NY Times Magazine Cover Story Lauds Notorious Sex Columnist Dan Savage as an 'Old-Fashioned' Mr. 'Family Values'
A defense of infidelity, put forward by gay-rights activist and explicit sex-advice columnist Dan Savage and penned by Mark Oppenheimer, “Married, With Infidelities,” served as the cover of the latest New York Times Sunday Magazine. The subhead to the banner headline in the print edition described Savage as a “devoted husband, proud father, sex columnist.” Left off the resume: Doorknob licker and conservative presidential campaign saboteur.
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….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.
Savage, who is 46, has been writing Savage Love since 1991 for The Stranger, an alternative weekly paper in Seattle that syndicates it to more than 50 other newspapers. Savage’s sex advice puts me in mind of a smart, tough old grandmother, randy yet stern. It’s Dr. Ruth if she were interested in bondage and threesomes. And if she were Catholic: Savage was raised in ethnic-Irish Chicago, one of four children of a cop and a homemaker. He did some time in Catholic school, and his writing bears traces of the church’s stark moral clarity, most notable in his impatience with postmodern or queer theorizing or anything that might overturn the centrality of the stable nuclear family.
While omitting Savage's history of unsavory activism, Oppenheimer praised the “It Gets Better project, Savage’s great contribution to family values.” Spurred by incidents of antigay bullying, it’s a collection of clips from celebrities and others, including President Obama, encouraging gay teens that things will get better.
Spring and Doyle both hint at a larger truth about men and women, which is that, generally speaking, they view sex differently. While there are plenty of women who can separate sex from love, can be happily promiscuous or could have a meaningless, one-time fling, there are -- let’s face it -- more men like that. The world of Savage Love will always appeal more to men, even men who truly love their partners. Cheating men are often telling the truth when they say, “She meant nothing to me.” It really was just sex. And Savage tells us that, with proper disclosure and consent, just sex can be O.K.
Oppenheimer insisted on describing Savage, whose syndicated sex-advice column is notoriously explicit, as an “old-fashioned” moralist.
Savage is old-fashioned, as bitterly hilarious as that might sound to gay-marriage opponents. After the news of the Arnold Schwarzenegger love child broke, I received an e-mail from Savage in which he expressed concern about the article I was writing. As I would expect, he framed his position in terms of respect for the family.
On The 6th Floor, the paper’s magazine blog, Oppenheimer, a contributing writer to the magazine, hinted at facts about Savage that didn’t make his glowing magazine report. The writer didn’t seem to have a problem with Savage’s anti-Santorum sabotage:
I read this amazing piece in Mother Jones magazine, about how Dan Savage has pretty much destroyed the presidential chances of the former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. (Quick synopsis: angry about Santorum’s antigay comments, Savage held a contest among his blog readers to coin a definition for the word “santorum”; the winning definition is very, very dirty, and it resides at santorum.com, a URL that Savage squatted on. People who hear nice things about Santorum and think, Let me check him out, Google the man’s name, and this no-good, dirty, obscene Web site pops up first in the search results.)
Oppenheimer admits he “did not consider religious objections to Savage’s ideas, and I should have” and called Savage “a serious idea man.”
Completely omitted from Savage's history was the infamous activity (including doorknob licking) Savage proudly documented in a February 2000 column -- his attempt to infect Gary Bauer, then-Republican presidential candidate and social conservative, with a flu virus as revenge for Bauer's opposition to the Vermont Supreme Court unilaterally approving gay marriage.
You can follow Times Watch on Twitter.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
"Savage and his husband, Terry, have one adopted son, D.J."
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:30pm.
Poor kid.
The dangers with infidelity are more than just psychological.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:31pm.
In the many marriages that I have counseled in clinical practice, at least 25% of the infidelities were brought to light only when the cheating spouse passed a sexually transmitted disease to the other. Multiply this by the number of partners the cheating spouse had and so forth. STDs are serious matters in that HIV, herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and others can carry long term repercussions if not diagnosed and/or treated properly. There are also other health factors to be considered, such as the depression, anxiety and other mood disorders that can afflict the victimized partner. There is also the real effect of exacerbating underlying mental illness in the victimized partner.
I don't know why Democrats are so obsessed with genital freedom when it comes at such a high price in the context of marriage. Fidelity is a quality we expect of each other in numerous ways, e.g. marriage, business, etc. When trust is breached in any context, others certainly see this. If there is one thing that I have learned in clinical practice, it is that the trust that existed between two spouses is forever destroyed when cheating occurs. There may be a reconciliation, but the marriage is altered to the point where it becomes more a merger than a partnership.
Sometimes it might be an open marriage
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:39pm.
It almost seems to some folk here everytime anyone has sex outside of marriage it means somebody will get a STD.
HIV & Herpes
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:45pm.
Shawn, do you want even a 1% chance of getting something that is 100% fatal? Or something that will be incurable?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free I am married
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:07pm.
......however if I was not, I would still be enjoying single life and having fun i would be using protection. Just like i would wear my seatbelt and I would not stop boarding planes and driving cars.
Shawn
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:49pm.
I do remember that you are married.
Even "protection" isn't 100%. BUT . . . Two virgins who marry will transmit 0% fatal or lifetime STDs
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
It's true free
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:42pm.
Your right free. I have nothing but respect for people that want to wait to marriage. However to me sampling a few dishes before settling down is worth the risk. That is just me.
Shawn
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 9:55pm.
I would have thought a guy who sells insurance would understand risk better than that. ;-)
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:35pm.
Free it's too late for me. However if I was still in my twenties, I would be enjoying life to the fullest right now ;-)
and you got some 'splainin' to do if..
Submitted by Rackie on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:03pm.
...you pass a little "something" along to your spouse/SO.
shawn
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:08pm.
Did you miss DocSam's statistic of 25%?! There is also more than the physical damage, there is the psychological.
Actually rad
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:46pm.
His stat is 25 percent of infidelities are brought to light after a spouse brings home a disease.
I think cheating is wrong, but I believe Savage is encouraging a open marriage. Whatever makes a marriage tick, it's not up to me to judge.
I think that social liberals
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 5:14pm.
would argue that the expectation that your spouse will be exclusive to you is a big part of it. We "force" people who otherwise would stray to lie, and thus the betrayal when they don't live up to our expectations.
However the idea of lowering expectations always strikes me like so: if we would all just learn to drive more defensively when passing green lights we wouldn't be so surprised when somebody runs a red, thus the traffic problem is expecting somebody else to stay at a red light. We wouldn't be so alarmed when people ran red lights, and so that choice would be open to everyone who just preferred to keep moving. Also if we would just learn to accept left turns from the right-most lane, then we'd be more ready when that happened...
Some people just aren't cut out to stay in their lanes...
I hate it when libs try to
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:02pm.
......tell conservatives how marriage should work. And vice versa with social consevatives and people that have open relationships or live together before being married. People these days are too busy trying to decide to decide how others should enjoy relationships instead of concentrating on their own.
Some of Savage's Paragons of Good "Old Fashioned" Family Values
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:46pm.
Anthony Weiner
Bill Clinton
Eliot Spitzer
Barney Frank
James McGreevey
Teddy Kennedy
..................
..................
OT: Or maybe not - Spitzer's show cancelled
Submitted by falcon on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 1:59pm.
Noted on Fox News that Eliot Spitzer's show has been cancelled.
He certainly seemed to be screwing CNN in the ratings department.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
No future Weiner Spitzer? Ahhhh.....nutz
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:13pm.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/erin-burnett-to-7pm-on-cnn-john-king...
Did you know?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:09pm.
Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until 1974 by the American Psychiatric Association?
" Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress").
Homosexuality just keeps creeping along one step at a time.
Quote from: The Statistics on Homosexuality and its Effects http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
Additional info: Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Exactly
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 2:10pm.
There was no evidence that had it removed as a disease, it was pressure from the gay community.
Did you read your second link?
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:05pm.
It's a very thorough explanation of why homosexuality was removed from the DSM. It was not just because of political pressure, it was because blind studies could not distinguish any difference in the mental functioning of heterosexual and homosexual people.
If even the most obvious difference---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:29pm.
in the mental functioning of heterosexual and homosexual could not be distinguished, that confirms that the studies were indeed conducted by blind people.
MD
Wait, scentific evidence disagrees with me?
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:40am.
Well, then it must have been conducted by idiots, all of it!
Motivated reasoning at its best.
Now that gay marriage is
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 4:34pm.
Now that gay marriage is allowed in some states, on to threesomes and plural marriages. The left marches on. Conservative=racist prude
The hypocrisy of self righteous moralizing by a group of people who's moral center consists of the fad of the moment driven by self indulgence. Look, this isn't a difficult concept, if you like playing the field then don't get married, it's one or the other.
Most homosexual couples are not monogomous. The reason is
Submitted by VanPastorMan on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 10:55am.
because most men separate their sex lives from the other areas of their lives. Let's face facts. Gay men are horny. Straight men are horny too but they have wives who don't want to do it everyday. In all my years talking with married men I have only had one time where a man told me his wife wanted, "it" too much.
Oh, so hes gay,,
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 11:06am.
THAT makes him an expert on family values? Yeah, that ougt tto do it! And I DONT want to here about him and hubby, or his "Lovahs" and their kinky bondage and crap, betweeen GUYS-UGH! But THIS is a good standard for family values-what has happened to my country?
Danny Savage- Sex Expert
Submitted by donaldduck on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 9:28pm.
Wow. Talk about the blind leading the blind. People who line up for advice from this perv deserve what he gives them. Anybody who licks door knobs has got to be at the top of the list for handing out advice.....or a Harvard professor. These pervs believe that there is no accounting for their behavior by a Higher Power when their bodies assume room temperature, which would put them at the same life level as a termite, finch or any other creature. Good luck with that one.