I have to say that the first and second Qs & As made me smile. I love how Savage just cut through the psychological bullshit.
You're right about the last one; it was simplistic. However, I get the impression that the audience he's writing for is not looking for a complex analysis. They're the kind of people who cheat at crossword puzzles. I get the impression that if you had a conversation with him one-on-one, or if an LGBTQ publication of journalistic merit interviewed him, he might have more insight than he displays in his "Dear Abby" column.
Oh, I have no doubt that Dan Savage is probably more nuanced when he knows he's talking to an "educated" audience than when he writes a colum who's going to be read by thousands of people. And I love the work he does most of the time, and the way he deconstructs a lot of stupid ideas that we have around sex and sexuality. I also think it's important to reach that first level before you can delve a little deeper, so it's not like I think it's a bad thing at all. (I definitely love the way he cuts through the BS, too, it's very refreshing.)
The nuancing was more meant for my own audience because I expect it of myself and I would like to think that my flist would expect it of me, too :)
To add to that, I think his earlier columns tried to be more nuanced and he realized pretty quickly that the majority of his audience wouldn't fully appreciate it. Plus, I imagine that trying to write any kind of "Dear Abby" column would get frustrating after a while, so now he just likes to get right to the point.
I haven't been reading this column for that long, but it's interesting you would say that, I remember thinking a couple of times (I can't remember about what, but I think one time it might have been zoophilia?) that his thoughts had evolved and he had become more nuanced in his judgment. I'm sure he's even more straight to the point now that he's established that's the tone, though. :)
My only issue with calling something a heterosexual or homosexual sex act is that bisexuals get lost in the mix. It's hard for me to explain the fact that while I'm (mostly only) physically attracted to girls, I'm physically and emotionally attracted to guys. Usually, the next question out of anyone's mouth is whether I've had sex with a girl and since I haven't gone beyond heavy petting, my answer has to be no. Bam, I've immediately been classified as straight since, in their minds, I've only done heterosexual sex acts (since only SEX counts as a sex act to most people).
ETA: Okay, it's not my only issue, but my main one at the moment.
Ah, but I think it's OK to make the distinction between homo and hetero acts as long as it's clear that it has nothing to do with identity. Gay people have often had heterosexual sex in the past, and it doesn't make them any "less" gay. Being bisexual is not about practice, although many bisexuals will have engaged in bisexual behavior, aka being intimate with both male and female partners.
So to me the problem here is more about the fact that we're often incapable of dissociating practice from identity, rather than with labeling acts as hetero or homo. And while a sexual act only involving two people can't really be bisexual, you can definitely talk about bisexual behavior, which is getting at the same idea.
Sorry, I wrote my original comment while I was still sick, so it didn't come out as clear as I'd hoped. The point I was making is very similar to the point you made with a little extra added to it
( ... )
I absolutely get your point and I agree that ultimately a sex act is a sex act and in itself it says very little.
Dan was just trying to get at the same preconceptions that you mention, which is that what you do in bed doesn't define who you are. In a way you have to establish that before you can do to the next level, which in this case would be that just because you've only been sexual in a heterosexual context doesn't mean you're heterosexual. It's the downside of having to simplify/take one problem at a time: there's always something you're not addressing.
So I still think it's OK to talk about hetero sex acts if you make it clear that it's dissociated from identity. It's a rough basic level of understanding but it's a step ahead of how most people think about these things.
Also, ugh at vaginal hetero sex/penetration trumping all. I have such a problem with that, even/especially in a hetero context.
The school told him to either stop dressing in feminine clothes or to consider home-schooling, claiming that a dress code prohibits clothes that "contribute to a disruption of school functions." Of course, people are going to be taken aback, but they told him to leave after only THREE days? They didn't even give the benefit of the doubt to their students that all the curiosity would just die down after a while. I'm glad to see that there are students who support Jonathan. Want to bet that it was only the school officials who were uncomfortable?
Comments 9
You're right about the last one; it was simplistic. However, I get the impression that the audience he's writing for is not looking for a complex analysis. They're the kind of people who cheat at crossword puzzles. I get the impression that if you had a conversation with him one-on-one, or if an LGBTQ publication of journalistic merit interviewed him, he might have more insight than he displays in his "Dear Abby" column.
Reply
The nuancing was more meant for my own audience because I expect it of myself and I would like to think that my flist would expect it of me, too :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
ETA: Okay, it's not my only issue, but my main one at the moment.
Reply
So to me the problem here is more about the fact that we're often incapable of dissociating practice from identity, rather than with labeling acts as hetero or homo. And while a sexual act only involving two people can't really be bisexual, you can definitely talk about bisexual behavior, which is getting at the same idea.
Reply
Reply
Dan was just trying to get at the same preconceptions that you mention, which is that what you do in bed doesn't define who you are. In a way you have to establish that before you can do to the next level, which in this case would be that just because you've only been sexual in a heterosexual context doesn't mean you're heterosexual. It's the downside of having to simplify/take one problem at a time: there's always something you're not addressing.
So I still think it's OK to talk about hetero sex acts if you make it clear that it's dissociated from identity. It's a rough basic level of understanding but it's a step ahead of how most people think about these things.
Also, ugh at vaginal hetero sex/penetration trumping all. I have such a problem with that, even/especially in a hetero context.
Reply
The school told him to either stop dressing in feminine clothes or to consider home-schooling, claiming that a dress code prohibits clothes that "contribute to a disruption of school functions." Of course, people are going to be taken aback, but they told him to leave after only THREE days? They didn't even give the benefit of the doubt to their students that all the curiosity would just die down after a while. I'm glad to see that there are students who support Jonathan. Want to bet that it was only the school officials who were uncomfortable?
Reply
Leave a comment