Underlying all of Savage’s principles, abbreviations, and maxims is a pragmatism that strives for stable, livable, and reasonably happy relationships in a world where the old constraints that were meant to facilitate these ends are gone"is gibberish, because the point isn't that "the old constraints that were meant to facilitate" the ends of stable, livable, and reasonably happy relationships are gone, it's that they were never meant to facilitate the ends of stable, livable, and reasonably happy relationships in the first place. Instead, "the old constraints" were meant to create and maintain a radical power imbalance, wherein the happiness, reasonable or otherwise, of well over half the population was simply irrelevant.
If Savage’s ethical guidelines—disclosure, autonomy, mutual exchange, and minimum standards of performance—seem familiar or intuitive, it’s probably because they also govern expectations in the markets for goods and services. No false advertising, no lemons, nothing omitted from the fine print: in the deregulated marketplace of modern intimacy, Dan Savage has become a kind of Better Business Bureau, laying out the rules by which individuals, as rationally optimizing firms, negotiate their wildly diverse transactions.is straight up nonsense-speak: first, the analogy between the marketplace and sexual behavior in Savage's scheme is incorrect on a basic level, since the concepts of honesty and openness that Savage espouses doesn't bear any actual relation to market behavior, not even the idealized version of market behavior that Dueholm describes, but second, Dueholm's description of what he calls "unregulated market behavior" itself is simply wrong: rules against "false advertising," "lemons," and so forth are hallmarks of a regulated marketplace, not, in his words, an unregulated one.
is there anything more dull, opportunistic, and sterile than to succumb to the superego injunction of incessantly inventing new artistic transgressions and provocations (the performance artist masturbating on stage, or masochistically cutting himself; the sculptor displaying decaying animal corpses or human excrement), or to the parallel injunction to engage in more and more “daring” forms of sexuality?... And what if, in our postmodern world of ordained transgression, in which the marital commitment is perceived as ridiculously out of date, those who cling to it are the true subversives? What if, today, straight marriage is “the most dark and daring of all transgressions”?Dueholm doesn't quite reach this level of turning the tables, he agrees that Savage's vision is a utopia of natural, ethical, autonomous sexuality. But I think Zizek is correct that in reality, it's a highly regulated, sterile, boring vision and the constant superego demand for more transgression turns into a chore, and Savage would do well to not underestimate the dark and powerful allure of staying home on a Saturday night and falling asleep in front of the TV.
And before angry bisexuals start pounding away at their keyboards, consider this: My current position on bisexuals winding up with opposite-sex partners (you're mostly straight) is a hell of a lot more charitable than my previous position (you're cowards, liars, cheats, etc.).That changes how I view his more recent video where he says bisexuals just have to accept skepticism and exclusion because so many of us end up in opposite sex relationships. (Full disclosure, I'm in one with another bisexual). So what is going on in the 2009(?) video? Is he offering a cleaned up version of his 2006 view? And just what is the 2006 view? Savage is presenting his opinion as an act of charity to believe that bisexuals are mostly straight, as there was no duty to reject his old view that bisexuals were cowards, liars, and cheats. Does he think in 2006 that his old view is legitimate, but impolitic?
Outside of San Francisco's alternate-universe bisexual community, there aren't many bi guys who want or wind up in long-term, same-sex relationships -- monogamous or not. Surely it's not news to you that people are put under a lot of pressure to choose partners of the opposite sex. The number of homos who succumb to this pressure is staggering, so it should come as no shock that most bisexuals wind up with opposite-sex partners. And while many straight men are delighted to discover their girlfriends are bisexual, most straight women are not delighted to discover their boyfriends are bisexual. Consequently, bi guys who want opposite sex partners are under tremendous pressure to stay closeted. And when a guy is closeted -- as most bi guys are -- he can't really be there for his boyfriend, can he?Notice the recurring theme of bisexuals ending up in relationships with members of the opposite sex. In 1999, 2006, and 2009(?), it serves as justification for whatever he wants to say about bisexuals, as if not dating a member of the same sex somehow made bisexuals (in chronological order) untrustworthy, deluded, or partial members of the community.
I'm not saying bi guys are bad people, or they don't make great one-night stands. Bushes, bathhouses, and sleazy gay bars are crawling with bi guys. But if a guy wants more, he'll have an easier time getting it from another gay man.
Perhaps I'm a transphobic bigot, but I honestly think waiting a measly 36 months to cut your dick is a sacrifice any father should be willing to make for his 15-year-old son. Call me old-fashioned.posted by ArmyOfKittens at 1:45 AM on March 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
« Older We love typography. Don't try to deny it. We love ... | 1699... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I loved that Bauer campaign story. I still think about licking doorknobs when I blame the rest of the world for being sick.
posted by Cold Lurkey at 6:08 PM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]