Charles. The occasion of a kind and queen actually being in love, appears to have been so rare that when it happened people wrote books, songs, plays, and poems about it.

Seems to me that from an historical perspective, monogamy was an institution born of the poor. Hell, even some of the Popes had wives and girlfriends.

Odysseus
01-17-2012, 05:55 PM
Throughout the known history of marriage in most of Europe, Asia, and North Africa, marriage and society have incorporated concubinage, mistresses, plural marriages and the freedom of men to have sex with women other than their wives as long as those women were not under the protection of another man or society through another convention. The institution of marriage did not evolve to control men, it evolved to define ownership and inheritance.
Bolded: The institution of marriage did control men, in order to protect women, as well as to define ownership and inheritance, but why does inheritance matter? It matters for the reasons cited, because a man under every legal and moral code was expected to care for his offspring, and was not responsible for the offspring of others. In other words, he is responsible for his contribution to the gene pool, and nobody else's. Someone who slips his own genetic package into another man's home, via his wife, has robbed him of his legacy and tricked him into providing support for someone else's children.


As for feral children, one theory has it that the way capitalism works in our society is affecting the gene pool, carrying some in one direction and some on a "collision course with neanderthal man (or something like that)". The theory is that as the best and the brightest team up with other best and brightest, they leave the worst and dimmest to procreate, carrying the gene pool in reverse.
Yeah, we've all seen Idiocracy, but there's one problem with it, and that is that the feral kids aren't stupid, just unsocialized. Just watch a drug dealer do math sometime and you'll see my point. That's not to say that stupid people don't reproduce at a higher rate, but they also tend to die off at a higher rate. Think Darwin Awards.

Bolded- do you really think that statement is supported by culture, history, and literature? We routinely accept that great men of the past had multiple wives, or a single wife and multiple paramours. We have celebrated love affairs between great men and their mistress, occasionally even their boyfriend. Historical we view the wife as a matter of duty for great men. No one confuses royal marriages with love, except the idiots who followed around Diana and Charles. The occasion of a kind and queen actually being in love, appears to have been so rare that when it happened people wrote books, songs, plays, and poems about it.

The statement is certainly true, or at least, used to be. That's not to say that there weren't violations of the norm, or that those violations were always seen in a negative light, but in Western Europe, especially since the advent of monogamous Christianity, that has been the ideal.

Seems to me that from an historical perspective, monogamy was an institution born of the poor. Hell, even some of the Popes had wives and girlfriends.

No, monogamy was a middle class institution. The very rich could insulate themselves from the consequences of poor decisions, while the very poor simply lived with the results. It was the merchant class and gentry that promoted the values that we've come to know as the norm, while the elites and the dregs undermined them. The civic virtue that we admire in Rome came from the property owners and free citizens, not the debauched emporers or the mobs that they fed and entertained. The Pope may have had a mistress, but his far less affluent critic, Martin Luther, did not (his marriage came only after he had broken with the church, and this included his very public opposition to celibacy on Biblical grounds). The Kings of England may have enjoyed the charms of courtiers, but the gentry-bred Oliver Cromwell did not.

noonwitch
01-17-2012, 06:06 PM
You could say the same thing about drugs. If you like to smoke crack and your wife doesn't, your marriage won't last. If two married people are crackheads they probably get along swimmingly.

.

I though Bobby and Whitney would stay married forever, because of their shared love for crack. I guess one of them, I'm guessing Bobby, decided to get sober.

Hawkgirl
01-17-2012, 07:45 PM
OMG..this thread...:rotfl:


Carry on...sorry for the interupption.:D

RedGrouse
01-18-2012, 06:20 PM
Gay Men: The Democrats' Reserve Army of Histrionics
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/gay_men_the_democrats_reserve_army_of_histrionics. html

But the gay movement spearheaded by Dan Savage, which has become a key arsenal for the Democratic Party, is not based on gayness, but rather on Histrionic Personality Disorder.

The histrionic craves attention, makes every activity lascivious, and fears the disapproval or disinterest of others. Why do gay activists go undercover and fish for reasons to smear Marcus Bachmann? Marcus Bachmann has nothing to do with gay issues. But HPD gays cannot stand anything in the world getting attention, if they are not the central focus.

Histrionics blame others for their disappointments. "No, it's not my fault for failing to stand up for myself when bullies called me a pansy -- it's Republicans! It's the Bible! It's the fact that I can only get civil unions!" "I got HIV -- it's Reagan's fault for not talking about AIDs until Rock Hudson died!"

With histrionics, melodrama always escalates. If gay marriage doesn't pass, more kids will jump off bridges, helpless blond youths will get murdered in Wyoming, and closeted men will give their witless wives AIDs. Part of HPD is the inability to let other people's stories be independent. If you are 100% gay and can't change, then everyone else must have been born into their identity and can't change; someone who wants to change or does subdue his sexual urges is a deluded victim of repression, a despicable ex-gay. Other people's decision-making threatens you because it isn't what you want; you are easily frustrated; you feel slighted merely by not being adored and vindicated.

Elspeth
01-18-2012, 08:22 PM
I don't think he is. I think he's saying that it is common in heterosexual marriage. Some people like to compare their standard of perfect heterosexual marriage to their worst portrayal of homosexual marriages. And timing being everything and with a Mormon running for president we also need to talk about plural marriage.

In other words- stop pretending that the "ideal" is the norm, it simply isn't. Statistically, most men have had a sexual relationship outside their marriage. It's the stuff divorces are made of, and we all know what the divorce rates are.

Divorce itself is part of this discussion. A person who has been married three times, is not a monogamous person in the strictest sense of the word. Her virginity is not restored by court order. She is a woman who has had three husbands. The fact that she didn't have them all at once might mean something to you, but it's a workaround of the rules. It's called serial polygamy.

No. It's called serial monogamy.