The Great Mate Debate

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: So long, Farewell, Auf Weidersehen, Goodbye.

I'm sorry to disappoint this commenter. He assumed, as I failed to say my goodbyes yesterday, that I would be seizing control of the Great Mate Debate. Alas, that's not the case. It's just that I, like Greg & Amiira, was just slow to get my goodbye post up.

I'm going to miss everyone--Wendy, Greg & Amiira, Helen, and most of all—believe it or not—Ed Young. How often does an gay sex-advice columnist and atheist get to go toe-to-toe with the leader of a conservative Christian mega-church on issues of sex and morality? Ed bowed out weeks earlier, of course, but I will always treasures the moments we spent blogging together. So I want to thank Chemistry.com for their matchmaking skills in bringing us all together for this conversation (to say nothing of their patience—this isn't my first late post).

The one thing I hope everyone reading takes away from this debate is this: decent thinking people—people like Wendy, Greg & Amiira, Helen—are all over the map on sex, romance, and relationship issues. That proves something I think each and every one of us knows to be true but secretly wishes weren't true: We ultimately have to figure out this sex/dating/mating stuff for ourselves. It would be nice—it would be a relief—if there was a final authority, an Uber Expert, someone out there dispensing one-size-fits-all wisdom about sex, dating, and mating. It would be so much easier if there was one expert that had all the answers. But that person isn't out there—that expert hasn't been invented yet. That expert wasn't blogging on this website, doesn't write my column or Wendy's books, and isn't hiding out in any of the books in Ed's bible. Instead we're stuck with arguments and muddles and debates, greater or lesser. We listen and participate—and then embrace what works for us, discard what doesn't, and get on with things.

The danger for experts and non-experts alike is the assumption that what works for me not only could work for everyone else, but must. Well, it doesn't. So as you continue to figure out sex, romance, and mating for yourself, dear reader, I trust that you'll embrace the stuff that works for you and ditch the rest. If something I wrote here worked for you, great. If it didn't, chuck it.

Thanks again to the Chemistry.com crew—Gina and Janet particularly—and to my fellow mate debaters.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Inter-faith dating--when does it work? When doesn’t it?

Inter-faith dating only works when both halves of a couple wear their faiths lightly, like flouncy summer dresses, and not tightly, like a pair of canvas straightjackets.

And... uh... that's really all I have to say about this topic.

Because when it comes to religion, that most sensitive of subjects, I happen to agree with Christopher Hitchens, that most insensitive of writers: religion pretty much poisons everything. I've personally seen religion poison a number of relationships. One half of a previously content couple suddenly "gets," or comes down with, a bad case of religion. Pick a religion, any religion. It could be a born-again Christian experience or the sudden realization that conservative Islam is only true path or a mysterious pull toward the dubious charms of Mormonism or Scientology or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

When one half of a couple suddenly gets passionate about religion, the other half—perfectly acceptable before the first half came down with a bad case of religion—is no longer viewed as a partner, but as a lost soul in need of saving, a heathen in need of conversion, someone who isn't going to heaven or paradise with you. Seeing as how many—that's "many," not "all"—religious people regard the irreligiousness of complete strangers as personal affront, is it any wonder that a mate's irreligiousness or a lack of religious fervor can destroy a relationship?

So inter-faith dating... I'm all for it. So long as we're talking a mild case of "faith," and not a fatal one.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Are two people really and truly meant to stay together forever…or should we embrace more of a serial long-term relationship model for happiness?

Whether or not we're inclined to embrace it, the serial model of long-term relationships has arrived. We can refuse to give it a hug but people aren't going to feel obligated to stay in crappy marriages for the rest of their lives as a result. Once upon a time—before antibiotics and effective medical care and exploding life expectancies—people were willing tough out a bad marriage, in the hopes that the next cholera outbreak or influenza epidemic carried off that hated spouse. Those days are over, gone, pffft.

But if we want to make it possible for more people to stay together forever—and I'm a fan of long-term relationships, and toughing out the rough patches, etc.—we need to change our expectations.

Can I talk about infidelity again? Try to shut me up about it: We talk about monogamy the way we talk about virginity. You're a virgin until you have sex for the first time and then—pffft!—you're not a virgin anymore. You're monogamous until you have sex for the first time with someone else and then—pffft!—you're not monogamous anymore. You can lose your monogamy just like you lost your virginity.

I think we should encourage people to view monogamy the way we view sobriety. You're sober, you fall off the wagon, but you're not necessarily always and forever drunk from that moment on. You can sober back up—you can get back on the wagon, you can get back with the program. We should tell people that they can "monogamy back up" too, that they recover their monogamous status, by getting back on the monogamy wagon.

Cheating happens—it happens a lot. We should be realistic about that. Yet it's often the same people that bemoan the culture of divorce insist that insist cheating is an unforgivable betrayal and that divorce is the only appropriate response. If we want to see less divorce we shouldn't encourage people to regard cheating as a marriage killer. Because guess what? We're not wired for monogamy—even Bill Bennett, family values crusader, admits as much in his book The Broken Hearth. If we're not good at monogamy and we're not wired for it... doesn't it seem a bit nuts to make it the foundation upon which we build our relationships? So long as we insist on doing that, well, we're asking for it.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: On LTRs and Sparks

This is going to be a post about sex toys. I'll keep it clean and clinical—more Dr. Ruth than "Savage Love"—but if the existence of sex toys offends you, to say nothing of the discussion of sex toys, you might want to scroll on past this post.

So.

Earlier this week we were talking about breaking out of ruts and getting the ol' spark back, and I, of course, assumed we were talking about sex. Because I'm like that. I made a recommendation about what I felt couples in ruts should avoid doing. (Don't sit on your butts and eat--get off your butts and do.) Today I'd like to offer a something a couple can do to get the spark back, something proactive, something brave and bold.

Something Madonna recently did--buy a sex toy.

Madonna was photographer leaving a London hotel earlier this week with her husband, film director Guy Ritchie. Madonna was carrying a clear plastic shopping bag, and clearly visible in the shopping bag was something called a Purple Penetrator. I'm not going to go into just what a Purple Penetrator is, or how it works, or its suggested retail price or anything. I will say, however, that the London tabloids went nuts, with many suggesting that it's clear now Madonna "wears the trousers" in her household. If you want to know more, Google it.

Madonna and Ritchie have been together since 1999—that's eight years, an eternity in celebrity years. I hope what I'm about to type isn't the kiss of death, but here goes: Madonna and Ritchie are still together after eight years and if they're still in love, well, they're clearly doing something right. And part of what they may be doing right—sorry to play into gossiping about celebs here, Greg and Amiira—is mixing it up in the sack, experimenting, playing, and growing sexually.

A couple doesn't need sex toys to do that, of course, but sex toys can be a good way for a couple stuck in a sexual rut to kick-start their sex lives. I'm not generally don't recommend living through or like celebrities, but married couples that want to break out of a sexual rut might want to emulate Madonna and Guy and hit a sex toy store. I recommend Babeland, Good Vibrations, Come As You Are, and Grand Opening.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: When a couple settles into a rut, can they ever escape and recapture “the spark”?

Sure, yeah—been there myself, done that dozens of times. There's already lots of good advice up on the blog on this topic, and I only want to add one thing, one teensy observation...

For the love of God, whatever else you try, however you attempt to recapture the ol' spark, DON'T EAT. Don't make it all about food. No fine wines or stupid oysters or candlelit tables in pricey restaurants. No strawberries dripped in chocolate, no champagne. No freakin' food. Period.

A large meal, a little wine—why do otherwise sane, sensible people think there's something arousing about dinner? When we fill our stomachs with chow and pour a little booze down our throats what do our bodies wanna do? Not make love. They're wanna rest. They wanna digest. Food and booze makes us feel sleepy, not sexy. (We are talking about reviving the spark in the sack, right?)

If you wanna revive the spark, go do something active together. Go biking. Go bowling. Go running. Go rollerblading. Get off the couch, off your butts, and do something together. Get your blood pumping, get your energy levels up, and you'll be jumping each others' bones like you did when you first met.

And then, after your bones are jumped, you can go have some dinner!

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: A couple decides to divorce. At what point after they separate should they start dating other people?

This question presumes that one half of the couple-under-discussion wasn't already dating other people, a fact-on-the-ground that often leads to a decision to divorce. But for the sake of argument let's picture half of a couple that decides to divorce without another man or woman already on the scene.

At what point should this person start dating again?

That depends. This is another question that I hear a lot, and when folks ask it they typically want a number—three months, six months, nine months. But there is no hard and fast number, no rule of thumb, no Miss Manners' Recommended Pseudo Grieving Period. We have to make our own calls. A decent interval that that might seem appropriate for one half of Couple A might seem like a few thousand years in purgatory for one half of Couple B.

But while I don't want to give a hard number, I will list a few things that a newly single person should take into consideration before dating again.

Children: However happy you are to be rid of the ex, however ready you are to move on with your life, I can guarantee you that your children won't be ready to see you dating as quickly as you're ready to date. If you have kids, figure out how much time you need before you're ready to start dating. Then double it.

Trauma: If your divorce was traumatic—and precious few are anything else—a rapid return to the dating scene is cliche rebound behavior. It's not emotionally wise, and it's unfair to anyone unlucky enough to date you. If you're still measuring your separation in weeks and you feel yourself inclined to date, it's too soon.

Proximity: If your divorce was amicable—as a precious few are—you don't want to be cruel to your ex, however at peace he or she may seem with your mutual, respectful decision to divorce. You will both be dating other people, of course, but a decent respect for each other's feelings requires you not to rub each others' noses in it. If you're still seeing each other regularly—to wrap things up, to finish the paperwork, to sell the house—wait or date very discretely. And if, God forbid, your economic situation requires you to continue living together for the time being, don't date. Wait.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: A visit to Reed College

I spoke last night at Reed College, a small, liberal arts college in Portland, Oregon.

There are only 1300 students at Reed, but the 450-seat auditorium was packed. So, hey, I pulled in roughly a third of Reed’s student body, which was nice. You try not to get emotionally invested in turnout when you speak at a college—you don’t want to feel like it’s a referendum on you or your ideas—because you have so little control over turnout. If the student group that brought you to campus—the Gray Fund, in Reed’s case—doesn’t get the word out (posters, student newspapers, campus email blasts), you can end up speaking to 10 people in a room that seats 450 and, man, that blows. But the students at the Gray Fund did a great job, the room was packed, and I was... ill.

Fighting a cold, on painkillers after a little dental work, I warned Reed’s students that we were in for a bumpy night—a digression-packed, free-association-style lecture. And that’s what I delivered, but it seemed to go over well—lotsa laughs, some good arguments, many great questions.

So what’s on the minds of the students at Reed?

Access to birth control—they’re pro. Larry Craig—they’re con. Who has it better—gay men or lesbians? Open relationships—how do you make ‘em work? Kinks—why we’ve all got ‘em? Gay culture—where’s it going? Are labels—gay, straight, bi—really necessary?

That last question—are labels really necessary—was put to me by a young man in the back row. I couldn’t quite see him—it was hard to make out through the painkillers and Theraflu—so I couldn’t zap him with my gaydar. But I knew, even without zapping him, that he was straight. He had to be straight. It's only straight people—the overwhelming majority of the population—that seem to think we can get by without "limiting" sexual labels like "gay, "straight," or "bi."

Heterosexuality is presumed; it's the default sexual orientation. You're straight until you open your mouth and tell people you're something else, until you identify yourself as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. That’s not an injustice, there's no conspiracy—it’s actually a pretty damn reasonable assumption. Most people—90-ish-percent-plus—are heterosexual. Which is why it's usually a heterosexual are usually the ones that suggests, at a lecture, that we should able to get by without labels. Because he could, because the assumption made about him—that's he's straight—is and always will be correct.

Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals—once we’re out of college, at least—understand why labels are important, why we need ‘em. They make it possible for us to find each other. Without labeling ourselves—without saying "here I am, gay as a goose!"—we would be lost in sea of straight people.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Office love: Does its sometimes forbidden nature make it more enticing?

As we've seen with certain senators from certain Western states--cough, Larry Craig, cough, Idaho cough cough--forbidding something is a pretty good way to make that certain something completely irresistible. That's why I laughed when some large companies tried to skirt their sexual harassment liability by banning inter-office romances. At an instant these companies transformed every pair of middle-aged, white-collar workers on their payrolls into potential Romeos and Juliets--star-crossed lovers cursed by a forbidden passion! There were probably people at these companies that hadn't thought to have an office romance until their bosses banned 'em.

But office romances aren't forbidden everywhere; in most places they're simply managed. If two people that work together are or become involved, they usually have to 'fess up, so that human resources can make sure no one is being exploited, and protect the company. But most people conduct their office romances in secret for a good, long while--not wanting to be open about the relationship until their pretty sure it's something serious--and keeping a secret can make something feel forbidden even when it's not.

Personally, I'm all for office romances, preferably the ones that don't involve adultery--although I sometimes for those too, but on a strictly case-by-case basis. Folks have to meet somewhere. If we don't want everyone meeting in bars or online we're going to have to accept a little flirting at work--so long as its innocent, respectful, and non-disruptive, go for it.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: What’s the allure of bad boys, bad girls, and bad relationships?

There's almost as many reasons why people find bad girls, bad boys, and bad relationships so alluring as there are bad girls, bad boys, and bad relationships. There are some major themes, and here's my personal favorite: Some of us are genetically pre-disposed toward risk-taking. That can manifest itself in, oh, jumping out of airplanes or skiing like lunatics or inventing the "sport" the of bungee jumping. But for lots of people the risk-taking gene expresses itself in interpersonal relationships—that is, being attracted to people that we know are bad for us, and that are likely to hurt us. Because it makes the risk-taker feel alive, it gets the blood pumping, and the adrenalin going.

But when I've seen it in my friends, a tragic attraction to bad girls/boys/relatonships seems to most often be about a secret, subconscious desire to be alone on the part of the good girl or boy in the bad relationship—but the good girl or boy wants to be alone and blameless.

Our culture hammers away at the couple ideal, and anyone that's alone—through choice or circumstance—is made to feel freakish and incomplete, a failure at love and, therefore, a failure at life. But some people would like to be alone, would rather be alone, but they don't want to take responsibility for being alone. So they orchestrate it. They pursue people who are wrong for them—screw-ups and addicts and drunks that look good in leather pants—because they know it won't work out. And when it doesn't work out, and the person that wanted to be alone is alone again, no one blames the good boy or girl. The good boy/girl is just "unlucky in love," "has terrible taste in men/women," and is the victim.

Yes, sometimes people are victimized by bad girls/boys. But when someone chooses, a la Sweet Charity, the same basic bad girl or boy over and over and over again, that's not an accident. They're not unlucky in love—they're getting just what they want. A little temporary companionship, a little hot sex, a lot of drama, and tons of sympathy from understanding friends when their latest relationship comes to a predictably bad end.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Missing Ed, Responding to Greg and Amiira

I'm a little under-the-weather today, which is why my post is so late and will be brief--well, brief for me. Two quick Friday items...

First, I wanna say how much I'm missing Ed Young right now. I'm sure we could get into a fabulous argument about disgraced Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idablow). He'd say something about how this is what you get when you tolerate sexual sin, and I'd point out that Craig was about as intolerant of sexual sin—well, other people's sexual sin—as a man can possibly be. Spectacular crack-ups like Craigs are what you get when you create or buy into a culture that tells gay men and lesbians that Jesus hates 'em and that it's better to live a closeted life than to live openly and honestly and with some integrity.

Second, a quick response to Greg and Amiira Behrendt... who responded today to me and Wendy...

I’m being sincere when I say. “What the hell is a marriage then if you have to cheat to stay in it?” I’m not directing this at Dan because I’m sure many people believe that, what I’m saying is I believe that it’s all totally avoidable if you have the capacity to be honest with yourself and your partner from the get go.

What kind of marriage is it? Why a dysfunctional one, of course, a marriage that's messy and unsatisfactory and complicated... and may still be worth preserving anyway. Yes, cheating is evil—but so is divorce and splitting up. There are times when cheating is the lesser evil. Not everyone is in a financial position to split up over sex. There may be kids involved. Should a couple together 30 or 40 years just pack it in because one person decides that he or she (it's usually she, though) isn't interested in sex anymore? Would it really be better for the couple—emotionally, financially—and their children and grandchildren if the husband tore apart their home, ended their marriage, and destroyed their finances?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stick to my guns here: there are times when cheating, while evil, is the lesser evil. And marriages with a "do what you need to do" understanding are more common than many seem willing to acknowledge. I would hope that Greg and Amiira aren't there after seven years together; my boyfriend and I aren't there after 13 years together. But if you check back with us at 37 and 43 years—and if we're in a position to be honest about it—we might be there then.