Talk:Savage Love

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)