Savage Choice

Posted: November 11, 2010 in Uncategorized

More gems from Donna Savage:

‘You think being gay is a choice? then choose it :Suck my dick. Show me how it’s done. Choose it: suck my  dick- and I’ll videotape it and then we’ll put the proof that being gay is a choice on the internet for the whole world to see. Deal?’

He said this to a room full of students who’d come to hear him give advice and pearls of wisdom about sexuality. You know I just found out I could hate him more. What a cock.

This man is promoting the idea being gay is innate, because it suits his agenda and his view of the ‘pure’ gay man, who falls in love and gets married to his gay wife.  It alienates all the people who find sexuality a bit less of a fairytale than that, a bit less of a biology lesson.

You know what I say to Dan?

Suck MY dick. My Gay/Bisexual/Hetero/Genderqueer DICK!!

Comments
  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lucy, Elly . Elly said: https://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/savage-choice/ Savage Choice: Or Dan Savage can suck my socially constructed dick […]

  2. Felicia says:

    Donna Savage…que??

  3. Papi50 says:

    Ah, God! I love you QRG! And I admire your bad ass. I think Dan served his purpose in his day. But as you point out so cogently and powerfully, queer and gay identities have shifted out from under him. You keep this going!

    P50

  4. innegative says:

    Do you not think your war on sexuality being static is akin to the discourse of essential sexualities? Behind both structures are a set of competing possible realities that are vying for truth-space?

  5. I would if I was a relativist, but I am not. I think one truth is true and one is false…

    • innegative says:

      I think you can have truth without ever being able to state it. I don’t think coming at the world from that perspective makes you relativist. Moreover, if power and institution affect the body and the possible discursive order of things, fluidity itself is not the real state of things, but just the instantiation of the prevailing system. I think Foucault would likely accept that. Fluid sexuality becomes more a fact as techno-discursive structure allow and encourage its instantiation. In the beginning non-hetro sexualities were deviations, at then end, all sexuality will be poly. Hetrosexuality however was the norm of one order of things even if in the next order everyone is bi. Hetrosexuality did exist, even if its days are numbers. Truth and power are the same thing – Truth creates as much as law does.

  6. because he is so macho he would find a woman’s nick name annoying.

    • Felicia says:

      I feel that it smacks of internalised misogyny. Instinctively giving him a woman’s name when you feel that he’s being ridiculous, and not worthy of being taken seriously…

      • Hi Felicia I know it looks that way and the best I can say is that it is childish on my part. But it is only because I know Dan himself would hate to be called a woman’s name, not that I think women are not worthy of being taken seriously. I hope you can see the difference there. But I agree it’s not the most mature way to write about someone.

  7. innegative says:

    Re-reading, your problem seems to be that his discourse violently alienates other possible interpretations of self. I’ll buy that – though ‘hate’ is still a power-based dialectical war.

    I still have serious misgivings however about gender fluidity and the rupture of sexuality – not for reasons of fairytales, but more out of increased lonliness. More fluidity, more transparency, less individuality, more modes of desire, endless amplification of emptiness and misery. The death of ‘love’ is the inevitable consequence.

    ‘Love’ isn’t a fairytale – it’s a chosen path of mutual exchange and compromise with a view to alleviating lonliness and finding happiness amid painful separation. There is of course a ‘love fairytale’, but this is not what love is. Love recognises the fairytale of litself and develops itself out of knowing how deep a fairytale it is. It takes account of the distinctions between the real and the fictional and constructs itself accordingly.

  8. will you let me use the word ‘hate’ this once, without actually meaning ‘hate’? I am not inciting hatred I just cant find another word strong enough for how I feel about this man. I don’t actually hate him.

    I think fluidity doesnt have to link to loneliness at all in fact I think it could lead to more connectiions between people.

    as for love… I don’t know much about love…

  9. innegative says:

    I don’t think you mean to incite hatred at all and I don’t think you actually /hate/ the man. I read the word as just a firey and pleasurable expression of your passion. I do it myself all the time. However, within such a pleasure, there just is power and the desire for power insofar as the upsurge of passion wants rid of a particular perspective. I don’t want to dampen the fire of your blog – tis one of the reasons I keep reading. I just wonder – isn’t the championing of one discourse over another always a problem? Insisting on fluidity alienates the static sexual in the same way ‘you can’t help being gay’ alienates fluidity. I just wonder if there is ever a way around this problem.

    ‘More connections between people’ doesn’t necessarily entail the aleviation of solitude if those people are unable to make meaningful physical and emotional exchanges. For instance, the internet has exploded the possibility of communication and as a result, I don’t think alienation has ever been as intense nor people ever as emotionally stunted, selfish and lost.

    I used to think ‘I don’t know much about love’ too. Part of the problem there was in confusing the ‘fiction of love’ with what my life was actually capable of. We are drenched today in illusion and nonsense and as such, I think we are all becoming less and less capable of ‘love’. Start from here: the notion of love the world gave us was false. Love is about being able to make an exchange – to give something to someone and have them return what was given with equivalent sincerity. It’s no more, it’s no less. It’s two people exchanging with one another with a view to acknowleging one another as far as is possible. Relational love appears to me to be no more than two people choosing to devote themselves towards each other’s happiness. I’m not at all convinced this can work with 3 or more people.

  10. I have never found it to work with two people to be honest. so it may as well not work with three or more…

    I know what you mean about the championing of one discourse over another being a problem I will have to return to this point as it kind of bends my head but I agree you do have a point!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s