My obsession with the horror that is Dan Savage has taken me to reading some very boring and very stupid articles, and the comments that go with them, ‘under the line’.
To sum up Dan’s philosophy on sexuality: ‘Gay is good. Gay is natural. Straight is tolerable. Christians are evil. Homophobia comes from Christian Straight people. I have a big cock. Suck it.’
But the real bile and hatred in Dan’s heart is reserved for bisexual people. Somehow they just don’t fit in his world at all. Throughout his columns he presents bisexual men in particular, as immoral, sluttish, corrupting of innocent monogamous gay men, fickle, and well perverted.
In his Savage Love advice column Dan takes an email from a reader:
‘I am a gay man, and my closest friend, who I have no strong romantic feelings for, is bisexual. He is engaged to this cool girl. She knows that he is bisexual, and that he gets “frustrated” if he is intimate with only one sex for a long period of time. She is not into threesomes apparently, and obviously doesn’t want him running around fucking whoever he wants—which is what he is used to. But she is willing to work something out, where he would be able to fuck guys on the side. So they asked me to be my male friend’s “release”, meaning someone he can go to for sex throughout their marriage.’
I can’t be sure but this scenario sounds very unlikely to me. A gay man who is best friends with a bisexual man and who is asked by his best mate to be his lifetime fuck buddy? Would you ask your best friend to do that?
Whether or not Savage made this up, he shows his lack of respect for bisexual people in his response:
‘Let me be clear: I’m not making any general generalizations about bisexuals generally here. I’m talking about this bi guy and this bi guy only.
If this bi guy—this one and only bi guy—is used to doing whoever he wants whenever he wants, HGF, I doubt he’ll be satisfied with just one guy on the side, even if that guy is someone as sexy and amazing as you. So this plan seems unworkable to me over the long run as he’s used to a certain amount of variety in his sex life. He’s unlikely to be satisfied with just you for many of the same reasons he’s unlikely to be satisfied with just her.’
Of course Dan is generalising about bisexual men, by saying this bisexual man will not be satisfied with ‘just one guy on the side’, and will not be satisfied with a monogamous marriage either, because he is bisexual.
He ends by saying: ‘you’ll most likely be the first in a long string of fuckbuddies…’ suggesting this gay man’s best friend will be the one to end their sexual relationship if they have one, because being bisexual, he is fickle and sluttish.
This comment from one of the column’s readers, which went unchallenged by Dan or anyone else, sums up the Savage view on bisexuality:
‘The word for people for whom being gay is a choice is “bisexual”
You see? Gay is natural and good. Straight is natural and tolerable. ‘Bisexual’ is unnatural, and wrong. Wrong because it throws into question the whole idea that ‘gay’ is natural. If we are born a certain way, if our sexuality is down to genes and fate, why would people be bisexual? What genes would make us neither one thing nor the other? Certainly not good wholesome gay genes. And certainly not boring, but useful heterosexual genes.
Within this binary way of thinking, ‘bisexuality’ is just as much a problem as trans identity, and we know Dan has a problem with that too.
Dan Savage Is Annoying. He is also a bigot. I don’t like him one bit.