I Should Have Dan Savage’s Job
Filed under: Eros - March 26, 2007 @ 12:59 am
I’ve always considered Dan Savage to be “on my side,” in that he’s a sex columnist who speaks frankly about kink and anything that will upset conservatives, but let’s face it: he’s not perverted enough for the job. He USED to hire high-end escorts and hang out with them in hotel rooms asking them questions and feeling their muscles, but those days of field research are gone. He’s just a wannabe married monogamous gay guy who goes annoyingly off topic and is losing his sharp edge.
I, on the other hand, am a female midwestern sex goddess who practices what she preaches. I’m non-monagamous, bi-tri?-sexual, do the orgies, eat the pussy, suck the dick, take the fist, and don’t think people are freaks if they’re married to a woman and still want to give the occasional blow job, or want me to pee on them (sigh, I do draw the line at scat and grown men wearing diapers though.)
His latest misinformed rant on women’s low libidos prompted me to speak up. Yeah it pisses me off! Good lord he can be heterophobic and hateful towards women! Or at least, seriously not know what he’s talking about. Anytime someone asks him a question pertaining to women (eek!) he has to consult a book. Or just a book review! Lame. Or maybe what started out as a mockumentary column still is?
And I still haven’t quite forgiven him for the stupid comment he made years ago about how female genitals look like a canned ham dropped forty feet. Eat my SPAM, Dan.
Move over Savage, and let a woman who knows what she’s talking about (and if she doesn’t, she’ll go try it firsthand) steer the sex cruise ship. And as for his quip about Sex and the City’s portrayel of women’s voracious appetites being a hoax - I am Samantha Jones and Carrie Bradshaw combined, buster.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:39 am
RIGHT ON! I nominate you as our National Sex Goddess. Great picture too.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:18 am
You’ll always be my sex goddess no matter what any heterophobe might think.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I kinda believed him when he said that he never meant that. The very next column he wrote:
It makes perfect sense to me. Or do you think he’s backpedaling without admitting he was wrong?
March 26th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
To be fair, he was just parroting the chocolate authors (which I thought was lazy of him), and I applaud his take on women with low libidos: “You can have strict monogamy or you can have a low libido, ladies, but you can’t have both.” AND how he talks about sex being more than just penetration.
And god, I can relate to all those women who wrote in who were insulted for their high sex drives.
And by the way, I love chocolate.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
What’s with the pic? Is it an OLD picture or did you get hair extensions because I know your hair is cut shorter.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Do I LOOK like the type to get extensions?! Dude, my hair grew. The pic was taken a couple days ago.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Some Kind of Beautiful,
I have been a keen devotee since the RFT featured your blog. I have been very enthusiastic in praising you to friends and others as the finest, most entertaining blog ever. You are so erudite, honest, and funny.
Thanks again for so much pleasure.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I didn’t believe him at the time, he was setting the bait, and boy did the women bite!