4 June 2001: Power to the Panderers?
This is the letter that was posted on Poynter.org's
letters section, on the running Signorile-Sullivan debacle.
4 June 2001: Power to the
Panderers?
[This is the letter
that was posted on Poynter.org's letters section, on the running
Signorile-Sullivan debacle.]
Dan
Savage's defense of his buddy Andrew Sullivan is particularly specious,
especially in two specific instances. First, he says, "Our inner lives, our sex
lives, and our fantasies should be our own, private and privileged, not subject
to the scrutiny of run-away special prosecutors or self-appointed,
self-righteous gay sex police."
Well,
Sullivan has already proven himself a "self-righteous gay sex policeman" when,
in a 1999 interview with Sarah Schulman in the Advocate, he proclaimed that sex
without love and promiscuity were signs of "emotional immaturity" for gay men
who had such practices. So when a bloated, self-important pundit like Sullivan
is caught with his pants down (and not entrapped in a "sting" as Savage puts
it--the information was on the Internet, but "anonymous"), is it any wonder that
the very people he lambasts publicly in print are going to gleefully cheer his
outing?
Savage also says, "The private
sexual conduct of some of the staff and board members at the Human Rights
Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force no doubt conflicts with
public positions those organizations have taken. Shall we investigate and expose
those people?" Well, the actions of a BOARD taking a public position is
different from a pontifficating single writer taking a public position
contradicted by private actions. It's sadly typical that Savage confuses a board
of directors with an individual. It's a ludicrous
comparison.
Savage further sanitizes his
sychophantic defense of Sullivan with accounts of threats agains him and his
son. Savage has a long history of making controversial statements that often
contradict each other in the long run (if you dare keep a scorecard), and
tossing in "gay lefties" with two instances of violent threats is just
irresponsible. In one column, he "defends" barebacking, and six months later he
rails against "irresponsible" sex-and-drugs gay youngsters and worries about
epidemiology. Make up your mind, Dan.
Savage and Sullivan wouldn't have a conservative leg to stand on today if it
weren't for all those "crazy gay lefties" who did all the groundwork. It's a
shame that Savage and Sullivan are two of THE most recognizable gay writers
outside the gay community. Power to the panderers is my sad assessment of the
"popularity" of these two men who are clearly cut from the same
cloth.
Posted: Mon - June 4, 2001 at 01:25 AM