Jump to content

Dan Savage Posts on Asexuality


Sootmouth

Recommended Posts

While we're at it, I also wrote about the incident, but I have no intention of sending anything to Dan Savage. I was mostly interested in the hypocrisy of wanting asexuals to be upfront while simultaneously engaging in asexual erasure. The clearest examples of this don't really come from Dan Savage himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ooo someone wrote somthing some one doesn't like ...imagine the shock :P

Look, on the actual bit about the 3 dates why shouldn't you be open, it doesn't matter wether it's asexuality, gay, sexual disease, criminal record etc..at 3 dates it's not unreasonable to assume that the other person is someone you could get along with and want to see more

At what point do you say..I am asexual..dan savage has said 3..like I take dans advice on dating :lol: but more importantly the longer any relationship goes on an element of trust is what is required.

In reverse..your an asexual..you date a man who want's to transition to a woman..at what point should he tell you as an asexual?

the core of all this is honesty within a relationship and not what your partner is

As to dan savage's opinion..he's entitled to have one as we are entitled to disagree

Link to post
Share on other sites

ooo someone wrote somthing some one doesn't like ...imagine the shock :P

Look, on the actual bit about the 3 dates why shouldn't you be open, it doesn't matter wether it's asexuality, gay, sexual disease, criminal record etc..at 3 dates it's not unreasonable to assume that the other person is someone you could get along with and want to see more

This particular piece of advice has never been the issue, despite the picture some over there try to paint.

I will partially agree however. I do think we should stop obsessing so much on Dan Savage's opinion about us. If this was a normally-reasonable guy, who had some serious misconceptions about asexuality, it might be worth spending some effort clearing them up. However, apart from his excellent "it gets better" series, I don't really recall anything of any value from his direction. I think he's a shock-jock. People love to read him not because he has anything worth saying, but because they want to see what outrageous thing he'll say or do next.

So, while I commend people for the letters, I think they may be a waste of time. Further if people really are intent on changing his mind, I don't think the polite, reasonable, somewhat-intellectual tone people are taking is going to be effective. I admit I'm rather prone to this myself. I like to imagine that everyone else appreciates a well thought out, intellectual argument, and that they will be quite happy to sit down, carefully ponder the merits of such and then revise their opinion if necessary. That's a nice thought, but unfortunately not all people work that way. Arguably, some even see this kind of thing as a weakness, as if we're begging him to put us in his good book, rather than standing up for ourselves.

Perhaps biting sarcasm, derision, ridicule and possibly even anger might be more effective tools? I suspect that Dan understands and respects that kind of language a lot better.

(Just my opinion. I'd be happy to be proved wrong about all this. And people should make their own mind up about what strategy, if any, is likely to be most effective.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I think that with Savage, the issue is that a) he has a fairly wide audience and b) people think that he may be persuadable, at least to some extent. From what I've read of his stuff, he's more than just a shock jock, although he most definitely does make use of such style. Earlier this week, I was taking a look at the program for the 2011 annual meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research. Dan Savage is listed among the invited speakers. (I was looking at the program as I was contemplating submitting an abstract and I wanted to know when the deadline was.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Savage published one of the letters he got. Seems very positive to me, because Dan actually took the time to address the subject seriously.

I have to agree, despite what I said above. The reader comments are still awful though. They've always been much worse than the Savage columns themselves.

I wonder if my comment above should be revised somewhat. It's not necessarily that Savage has nothing of any rational merit to offer. It's more that his readers don't want him for that. He seems to be getting a mini-backlash from his readers over his latest "reasonable" post. He'll probably have to make another derisory post about asexuals to make his readers happy again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Savage published one of the letters he got. Seems very positive to me, because Dan actually took the time to address the subject seriously.

I'd say it's better, not positive. But then again, it's not hard to be better than his previous comments.

Note that when the letter points out that his comments about how asexuals are actively seeking to harm sexuals are unfair, Savage responds with "Perhaps it is". He won't even accept that it is actually hurtful, mean, and bigoted to spread such ideas? How hard is it to say "Yes, that was wrong. My bad."? Savage is using a polite tone this time, but he's still standing by the crap he said earlier.

And then he still puts such a huge emphasis on how terrible it is for sexuals to date asexuals. While I totally agree that such a situation must suck, I think an asexual pretending to be sexual suffers a lot more in a relationship than the sexual does. After all, which is worse: having sex with a partner that you suspect may not enjoy it, or having sex that you don't want? One of those is a disappointing night, the other can be traumatizing. Yet all Dan can do is talk about how much it must suck for the sexual partner. His idea of compromise seems to be "bend over and give yourself to your partner, with no regards to what you want".

Am I reading too much into it? Maybe. But I still find it hard to say Dan is doing anything other than actively making it worse for asexuals. The only difference is that in this letter he is softening his comments so he can maintain plausible deniability from the hate and bigotry he is inciting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He has based his career on two ideological points: the meanness of homophobia, and the absolute necessity for human beings to want sex with other people in order to be true human beings. The first is absolutely true, and the second isn't. If he gave up his opinion on asexuality, he'd have to admit he was wrong, and he's never shown any capacity to do that. The most he'll say is that if asexuals don't want sex, all right, but they should KNOW they are asexual (even though most asexuals probably still don't know that it is an orientation) and they should tell everyone they might possibly want a relationship with.

I don't think homosexuals can really understand that asexuals who do have sex may just think of themselves as not being able to do it right, so we just keep trying. If someone's homosexual, they KNOW they feel sexual attraction toward other people. If someone's asexual, they may think what they feel is sexual attraction when it's really what I call aesthetic attraction or romantic attraction. So I guess we can't blame them for not understanding, but I do blame him and other homosexuals if they say that asexuals are either lying or just weird.

But then minorities have never been known to be terribly considerate toward other minorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

Savage published one of the letters he got. Seems very positive to me, because Dan actually took the time to address the subject seriously.

I have to agree, despite what I said above. The reader comments are still awful though. They've always been much worse than the Savage columns themselves.

First rule of the internet: don't read the comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spoonsfromdenmark

First rule of the internet: don't read the comments.

Yeah, I wish I hadn't read the comments. Particularly comments on the Stranger blog where it was also posted. I feel like I made hundreds of people hate asexuals. I also really really wish I had mentioned that I agree that disclosure is absolutely necessary and that I agree with his advice on that. Most of the readers for some reason believed I disagreed with that. I disagreed with his portrayal and simplification of the situation. Oh well, live and learn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First rule of the internet: don't read the comments.

Yeah, I wish I hadn't read the comments. Particularly comments on the Stranger blog where it was also posted. I feel like I made hundreds of people hate asexuals. I also really really wish I had mentioned that I agree that disclosure is absolutely necessary and that I agree with his advice on that. Most of the readers for some reason believed I disagreed with that. I disagreed with his portrayal and simplification of the situation. Oh well, live and learn.

Part of that is just the way Dan Savage writes. He will argue for some perfectly reasonable statement that few people would disagree with (like asexuals should mention that they are asexual once they know they are, and are dating), and then in arguing for it mentions or imply things that are completely ridiculous. When you call him out on the ridiculous parts, he makes it seem like you are attacking the reasonable statement, and the readers/comments follow suit.

His argument (including implied and not explicitly stated parts) pretty much reads like this: "Asexuals should disclose that they are asexual. Why? Because asexuals are a bane on the sexual community who take perverse pleasure in denying sex to sexuals. Also, if you don't take perverse pleasure in denying sex to sexuals, you should go try having more sex because you aren't really asexual".

No one disagrees with the first sentence, yet when called out on the rest of his crap, he acts as if that's what people are rejecting, so he can vilify them and make them look unreasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have two options

get into the public eye at an equal level and correct it directly..not through internet forums

or

accept his is one persons opinion which he is entitled to have as you are

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have two options

get into the public eye at an equal level and correct it directly..not through internet forums

or

accept his is one persons opinion which he is entitled to have as you are

I'm not sure I understand. Two options towards what? Do you mean two options towards countering his misconceptions? Does that mean correcting it directly involves not accepting his opinion? Does that mean I don't have the option of, say, convincing Dan Savage personally? Seems like a false dichotomy, and I'm not sure what those options are meant to accomplish.

But yeah, I shouldn't have to emphasize that Dan Savage is welcome to have his opinion, just like everyone else- even when that opinion is factually incorrect and potentially hurtful. But I also have a right to have an opinion, namely that Dan Savage is a <enter long list of unkind words here>. Then, since we have contradicting opinions, we can present arguments for each side so that everyone else can also have their own informed opinions. Furthermore, I am also allowed to have my own emotions and vent those in any way which does not harm anyone else- so I'm allowed to be angry at Dan Savage, and to express that- and you, of course, are allowed to think I shouldn't get angry (and we could always argue that too, although probably not in this thread). By calling out someone's bad logic, I'm still respecting his opinion- after all, I'm addressing it and explaining precisely where and why I disagree, and why everyone else should as well.

And then there is also the issue of the only other option being getting into the public eye, and the implication that posting on forums is pointless, which I'd disagree with even if we assume my goal is to correct Dan Savage's misconceptions (and not, say, to vent my anger). But that's not really as important.

Anyways, sorry if this comes off as too adversarial- I don't mean it to. I'm just annoyed at Savage, and it's nice to vent that. That and I get annoyed when people assume disagreeing with someone means not allowing them to have an opinion (and I'm not sure your post was directed at me in the first place? So sorry if this is completely pointless).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree you should be open with potential partners about your orientation, but my agreement ends there.

The part that bothers me is that he's defining asexuality as a lack of libido, not a lack of attraction. And it IS possible for sexual/asexual relationships to work in some cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Glitter Spock

While disclosing your asexuality to someone you're dating might be a good idea, that doesn't necessarily mean it's absolutely wrong and immoral not to disclose. It's unfair to place an expectation of sex on anyone, and you don't owe anyone an explanation for any lack of sexual activity. No one automatically "deserves" sex from a partner.

I think Dan Savage is completely clueless about rape culture and how he is contributing to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

While disclosing your asexuality to someone you're dating might be a good idea, that doesn't necessarily mean it's absolutely wrong and immoral not to disclose. It's unfair to place an expectation of sex on anyone, and you don't owe anyone an explanation for any lack of sexual activity. No one automatically "deserves" sex from a partner.

I think Dan Savage is completely clueless about rape culture and how he is contributing to it.

As I've been trying to get a feel for discourses on sexuality, there is a tension between people wanting to hold that a) people should have the right to be able to fulfill their sexual desires, and that b) people should have the right to not be sexually coerced. In a lot of the statements of sexual rights, they recognize this tension and resolve it by making (b) dominate (as they should). For instance, the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality has a statement on sexual rights[/i]. The 6th one says:

Link to post
Share on other sites

While disclosing your asexuality to someone you're dating might be a good idea, that doesn't necessarily mean it's absolutely wrong and immoral not to disclose. It's unfair to place an expectation of sex on anyone, and you don't owe anyone an explanation for any lack of sexual activity. No one automatically "deserves" sex from a partner.

It's true that no one deserves sex from anyone else. But "dating", in America at least, tends to commonly mean the assumption that if the relationship progresses, sex will be involved. I think disclosing that you are not interested in sex at all would be only considerate to the person you're dating. Most sexuals aren't thinking about anyone NOT being interested in sex, so they're probably not going to ask, "So, will you be interested in sex if we end up really liking each other?" They just assume that's the case. That doesn't mean they're going to expect to be GIVEN sex; it just means that they think that eventually sex will be shared between you, with each partner wanting it. They deserve to know if that won't be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Bountiful Harvest

I didn't really care much for the comments which vehemently condemned asexuals as non-existent liars, I kinda laugh them off as bigotry and bigotry doesn't get the privilege of my attention. What kinda hurt more was the cocky, flippant remarks from people trying to act smart.

I do agree that in a relationship it is best to disclose your asexuality as soon as possible and the third date does sound quite optimal (you've been together long enough to get used to each other's personality and the fact it's the third means that there is a basis for a long term relationship forming) anything less and you could run the risk of scaring the other person off without them actually knowing the person, not the label.

What I disliked was the massive adversarial vibe I got from the column, almost like giving us an ultimatum: Fess up or don't you dare even think about dating a sexual. That put me on edge a little. He mind as well have told us to tattoo A's onto our foreheads and live in ghettos with other aces. . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Someone who is incapable of meeting a sexual's needs has no business dating a sexual in the first place, if you ask me"

...Dear Mr. Savage, who on earth got the absurd idea into your thick skull that asexuals are unable by nature to 'meet a sexual's needs'? ...My boyfriend and I have sex, and though I do not enjoy it in the way that he does, he finds our intercourse most satisfactory, I think you'll find ;)

By making such obtuse and ill-informed comments as the above, Mr. Savage is basically saying that there are 'dating rights' - in other words, that some people do not have the right to form relationships with a certain class or category of people (isn't this almost like a kind of 'sexual-racism'...?), due to their orientation. What an unintelligent, fascist c**t.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
bluebanana2014

READING ALL THOSE COMMENTS, THERE ARE SOME VERY APHOBIC [removed] OUT THERE.

Edited by Arca nine Huggles
Please refrain from using personal insults.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Dendritic Trees

Good god, what horrendous commenters.

That said I think Mr Savage had a point, even though he seems to have gone out of his way to phrase it in the most offensive way possible. I don't have a whole lot of dating experience, so I'm totally open to the argument that I'm talking out of my ass, but I think I'd much rather have a partner find out early that I'm ace and leave rather than get into a really serious relationship and then get my heart broken when they find out and don't like it.

Some sexuals really do need sex to have a good relationship, and thats as valid as wanting no sex at all, so it makes sense to be open, and find someone who is at least willing to give things a try, with full information rather than just setting a relationship up for failure because you have mutually contradictory needs. Then again, my record for successfully coming out is 0 for several, so its not as easy as Mr. Savage makes it sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...