It’s Valentine’s Day today, though since I outgrew doll teaparties I’ve never been big into the celebrations. But I’ve been mulling over a recent post by Dan Savage on differential desire, sexual identity, and relationships and I thought this was as good a day as any to write a post about how we form affectual bonds and how we think about what I like to call the “realm of possibility” within our intimate sexual relationships.
Hint: I’m a fan of making the realm as wide and deep as possible!
I’m going to begin this post with an admission/disclaimer of where I stand on sex columnist Dan Savage’s professional work and public persona, since I know he’s a figure who tends to excite controversy within the feminist blogosphere. I have an ambivalent relationship with the work of Dan Savage. On the one hand, I’ve read and thoroughly enjoyed his books about adoption (The Kid) and marriage (The Commitment). I also think that his “It Gets Better” project, while flawed, has a fairly decent impulse behind it and has encouraged a lot of positive, high-profile discussion about what it means to live life as a queer adult.
On the other hand, his advice on sexual matters in other peoples’ lives leaves a lot to be desired. He can be harshly critical of people who aren’t interested in the same kind of sex, for the same kind of reasons, as he is or thinks they should be. He privileges people with “normal” and strong libidos and disparages folks who either struggle with libido issues or are less interested in sexuality than their partners. He privileges physical appearance and people who conform to our social expectations of beauty and health. He’s suspicious of bisexual and fluid folks and often shows a pretty deep lack of understanding when it comes to lesbian sex or female sexuality in general.
Sometimes I find this irritating. Sometimes it makes me feel a little stabby. Often, I just ignore it. But my friend Minerva sent me a link last week to a recent “Savage Love” letter of the day in which he responds to some responses to a recent column on asexuality. And since I read his response, I’ve been thinking about how his vision of human relationships really just makes me sad.
Like all the bisexuals who write in to complain about how badly they’re treated by straights and gays but never seem to entertain the possibility of dating other bisexuals (which would spare them the grief of dating all those awful, terrible, no good monosexuals), this self-identified minimal hadn’t entertained the possibility of dating other people like him, i.e. other minimals, which would spare him the grief of dating a normal and spare normals the grief of dating him. He said he was a regular reader of my column—and, well, the problems of mix-matched libidos come up in my column all the time. So NSNA’s failure to realize that he could avoid the normal problem entirely by dating someone like him seemed like a bit a willful obtuseness that required slapping out.
So in some ways, this paragraph is just begging to be critiqued on a right-there-on-the-surface level. I mean, “Normals”? “Minimals”? Are we going to have to start wearing stars on our bellies so we can easily keep to our own kind? But there are two observations I want to make about the wrongness of this argument he’s making, both of which run a lot deeper than language choice.
First, let’s consider this: “ bisexuals who write in to complain about how badly they’re treated by straights and gays but never seem to entertain the possibility of dating other bisexuals.” What he’s doing here is arguing that people who write and point out the prejudice of one group (those who identify as either entirely straight or entirely gay) should just … stick to their own kind. This completely evades the question of bigotry toward certain groups of people based on their sexual identity, placing the burden upon those who are speaking up about discrimination to basically lump it or leave. “You’re experiencing suspicion and hostility from people? Well, go hang out with folks who are just like you and all will be well!”
Um … what? Haven’t we established that segregation does not solve issues of inequality or combat harmful group stereotypes? Isn’t blaming the person who’s the subject of hostile stereotypes for hanging out with the wrong people completely missing the point and letting some fairly prejudiced folks off the hook here?
Second, he appears to be arguing that the best way to end relationship suffering is to end relationships in which there is difference. This is basically the flip side of “stick to your own kind.” The basic message of the paragraph I quoted above is this: You want to be happy in your sexual relationships? Well, find someone who is just like you. Maybe he was just trying to say, “find someone with whom you’re sexually compatible,” but if that’s what he meant his definition of “sexually compatible” is pretty damn narrow.
Which is when I start to feel incredibly sad. Because where, in this prescription for satisfaction in one’s sexual relationships, is the encouragement to explore our capacity as human beings to appreciate one anothers’ differences and find inventive, joyful ways of being sexual together. Without being the same. Without being identical … in our sexual identities, sexual styles, sexual pleasures. Because where would that end? Sure, I happen to be partnered with someone who, like me, swings both ways but seems inclined toward women overall … and me in particular (hooray!). But just ’cause we’re both bi doesn’t mean she’s going to be into the exact same flavor of sex I am — or might be on some days and not on other days.
Being bi is no guarantee that you’re not uncomfortable with your sexual identity or anxious about your lover’s identity. Just like marrying someone who’s the same race as you are doesn’t solve all race-related conflicts you could potentially have in your relationship. And being in a relationship with a woman is in no way an innoculation against misogyny and sexist expectations. It’s grossly simplistic to suggest that someone who identifies as [insert sexual identity of choice here] will be most relationally compatible with other people who also identify in the same way.
Which is actually where I find the biggest fucking hole in Savage’s argument: the HUGE glaring reality that we often fall in love with and form affectual bonds with folks who are not from “our tribe” (however we define that). We are, in some measure, drawn toward difference. And sexual identity is not the be-all and end-all of identity. It’s just one piece of it. So his suggestion that folks who “complain” (again: minimizing the actual prejudice against fluid sexuality that exists in our culture!) stick to their own just ignores the fact that we don’t exactly choose with cold rationality the people with whom we fall in love.
If I were in Savage’s position as a sex columnist with a big fucking platform, I’d be doing my best to encourage exploration, empathy, imagination and joy at the myriad varieties of human sexuality … rather than pushing us toward some sort of world made up of insular cells inhabited by folks who associate and form intimate bonds only with others who are exactly like them. Way to hold the bar low, man.
I don’t have an aspirin large enough for the headache Dan Savage gives me. Is there someone out there who will PLEASE step up to the plate and write an advice column that doesn’t leave anyone standing at the bus stop? Someone?
The Nerd, you should read dearcoketalk. Best advice column ever.
I’m working on a post right now of recommendations for good sexually-explicit writing, a section of which is going to have some of my own sex advice faves. Particularly enjoy Heather Corinna, Greta Christina, Clarisse Thorn, Emily Nagoski …
Whenever Dan tells people to in effect “stick to their own kind” I wonder how much the fact that he is only monogamous because it was a deal breaker for his husband is affecting that advice.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Amina Mithri, Pursuit of Harpyness. Pursuit of Harpyness said: “You’re not matin’ with me Sunshine!”: Some Thoughts on Relationships and Difference http://bit.ly/dRF18K [...]
Also in terms of the language thing, I agree with you that the language he used has implied judgments, but it might be worth noting that the terms used were introduced in the original letter (which was not from someone who identified as asexual, actually):
“I soon realized that asexual was the wrong label for me. In reality, what I am is minimally sexual. Here’s the question: How do normally sexual persons feel about being with someone who can perform but doesn’t particularly want to?”
It’s perhaps the case that as the columnist and therefore the person of “authority”, he should have used his platform to say, “Well, let’s not use those judging-type terms”, but I think it’s still worth noting that he didn’t introduce that sort of language.
In disability circles, I have often seen a circular argument around this issue. Some people see internalised disablism when disabled folk look for love among non-disabled people, and others sees a disablist notion in the idea that disabled folk might be happier dating other disabled people. And I have a feeling we will spend the rest of our lives explaining that my partner met on-line in a discussion about Plato, it’s all an enormous coincidence that we have the same medical condition.
I tend to think that any two people will have *plenty* of difference anyway, even if they match in race, age, sexuality, health, wealth or whatever. Two people could be opposites in all those ways and still find the greatest area of conflict in their relationship is about interior decor or food or family issues.
In response to baraqiel’s point about language, I just want to note that I see a difference between identifying oneself as “minimally sexual” and others as “normally sexual persons” (as the original writer did), and referring to “minimals” and “normals” (as Dan Savage did). The first identifies sexuality as an attribute of a person or people; the second conflates those people’s identity with their sexuality. I think it’s insulting to label someone a “minimal”, as opposed to a “minimally sexual person”. (Leaving aside the whole question of what is “normal”.) I am not my sexuality – my sexuality is one of my attributes. I know Dan Savage likes to use edgy language, but to me it conveys a carelessness about the people he’s supposedly advising.
@baraquiel
Dan Savage has a long history of being an intolerant jerk if you don’t fall into his prescribed parameters. He’s misogynist, fat-phobic and has a LONG ASS history of blowing off bisexuals.
In the late 80s he out and out said that bisexuals didn’t actually exist. And yes, he has rescinded that statement in words, but his actions speak pretty broadly to the fact that he still feels that way, or at the very least feels that we aren’t really queer and just need to shut up.
@baraquiel
Your point about language is well taken, and I agree with you that encouraging folks to seriously consider the difficulty of consistently different libido levels is sound. But I don’t believe that excuses the way Savage dismisses the experience of folks who suffer real prejudice from partners based on their sexual identity.
It would be one thing if Dan was saying to the person, “Gee, find a partner who isn’t a Douche. Maybe look for someone who really respects and trusts you as a person, and is willing to negotiate compromises when there’s a difference in desire.” But instead, he’s saying, “Why are you expecting understanding from someone who’s not asexual/bisexual/etc.? You’ll be happier with people like you.” Which I think is a fundamentally different (and more disturbing) argument.
@The Goldfish
I really like how you put this. That’s more or less what I was trying to say only you managed it more gracefully in fewer words!
@geekgirlsrule – You know what, I am not a bisexual and I know very little about the dynamics between bisexuals and the rest of the queer community. So I will take your word on that. And similarly, I am not fat, so I will quickly concede that my privilege on this matter may cause me to miss things in his writing that would indicate out-and-out fatphobia. But I am a woman and a feminist and I have been listening to his views through columns, blog posts, and podcasts for over ten years, and I have seen him speak and met him in person and I honestly do not believe that the man is a misogynist. I just don’t. From where I’m standing, Dan Savage has done more to promote a sex-positive and healthy view of female sexuality, both to women and to men, than any other man I can think of.
@annajcook – “Why are you expecting understanding from someone who’s not asexual/bisexual/etc.? You’ll be happier with people like you.”
I understand how you’re getting that, but I did not interpret that from what he wrote. To quote again from the original letter (emphasis added): “I know that being in a relationship means making compromises, but will a normally sexual person accept a partner who is able to have sex but does not wish to…?”
The reason I quote this passage is to illustrate a point that has come up multiple times when Dan Savage has addressed the issue of mismatched sex drives among partners. He has in the past suggested numerous different kinds of compromises, ranging from the lower sex drive partner helping the higher sex drive partner get off in a way that is satisfying for the higher but low-commitment or unintrusive for the lower to compromises that involve nonmonogamy of various sorts (I can look up some of these columns if you would like). What I believe this quote illustrates is that sometimes one partner (in this, but not every, case it is the lower sex drive partner) just doesn’t seem interested in compromising. To quote from Savage himself:
“If a minimally-sexual person is partnered with a normally-to-maximally sexual person and the couple has an otherwise rewarding relationship—they love each other and everything works except sex (the minimal feels pressured and guilted, the maximal feels deprived and resentful)—I first encourage the couple to consider crafting a realistic and workable compromise….But if a compromise can’t be crafted…then, yes, best to DTMFA.”
I think this clearly illustrates that he *is* encouraging of compromise, he does think that that’s worthwhile, he *doesn’t* think that “segregation”, as you put it, is the only or even the best way. *But*, this is a very, very common problem in relationships and he is, in my view, suggesting that for many people, the problem could be entirely avoided if they 1) were upfront with themselves and others about the level of their sex drives and 2) made it a priority to form relationships in which each partner’s expectations regarding sexual frequency had some hope of being met.
Again, I don’t know enough about the bi/queer-community-at-large dynamics to comment on the problems that arise there, so I will refrain. But in terms of mismatched sex drives, I honestly consider this to be sound advice.
@leafgreen – Sorry, I didn’t see your comment before I posted. A couple points:
1) I basically agree that the abrasive just for the hell of it thing can get a little old — if I have one big criticism of him, it’d be that.
2) I don’t think this particular shortening was an effort at insult (and since he does make efforts at insult not infrequently, I don’t consider it to be out of the question), especially since in the linked post he also refers to people with very high sex drives as “maximals”. In other words, I agree with your identification of this diction as “carelessness”; I do not believe it was intended maliciously.
3) Relating to the above parenthetical, I think one thing about the original letter that’s being a little bit missed here is that he doesn’t always choose to respond to people in order to “advise” them as you say. He’s very clear on the fact that sometimes his aim is to chastise and that this is a risk people run when they send him mail or call his podcast (on which he sometimes calls people and chastises them in real-time). Whether one considers that to be appropriate behavior or not is, in my view, a matter of taste. In the case of the original letter-writer, I think he was fairly clear in the linked post that his intent with his response was more to chastise than to advise since he has given multiple people advice about the same situation in the past (to wit: “He said he was a regular reader of my column—and, well, the problems of mix-matched libidos come up in my column all the time. So NSNA’s failure to realize that he could avoid the normal problem entirely by dating someone like him seemed like a bit a willful obtuseness that required slapping out.” And just to mention, I absolutely think that he could have and probably should have stopped that sentence after the word “obtuseness” and it would have been nicer, less abrasive, less likely to offend people, less likely to trigger people, all that good stuff.)
I am also in the minority here. I have a huge amount of respect for Dan Savage. In no way did I read the column in question the way you did, annaj. As baraqiel says, he used the language the writer used, which is an appropriate way to answer a question.
@leafgreen: But we use shorthand terms like that all the time: top/bottom, dom/sub, and so forth. I agree that words like minimal and normal have connotations that might carry over in an unwanted way to this discussion. But it is also true that along the spectrum of sexuality there is a norm. If you don’t like the term “normal”, what would you suggest instead?
Given the amount of misogyny and homophobia in this culture at the moment, I must say that the amount of hostility directed at Dan Savage from feminists puzzles me. Savage has been a firm advocate of women controlling their own sex and reproductive lives, and of everyone expressing their sexualities with their consenting partners. Calling the It Gets Better project decent but flawed overlooks the point that no one else was doing anything so powerful, accessible, and permanent as this to provide support for gay kids before this.
There is no perfect advice columnist (except maybe Miss Manners, who is superhuman). I am also not bisexual, nor do I self-identify as fat, so I am not able to judge his fairness to those two groups. Dan has his own blind spots and beliefs that may not be compatible with ours. But he has done more to bring the vast spectrum of human sexualities out of the closet and into everyday discussion than anyone else in contemporary life. He has my unqualified support.
I have to agree with baraqiel mostly here. Savage does write in a way that is abrasive, and yes, I think that’s intentional and designed to obtain/keep popularity. It’s his job, he’s not doing it just for fun.
Still, as I’ve read what he has to say regularly (especially on SLOG as opposed just to the weekly column) I think he’s pretty reasonable on most topics. He actually has a number of past columns up currently on SLOG regarding weight. And honestly, I don’t expect him to know much about fluidity and female sexuality – he is a gay man (self-reported on the “strongly gay” end of things IIRC).
Of course, I’m not the best critic in this arena, as my inclinations lie more towards the quantitative than the qualitative, but I think his sex-positive message is one that many young people can benefit from and he does have a large platform from which to distribute that (much needed) message.
As to the “sticking to your own kind” thing, this is often in response to people who can’t/won’t work through the differences and complain about all “others” in some group – to which the point, then why not date someone “just like you” if it’s that big of a deal, is a reasonable answer. Of course, he could suggest they open their minds some and learn to compromise, but I somehow don’t see that happening.
He does see sexual compatability as a make it or break it factor in relationships, and I really don’t know if that’s true or not. I do know, for me personally, the advice to DTMFA is something I often need to hear – relationships are never easy, but neither should they be that hard. I see more people my age sticking around too long in relationships that don’t work well than I see leaving without really giving things a chance to work/attempting to compromise.
@annajcook: I also would hope for a wide “realm of possibility” within intimate sexual relationships, but I personally haven’t found that yet. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on that: how to find it, nuture it, embrace it, widen it…
As an asexual person, I was really disturbed by that column. I wonder if Mr. Savage has ever tried to find an asexual person- we aren’t easy to find. Part of that is that we just don’t stand out- people who are sexual tend to assume everyone is sexual. I sometimes avoid mentioning my sexuality because when I do it entails a 15 minute explanation and half the time I won’t be believed anyway.
I’ve tried an asexual dating site even- there are maybe three people in my age range in my city- a major metro area- and none of them have been active in the past year. I’d prefer to date another asexual person- but have decided that that likely won’t happen. I’m currently resigned to not being in a romantic relationship, even though I am a romantic asexual.
Mr. Savage doesn’t seem to consider that what he is saying the letter writer should do isn’t really easy to do. Compromise is the letter-writer’s best bet. If the letter-writer’s partner gets into the relationship with the knowledge that he/she is dating a ‘minimally sexual person,’ then they should be willing to make compromises to be in the relationship. If the letter-writer didn’t tell him/her, the LW needs to do so right away and let the partner decide what he/she is willing to compromise on.
I’m fat and I’m bisexual. And I used to be able to enjoy Dan Savage but now….
It just makes me squirm in utter discomfort the way he, of all people, judges others and invalidates their experiences. How he likes to compare a conservative politician to a trans-person as a way to say “hey, this politician is ugly.” Or how he states that if they think gay people are “unhealthy,” than they should ban “fat marriage” just to be “fair.” Because, you know, all fat people are heterosexual and live SCARY UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES.
He draws some really important stuff for certain minorities but he likes to state his opinions as fact too often and he does not mind so much of throwing other minorities under the bus.
And as much great work as he does, I just cannot get behind him anymore.
@KJ – I really feel compelled to point out that Dan Savage said almost exactly what you’re saying is the optimum path in another post:
“Thankfully we live at a time of rising awareness of asexuality. There may not be that many asexuals out there to choose from, dear reader, and asexuals who crave intimacy and companionship may have to look to sexuals for potential partners. Asexuals who are aware that they’re asexual should, again, disclose before making a commitment and, when possible, hammer out a compromise that works. Asexuals who discover their asexuality later in life should come out as asexual and allow their sexual partners to decide whether they wish to stay in the relationship at all.”
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/10/6706371-sl-letter-of-the-day-pull-up-a-chair
I know I’m probably coming off as kind of a zealot here, but it’s honestly really frustrating to see someone who I respect a lot and feel a lot of personal gratitude towards get repeatedly blasted for views that he explicitly doesn’t hold (or for not holding views that he explicitly does hold). Earlier in that same post he says: “Perfect compatibility is not required—I’ve never suggested that. No one ever finds a perfect match, no one gets anywhere near 100% of what they want” which, with all due respect, anna, is directly contradictory to what you got from the linked post, namely, “Second, he appears to be arguing that the best way to end relationship suffering is to end relationships in which there is difference.”
Baraqiel- It is Savage’s attitude that bothers me the most- it is like asexuals are less in his eyes. He assumes that being asexual is a major impediment to a relationship and that asexuals are the problem, not that the problem is mismatched sex drives. It is the way the blame is apportioned to the asexual person in this response that bothers me. Unless a partner spells out that sex is expected x times a week, I don’t think he or she can be upset when he or she ends up in a relationship with someone with a lower or higher sex drive. Both partners, not just the asexual or ‘minimally sexual’ person, bear a responsibility to spell out their sexual expectations. But Mr. Savage tears into the LW, assuming because his/her sex drive is the lower one that he/she should have revealed it. It is a shared responsibility, not one solely on the shoulders of the asexual person.
I understand you are attached to Mr. Savage and his work. I think that, for some, Mr. Savage has done great things. But he is not very understanding about people whose sexual needs differ from his- he assumes that high sex drive is normal and doesn’t need to be revealed, whereas low sex drives are abnormal and should be disclosed. I don’t think that is fair to either end of the sexual needs spectrum.
@KJ – Again, while I respect your opinion, I disagree.
First of all: “He assumes that being asexual is a major impediment to a relationship…not that the problem is mismatched sex drives.” Why can’t both be true? From my observations (eg reading the AVEN boards), it is exactly the case that being asexual makes it a lot harder to find a romantic partner, *because* of mismatched sex drives.
Second of all, I think it’s important to note that he has *the exact same* stance on people who have unusual kinks or fetishes: that they should disclose relatively early and they should understand that they will probably need to compromise on more in order to find someone who either shares or is willing to work with their kink or fetish. This is not a stance that is about asexuality, as far as I can tell, it is a stance that is about normalcy.
To elaborate on that, third of all: yes, he does say that someone who has an average sex drive or a little higher doesn’t need to disclose *in the same way* that someone who is asexual or has a very low sex drive does*** (I can’t recall at the moment if he’s ever had a similar letter from someone who had an extremely high sex drive, on the order of several times a day, who’s having problems with someone who only wants sex 2-4 times a week). He says this because the number of people who are asexual is very small, as you yourself have noted. To make an analogy, I keep kosher. Very few people keep kosher. There aren’t that many Jews and among Jews who live mostly secular lives, most of us do not keep kosher. As someone who has an unusual set of dietary restrictions, I really appreciate it if someone asks beforehand what I can and can’t eat, etc., if I am going to someone’s house for dinner. But I understand that it’s not unreasonable for someone to assume that I eat cheeseburgers, for example, because almost every non-vegetarian eats cheeseburgers, and that it’s my responsibility to tell someone what my restrictions are if I want special accommodations, and that sometimes that might mean eating mostly side dishes. That doesn’t mean that my keeping kosher is a problem. It doesn’t mean that I am a problem. It doesn’t mean I am worth less than someone who doesn’t keep kosher. It just means that people in my situation are rare and that when you are in a rare situation, you have to be a little louder about what exactly your situation is. In the same way that most people in America eat bacon, most people in our society assume that romantic relationships involve sex. Indeed, for some people sex is the most important difference between a friendship and a romance. Obviously this is not the case for everyone. But the strong association between romance and sex (although not necessarily vice versa) exists for such an overwhelming majority of people that there is a basic, adaptive, extremely useful cognitive process that works in favor of people assuming that it’s the case for everyone they meet (ie inductive reasoning).
***Finally, if you read the first letter in the linked post, you will see the following line: “I was personally stuck with this type of a guy—a minimal who refused to acknowledge his lower sex drive—for two years.” As you might get from that line, it seems that the speaker *was* communicating her sexual needs and desires and her partner, who had a lower than average sex drive, was not only not communicating his, but was actively avoiding doing so. I think that’s messed up to do to someone you’re in a relationship with. In my experience Dan Savage absolutely does advocate *everyone* being clear and up front about their sexual needs and desires, but it is the case that if someone is asexual, they simply cannot disclose that in the same way that most sexual people disclose their sexual desires, namely by making physical or verbal sexual advances. Since there are no advances that exist to communicate specifically a lack of sexual desire (so far as I know, anyway), an explicit “disclosure” must take their place. But it’s not true to say that sexual people don’t reveal their sex drives. They do so by trying to have sex with someone.
I just want to jump in and say that I, too, have a huge amount of gratitude and respect for Dan Savage and his work. I won’t tackle the article in question because baraqiel has covered that and I don’t want to be repetitive.
But I will say this: He is imperfect (and, importantly, mocks himself on a regular basis), but I do not know of anyone else with such a platform who is so sex-positive and female-sexuality-positive. It really saddens me when people who are doing good and important, if imperfect work, get such vicious criticism.
Also, that article criticizing the It Get’s Better Project? I find it incredibly disappointing. Scratch that, it makes me incredible angry. The writer might dislike Terry & Dan’s story, but to dismiss the project out of hand like that? This is a project that has helped codify a national dialog on bullying (of queers). It has provided an incredible source of inspiration for many, many people. It provided a narrative and a resource for teachers and mentors who are want to help young people.
Will it solve bullying? Of course not. Is this *the* narrative of and for queer youth? Of course not. But is an important and helpful and inspirational narrative. I find this dismissal of the project irresponsible and insulting.
*@anna, I am not implying that your article was “vicious.” I just have observed the anger directed at Dan Savage across the feminist blogosphere, and it consistently strikes me as disproportionate.
I just want to thank everyone who is commenting on this thread for being thoughtful, articulate, and not resorting to personal attacks despite the fact that the question of Dan Savage’s relationship to the feminist blogosphere clearly brings up strong feelings on both sides.
Those of you who’ve specifically challenged some of my interpretations of Dan’s work, I will try to offer some further thoughts at some point today when I have a lull at work.
@martha
Since the article by femmephane I linked to, critiquing the “It Gets Better” project frustrated/angered you so much, you may be interested in the follow-up the author wrote, in response to the feedback she received from readers. She doesn’t retract her analysis in any way, but she does make it clear that she is not interested in dismissing the project wholesale.
I don’t want this thread to turn into a referendum on the IGB project … but since the link bothered you, I thought you might be interested in a little more context.
Great discussion. Unfortunately I fall in the camp that finds Dan Savage’s writing and commentary extremely problematic.
I have a lot of respect for the good he’s contributed but I feel like because of this he’s often given a pass on his more troubling views (views that the OP and other commenters have already elaborated on).
The problem is, when he gets called on some of his more offensive comments he tends to become very defensive. He either offers some terse, clearly not heartfelt “apology” or claims that the offense taken is not justified as he was simply being humorous.
Also has everyone read this amazing response on The Stranger to Dan Savage’s persistent fat shaming? It’s awesome.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/11/hello-i-am-fat#more
Hey, I’m not new to Harpyness, but I’ve never commented before. Just thought I’d direct some attention to one of Fannie’s recent posts up on Shakesville. It deals with Dan’s track record on the issue of fat-hatred.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/02/dan-savage-please-stop.html#
I came in to link to Lindy West’s awesome response (linked by bluebears above) and Melissa McEwan’s equally awesome response (linked by Raerae above), but I see I’ve been beat to the punch. I’m fat, lean towards bisexual, and kinky, so I have really mixed feelings about Dan Savage. I love what he’s done for ‘normalizing’ kink and encouraging sex-positivity. But the guy is serially fatphobic, misogynist, and has serious issues with bisexuals – as others have mentioned above, and as both Melissa and Lindy demonstrate w/ multiple links (which still just scratch the surface) in their posts. His edginess is cool to a point – but all too often, he takes it to such an extreme that it just makes him a jerk. The recent “ban fat marriage” dustup (engaging in anti-fat bullying in an attempt to demonstrate the error in anti-gay bullying) is just the latest example. Which he followed up by ‘responding’ to Lindy West’s calling-out post by reposting a (assholish) response he wrote to Kate Harding several years ago (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/14/hello-i-am-fine-with-that). He couldn’t even be bothered to write an original response, to his own colleague and employee! I like some of his advice and I’d like to like him, but I just can’t.
As promised, a few further thoughts in relation to the pro-Savage points that people have brought up.
First, I want to reiterate that I think Dan Savage does a lot of good work. As I wrote in the original post, I think his books about adoption and marriage are really good. I also appreciate his frank, sex-positive sex advice. And in many instances, as commenters have pointed out, he offers really sound advice about relationships. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with encouraging people to seek out sexual partners who not only respect but ENJOY one’s particular sexual preferences (whether it comes to sexual orientation, level of libido, of types of sexual activity).
I’ve seen a lot of good come out of the “It Gets Better” project … including criticism of the original message of the project, which has in turn blossomed into further anti-bullying activism and fruitful conversation within the queer community.
However, I don’t believe any of this puts any one thing he writes above criticism. And while the context of his entire body of work is important in assessing one particular response, I don’t think it’s invalid to say, “Gee, that response you gave just now sent up red flags for me, and here’s why!”
As a person who is bisexual/fluid and is partnered with someone who identifies as bi, I can tell you that having a gay man suggest that bisexual people might just be happier sticking with bisexuals taps into a long history of stigma within the queer community against people whose sexuality was more fluid than their gay or lesbian peers. Even in the present day there’s a lot of anxiety and denial around bisexuality in the queer community. So when Dan Savage writes that maybe bisexual people should quit complaining and just date other bisexuals, that seems like fairly hurtful advice. If nothing else, that’s suggesting to someone they narrow an already narrow range of dating options to a pretty miniscule pool of people.
Finally, in response to the folks who think it’s unfortunate that feminists are critiquing Dan Savage given his sex-positive, queer-positive messages (though he sometimes displays a stunning insensitivity and/or ignorance about lesbian sexuality). I get your point that there are “bigger fish to fry.” But I don’t think “being better than that other guy” should mean we lower our standards of critique when someone says something shitty. Feminists shouldn’t be immune to criticism by other feminists simply for being “on our side,” and likewise a person who says 80% really good stuff but 20% of the time comes off as a defensive judgemental dude … the 80% is part of the picture, but doesn’t let him off the hook for the 20%.
likewise a person who says 80% really good stuff but 20% of the time comes off as a defensive judgemental dude … the 80% is part of the picture, but doesn’t let him off the hook for the 20%.
That summarizes precisely how I feel about Dan Savage. I generally have a lot of time for him—I think he gets it right much, much more often than he gets it wrong, and I appreciate his extremely sex-positive, pro-kink attitude, as well as the aggressive, no-holds-barred way he attacks conservative homophobes and misogynists (who among us can hear the name “Santorum” anymore without snickering?)
The fat-phobia, I have a big problem with. This most recent column I think he screwed up with his tone, and he does have a record of general sneering towards bisexuals that offends me. I do agree with his general advice, though that if you and your partner have real differences in sexual needs and desires, you will almost certainly not be happy in the long run. He routinely says that to everyone, gay, straight, kinky, non-kinky, etc, and I think it’s very solid advice.
Oh, and for the record, I think the IGB campaign is pure awesomeness. As a straight ally, I have seen first-hand how effective it’s been in terms of getting complacent straight people to look at their own privilege and acknowledge how painful and destructive homophobia and bullying are instead of just dismissing it. Honestly, I’ve so many straight people have lightbulb moments watching some of those videos, and I think that’s enormously valuable.
@viajera – “He couldn’t even be bothered to write an original response, to his own colleague and employee!”
This is not true. He posted one yesterday: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/14/hello-im-not-the-enemy
In it, you’ll see that he “was out of email, cell, and Internet range all weekend, starting Friday afternoon, and didn’t get a chance to really sit down and read Lindy’s post until late last night, and that’s why I’m only just responding to it now”.
@baraqiel- ” . . . he ‘was out of email, cell, and Internet range all weekend, starting Friday afternoon, and didn’t get a chance to really sit down and read Lindy’s post until late last night, and that’s why I’m only just responding to it now’”.
What flaming bullshit. Apparently he wasn’t too far out of communication range to rehash the reply he wrote to Kate Harding years earlier- and to repost it with the comments section closed.
So yeah, I don’t particularly care for Dan Savage. There are other sex-positive and inclusive writers out there, and many of them are not One Man Cavalcades of Fat-Phobic and Misogynist Fail.
@baraqiel – duly noted. As of yesterday afternoon, when I read about this, the only response he had posted was the link to his Kate Harding slam, with no indication there would be a further response later. I’m glad he responded. I still take issue with a lot of things he said in that response, but that’s off-topic here, so I digress. Regardless, the rest of my comment still stands. DS describes Lindy’s response as an over-reaction and a matter of projection of her own issues, which I might buy if this was the first time he’s engaged in and been called out on his fat-shaming or misogyny. But this has been going on for years now, and I think this was the proverbial last straw for a lot of folks.
I eagerly await a female successor to Dan, who is as fearless as he has been and as willing to make himself a target of every loony in the country in the name of better sex and better relationships. I cannot for the life of me figure out where the accusation of misogyny comes from, and I’m pretty touch about that sort of thing.
Like it or not, asexuals are a vast minority. Dan didn’t make it that way and he couldn’t change it even if he wanted to. Blaming him for being accurate about the sexual disconnect between them and sexuals seems misplaced. At least he’s talking about it. Who else with his readership is?
I also think some readers are missing the point with his fat marriage analogy. There are those who feel that fat people are disgusting, unnatural, a bad influence, etc etc-just as there are with gays. I think he was trying to draw that parallel and say that any individual’s personal feelings about a minority group don’t get to dictate the rights and privileges group members are allowed to enjoy in our society.