Weekly Savaging

So ManOverBored and The Boy About Oaktown are not, in fact, Dan Savage fans.  This might have something to do with the fact that Dan Savage, advice columnist and editor-in-chief of the Seattle Stranger, is one of those rich white gay dudes who has little interest in political organizing that doesn't affect rich white gay dudes.  In short he has been consistently biphobic, transphobic, sexist, fatphobic, and racist and shows no desire to not be these things.

On the other hand, he's the first really sex-positive advice columnist, can be extremely funny, and is usually very good at giving sound, practical relationship and sex advice.  For this reason I have a soft spot for him (and by soft spot I mean, "I own autographed copies of all his books, read his column and download his podcast religiously, and would very much like to have sex with him") but despite my weakness I too recognize that Savage fucks up frequently and have no problem calling him out, as ManOverBored did in this post.

So we've decided to turn our Savage Hate into a weekly column in the spirit of Bitch Magazine's "Petty Jane Criticism Corner."  Enjoy!

For our first official installment, I'm taking issue not with Dan being a dick, but rather with plain ol' bad advice.  In the Savage Lovecast #186, a couple that has been dating for two scant months calls in with a serious issue.  They are a new couple and dig each other, but one wants to live monogamously, while the other wants to be polyamorous.  Neither has indicated a desire to compromise on the matter, and were calling into Dan for confirmation about what their heads were telling them - "We're fucked," as they put it - contrary to the desires of their hearts, because they are clearly infatuated with each other.

Now the Dan I know and love (with reservations) is a big proponent of Dumping The MotherFucker Already (DTMFA) and has repeatedly said that people with irreconcilable sexual differences should not be in relationships with each other.  So I was prepared for Dan to reinforce what this couple already knew - that they shouldn't be together.

Instead he calls them back and suggests they "compromise."  What?  Compromising on being monogamous is like being "kinda" pregnant.  It's not really possible.  He went on to say that couples in long-term relationships can often compromise on these sorts of issues, because they really want to be together.

This is true - in the context of, a couple has been together for a really long time, and one of them wants to make a major change, like becoming non-monogamous - to the relationship.  With the basis of trust that is built up in long-term relationships, this can sometimes work.  It can also end in giant flaming disaster.  But to suggest that a new couple proceed in the relationship for "six months to a year" to see if they could decide to compromise was some of the worst advice that I've ever heard.  While it may be painful for them to break up now, it will likely be far harder for them to disentangle themselves after a year of serious dating when their irreconcilable differences make it impossible to continue.

If they go forward as Dan suggested, the monogamous partner will always feel as if she is trying to "be enough" for her polyamorous partner.  She will never feel secure.  Meanwhile, her polyamorous partner, if he agrees to monogamy for the short term, is going to feel resentful at being forced into a lifestyle that he's clearly not interested in.  That is not a solid foundation upon which to build a relationship.  It's hard enough negotiating non-monogamy within the confines of an established, previously non-monogamous relationship - but these kids aren't even going to have the chance to build it.  They were right - they're fucked, unless one of them magically becomes OK with a lifestyle that they are currently adamant they do not want.

Bad Dan!  Bad!