Savage a Savage?

[darkeyes]

This by Dan Savage was in 2 day's Guardian... have fun with it boys and girls...http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/02/dan-savage-gay-bi-trans-politics

[Rambigent]

My understanding was that Dan Savage at one point denied that true bisexuality even exists, so at least he's accepting that there are bi people in the world.

I can totally relate to keeping my sexuality in the closet because I don't have to be "out" to live my life. I do feel hypocritical about it sometimes...I'm very vocal in my support of LGBT issues but I'm not open about the fact that I'm attracted to men as well as women, except with close friends. If more bi folks, men especially, were more open about their sexuality, I do think it would make a difference in society's perception of bisexuality.

[void()]

If more bi folks, men especially, were more open
about their sexuality, I do think it would make a difference in
society's perception of bisexuality.

I believe Daniel Craig is an openly bisexual man, and highly
famous. Robert Downey JR is bi, yet remains closed about it due to his
fame. David Bowie is or was for a while at least, openly bisexual. He is
likely still bisexual, simply choosing monogamy out of emotional bonds.

There are others but I do not think any such composited listing would
suffice your goal/s. Come here. *hugs warmly* It is okay. There are
otherwise "normal" guys who are bisexual. Also weirdo freaks like
me. *chuckles* I wind up loving everybody, spoiling them too.

If you happen to see another me running around, stop him, tell him to
wait. I'll catch up to him. Remember, I know not where I go. Follow me,
we'll get there quicker. :) You'll soon begin to see a gradual
awakening, I believe. The light is just flat out tired of the dark
weighing all down. It will refocus and set night upon its pyre.

[darkeyes]

Just cos Daniel Craig sed he thought that if the plot wos gud enuff, he wudn't mind it if James Bond had a bit of same sex hanky panky, does not make Daniel Craig bisexual.. he may well be, and I have heard it often enuff, but far as I know there is no real evidence of it and he has nev admitted to it.. but he used the term "gay" when discussing the Bond scenario I believe.. now bearing in mind all the hoohah bout bisexuals not having gay sex, and the animosity many have towards gay people... and vikki verki...if he wos bisexual wud he use the tern "gay"? Maybe.. but surely not if openly so..

..also.;. I may be wrong, but I have never seen that Savage has actually denied that bisexuality and bisexuals exist.. I have seen many peeps say he has.. I have seen that he doesn't think much of them as human beings... and don't think in the article that view changed ver much and neither has it changed mine of him.. I do agree wiv him in most of wot he says for all that.. but if Savage does not deny bisexuality exists, he fails to recognise that being bisexual is different.. he uses words about bisexuals being open and coming out but does not really recognise that the very thing that he has not himself plays a huge part in inhibiting many bisexuals from open-ness; attraction to the opposite gender and all that may entail and the massive numbers which commit to that gender being one major reason why so few actually come out in comparison to gays.. he almost dismisses it as a valid reason why so many remain secret.. gays have mostly broken free of that but gays do not retain the same attraction to the opposite gender so it is much easier for them to out themselves.. many do retain love and affection for their one time opposite sex partner and I am one.. the thought of not having my ex husband in my life scares me silly and in many ways we are closer than ever we were when married.. but the demographics of homosexuality and bisexuality are very different and this Savage has not yet grasped and seems incapable of grasping.. or if he has he has been contemptuous of it..

It is plain from what he says that he has far more respect and time for the trans community than he does for the bisexual.. while it is good that he accepts their existence and the existence of their sexuality, he should try and develop more understanding of just why bisexuals do not come out openly in the same numbers as homosexuals.. it is not as he seems to think quite as simple a matter for most bisexuals as it is for gay's and especially gay men... he still has little understanding:eek2:...

[tenni]

“And Laverne only speaks for herself”.


I think that when Savage is asked about bisexuality that he should respectfully decline to comment on what he is not.

As far as commenting on the lack of public awareness of bisexual people, it seems to be that there are a couple of counter activities going on. One spoken approach that contradicts the entire “out” philosophy of homosexuals is that a belief that the sexuality of a person is no one elses’ business. A person’s sexuality should not matter in a free society. Now, a problem with this is the nosiness of the other sexualities in wanting to know who speaks for these bisexuals? Well, it is not Savage and yet he is asked questions and answers on the topic of bisexuality.

On his comment that the reason that bisexuals are not visible is that they need more acceptance before they feel safe enough to come out. I’m sure that there are some /lots of people who are not comfortable with their bisexuality. Hell, the fluid swing concept of being attracted to one gender on Monday and possible attraction to another gender with a minor in apathy for the first by Tuesday is enough to make a person uncomfortable. We know that this happens and especially in the early days of bisexual awakening if it was not always present and quietly in your face.

Savage made no comment on fluidity of sexuality. It just doesn’t work for his homosexual monosexual philosophy.

Bisexuals may be creating their own problem of recognition/spokespersons though and yes it may be discomfort for some in a world of monosexuals. Bisexual women seem to be more comfortable about their bisexuality than male bisexuals and in particular well know actresses like one on True Blood, Anna Paquin. It is reported that she has acknowledged her bisexuality but she is presently in a cross gender marriage with children and not talking about her sexuality in interviews.

In part, Paquin's behaviour lines up with the bisexual philosophy that a person’s sexuality is no one’s business in a free world. We do not know if she is sexually active with a woman as well as her husband at the same time. This type of bisexual is the type that monsexuals does not approve of. Yet, there are many homosexuals who live such a sexual lifestyle and Savage doesn't deny this nor promote this philosophy in the article. It is more logical for a person to want what they do not have gender wise than a monosexual wanting the same gender that they alread have as a partner but different colour, personality etc. ( We know the monogamous peeps do not accept this philosophy easily)

Paquin is not talking beyond acknowledging her bisexuality. We do not know if Paquin is repressing her sexual attraction for women or if she is a bisexual that may be a serial gender switcher moving from one partner to a partner of a different gender or same gender throughout her lifetime. The downside is obvious for those snoopy monosexual reporters who want to know..lol In that sense this bisexual philosophy may be its "catch 22".

[void()]

On his comment that the reason that bisexuals are
not visible is that they need more acceptance before they feel safe
enough to come out. I’m sure that there are some /lots of people who are
not comfortable with their bisexuality.

Addressing this, I think a good number of bisexuals are fully comfortable
in being bisexual and feel acceptance of bisexuality, enough so as to
scoff the implication/s they need more of these in order to "come out".


Just cos Daniel Craig sed he thought that if the
plot wos gud enuff, he wudn't mind it if James Bond had a bit of same
sex hanky panky, does not make Daniel Craig bisexual.. he may well be,
and I have heard it often enuff, but far as I know there is no real
evidence of it and he has nev admitted to it.. but he used the term
"gay" when discussing the Bond scenario I believe.. now bearing in mind
all the hoohah bout bisexuals not having gay sex, and the animosity many
have towards gay people... and vikki verki...if he wos bisexual wud he
use the tern "gay"? Maybe.. but surely not if openly so..

Ah. I see well, I was basing the assertion off likely the same rumor
mills you have heard from. That and wishful thinking. He is so damn
gorgeous, do not believe I would kick him out of bed for eating
crackers. ;) If I'm in error my apologies and I retract, no malice was
intended.

By the by, sweetie? Go suck an egg! *chuckles & puts out a tray of
coffee, tea, biscuits, scones before ambling on into the ethers and real
world*

Love you hon, had to give a ribbing a toss for giggles. Aye, just call
me tosser now. *lol*

[darkeyes]

“And Laverne only speaks for herself”.


I think that when Savage is asked about bisexuality that he should respectfully decline to comment on what he is not.


Tosh... we all comment on many things which we are not.. u are not a monosexual yet comment on them ad infinitum.. I am not a gay or bisexual male yet know enough about the shit they often go through to be able to comment upon their plight.. I am no bisexual woman yet know what it is to be one.. and lesbianism isnt so very different not that u would agree.. neither am I str8 ne thing yet comment about many things str8-ness.. we all do and if we believe we have something to say we should not be told we shud shurrup wich is just what u are really saying.. however politely.. Savage does no different however pleasantly or unpleasantly.. in this instance he is suing the historical experience of homosexuals and using that to as he sees it, aid (rather critically) bisexuals.. are we, respectfully or otherwise to say nothing at all about the bigotry and prejudice that affects bisexuals or ne 1 else simply because we are not one? Can we not use our lifetime experience to help? Even if we are not??

[tenni]

I may come back to some of your other words ideas in post 7 dark eyes.

You and I did not make a statement to a reporter about who we speak for and on behalf. Savage made a statement about speaking for yourself and then "fucks up" by speaking for bisexuals instead of referring them to a bisexual that he knows who is willing to speak to a reporter about bisexuality.

I would never speak "for" lesbians. You have a point that we are both have opinions based on our experience or in my case readings as well. Reporters are not asking me nor you our thoughts on sexuality or more specifically bisexuality. Would you speak as a representative for bisexuals? I would hope not.

Should Savage not also preference his comments on bisexuality that he is speaking for himself as a gay man about bisexuality? He presents himself and permits himself to be seen as an "expert" but at what?...a gay man.

[jamieknyc]

I have said before that you have to remember that Savage is a columnist, and that as a columnist he has a constituency to cater to that is mostly gay and that dislikes and distrusts bis, if they admit that bisexuals even exist. Savage is writing for his public, and he knows where his bread is buttered. He is writing journalism, not peer-reviewed science.

[void()]

I have said before that you have to remember that Savage is a columnist, and that as a columnist he has a constituency to cater to that is mostly gay and that dislikes and distrusts bis, if they admit that bisexuals even exist. Savage is writing for his public, and he knows where his bread is buttered. He is writing journalism, not peer-reviewed science.

More likely, he writes entertainment *cough* journalism *cough*. Sorry, had an itchy throat. Dang ragweed.

And as he's injecting opinion, the writing becomes propaganda. That is the basic definition of propaganda, writing in which an author injects opinion. Opinion being speculative subjectivity used in the context of propaganda as a tool to persuade or dissuade another to perceive as the author, or unlike an author's target.

"I believe the smoo are evil cusses. Their belief of loving everyone is sick, repulsive. You must hate the smoo, like I do. I am a famous person, I act in all your favo-rite action movies."

N.B.

In thought of this I am seeing America swiftly becoming IngSoc & citizens rallying for daily two minutes of rage. Ugh. Yes, of course, let us all hate _that_ guy today, tomorrow will hate _this_ gal. Argh! *cues up _Fast as A Shark_ by Accept and ambles off to find his padded cell*

[darkeyes]

I may come back to some of your other words ideas in post 7 dark eyes.

You and I did not make a statement to a reporter about who we speak for and on behalf. Savage made a statement about speaking for yourself and then "fucks up" by speaking for bisexuals instead of referring them to a bisexual that he knows who is willing to speak to a reporter about bisexuality.

I would never speak "for" lesbians. You have a point that we are both have opinions based on our experience or in my case readings as well. Reporters are not asking me nor you our thoughts on sexuality or more specifically bisexuality. Would you speak as a representative for bisexuals? I would hope not.

Should Savage not also preference his comments on bisexuality that he is speaking for himself as a gay man about bisexuality? He presents himself and permits himself to be seen as an "expert" but at what?...a gay man.
I don't think, to be fair to the man, he was speaking for bisexuals at all.. it is purely his thoughts and how he sees things. he certainly hasn't said he is an expert on bisexuality although I am quite sure he feels himself such.. it doesn't matter in what form we say things.. we have the right to express an opinion for good or ill... and so does he.. however much crap he may or may not express...

..if I may change slightly one thing u said which I did not agree with to make it something I can accept... we cannot stop the guy speaking his mind on the subject and neither can we stop him speaking to the media.. but when asked by a journalist to comment about something he is not, he should seriously consider whether it is wise so to do before opening his gob.. but then that is advice we should all follow.. and too few of us do.. and I am as much at fault as any other... ouch:eek2:..

[void()]

but when asked by a journalist to comment about something he is not, he should seriously consider whether it is wise so to do before opening his gob.. but then that is advice we should all follow.. and too few of us do.. and I am as much at fault as any other... ouch:eek2:..

One of my uncle's favorite catch phrases, "point a finger, three point back".

Something expressed by many a wise person in many a culture, "two eyes, two ears, one mouth, might be _something_ to that".

Another catch-ism, "think,think, speak".

Been trying to follow these myself, stumble over them at times. Think most do. Something I realize too, anybody can say anything and they're granted right to it. You're granted right to not listen as well. *grin, clears away crockery & places fresh tray w/ fruits and drinks prior to vanishing again*