Towleroad Guide to the Tube #477
PINK DOT: A message from Singapore's LGBT group Pink Dot in support of a first-ever rally to be held in Singapore's Hong Lim Park on May 16.
DAN SAVAGE: How many partners is too many?
RAINFORESTS: Prince Charles' campaign to save rainforests debuts new ad.
SOUTH PACIFIC: New BBC documentary gets some spectacular surf shots.
For recent Guides to the Tube, click HERE.
Dan Savage is not funny.
Posted by: Mr. E | May 7, 2009 5:18:17 PM
Can I say (and I feel a lot of hate coming from people here) but that I think Dan Savage is cute, funny and just absolutely kissable for days.
Posted by: George | May 7, 2009 6:19:44 PM
Dear Dan:
Having gay sex, even lots of gay sex, doesn't cause you to die. It did not cause those men to die. HIV and AIDS killed men and women during those years, and today. Lots of sex with many partners did not kill those men. A disease did.
Yours,
Tyler
Posted by: Tyler | May 7, 2009 6:30:04 PM
PS. Being cute and funny doesn't make spouting vile and awful things acceptable.
'k thanks bye.
Posted by: Tyler | May 7, 2009 6:32:14 PM
Tyler,
That's right up there with our slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Thanks,
The NRA
(signed by the cold dead hand of Charleton Heston)
Posted by: Mike B. | May 7, 2009 6:42:25 PM
Aww, that was a pretty sweet video from Singapore. I've been there probably 5 or 6 times and I really have never had a bad experience to speak of. The Singaporean people and culture is a lot more progressive than we really hear about in these parts of the world, but all we ever hear about is its strict laws and regulations. In defense of one of many new countries I've visited and come to love, Singapore's laws are there for a reason and it is because of those laws, for example, that one can literally walk the streets at 3 am in the morning and not worry about looking behind you every once in a while to see if someone's going to attack you. More power to Singapore and the PinkDot movement.
Posted by: Jeffrie | May 7, 2009 6:51:08 PM
Dan Savage just can not make those generalities he constantly speaks in big enough can he? Notice they always include everyone but him? Dan you are getting fat.
Posted by: ggreen | May 7, 2009 7:15:47 PM
Wow, Mike B. That's so dumb it just must be true.
Posted by: Tyler | May 7, 2009 7:22:25 PM
Tyler, would they have gotten the disease if they hadn't been having lots of sex? Of course some unlucky people have become infected after their first sexual encounter, and I hold blameless people who became infected before there was widespread awareness of the disease. (I also hold blameless plenty of other people who have caught the disease---people make mistakes or are lied to, among other things, and I fully understand that.)
Not to mention, there are plenty of other STDs, and you put yourself at greater risk of them by having lots of sex. Even safer sex will expose you to numerous STDs (herpes, warts, crabs, gonnoreah, etc.) if you sleep with someone new and unknown every night. Having lots of sex increases your health risks, and did even before HIV/AIDS. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. I'm not on a moral high horse, I'm simply pointing out how STDs are transmitted: through sex.
And GGreen, I agree that Dan's generalities are far too broad, for gays and straights, men and women.
Posted by: Paul R | May 7, 2009 7:44:26 PM
Dan Savage demonstrates his keen grasp of 18th century thinking about men's and women's sexuality. Unfortunately for Dan, we live in the 21st century.
Posted by: Duncan Osborne | May 7, 2009 9:58:17 PM
"Dan you are getting fat."
What does that have to do with the price of tomatoes in Illinois? Once again a discussion sinks into shallowness. Can't a group of gay man discuss a person without negatively commenting on their appearance?
I would like to discuss this further, but I'm late for my Botox appointment.
Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | May 7, 2009 10:28:31 PM
Men want sex but women don't? I have to wonder if Dan Savage interacts with real live human beings or if he draws all of his conclusions from the letters/emails he receives.
Posted by: James Black | May 7, 2009 11:05:27 PM
Of course it's diseases that kill people. But if you put yourself into a market of anonymous sex with people you know nothing about in terms of health history, you're putting yourself at an increased risk. It's common sense. This applies to anyone -male, female, straight, gay, bi.
Some of the behavior I've witnessed in gay sex clubs is truly disgusting and makes me feel ill at ease about our community as a whole. Being gay should not mean "anything goes". This is a truism that many of the sleazeballs in our community need to wake up to.
Posted by: jason | May 8, 2009 12:50:22 AM
One of the things I've noticed on the gay scene is what I refer to as the "anonymous sex promiscuity paradigm", referred to as ANPP. This is where some men (gay or bi)congregate for little or no charge in saunas or sex clubs, the aim being to get off as many times as is possible with the best-looking guys imaginable. It doesn't matter that the guy might have syphilis or other forms of VD - so long as he's good looking, he's OK.
Therein lies the downfall of our community.
Posted by: jason | May 8, 2009 12:55:38 AM
Hey Paul R "I hold blameless people who became infected before there was widespread awareness of the disease."
That's kinda the definition of being on a moral high horse - deciding who is blameless and who is blameworthy.
It's great that you have your opinion, but you could at least be honest and admit that you are casting a moral judgment against a lot of people. One question for you, what is the tipping point for "lot's of sex?" Just exactly how much keeps someone on Paul R's side of the blameless line?
HIV is a virus and AIDS is a disease and everyone is ultimately responsible for their own health and the decisions they make regarding it. Some decisions turn out to be better than others.
Posted by: Patrick | May 8, 2009 3:01:09 AM
Why are you getting mad at Dan? Is it cause the truth can hurt? Of course he makes generalizations when it comes to a community because he knows he can't pinpoint all the examples and thus paints with a broader brush. He expects us as adults to be able to realize that not everything is black and white and that commons sense would tell us that he's only speaking in general.
Any person with solid common sense would know that his statements aren't that black and white and shouldn't be taken as such. Anyone else needs to take the stick out their ass and the plugs out their ears
Posted by: Salome | May 8, 2009 6:15:50 AM
California h8te committee needs to hire whoever put together the pink dot video...NOW!
Posted by: kansastock | May 8, 2009 11:55:40 AM
Patrick, did you not read that I also wrote, "I also hold blameless plenty of other people who have caught the disease---people make mistakes or are lied to, among other things, and I fully understand that."
"Blameless" was a poor choice of words. Sorry. My main point is that I don't care what anyone does sexually, but it does upset me if they're hurting themselves or other people. I don't link morals to having lots of sex. But I do have a moral problem if people are endangering themselves or others. I don't like seeing people I care about getting hurt.
That said, I'm close friends with plenty of people who have lots of sex. They tell me about it, and I certainly don't lecture them about it (if I did, they wouldn't tell me about it). As you say, adults are free to make their own decisions. And I don't think anyone can define "lots of sex" for other people, though I would say a different guy or two every day is quite a bit of sex.
Posted by: Paul R | May 8, 2009 4:31:22 PM