<p>I applaud Dan Savage for starting the “It Gets Better” series of self-authored videos designed to help gay youths know that the years of bullying and ostracism do get better, but I can’t say I agree with all the statements attributed to him in this article. Specifically, that your partner must be “g.g.g.” (good, giving, and game – up for anything). What if your definition of ‘anything’ isn’t the same as the other person’s? </p>
<p>Interested in hearing any other thoughts/responses.</p>
<p>Well, that’s his point – if your partner isn’t “game” for something you want, he’s suggesting that you be able to go outside of the marriage to get it. He also points out that each couple should have their own “verboten” list – e.g., vaginal intercourse might be off-limits outside of themarriage, but on-line flirting or even oral sex might be OK. The article discusses the Weiner scandal a great deal and discusses what infidelity really is. Apparently there are more people than Anthony Weiner sexting and what-not to almost-strangers, and Savage’s point is, Is that really infidelity?</p>
<p>During the period (they reference the 18th century) the writers speak of, when men could speak semi-openly about their mistresses, American women were essentially chattel. Wives had practically no rights, and so practically no recourse to situations they may have considered very unjust. So it is pretty disingenuous to write an article about honesty and integrity in relationships and then harken back to those times to praise an example of what might work today. </p>
<p>That example just might, however, actually peel the cover off what many men would truly like the rules to be in marriage: men get to sleep around outside the marriage, but wives have to remain inside the marriage.</p>
<p>[I have several reactions to the very interesting article, this is one.]</p>
<p>It would be interesting to find out for what percentage of the population at large (married and unmarried, male and female) cheating would be a deal killer. My guess is that it would large, even among those not yet married. Call me old fashioned but I still think there is some degree of emotion behind most sex.</p>
<p>Last night we were watching an Office rerun. They are at the point where Angela is engaged to Andy but sleeping with Dwight. Andy confronts Dwight and says that Angela has only slept with him (Andy) twice. Dwight breaks it off with Angela because of that…the cheater was furious that he had been cheated on.</p>
<p>If one has just the slightest knowledge of cultures, sociology, history, anthropology they should be well aware that marriage has goals, and monogamy is the goal of many cultures.</p>
<p>“harken back to those times to praise an example of what might work today”</p>
<p>I didn’t read it as praise or a model for modern marriage. I thought that this was just put forth as an illustration of the fact that expectations of marriage in this culture change over time, and that monogamy hasn’t always been assumed. The bottom line of the argument is that people might stick with their marriages longer if they felt free to negotiate a unique set of rules that work for them (preferably at the beginning of the relationship) rather than sticking to a model that they can’t manage.</p>
<p>dylanr – good point – I guess I was referring to modern marriage (which was the topic of the article).</p>
<p>Historically, marriage definitely did have goals – to build wealth, to form strategic political alliances – but I don’t know if monogamy was the goal of marriage back then either – it was perhaps encouraged as a way to maintain the marriage bond, but it wasn’t a goal in and of itself.</p>
<p>When he says “game”…is he talking about “infidelity”.</p>
<p>I thought “game” kind of meant someone who’s not a “stick in the mud” who fears trying new (moral/ethical) things. I have a friend who ended up going on her “anniversary cruise” ALONE because her H wasn’t UP to trying something different…a cruise. He was “certain” that he wouldn’t like it. Ugh. </p>
<p>I don’t think “game” means anything goes…If my spouse felt he was “game” for shoplifting, I’d say “no”. (but H wouldn’t be game for that either. )</p>
<p>I thought “game” kind of meant someone who’s not a “stick in the mud” who fears trying new (moral/ethical) things.</p>
<p>I think in general that is what Dan means. That something which one partner is interested in, is at least up for discussion. But Savage is also not above rattling the bars & I think he says some things for shock value. However I do agree with him that there are worse things than infidelity to a long term marriage.</p>
<p>Class of 2015 -I would say Sharia Law today considers monogamy of the women a “goal”. I suppose you can dilute that purpose by also claiming it isn’t the “main” goal.</p>
<p>IMO, modern marriage has many more goals, aside from the obvious.</p>
<p>When I read the article, I assumed “game” meant up for anything one spouse wants sexually. And if you’re not “game” for it, then you should let your spouse go outside the marriage to get it.</p>
<p>I think it is up to the 2 people involved to set their own boundaries (or more than 2 if it’s a polyamorous situation). Good, giving and up for anything would be ok between 2 mutally agreeing parties. But Dan is unrealistic to expect that all people should have a set (ie Dan’s) notion of what is acceptable in a relationship.</p>
<p>Savage also applies “game” to other things – e.g., you love baseball, your spouse does not; you should be permitted to go to baseball games with someone outside the marriage. </p>
<p>He says marriage should mean consistency, not necessarily monogamy.</p>
<p>Yes, Hanna, you’re probably right. I understand Europe is more relaxed about sexual matters than the US. </p>
<p>And I’ve read that there were lots of dalliances among the royalty and aristocracy of Europe in earlier centuries, when marriages were arranged. Sometimes there was a lot of midnight tiptoeing in the hallways during country house parties and in the castle. I read that courtesy called for refraining from propositioning a high-born young wife until she had produced an heir, just to make sure property descended in the right bloodline.</p>
<p>Dan Savage is a sex columnist, so his “game” refers to sexual adventurousness. In my opinion, Dan Savage’s ideas favor men at the expense of women.</p>
<p>For example, a man wrote in that one night he wanted to have sex, but his girlfriend said she wanted to go to sleep, and promised they’d have sex the next day.The girlfriend, after saying she was sleepy, didn’t fall asleep right away. The couple did have sex the next day as promised. The writer asked if the girlfriend was unjustified in what she did. Savage said yes, she should have either had sex with him or masturbated him. That she did not showed that she wasn’t “giving and game.” Apparently if your partner is interested in sex, you are not allowed to say no, according to Savage.</p>
<p>^^^ The letter you’re referring to sparked some disagreement among the readership, but you are mischaracterizing the advice. Savage said that the letter-writer wasn’t being GGG, either:</p>
<p>It’s also a pretty big assumption that it will always be the man trying to keep the woman awake and not the other way around. I think this kind of dynamic goes in both directions and is not particularly gendered, at least for childless couples.</p>
<p>I read Savage’s column every week and don’t believe that his ideas favor men over women. He regularly advises women whose men can’t handle monogamy to dump them and find men who can. What he consistently says is that a couple should communicate openly about their sexual attitudes and likes and dislikes and their expectations of their mates before they get married, because anyone who changes the rules of the game after the wedding gets whatever he or she deserves.</p>
)</p>