Talk:Savage Love

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

One might call the Savage campaign a textbook example of smearing an opponent's name with dirt. --Uncle Ed 14:54, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think you're right Dysprosia 14:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
What a brown-noser you are! The pun was a mere by-product of fixing the articles. --Uncle Ed 19:03, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ah well :) I got a laugh out of it, anyway Dysprosia 23:15, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Savage is certainly pushing his new word-coinage for santorum -- Karada 15:22, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just found out his column also coined "pegging," which doesn't yet have an entry here, though I may fix that tonight. [1], [2] --zandperl 01:58, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is "controvertially" a word? AxelBoldt 02:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Depends on your ability to introduce it into the English Language. Try hard and you'll get it! In fact, it may already be there. Pfortuny 20:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cart before the horse

This situation (popularizing a new sex term) has taken place before (though less controversially) in 1991 within the Savage Love community, in the case of the term pegging.

There's a difference between creating a new term for an existing practice which describes that practice and investing an existing word with a new meaning for the purposes of defaming an individual.

This is not simply a case of 'popularizing a new sex term'.

If we mention pegging, we should CONTRAST it, not LIKEN it to the santorum (word) campaign.

You may as well compare spearing fish for food, with using a spear to murder someone. C'mon, people, get a grip: we're all supposed to be TRYING to write neutrally. --Uncle Ed 20:16, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good point, thank you for making it. I was trying to add context to the discussion of the controversy/campaign (call it what you will), and didn't realize my words could be interpreted the way you did. I intended the statment "this situation has taken place before" to refer to how in both cases Savage made up a new sex term; however you are correct, Ed, that his motivation for doing so is drastically different in the two cases, and this different motivation is in fact the cause of the controversy. --zandperl 04:42, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Santorum's comments

Savage disagreed strongly with...

I question whether Savage's disagreement was with the senator's actual comments - or with what the columnist felt the senator was implying.

If I recall correctly, it was AP which originally reported the comments and labelled them anti-gay at the time.

I think Santorum was making a legal point that if one kind of consensual sexual activity is to be made lawful on the basis of privacy, then that basis requires ALL consensual sexual activity to be made lawful.


  • That is, either adultery, incest & homosexuality should ALL be permitted or none of them should be permitted.

What these sexual acts all have in common is that many Americans consider them immoral. The primary difference, as far as opinion polls go, is that many more people still frown on incest as frown on homosexuality.

Maybe that's why Savage chose to regard Santorum's comments as linking an unpopular sex act (incest) with one that has almost finished gaining popular respectability.

Anyway, let's not take sides and guess what was in the minds of either the senator or the columnist. I think we'd better write our articles based on what both of them have SAID.

We can say that Savage regarded Santorum's comments as anti-gay if that's what he said. Or we can even quote him as saying, "I disagree with the senator's remarks" if that's what he said. But let's not endorse an interpretation. --Uncle Ed 18:30, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ed, he said "I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." Interpret that. --The Cunctator 10:45, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"That is, either adultery, incest & homosexuality should ALL be permitted or none of them should be permitted": First, why should adultery be against the law? If a married couple chooses to have an open relationship, what legitimate interest does the state have in regulating their consensual sexual behavior? Non-consensual adultery would be, I suppose, a violation of the legal contract known as marriage, which is voluntarily entered into. As for incest: do you (or Santorum) mean to suggest that minors can give consent? Because most folks, both legally and morally, would disagree. As to adult-adult incest: other than possible public health issues (and queasy as the idea makes me), again, it doesn't seem the state actually has a compelling interest in regulating personal behavior here. Obviously, if you believe the state does have a compelling interest in regulating personal behavior - like, say, because a lot of people find the behavior offensive - you'll have to be prepared to argue that some states should be allowed to prohibit interracial marriage, or marriage of beautiful models to gorilla-esque piano-playing pop stars like Billy Joel... (I'm only serious with the last remark to the extent that there's not that much difference between people trying to enact one set of preferences, and prohibit one kind of "offensiveness," and those which would clearly be a gross imposition into personal choices.) --2fs 13:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

2fs, none of your comments relate to the Dan Savage article. This is not the place to have a discussion on the propriety of legal gay marriage, nor is this the place to express your opinion on what legalization would ethically entail. Geo.per 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited transcript of Santorum's remarks. Probably should go into one of the articles:

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030423santorumexcerpts0423p6.asp

Unedited transcript of the same section.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

I think this article should focus mostly on Savage's reaction rather than on Santorum's actual statement, which is already extensively covered in Rick Santorum. The links to the full interview would also fit better there. It should definitely be mentioned that the initial published excerpts of the interview included the "[gay]" insert which the Senator didn't say. In this article, it would be sufficient to say "To protest against Rick Santorum's remarks, Dan Savage asked his readers to come up with..." AxelBoldt 21:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I wonder how much of this media flap is the result of journalists delight in 'playing gotcha'. They mostly ignore what politicians say about the issues, but prefer to talk about their reputations or their standings in the polls or their career prospects. "Did Mr. Q or Ms. R say something that ticked off anybody this week? Let's pounce!" --Uncle Ed 15:24, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In my day (1950s) "pegging" was inserting a stimulating substance (a mint, ginger, or hashish resin) into the rectum. (And no I didn't - but I knew about it.) Anjouli 17:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


The term has largely failed to catch on and even Savage himself has clearly demonstrated in his columns that he is more than sick of the term. Come to think of it, what the hell was this doing on Wikipedia in the first place? --Thunderbunny

It is catching on. Sex dictionaries, magazines, and other media are publishing the word. The term has been so linked to that Dan's SpreadingSantorum.com website is the #1 Google hit for 'santorum'. This isn't just a Googlebomb, the term is as fairly popular as any other semi-obscure sexual term. So why not put it in the Wikipedia? cprompt 16:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sources that are publishing the word are of course always appreciated. Geo.per 20:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Please cite reasons for any attempt to remove content. Larvatus 00:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Please cite your reasons for any attempt to remove content. Unsupported edits are subject to summary reversal. Larvatus 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Third notice: Please cite your reasons for any attempt to remove content. Unsupported edits are subject to summary reversal. Larvatus 02:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

  • It entirely consists of unsourced personal opinion. "Revulsion"? "Popular understanding?" "Deviant?" FCYTravis 02:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Kindly pause to read the text that you are editing: "Savage was outraged by these statements. At the suggestion of a reader, Savage challenged his audience to come up with a sex-related definition for the word santorum as a satirical form of political protest for the express purpose of "memorializ[ing] the Santorum scandal […] by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head"." Hence the point about revulsion: Dan Savage was asking for a revolting definiens of "santorum". As to deviant and antisocial sexual behavior, the reference is to the preceding passage: "Santorum describes homosexual acts as part of a class of deviant sexual behavior, including incest, polygamy, and zoophilia, which he said threaten society and the family." No personal opinion enters into this description. Please read more carefully before indulging in your urge to censor expression that hurts your feelings. Larvatus 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
      • You've produced no evidence which supports the assertion that there is any "popular understanding" as "revolting," nor have you produced any sources which support your assertion that "santorum" has reinforced this "popular understanding." Saying that this term "unwittingly reinforced" anything is personal opinion, unless you have a source to cite. FCYTravis 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added ext links, here's why

Just added some external links, but wanted to comment... I realize they may seem like overkill, but I wanted to find 2 things: 1. the other reader ideas for the definition of "santorum" and 2. The announcement of the winner. It took me over an hour and a half of digging through the site's archives to find these, and since I figured others might want to know, it made sense to save other people hours of effort. That's my justification for adding them. I also stumbled upon the origin of the santorum google-bomb idea, and since that is probably the most widespread effect of the whole phenom, I felt it was worth noting. Jafafa Hots 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Nicely done!

-IJ

[edit] Cited source for Doorknobgate

Just a quick edit. Added a citation for the alleged door knob licking incident.--Khazwind 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this on the Bauer page:

In the 2000 Presidential Primary, Salon.com assigned Dan Savage to write about the Bauer 2000 campaign. Mr. Savage came down with the flu during the assignment and then attempted to sabotague the Bauer campaign by infecting staffers by licking pens and door knobs that he thought they would use. Savage wrote about his plan in his article and Salon.com decided to publish it.

I think this explains the situation far more accurately than the current explanation on the Dan Savage page (which reads as though Dan Savage was working undercover elsewhere, on behalf of the Bauer campaign). Accordingly, I edited the section for clarity, adding no new information. Geo.per 20:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time. The first section after the introduction appears to be a fairly minor, critical, anecdote about Savage. I don't advocate removing it, since some people apparently find it important, but I'd like to move it further down, at least so that it's below some more substantive information about who Savage is and what he does (other than apparently lick some door knobs six years ago). At the moment, it just reads like a minor, snipy point that's been highlighted for no obvious reason. But I will happily defer to any more regular contributing authors of this article if you feel the need to revert this change. --spiralhighway 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do advocate removing it, which i then did. The reasons for deleting it are:
  • the events which led to doorlicking and fraud were while he was on assignment from salon.com not writing for Savage Love
  • the voter fraud was a midemeanor for which he pled guilty and was not a major crime
  • the doorlicking thing is a pretty minor prank and was really nothing more than a not too flattering anecdote in one article
  • the material already exists in the Dan Savage article where it belongs

The text I removed follows:

Doorknob licking and vote fraud Salon.com assigned Dan Savage to write about Republican Gary Bauer's 2000 election campaign. Mr. Savage came down with the flu during the assignment, and alleges he attempted to sabotage the campaign by licking doorknobs, staplers, phones and computer keyboards so that the staffers might catch the flu as well [5]. Savage was convicted of voting in the 2000 Iowa Caucus, although he was not lawfully registered to vote in that state.[1]

Charles (Kznf) 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Some gay activists"

He was criticized for this by some gay activists.

Who? I didn't see any in the sources. Some citation would be appreciated. Geo.per 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITMFA

For years, Savage has told his readers in bad relationships to "DTMFA"

Umm... What? 208.247.73.130 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be "Dump the motherfucker already", if that's what you're asking. Gloriana232 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD of Santorum

I feel it is important to bring to your attention an AfD on Santorum going on over here that will likely have implications for page naming and disambiguation of Santorum as a search term and dab content on the Rick Santorum page. rootology (T) 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As the Santorum (sexual slang) is essentially a duplication of Savage Love#Santorum, I think the former should just be merged into the latter. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I oppose a merge, and would rather do the opposite; the Santorum entry on Savage Love should be cut down and linked here. For one thing, it's odd to disambiguate to a section of another article; for another, having now attained use outside of merely Savage Love contexts, it's taken on enough of a life of its own to be treated as a separate entity. Captainktainer * Talk 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine also; I'm just objecting to the near exact duplication. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where column appears

Does anyone know if there is a definitive list anywhere of papers that carry the column? - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum (merge)

Against - Santorum term is in wide usage. Makes no sense (to me) to merge with an article of the term originator. Santorum article survived AfD, and so should stand on its own. Atom 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have withdrawn the suggestion for now. Pan Dan 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/v/Talk%7ESavage_Love_dbfb.html"