Him answering a question at a forum (probably at a college campus), "How many partners is too many?" Note how sex here is totally about potential danger, disease, death, and spoilage. There's no critique of anyone viewing an arbitrary number as problematic and fraught with normative assumptions about appropriate sexuality. There's no celebration of an exploration of pleasure, orgasm, and transformative sex. He even sums up his view pretty clearly when he notes his friends who fucked too much in the 70s and regretted those choices in 80s -- um... are you referring to the fact that they may have died of AIDS, Dan?

I'm reminded of Eric Rofes' statement from his "Gay Bodies, Gay Selves," manifesto:

In most of America today -- including most gay centers, health clinics, and AIDS prevention programs -- one can find others who look at gay men's sexual practices, patterns of socializing, and cultural norms as troubling. Here one can find professionals who'll examine gay male subculture, shake their heads, and point out what's wrong. Whether the subculture involves urban street youth, bears, circuit boys, Black MSM's, bare-backers, muscle boys, or leather men, you can find someone who'll point out substance abuse, obesity, narcissism, low self-esteem, food disorders, and internalized homophobia as major themes of gay male life in America. You can create programs, write grants, establish projects, and make speeches decrying the "epidemic of epidemics" facing gay men, expressing surprise and dismay at the sexual practices of gay men, and identifying homophobia, internalized or externalized, as the dominant force influencing gay male life today.

But you're wrong. You'll win grant funding. You'll get great press coverage. You'll sell books. You'll win community service awards. But you're wrong.

You would be popular because you would buy fully into the dominant thinking about gay men that reigns throughout American culture today. Whether taking the form of pity or disgust, sincere concern or superficial empathy, blaming or shaming, the overarching understanding of gay men's lives today is one of tragedy and pathos. Why are they so sex obsessed? Why do they do so many drugs? Why do they use steroids, work out obsessively, and dye their hair as they age? Why do they have to cruise all the time? You'd be affirming the overarching belief that gay male culture is immature, irresponsible, and irrational.

It kills me that Dan Savage is our spokersperson / media whore these days. He's no better than the same shit we hear about sex all the time. Make no mistake about it. He's gay. But he's a conservative when it comes to sex.

Via Knucklecrack.

The media has just been eating up Dan Savage! There was this prominent appearance on Stephen Colbert's show, The Colbert Report. Curious here, he seems to have switched around his position form his much-maligned commentary blaming the 70% of African-Americans who voted for Prop 8 in California (a claim that statistician Nate Silver and others have shown to be inaccurate and misleading). But on his appearance on The Daily Show, he concedes that this is misleading, and also thanks Colbert for pointing out he fact that there are black gay men (who are obscured in the Black vs. Gay analysis). He also here is refocusing his attack on the Mormon Church, an attack he will continue in the next video. Have a watch:

That was one week ago. Now, something interesting happens today when he was on Anderson Cooper, sparring with the homophobic Family Research Council's Tony Perkins. Watch how Perkins baits Savage to try to get him to condemn Black voters. Perkins is furious that protests are happening at Mormon temples across the country, an outcome of the Church overwhelmingly financing the Yes-on-8 campaign in California. Perkins is well aware that public sympathy for Mormons is low (they're portrayed often as polygamist misogynists, rightly or wrongly), and thus protests against them are seen as legitimate. Protests against Black churches, however, would not be as politically palatable. I think Dan realized this in the hours after the massive backlash began after he penned that editorial criticizing Black voters. Watch it all happen on CNN:

So let me try to contextualize the comments that Dan Savage has just made about the data suggesting that Prop 8's success was cemented by a whopping 70% of African-Americans voting for Proposition 8 in California. Generally, I disagree with Davage on just about everything. He's incredibly conservative when it comes to sex, despite penning a nationally syndicated column on the topic, and generally his analysis sucks.

But I have to give some credit here for Savage daring to attack the way that "white gay men" categorically have been framed as racist sexist assholes by a reactionary feminist/queer/anti-racist movement that has spent a great deal of time attacking LGBT organizations for their lack of diversity and/or racist/sexist policy positions (see Judith Halberstam's essay, "Shame and White Gay Masculinity," for a perfect example of this). Now, I want to be clear: These folks often have a point. Our LGBT organizations often do lack diversity, and at times some may in fact be contributing to racist/sexist policy efforts. But to blame that lack of diversity simply on racist individuals within the organization, I think, is misguided and misses the important historical ways that sexual identity constructions have varied for white folks and non-white folks (that is to say, white folks may be much more ready to join a self-titled "Gay" organization than others). I get especially upset when I'm sitting in a room full of folks of color and this argument get's lazily brought up. Seriously I've been in meetings with over 50% folks of color and someone (usually white) will angrily complain that "There are no people of color here!" Um... right. Even in a room with 1/3 folks of color, I think that's a disingenuous accusation; it outright erases the importance of those folks' presence.

But I digress. So Dan Savage wants to say -- based on this Prop 8 data -- essentially, "eff you" for spending so much time blaming "white gay men" for their racism and sexism, while being wholly uncritical of the homophobia that exists within African-American communities. And I think he's exactly right. I think that some critical self-reflection on race and racial diversity in our movements is a worthwhile effort. But unfortunately I see that too often as spiraling into a cycle of white guilt that paralyzes organizations and movements. That should not be the goal, yet I've seen it happen time and time again. Because it requires such politically charged and emotional discussions, moving past an accusation of racism or sexism (founded or not) can be incredibly difficult.

But while self-reflection is key, working with other communities of color that have homophobic views has got to be on our agenda. I think we've often resorted to a kind of "moral relativism" argument in regards to this -- along with a kind of discomfort with missionary-style norm-reshaping efforts. But c'mon. That's what LGBT activism has always been about. Going into communities you aren't a part of and asking for change.

I understand Savage's pent-up frustration over often what seem like lazy and/or mean-spirited attacks on "white gay men" uniformly. How many stigmatized minorities exist for which it's seen as perfectly acceptable to rub their reputations through the mud? Imagine substituting "Jewish" for all the claims that are made in these circles about "white gay men!" (in fact, this idea comes from a friend of mine, who suggested doing just that with every reference to "white gay man" in the Halberstam article previously mentioned -- try it and you'll see the point).

Anywho, I'm wandering. These are thoughts I've been brooding over for many years now. I expect that not everyone agrees with me here -- and I encourage you to respond critically. I used to be one of those feminist/queer/anti-racist angry activists, so I'm certainly open to the lines of criticism that get made there. Without further ado, here's Savage's comments:

African American voters in California voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, writing anti-gay discrimination into California’s constitution and banning same-sex marriage in that state. Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53% of Latino voters, 49% of white voters, 49% of Asian voters.

I’m not sure what to do with this. I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president. I wept last night. I wept reading the papers this morning. But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual.

I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.

This will get my name scratched of the invite list of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which is famous for its anti-racist-training seminars, but whatever. Finally, I’m searching for some exit poll data from California. I’ll eat my shorts if gay and lesbian voters went for McCain at anything approaching the rate that black voters went for Prop 8.

UPDATE: Angie has just posted in the comments this very helpful analysis (from DailyKos user shanikka) of the Prop 8 data and California census data to argue that there is just no way that Blacks' 70% support for Prop 8 was a deciding factor in the measure passing. They equate it to scapegoating, which indeed it very may well be. Tony in the comments also points out that it eclipses the vast financial support given by Mormons and other predominantly white religious organizations. So it sounds like we can put this to rest for good.

My friend Bonnie had the "honor" of interviewing the insipid / divisive gossip blogger Perez Hilton at the premier of Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild! -- in which he had a cameo appearance (see my review here). She's just posted the interview as part of her vlog -- "Getting it on With Bonnie" -- which features her interviewing various folks about sexuality-related topics. You should check it out.

While I was watching, I realized something so terribly obvious that I should have taken note of long ago: Perez Hilton is an awful sex-negative moralizing motherfucker. I mean, how could I not see it so blatantly? I read his blog all the time (can I stop, please God?), scrolling through pictures of scantily clad women with cum graffiti'd on their face and the word "slut" emblazoned below it.

I've got news for all his readers out there: Perez Hilton is a force for conservative sex politics. When it comes to sex, he might as well be a badly disguised James Dobson, subtly arguing for Americans to keep chaste and warmly clothed. We can add him to the list of a long line of famous anti-sex, moralizing gay men: Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, and Larry Kramer, to name just a few. Does any famous gay actually support / encourage / celebrate gay men's penchant for pushing our culture's boundaries around sex?

After a bit of channel surfing, I settled in tonight to watching the Molly Ringwald classic, Sixteen Candles. I was struck by how familiar the actor who played Jake looked, and so I hopped on IMDB to find out who played him. Apparently, it was Michael Shoeffling, who also co-starred in Longtime Companion, one of the first films to portray the way gay men were dealing with the epidemic.

Now, I'm not a sappy person. It's just not really in my nature. Anyone who knows me can attest to it. But damned if I don't start tearing up just seeing the title of that film. I can't explain my relationship to these early AIDS films (It's My Party and And the Band Played On also come to mind). I don't just cry - I bawl. I weep. What is it about these stories that makes me such a puddle of mess? Why do I connect to these stories of deep, painful loss - when I never experienced that kind of loss myself? I was born far too late to ever have friends die of AIDS in the way that these films depict - and the way that my older friends talk about. I came out in 1997, just a year after the introduction of protease inhibitors, and the beginning of the end of the AIDS crisis for urban gay men (for more on this deliniation, see my late mentor Eric Rofes' wonderful book, Dry Bones Breathe).

So what's up with my tears? I've been thinking about this a lot over the past three years --particularly after moving to San Francisco and having a dear friend test positive. In San Fran, the disease was much more tangible than it felt in North Carolina. I remember hearing people tell stories about the Castro being an amazing place to find bargains on art and antiques in the late 1980s and early 1990s because of all the garage sales that were constantly going on as more and more men died. I lived in the heart of that history: 17th Street and Noe. The middle of it all.

After having some time to reflect, I think I've narrowed it down to one key issue: I lament and resent the deaths of so many of the men who I wish were around today to mentor me. Where are the 40 to 50-something year old sex-positive gay men? All we seem to have left over are fucktards like Andrew Sullivan and Michelangelo Signorile. Eric was one of the few radicals who had survived and remained HIV-negative - which makes his death from a heart attack last year all the more tragic. In his book I mentioned above, he speculates that it was his distaste for anal sex that kept him alive. Another mentor of mine similarly speculated that, had he not been abroad researching for his dissertation when AIDS hit, he would probably not have survived either. Both were highly sexually active, after all, and in those crucial early years nobody knew how to protect themselves.

So my theory goes something like this. Eric once mentioned to me before he passed away that he thought about 30% of gay men in San Francisco died from AIDS complications in the "crisis years" (1983 - 1995). While that's a giant chunk of the population, it's not enough to explain the lack of mentorship I feel in my life. But who were the men who were dying? Were they the ones with the more sexually radical politics - who were regulars at the local bathhouses and sex clubs - were they the ones more likely to test positive? Perhaps its a naive way to think, but I can't help but think that, yes, the guys who had my kind of sex politics were almost certainly the guys in the highest risk categories - and thus the ones more likely to test positive.

So this is my question: Did AIDS kill off the most sex-radical elements of my community? Or did the epidemic just make gay men more conservative in general? Because, sometimes - actually, almost all of the time - I wish there were guys out there in their 40s and 50s fighting the good fight. But it seems all we get are Dan Savage, Larry Kramer, Michelangelo Signorile, and Andrew Sullivan. If that isn't depressing, I don't know what is.

I miss Eric. So, so much.