This is the kind of story that reminds me of why I started a blog… A lot has happened in the last year but not much of it takes precedence over the 3 points at which my fellow so-called liberal Democrats have decided to play “Republican for a day” and began drafting their plans for the first semi-automatic glass-housed stone launcher…First, let’s start out with the possibly the most neglected hypocrite of them all: Dan Savage… Yes, I’m talking about the “It Gets Better” guy…
You see, It Gets Better aims to foster warm-fuzzy feelings not in the bullying victims themselves, but rather the people who made the videos. Sadly, the videos made by concerned citizens are largely ignored on YouTube while everyone really only cares to hear from their favorite celebrity… However well intentioned it was to start, it’s becoming a PR tool to tap into the gay market. But the irony of this movement is that Dan Savage himself is a cyber-bully.
There. I said it.
Was he not the person who designed the nauseatingly vulgar and intentionally humiliating website which attacks a Catholic Republican candidate named Rick Santorum? This action fits squarely within every definition of cyber-bullying on Wikipedia. So what is Dan Savage REALLY teaching kids about bullies? If you can’t beat them, join them?
I wish it ended there - I really do. But (ahem!) it gets better…
Dan Savage is serophobic and rather hateful about it too. In case you’re not familiar with the term “serophobia”, let’s call it somebody who hates people with HIV or fears them. It is serophobia that lead to proposed legislation in Uganda that would effectively put all gay people in prison or have them killed (even though the majority with HIV in Uganda are heterosexual or “straight”).
Have you ever read one of those articles by a right-wing flamethrower that tries to connect the dots between homosexuals and pedophilia? Do you remember wondering how hateful a person would have to be to make that connection in their mind and try to convince others that it was true?
Dan Savage has never done that to gay people in general. But he’s done it to people with HIV… specifically gay men whom enjoyed bareback pornography or got HIV from practicing condomless sex. You see, Dan Savage wanted to make a case against “bareback” pornography. This was presumably to gain favor with Democrats who were concerned about a “gay sex columnist” joining their ranks as “the Ann Coulter of the Left”.
So, with his usual flair for the obscene, Savage chose to equate condomless pornography with child pornography. His writing on the subject assumed that young boys were being victimized by the California above-ground porn industry and being intentionally infected with a deadly virus by predatory men with HIV who want nothing more than to harm your little boy… You think I’m making that up? Read it here (as he’s never had the shame to take it off his blog).
Speaking as someone who has worked in the adult entertainment and novelties industry, I can say with some certainty that the producers of condomless pornography go to great lengths to make sure their models are tested for a wide array of STD’s and that those with HIV (the least problematic of the main ones) are only paired up with partners of the same status. If anyone disagrees with my rose-colored view, they can feel free to leave a comment.
Child pornography, on the other hand, is some SERIOUS shit. I’ve also been witness to the absolute terror that is child pornography and I’ve suffered effects of PTSD from only having viewed what I did. I imagine that not too many of the children I witnessed being raped managed to live through the ordeal. That is all discussed in other places on my blog.
If Dan Savage thinks it's ok in any way to try to connect condomless (natural) sex with such crimes... he's not the person you want to leave your kids to look up to. The fact that this scare-tactic laiden and bullying propaganda came from a so-called Democrat astounds me to no end. But lest you think Savage is just a prude - he's all about using images of children in explicit content without the permission of their parents.
All of this brings me to my next blog post – where I will be highlighting the recent hypocrisy of some other audacious Democrats including President Obama, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi who all seem to have "sex issues" because of Congressman Anthony Weiner's penis.
Until then, I’m just “keeping ‘em honest” as Anderson Cooper says… but I’d like to end on this note: If Dan Savage is willing to take down the Santorum website that made both he and the homophobic Republican famous in the first place, and if he is willing to take down his article comparing condomless pornography to child pornography, I will in turn remove my criticism of him from my own blog and congratulate him on taking the necessary steps to not be such a bully himself.
It's nice to see someone on the left not be filled with the rabid hatred that so many direct towards those who they disagree with politically. Thank you for writing this thoughtful post.
ReplyDeleteAs a young gay guy who has seen a lot of hatred on the the other side of the fence, it's very difficult not to be hateful toward the haters. One thing you have to understand though, is that for other people, they may just be "political views," but for us gay people, it is our lives. They associate us with aweful things, try to change us, tell us God is against us, and all of this terribly hurtfull rhetoric builds up inside of us, damaging our minds. I don't want to be a hateful person, and I'm trying not to be, but it's hard to not let all that hate from the other side of the fence get to you.
DeleteAs a writer for spreadingsantorum.com, I take issue with being called (by extension) a cyber-bully. I get what you're trying to say, and I respect that you're taking a stand against malicious rhetoric in all its forms, but I think you're making a false assumption in claiming that what we do is cyber-bullying.
ReplyDeleteA very important difference between the act of bullying a child and the act of 'smearing' a politician is that one is a helpless victim and the other is a person who chose to express controversial views in the public eye. There's a certain amount of understanding that one must have when seeking celebrity of any sort - particularly in the realm of politics - of the risks involved. Politicians know that some of the things they do and say will be unpopular, and that some may react badly (and perhaps in poor taste) to the comments they make. It's part of the job.
Another important difference between what we do and the bullying of a gay child is that Rick Santorum has a family who loves him, a staff, and a group of loyal constituents. In short, he has a support system in place. He is not likely to take what we say so personally that he would do harm to himself (particularly since suicide, in the Catholic faith, is a mortal sin).
A gay child, however, is likely to have very few, if any people to turn to. Gay children are not commonly out and may feel that the act of expressing who they are even to the most trusted adults in their lives could leave them alone and ostracized. That's why gay children who are the victims of bullying, more than straight children of whom the same is true, are so likely to attempt suicide.
Rick Santorum feels secure enough in who he is and what he believes to express himself pretty vocally in the media with alarming frequency. He knows that we can't actually hurt him and intend him no physical harm. Victims of bullying have no such assurance.
I also think its fair to note that Rick Santorum is an outspoken enemy of the gay community, women, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't fit his particular demographic. His views on homosexuality, abortion, and even the economy are so woefully cruel and misogynistic that it would have been crazy of him not to expect some backlash. The backlash is, however, more hilarious than harmful. I think you need to grow a sense of humor.
Also, Dan Savage doesn't care about whether or not you remove this post. As a controvertible celebrity, he's used to and expects some backlash from those he offends.
Yet another example of why the vast majority of bloggers will never be seen as having a shred of journalistic integrity. Just because you use twisted logic to draw a conclusion about Dan's hatred towards those with HIV and his approval of using children in explicit content, does not make it logical. Both of the articles you cited as evidence say nothing of the sort.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for claiming Rick Santorum is a victim, Jocelyn laid that one out quite brilliantly. In fact, Dan has said repeatedly that he'd call a truce and take the site down just as soon as Santorum apologizes and repents for spreading the hate and misery he's so intent on continuing.
Jocelyn - Really? See, I've been too gay for too long and I know a bully when I see one. The thing is - people like you are setting us up for one hell of a fall. By creating a false dynamic that claims that only gay children are bullied or neglected, you further everyone's sense that perhaps it's meant to be that way. Also, in doing so, you neglect that some of the WORST bullies out there are, in fact, gay themselves. Case in point - this convo from facebook just a week ago: http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/259825_221788071179274_100000442481717_851163_4971685_n.jpg
ReplyDeleteI stopped listening to Savage when he revealed himself to be more interested in entertaining his like minded friends than doing anything useful. I guess you need to be totally mired in a gay ghetto to appreciate the Santorum definition. As a member of PFLAG and mother of two wonderful gay sons, I can assure you that his website is not helpful in bringing people to the collective understanding that gay people are not sick.
ReplyDelete