Pages

Thursday, March 10, 2011

More Savage loving

Conversation continues about interpretation of Dan Savage's sexual ethics.  Savage himself responds to Lindsay Beyerstein thusly:
Terry and I wouldn't describe ourselves as monogamous-apart-from-an-occassional because we wouldn't—couldn't—feel comfortable using the word "monogamous" in reference to ourselves, not even monogamous-with-an-asterisks, because technically we're, you know, not. But we kindasorta hate the term non-monogamous because when a gay couple describes themselves as non-monogamous people—gay and straight—assume a degree of promiscuousness that 1. we wouldn't be comfortable engaging in and 2. we're not actually engaging in. People don't make the same assumption about non-monogamous straight couples because it's generally more difficult for straight people to get laid. 
That's why we usually describe our loving, bill-paying, childrearing life partnership as "monogamish." Mostly monogamous but stuff happens. Some other stuff. Sometimes. Not all the times. It's a term that I'd like to popularize. 
Our monogamish relationship—and I suspect that we're not the only monogamish couple out there—has allowed us to integrate "sexual fulfillment with the other good things in life" quite nicely, thanks.
On Big Think, Dueholm complains that Savage doesn't hold up monogamy as an ideal.  He's right-- Savage doesn't, because he clearly doesn't think it is ideal.  He doesn't say it's something for which we all should strive, but if we fail it's understandable.  He says that it isn't necessarily something we should all strive for, period.  We should strive for what we want, and not everybody wants monogamy.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.