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

[Novaheart]

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]

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]

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]

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

Example?

[Novaheart]

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]

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-sh...#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/...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-wi...#ixzz1jje0Lgkr


Shall I continue?

[Novaheart]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Hypocrite much?