Skip to Content

Theoblogy: What's a Christian to Do with…Dan Savage?

By Tony Jones | 07/12/11
Dan Savage
Wikicommons
Dan Savage

I confess that almost every week, I pick up a copy of the City Pages, the Twin Cities alt weekly, during a regular Wednesday meeting at Common Roots in Minneapolis. And when I do, I immediately flip to the back pages where, between ads for erotic massage and gay love phone lines, I find Savage Love, the column of America’s premier sex advice columnist, Dan Savage.

In fact, it seems that Savage may be America’s premier sex ethicist as well.

Savage has been writing his column since the early 1990s, but he has recently risen to a new level of prominence, based particularly on his It Gets Better Project, which went viral last year.

Savage was reared Catholic, and he’s now an agnostic, or atheist.  In any case, he is an outspoken opponent of religion.  However, unlike other atheists I follow on Twitter and elsewhere — Penn Gillette and Bill Maher, to name a couple — I find Savage far more interesting, far more compelling, and far more important for me, as a Christian theologian, to take seriously.

Recently, Savage was profiled at length in the New York Times by Mark Oppenheimer.  In, “Infidelity Will Keep Us Together,” Oppenheimer writes,

Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.

This, of course, will immediately irk most Christians.  Christianity has traditionally — although not unequivocally — held to a strict standard of monogamy.  At least in theory.  In practice, Christian men have, over the last two millennia, had the opportunity for sexual dalliances through mistresses, concubines, and prostitutes.  Of course, there were puritanical moments in history, but the American moment was a particularly puritanical.  And now we’ve got Chris Hansen prowling our suburban neighborhoods, attempting To Catch a Predator.

Savage would never endorse pedophilia.  He would, instead, say that pedophilia is the result that of a sexually repressed culture, one that lacks honesty.  The ethic of honesty is what Savage calls for in his column, week after week telling his readers that if they’ve got a kink or a fetish, they should tell their partner about it.  And, if you’ve picked smartly, your partner should be GGG: good, giving, and game.

Savage’s sexual ethic is primarily one of realism: human beings are animals who, until very recently, procreated like animals.  It is evolutionarily dishonest to demand monogamy of a species predisposed against it.  It’s not impossible to be monogamous, he says, but it is super difficult, and you’ll be more likely to succeed if your partner is GGG.

I don’t know if Savage’s ethic jibes with a biblical, Christian view of sexuality.  But I do know a few things: 1) he’s a helluva lot more realistic about sex than most Christians I’ve talked to about sex; 2) based on my experience on this blog and at the Wild Goose Festival, a lot of Christians really want to talk about sexuality; and 3) many Christians are ready for our conversations about sexuality to expand beyond “what to do with the gays,” and instead have a more fully-orbed dialogue about sexuality and human identity.  I also know that, for the first time in my life I’ve met Christians who are in “open” marriages or are practicing polyamory — and I’m committed that my theological/ethical response to them be both Christian and pragmatic/realistic.

What say you?  Do you read Savage Love?  Does Dan Savage make you think, make you squirm, or both?

As a Christian, what do you do with Dan Savage?

Comments (9)

Submitted by Robin Holt on July 12, 2011 - 5:34am.

Your last question is completely wrong. It should not be "As a Christian...". Rather it should be "As a member of society...". Being a Christian is well below being a member of society on the scale of importance to an answer to this question. I am certain many will take a visceral response to that statement, but it is really the important point. As most people state it, "Christian values" are really "My moral values justified with the veil of Christianity so I do not need to explain them or provide further reasoning." What I believe is so wrong about that position is it ends introspection. It allows people to stop before evaluating a position before getting to the really tough parts.

As an example of this in the context of gay marriage, it allows people to stop at the point of "gay marriage is a sin" and not get to the further discussions of how preventing gay marriage is preventing a group of people from having the same civil rights as others. That discussion needs to happen openly, honestly, and without fear of reprisal. Again, Christianity hurts more than it helps. It allows people to justify their actions now with the knowledge that they will be forgiven of any societal wrong they do by their god after they have died. They do not need to investigate how their actions now will do permanent harm to others because their God says it is alright.

Please drop Christianity as a moral good. That is a lie. It only leads to wrong conclusions.

Submitted by Bert Perry on July 12, 2011 - 8:41am.

Gonna have to disagree with Robin here; God created me, the government only taxes and regulates me. So what God has to say about the matter--and conceded that there is a huge debate about the issue--is far more important than what the rest of society says to me.

And about Savage, suffice it to say that the Scriptures do not give any examples of men with multiple wives (or other arrangements) where things did not go very, very wrong. There are some things that a man or woman is not designed to share, and a spouse is one of those things.

Practically speaking, we also have the results in of Savage's recommendation for open marriage and sexual adventure; 65 million people with STDs, according to a CDC estimate from 1999. In Savage's homosexual subculture, about 15% are likely carrying HIV (2-3 million adult male homosexuals with half a million HIV infections among them) and about 70% or more have another STD.

CDC data here, folks, and it's not something I want in the bed my wife and I share.

Submitted by Joey White on July 12, 2011 - 9:33am.

I'm more or less with Bert on this. Robin, your hatred for Christianity is palpable, and I'm sorry for that. To wrap Christianity up in a box and tie a bow on it as if you've defined it is a bit disingenuous in my opinion. There's a wide, wide chasm between Fred Phelps and Tony Jones.

Submitted by Tim Walker on July 12, 2011 - 9:36am.

"Savage would never endorse pedophilia. He would, instead, say that pedophilia is the result that of a sexually repressed culture, one that lacks honesty."

To me, that sounds like Tony Jones is putting words in Dan Savage's mouth.

Or can you, Tony, point to any evidence that that is indeed what Dan Savage believes?

Submitted by Robin Holt on July 13, 2011 - 4:47am.

I have no specific hatred for Christianity. My point was evidently completely missed as the article was making nearly the same point as my comment.

I was just drawing the focus to the problem with the article. Tony Jones places the apparent fault on Dan Savage.

It is not Dan Savage's acceptance of the fact that extra-marital affairs occur that is the fundamental problem.

It is, rather, Christianity's belief that because it is mandated extra-marital affairs not occur, they will not happen and therefore we do not need to address any other fallout problems associated with the failure event where they do happen.

My hatred is not for Christianity. It is for the application of shortcuts in reasoning out a best response which give bad results.

Analogies can be just as good or bad as religion at skewing our decision in the wrong direction. Tony Jones' article was not about analogies.

In reviewing my earlier comment, I would like to rephrase my earlier statement of the problem. Here goes.

Your last question is completely wrong. It should not be "As a Christian...". Rather it should be "In light of the facts Dan Savage brings to the discussion, as a member of society, what should we be doing?".

Submitted by Robin Holt on July 13, 2011 - 5:03am.

Tim Walker, I think your point is very valid. I did a bit of searching and did not find cases where Dan Savage attributed any sexual compulsion to culture. I did find a few articles discussing pedophiles and he consistently stated that their compulsion needs to never be acted upon.

Submitted by Bert Perry on July 13, 2011 - 8:39am.

I don't know that Robin hates Christianity, but rather he (?) is coming from his worldview. (my apologies if I guessed your sex wrong, Robin) If you're not religious, the proclamations of Christianity are less meaningful to you than the good of society--that's all there is for the secularist.

But speaking to the claim that Christianity argues that adultery will not occur; um, no again Robin. If that were so, the Bible would not contain numerous examples--David and Bathsheba, the Oedipus in 1 Corinthians 5, etc.. (speaking of shortcuts in reasoning, let's try reading the Bible before judging the Christian faith, OK, Robin?)

Rather, the Scriptures speak of adultery as a sin, one sin among many which the Scriptures call men to repent and turn to Christ for salvation. So as I repent from my own sexual sins, I use the Bible as a guide to understand the physical and spiritual realities around that sin.

And as I look at the Bible and CDC/NIH data, I conclude I'd have to be nuts to take Savage's advice. It's been tried, and it's been a disaster.

Submitted by Robin Holt on July 14, 2011 - 3:01pm.

Bert Perry, You have changed my argument. I never said adultery would not occur nor that it was not considered a sin by Christianity. In the above context, I did not make any qualitative statement about adultery or extra-marital affairs.

My statement was a response to your using the fact that STDs can be transmitted to one partner in a marriage by the other having an extra-marital affair. Reference my statement above and you will see it speaks to the "fallout" of that extra-marital affair. The remainder of my argument in that comment centered around "shortcuts in reasoning".

I was not saying anything about Dan Savage's position on extra-marital affairs or his position on the use of Condom's. I do not have any idea what his opinion is on either. I do have a suspicion. That, too, is irrelevant to the discussion of society's role in reducing the fallout from extra-marital affairs.

I was pointing out that the good of society is better served by accepting that extra-marital affairs can happen and the fallout from that should be addressed. View it as a preventative measure like putting airbags on the car. They are not there to make you want to crash your car, but if you do, you have a better chance of surviving. A societal good.

I will leave it to the individual to decide whether it is good or bad for their relationship. I want to avoid that part of the discussion as neither my opinion nor, apparently, anybody else's will change that outcome. Accepting the fact that affairs do occur, it is probably better for society as a whole if we decide to provide information on the effectiveness of condom's at significantly reducing the rate of transmission of STDs.

Let me reiterate, I am not saying extra-marital affairs are acceptable. I am making _NO_ qualitative statement about adultery or extra-marital affairs. In my opinion, that effort has been tried and has failed as a deterrent. I also feel that is an opinion each individual needs to form their own position on. They may use whatever information they choose to form that position. Again, it is tangential to this discussion and only detracts from reaching a conclusion with no added value.

I was implying and will state clearly now that I think the CDC information on STDs is completely unacceptable. We can and should do better. I am also stating we have a societal responsibility to each other to convey the most accurate and helpful information. That information is that proper condom use would nearly zero those CDC statistics.

Based upon more than 2,000 years of application of the bible not having an appreciable impact upon the rate of STD transmission, I would say it is our moral responsibility to each other to start aggressively teaching about the effectiveness of condom's.

To quote Albert Einstein, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Submitted by Bert Perry on July 15, 2011 - 8:43am.

Robin, let me quote;

"It is, rather, Christianity's belief that because it is mandated extra-marital affairs not occur, they will not happen and therefore we do not need to address any other fallout problems associated with the failure event where they do happen."

If this is indeed not what you meant, fine, but this is what you said.

And regarding whether proper condom use would zero those STD statistics; absolutely false, unfortunately. About 20 STDs are transmitted in areas other than those covered with a condom, and of the eight or nine that are, the CDC found in 1999 that STD transmission was reduced in a statistically significant way for only one STD; AIDS. Now that's a biggie, but it's worth noting that even for HIV, it wasn't a "zeroing out" (condoms fail, of course), and that still leaves the vast majority of STDs flying through with virtually no impediment.

In short, there's only one good way of preventing STDs; faithfulness to one partner who is faithful to you.