Talk:Dan Savage

tolling
Just curious why Savage gets trolled so much. I get he's rather anti women, and VERY anti trans, but we cover that (I hope) pretty well. Are people really that scared of someone sayign 1) gay is ok, and 2) sex outside of the rather ridiculous "one with just one, forever" is bad. Is that really it? Godot   Grow a vagina 20:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most likely. TyAnnoy 20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it's most likely because the questions he get asked are very honest questions about sexuality that, given the attitudes towards said sexuality, require a bit of courage. Those that troll him are most likely either so self-righteous and bigoted that they feel ANY discussion about sexuality is taboo, or are so deep in the closet they're finding clothes to donate to Goodwill. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The hate
This article is drifting clumsily towards making Savage look like a greater foe of LGBT etc rights than, oh, say Rick Santorum. Someone grinding an axe out there a bit? 02:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like it to me. Or are we not supposed to criticize people whom we often, but not always, agree with? CopperheadHisssssss 02:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had seen this article before, yet I stumbled upon his podcast and started listening for other reasons. Only later did I realize it was him this article is about. Honestly, he does seem like a generally good guy and not really anti-woman. As for him being biphobic... he gets props for recently inviting a bisexual co-host when the topic is bisexual issues.
 * Is he conservative because he's for "family values"? Aren't we all for "family values" but don't we just disagree on what it is. Hate is never a value so imho it doesn't fall in the category of family values, yet republicans hold it to be a core tenet.62.159.14.62 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Bi and trans issues
As best as I can tell, Savage is neither anti-bi nor anti-trans in any real sense. He does, however, suffer from some pretty serious privilege blindness regarding those two groups. Most of the time it's not a problem, but I have wound up facepalming from time to time when I listen to his podcasts when it becomes one. Honestly, that's most of the "bad" right there. Is there any way to cut that section down? It seems to suffer from some undue weight issues in its current form. EVDebs (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious he isn't explicitly anti-bi or anti-trans, but it isn't just privilege blindness. He's the kind of faux ally who is constantly told he's being offensive but continues to do everything just as he always does; and to boot, he really does have some fairly fucked up views on bi men and trans people in general. He has been dismissive of both in the past and has used trans people as the butt of humor several times. And as an aside, what he's written on rape is MRA worthy. Nope, the "bad" section is pretty accurate, I think. 07:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a pretty faithful listener to his podcast, and I think a lot of what's in the "bad" section is being taken overly literally. That doesn't mean he doesn't need a few smacks upside the head from time to time, but it seems like a lot of what's written there is being taken in the worst possible light, especially when a lot of it has changed over time (I cut the abortion section because it's completely at odds with any current positions I've heard him state). And, I gotta be honest, his definition of rape is idiosyncratic at times, but whatever used to be the case (the article in the references was from 2007 and references a rather unusual ethical situation), he does seem to take it pretty seriously, and isn't nearly as flippant about it now. (And yes, he was wrong to question the person claiming to be a rape survivor in the letter - it didn't make any sense to do so, and I'm completely missing his logic there.) EVDebs (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Faux ally"? That's pure bullshit. He is who he is, and who he is is an "advice columnist" who addresses sexual issues in his own fairly healthy way.  See below.  ħ uman  01:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

combing through the references
A lot of the criticisms in this article are, one might say, poorly constructed, and seem to be reliant on taking Savage's statements literally and out of context. There are legitimate complaints in there, and I've tried to make sure they're kept (especially the above-mentioned problem with privilege blindness), but for example the reference to the article about the transman's question misses the overall context of Savage's style and general feelings on matters of sexual attraction. In other words, a long time reader, seeing Savage's blunt "yes", would understand it in the context of what Savage has said in general about the importance of sexual chemistry in relationships. Honestly, I'm not trying to make this a hagiography, but some of these interpretations are just hatchet jobs. EVDebs (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I just read footnote 9 and it does not support what we say.  ħ uman  21:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The items "supported" by footnote 11 are also blown wildly out of proportion and context.  ħ uman  21:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the unsupported hate. The one reference to a blog did not include a good link to a Savage column or statement, so that went away, too. Keep in mind that this guy's "Dear Abby" back in the day was "Hey Faggot". He's edgy. Is he "perfect"? No, but I bet the people who added all this crap I just deleted aren't, either.  ħ uman  01:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Double Standards
He has some very rightwing double standards about heterosexual relationships. For example, he is constantly telling females that they need to consent to every fantasy their male partners have (as long as they aren't feces related) and telling the men they should leave any women who dares say no to one of their fantasies yet in one podcast he chided a women for wanting to watch porn with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend had said no to her fantasy and Savage told her to get over it. Another example would be his insistence that women just get over the fact that men gawk all the time at their breasts. Then later want off on one of his irrational rants when some young women had mentioned looking at their male friends crotch - even though the young man was trying to draw attention to their genital area.
 * Since you're making, essentially, a statistical assertion, that is a somewhat difficult allegation to prove without multiple citations. And by multiple I mean "at least a couple dozen over the last three or four years, so as to reflect his current attitudes". EVDebs (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Pedophilia
Is he against pedophilia? At what age? He seems to believe preteens and teens are fair game. Has he ever given an age when people are off limits?
 * Have you ever actually listened or read what he has to say about consent? Yes, he is against pedophilia, explicitly so. It's one of his three non-negotiable big nos; the other two are bestiality and scat. EVDebs (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)