"How to Give Sex Advice" Why? Radio episode with guest Dan Savage

10:33PM Sep 10, 2023

Speakers:

Announcer

Jack Russell Weinstein

Dan Savage

Keywords:

sex

people

partner

person

sexual

relationship

monogamous

monogamous relationships

women

dan savage

talk

consent

pandemic

good

kinks

advice

philosophy

experience

monogamy

couple

This transcript has been autogenerated and may contain errors, do not cite without verifying accuracy. To do so, click on the first word of the section you wish to cite and listen to the audio while reading the text. If you find errors, please email us at whyradioshow@und.edu. Please include the episode name and time stamp where the error is found. Thank you.Why philosophical discussions about everyday life is produced by the Institute for philosophy and public life, a division of the University of North Dakota's college of arts and sciences.

Visit us online at why radio show.org The original episode can be found here: https://wp.me/p8pYQY-k9b

Why philosophical discussions about everyday life is produced by the Institute for philosophy and public life, a division of the University of North Dakota's college of arts and sciences. Visit us online at why radio show.org

Hi, I'm Jack Russell Weinstein, host of why philosophical discussions about everyday life. Today we're asking how to give sex advice with my guests Dan Savage. I suppose I ought to begin with a disclaimer that today's episode contains Frank and sometimes explicit discussions of sex and sexuality. This is the first time in 15 years that I'd offered a content warning, which seems odd, since the show is discussed many things more horrifying than sex. We've gotten into details about war crimes, police violence, the horrors of racism and the Holocaust. But American culture holds a very special reticence about the erotic in a country full of guns, bigotry and myopic factionalism. Talking about sex is still the riskiest of topics. Philosophers too have shied away from explicit sexual commentary. With the noted exceptions of the marquis decide and the Kama Sutra philosophy tends to emphasize the ethical principles behind sexual activity is self pleasure immoral? Should homosexuality or sex outside of marriage be considered beneath human dignity? So much that philosophers have written about is what not to do, rather than how to do it well, and almost all of it is outdated, if not downright dumb and offensive, which is odd, because sex is a key component of the good life. Certainly, there are asexual people out there for whom this is not the case. But for the vast majority, physical intimacy and eroticism are key components of happiness. To put it more crassly, almost everyone loves a good lay. Philosophers silence on sexual instruction is odd for another reason as well. The history of philosophy is a timeline of unsolicited life advice. From methods of achieving enlightenment to theories of justice, the great thinkers are very happy to tell everyone how to live, how to treat others, and what it means to be a good person. Why then, are they so reluctant to insist that giving your partner an orgasm first is a moral imperative, or that sometimes role playing is the best way to relight a sexual spark? Advice is a form of education, it isn't enough to tell people what to do, you have to tell them why they should do it. Advice requires persuasion. And the best counsel doesn't simply solve problems, it prevents them. If a person is having difficulties in their sex life today, and you simply tell them how to act tomorrow. They'll just be dissatisfied again two days later. But if you explain why they should do as you advise, then they can apply your insights repeatedly. This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. To know is to be aware of and to understand a fact but to be wise is to be able to make good judgments. This is a lesson as old as Plato and it applies to sexual behavior as much to any other area of inquiry. The issue I think, is that sex is a complex combination of nature and nurture. We have biological needs that are hardwired into us, but how we satisfy them is cultural, certain sexual acts that are encouraged in one community or condemned in another how public our sex life is how free women are permitted to be with their bodies, whether sex and gender are considered fluid, the social acceptability of cunnilingus or anal penetration. Whether or not pubic hair is considered attractive. These all vary in place and time. philosophers are not good with cultural relativism and one community is turned on is another's degradation. And this is where a guest comes in. Dan Savage is probably the most well known sex advice columnist in the English speaking world. No question is too risque for him to handle and no situation is too transgressive for him to have an opinion. He's Frank, honest and good humoured. But he also advocates a particular philosophy of sex, one which celebrates experimentation, communication, promiscuity, polyamory, mutual consent, and what I would call sex act, equality. Everybody's got a thing, and nobody's is better or worse than any others. We're all going to do what we're all going to do. On today's episode, we're going to explore the world of sex advice with the intention of constructing a philosophy of sex that incorporates the realities of the modern world, the sexual freedoms and anxieties that come with dating apps, pornography, non monogamy and fluid sexualities. And we'll do it by turning philosophy on its head. We're not starting with theory and applying it to practice we're beginning with actual people and their real life experiences, and seeing where that takes us philosophically. For some, this account of modern sex may be unrecognizable. For others, it might be de rigueur, but it is what it is. From the 1960s onward we have been experiencing a perennial sexual revolution and it's time to stop and reflect on the philosophies behind it. Because the new normal may actually be There is no normal at all. And now our guest, Dan Savage is an American author, media pundit, journalist, and LGBT community activist for more than 30 years to sex advice has been at the forefront of sex education and cultural change. Dan, welcome to why.

Thank you for having me. I'm thrilled to be here.

Dan, this is super exciting for me, I just I've been a real longtime fan. And I know this is gonna sound odd. But I actually think you are one of my intellectual heroes, what you have managed to do with,

I'm too Catholic for all these corporate records the intro, and I'm just like, curled up in the fetal position on the floor. Now. That's That's very kind of you to say, but I hope it's not true.

Well, it is true, but I'll let you feel the guilt anyway. To do a little business, our listeners if you'd like to participate, please share your favorite moments from the show and tag us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook, tick tock is on the way, our handle is always at y radio show, rate us on iTunes, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform so that others can find the show and listen to all 15 years worth of episodes for free, as well as our sister show philosophical currents at our website, why Radio show.org. And as always, this show can only happen with your support. We exist solely on listener contributions. So click donate in the upper right hand corner of our website to make your tax deductible donations for the University of North Dakota alumni foundation portal. All right. So now, I want to ask this question that has been floating in my head since I knew that you were going to be on the show. And it's as follows. I'm a professional philosopher, I'm hosting a show on a public radio network of a very conservative state. It's North Dakota Public Radio after all, but we're about to have a frank and explicit conversation about sex. And that doesn't seem too far from the norm these days. So I guess the question I want to ask you is how did we get here? When did public discussions about sex become socially acceptable?

I think a major contributor to the discourse if I can be jargony, about sex was the HIV AIDS pandemic. Because in the early 80s, it was suddenly necessary to have conversations about not what we all thought, and we all agreed publicly people ought to be doing in bed, but what people were actually doing in bed, and the HIV epidemic sort of turned a lot of our world judgments about sexual activities on their head. Because things that were vanilla and quote unquote normal. Were riskier than things that had been dismissed as kinky or were immoral. penetrative sex, vanilla, penetrative sex. When you're talking about heterosexual penetrative sex, which is the major spreader of HIV in Africa or homosexual penetrative sex, which is the major spreader of HIV in the West, was suddenly that vanilla sex was suddenly riskier than a whole host of other sexual activities that I'm old enough to remember. For instance, oral sex, which is much less likely to transmit HIV. I remember when oral sex was discussed in the 70s when I was a kid as something out there and, and weird and kinky, because it was sex that was solely for pleasure. And there used to be this roiling debate about whether sex would had to be procreative to be ethical or moral or permissible, and HIV. And the way it slammed into first gay communities in the west and then became everyone's concern forced us to start having very explicit frank conversations. And those conversations rolled into this sex positivity movement that's associated with San Francisco, although I never lived there. And then things like my column began to appear in newspapers and the real shift with things like my column or Candice Bushnell's column, Sex in the City as it originally appeared in New York Observer was, suddenly we were having conversations in print this before the internet came along, where people were allowed to use the language that they actually used when they were speaking with their friends about their sex life, and not switching into some sort of medical Sanskrit. That kind of held sex with tongs. We began to write and think publicly about sex the way we had been writing and thinking publicly about film or theatre or, you know, restaurants or food, sports, and that was a huge sea change.

That is super interesting. And it's also not just history, right? Because there was a car versation about sex during the COVID epidemic that that people had to pick partners that they were going to choose for the duration. I think it was Norway that famously encouraged that. And there was also a discussion that happened, not just on your show, but in a lot of other places as to whether or not this was going to be the return of glory holes, right? This this place where people get anonymous, anonymous oral sex, because it was safer than kissing people. Right? And so,

the COVID epidemic for those of us who lived through the HIV AIDS epidemic had very strange echoes, you know, the advice that I as a young gay man got in the early 1980s, was less, more sex, fewer partners, or monogamous acts with one partner. That was the advice we got at the beginning of the COVID pandemic. And, you know, for anybody out there who thinks I'm, you know, always permissive, or a hedonist, I got on my show at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, and said, open relationships are over for now. Everything's closed, just like, you know, the McDonald's library, all the flights, restaurants, churches, open is closed. And because of, of this virus that was spreading fast, and we had to first prioritize our own health and safety, but the health and safety of our partners and other people that we would come into contact with, we had a collective moral obligation, not just to ourselves in our own intimates, but to wider communities.

You also predicted that after the COVID pandemic was over, we'd see a return to what you called the whoring 20s, which was this this sense that that after like World War One when that generation decided that they didn't know if they were going to live to 40, so they might as well just have as much sex and as much pleasures as they want, that people were going to do this too. Have you seen that happen? Have people responded with I don't want to call it a backlash, but but a spring back into a kind of promiscuity that that the epidemic is prohibited?

I wouldn't describe it as promiscuity, that's such a there's a moral judgment, there's a value judgment rolled up in that word promiscuity that people prioritized pleasure. And you see that not just sexually, you know, I was just reading in the New York Times about how people are traveling and have been traveling at the rate they were traveling before the pandemic now for the last year because people you know, put that pleasure off or weren't allowing themselves that pleasure weren't allowed that pleasure during the height of the COVID pandemic and everyone is making up for lost time. And you know, flights to Europe are packed and people are vacationing even as all those flights make the climate crisis worse. And you saw that too sexually. You know, people got back out there the way we talked about it publicly I think was you know, the way the newspapers talked about it were things like hot girl summer and hot boy summer and it was just a way of saying you know, people are picking up where they left off and making up for lost time.

You didn't like the word promise promiscuous, which I understand why how hard is it to find a language of sex that is non judgmental so much of what we use from terms like maiden name to terms like slut shaming. Have this baggage Is it is it is it difficult to have a lexicon typical words to use?

And I want to zoom out for a second on that I'm not opposed to moral judgments. Sometimes people who are religious and a lot of religious people my family my mom, literally on her deathbed, the last thing I did for my mom was went and got up got her a priest and prayed with her. So I am not I'm not antagonistic toward people of faith. And sometimes I've gotten into arguments you know kind of Christian radio gotten arguments people about my anything goes philosophy. I'm like, you obviously haven't read my column. If you think I'm anything goes. If you dump all of savage love into a pot on the stove and boil it down to its essence, you're left with Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You're left with the golden rule. It's just that there's more that can be done unto a person, consensually in my universe than your universe, but still, it matters how your choices, your actions, impact other people, and if they harm other people, that's not okay. Just because you wanted to do it or it felt good for you to do it. So I'm not a opposed to judgmental language. If you read savage love my column, you will find sometimes very judgmental language in my column where I don't want to say shame I try to make someone see what they're doing and why it's wrong.

Is it? Is it instinctual? That, you know, you sort of just just know when to apply that moral filter? Or are there certain things that press your buttons and certain things that really say to you, Dan, you're gonna have to pardon me? You have to spank someone, right now. You're gonna have to, you're gonna have to lay down the law is, is there a method that you're aware of? Or is it just just just come to you and you react?

I think it's case by case everyone has their, you know, the things that light them up. So I wouldn't be I probably have blind spots. I think I'm being fair and impartial. And I'm sure there are times when I'm reactive. to certain circumstances or situations, there are certainly things that I regard as, as a bad thing to do to someone that other people don't enjoy these days to say we live in a sex negative culture, it can sound weird, because we live in a culture that talks about sex constantly. And I think we're more sex positive culture than we used to be. But it is often the case. And I get very upset about this, that, you know, people in committed relationships, who have made and extracted a monogamous commitment from someone will not hold up their end of that bargain, and feel like because they don't want to have sex, or have sex anymore, that they have a right to unilaterally end the sexual life of their partner, to whom they promised to meet those sexual needs. And sometimes that promise is not made explicit. If not articulated, it should be. But it is implicit in a monogamous commitment that I will be your sex partner, you will be mine to the exclusion of all others. That places on us an obligation to meet someone's reasonable needs. Not all of them, not everybody, never no one gets everything they want. But it's often the case in marital counseling, sex advice, that the person with lower desire or no desire is the one whose level the other person is expected to fall to, rather than some allowance or combination being made. For the person who has a higher libido or still has a libido. You know, I have been writing my column for 30 plus years now I'm find myself getting letters from people who were reading me when they were 2030 years old, who are now 60 years old. circumstances and desire change, menopause has an enormous impact on a lot of women's sexual desire, a lot of women's ability to physically enjoy sex. What do you do? What do you do to make the relationship function work? I'm, I am I have such a pro? How do we make this relationship work bias? How do we get under the hood? What can we do here? Where one person isn't feeling pressured or coerced, and the other person isn't feeling denied? And resentful? What's the fix? And that can be openness, that can be some reasonable accommodation. That can be you know, turning a blind eye to a certain amount of considerate discreet porn consumption. There are ways for that need to be met, or an allowance to be carved out. That still maintains and honors the monogamous commitment made decades ago or 10 minutes ago. There are also ways to accommodate someone's needs that allow for outside sexual contact, which I'm sure in North Dakota, me saying that out loud on the radio, it's good to alarm some people. And I have the burden of knowing certain things, including, you know, we've had same sex marriage for 2530 years and like in the Netherlands, and there are studies now that have followed, married gay couples, married lesbian couples married straight couples. And what they have found is, to the surprise of many, the couples who are most likely to divorce or lesbian couples, which most people think that to women because women are the nurturers and that, you know, socialized or biologically driven to focus on commitment that lesbians should be the least likely to divorce. They're the most likely to divorce. Less likely straight couples, least likely, gay male couples, gay male couples most likely to be not monogamous straight couples more likely to be non monogamous lesbian couples least likely to be non monogamous. So a certain degree of allowance for outside sexual contact what these studies show us or at least we can hypothesize as we wait for more data to come in, is that non monogamy some permissible mutually agreed to allowance for outside sexual contact stabilizes long term relationships.

I want to pull that thread but in a couple minutes, we're going to have to take a break. So I'm going to hold that off. I wonder if you could spend a couple minutes talking about the phrase sex positive what does it mean to be sex positive? And what does it mean to be in a sex positive or a sex negative culture?

There's a lot of writing coming out right now. There's a sex negativity movement. Louise Perry's has a book about the sexual revolution and saying that it was a mistake. The right to sex I can't remember the name of the author rethinking sex by Christine Embo, which is a terrific book. And I recommend it It challenges a kind of default sex positive sex is good sex is always good people should have more of it and with more partners posture, that sex positivity movement was cut was a reaction to a culture that said sex is wrong sex is shameful and non normative sexual desires are immoral. In the problem with telling people that non normative sexual desires are immoral is you basically told everyone that they're immoral because everyone has non normative sexual desires, depending on what you think normal sexes. If you tell someone picture normal, you walk into a room unobserved. Two people are having normal sex. What do you see are normal sex is happening in this room? What do you see what's going on? And someone will say, Well, it's a heterosexual married couple, the missionary position without contraception in the dark. And that is a tiny minority of the sex going on at any given moment. On this planet, even if the sex is between a married couple, it may not be missionary, it may not be open to procreation. It may not be. penis in vagina or PIB. Sex it's it's sometimes called even that married couple within the bounds of monogamous relationship might be experimenting, doing things that are non normative. There's really interesting study done in the UK where they wanted to measure the prevalence of what are called paraphilias or kinks non normative sexual interest desires. And they found that a majority of people have them, which means they're not non normative. They are normative. There's something about human sexuality that pushes toward experimentation, improvisation. And I don't want to say perversion. But sex and eroticism are erotic imaginations, attaching them to attaching itself to or obsessing about things that aren't necessary to reproduction, that aren't just vaginal intercourse. And we can look at that and say, Oh, that's a problem to solve. Or we can look at that and say, That's a marvel. And that's what makes humans distinct from squirrels. You don't see squirrels. You know, dressing up in fetish, where and having basically what is theater for two, you know, Dom sub kinky sex, that's a human thing. And that's it just like dinner. You know, why is why a wire meal is so complicated. Why are our kitchens full of all these crazy implements? Why are these all these different? cuisines? Why aren't we just chasing down rabbits in the park and tearing them apart with our bare teeth? Like, cats are like, you know, apex predators. Why do we have restaurants and why do we like that variety? Well, because our culture's are complex. Our brains are complex. And we need the variety of that kind of stimulation and nobody looks at food and goes, well, that's weird. And other animals don't do dinner like that. But people look at human sexual expression and they go well, that's weird. Other animals don't do it like that. When in reality, of course, if you spend any time reading about sex and other animals, there's a tremendous amount of variety of sexual expression. There may not be fetish wear and fetish parties. There may not be, you know, kinks, as we would understand, but there's a tremendous amount of sexual variance. Variance is the norm when it comes to human sexuality. What people have to get in their heads is, variance is the norm. That's what's normal, the more Your unique personal, your sexual interest and expression are two you actually, the more normal you are, and that is

when we get back, we're going to pull those threads and we're going to talk about polyamory. And we're going to talk about a whole bunch of other things that you just mentioned. But first, you're listening to Dan Savage and Jack Russell Weinstein, on why philosophical discussions about everyday life, we'll be back right after this.

The Institute for philosophy and public life bridges the gap between academic philosophy and the general public. Its mission is to cultivate discussion between philosophy professionals, and others who have an interest in the subject, regardless of experience or credentials. Visit us on the web at philosophy and public life.org. The Institute for philosophy and public life, because there is no ivory tower.

You're back with why philosophical discussion better day life. I'm your host, Jack Russell Weinstein. I'm talking with Dan Savage about how to give sex advice. We haven't even gotten to that point yet really do have in my back pocket a bunch of questions that we solicited from listeners and, and students that my intern knows because I wasn't going to ask them directly. And but before that, I want to ask you about this idea that variance is normal, that You famously called kinks, cops and robbers with your pants off. What do you mean by that?

Well, I call it cops and robbers for grownups with your pants off.

That is absolutely a very, very important qualification, I accept that.

Relationships are a story two people tell each other about what they mean as a couple and who they are to each other. And we have to live up to that story. That's why sometimes being in a relationship can improve a person. Because you have to, you can't at all times do you fall short, often, I certainly do. But you have to kind of live up to being the person who promised your partner you would try to be or may have deceived them to believe at the beginning of the relationship, your work, right. And when it comes to sex, and eroticism, there's a narrative there to you particularly see this in women. You know, women frequently complained to me about their male partners watching porn, and sometimes the women who are complaining to me about their male partners watching porn have enormous collections of erotica, that they've read, that are stories that are narratives, and cops and robbers, you know, set a kinky sexual scenario, whether it involves roleplay, or just a meta narrative about who the couple are to each other when they're being sexual. That's a story. And a lot of people need that story. And we need that kind of play. And it's very healthy for adults to engage in play. One of the things that I've noticed and I think is linked is the emergence in urban places of cafes, and clubs where people get together, they play board games, they play, you know, role playing games that are prompted by you know, Texas cards, where you know, where mystery dinner theaters or escape rooms, adults are reintroducing play into their socialize. So it's not just, you know, drinking and eating and drinking and eating, that there are activities that stimulates the brain. Well, people adults do that also in their sex lives. And so a sexual encounter is a story that two people are creating together. Sometimes that story can be very simple and sometimes people want that story to be very simple. And sometimes that story can be very elaborate and that's what people who are kinky in the ways that come to mind when you say kinky people are doing they're creating narratives and playing roles or exaggerating you know who they are in the relationship or exploring their fears. We go to watch you know, horror movies, we watch action movies, we watch Game of Thrones, we watch a lot of film and television that show us things that you know, wars, destruction of the planet, things we wouldn't want to actually experience but there's some part of us that wants to vicariously experience that. And that can create for us a kind of catharsis that can purge those emotions and those fears people do In their sex lives to a lot of people's sexual fantasies revolve around their insecurities and their fears, and they want to step into them, and experience them safely, consensually in a contained and controlled way. You know, when you go to see a movie about, you know, murder mayhem, part of you goes, this isn't real, this isn't real, this isn't happening. It's just, it's fiction. It's a play, it's a movie. And when it comes to sex, and kings, people will engage in, throw themselves into a circumstance where they're the actor, they're the star, we're the stars of that drama. And part of them is going I'm experiencing this, but it isn't real, even though I'm the one acting this out at this moment. And that's where kinks come from emotionally. And that's what can be so healthy about exploring them. I hate to be that person that comes on a show like this. And we keep saying there are studies, but there are studies that show that people who are active in communities who actively explore their kinky sexual fantasies are emotionally healthier, that doesn't mean just throw kinks at somebody, and they're going to be healthier. These are people who've self actualized, to a point where they have given themselves permission to do these things that they want to do with a healthy constructive way, in a part of the subculture that talks about consent and boundaries and limits, and people can explore these taboo, quote, unquote, desires safely. And to get to that point, you've done a lot of emotional work, right? You're not struggling with shame about these kinks anymore. And so it's not something people look at those studies like kinky people are healthier and they think Larkey had everybody which everybody should obviously be kinky. No, no, that's not what people acting on their kinks are demonstrating. You know, in the studies of children being healthier, these are people who are living their best lives, and have found a place in the community where they get to act on who they are, what they want, and be rewarded for it and not feel conflicted about,

you know, this this notion of sex negativity and sex positively takes plays a role here, because far away from that question. No, no, no, it's, it's, it's a great answer. Because a lot of people when they call your show, or when they talk about kinks, they like to imply that kinks are the product of trauma that I was spanked as a kid therefore I like spanking, I was a victim of sexual abuse, and therefore I have rape or ravish meant fantasies, that but that's not what kink is, right. kink isn't the the making light of the darkness. It's it's this notion that that sex is about play and not not reproduction necessarily. And it seems to me that

it's a good place. Absolutely. Sex is not about reproduction. And everybody knows that, but nobody wants to admit it. We have a lot more sex, and we're wired for having a lot more sex than we are capable of having children. Of course, you know, sex is about reproduction on some basic level, but in human culture and human societies, what is going on? Why do we have so much sex what is sex for as we live it in our lives, and it's for intimacy, connection, release, joy, pleasure, 99% of the time, 1% of the time or less, it's two people trying to make a baby. Most of the time if they're straight people having sex opposite sex partners, they're desperately trying to avoid making a baby while having sex. So sometimes people look at gay people and think what you know, your your sex is meaningless and pointless. Well, it's meaningless and pointless in the same way, heterosexual sex is most of the time. And I you know, I'm the product of a heterosexual sexual act of baking my parents. I'm going to see my siblings for lunch later today. thank my parents for that too, without having siblings. I'm not running down the sort of meaning of heterosexual sex when there is reproductive intent, and how important that can be to someone and transcend it can it can be and that can never be a part of gay sex, that particular element what's transcendent about heterosexual sex that's stepping into the generations, right? But what is sex for? Ask anybody, anybody who's willing to be honest. When you have sex, what are you doing? Are you trying to make a baby? No, no once or twice, three or four times 21 times tops if you're Michelle Duggar, but if you're a regular person having sex, mostly it's for pleasure and human connection and that seems to be the role it serves in human societies. What is most when it creates alongside the next generation is Families connection, friendships, important experiences, a web of sexual connection really flows through our lives. That isn't about reproduction.

But like all connections, there is a way too, that people have to protect themselves and they have to have boundaries and you use the phrase zone of erotic autonomy, which I find super fascinating. And this comes to play especially you mentioned earlier when partners are complaining because their partner has a lot of porn and they look a lot of porn or they're attracted to other people or they're people who write or any porn at all, what is the zone of radical autonomy and and how does it and how does it establish boundaries that that are I think more radical than then then people like to admit

become becoming a couple does not mean you meld together emotionally and sexually. It also doesn't give you the right to police your partner emotionally and sexually. When I tell people they need to allow for their partner zone of Radek. Caetani. What I'm suggesting or urging is for them to recognize that there is a place where your your claim on who your partner is actually ends, and they're allowed to have an interior life that isn't yours, that's not your property that doesn't involve you. That doesn't mean your partner can make a monogamous commitment and cheat on you. But I hear all the time from people who are really frustrated because they noticed their partner notice someone else and be attracted to someone else. And or their partner has a fantasy about something that cannot be realized, or they can't realize or is attracted to different types of people, or different genders, and they can't be everything. And somehow people have it in their heads that you should be someone's everything, and you can't be someone's everything. And it puts too much pressure on a relationship to be someone's everything. And I don't know I just see people you know, I'm trying to make relationships where compared to save monogamous relationships and non monogamous relationships. And I see people doing things that are destroying their relationships, constantly scrutinizing your partner for evidence that they might want to have sex with somebody else or have ever thought about having sex with somebody else, or might have a crush on somebody else. What is to be gained? You know, sometimes thinking about sex or somebody else use sometimes even if you are honoring your monogamous commitment might want to you don't that's what a monogamous commitment means it doesn't mean you don't want to have sex with other people. It means you don't have sex with other people. And you know that you're still committed to your partner. And you have these private inner thoughts that are yours and yours alone. And yet you are, in a sense, persecuting your partner. You are deposing them, you know, questioning them, policing them, and creating conflict that could be avoided if you just said you know what? That falls within your zone of erotic autonomy. You need to be considerate. We have to be considerate of our partner's feelings, it's inconsiderate, to OGL the waiter or waitress in front of your partner whether you're monogamous or non monogamous, it's inconsiderate also to the waiter. But your partner stole a glance at the barista and you just happen to look at them at that moment and you saw how they looked at the barista when the barista wasn't looking at them. So the barista didn't feel sexually harassed. And you blow up about that and spend a week furiously angry about that. Instead of just looking at and going zone of neurotic autonomy. I checked out my personal trainer or hairdresser or whatever it was last week, or somebody at the gym. My partner checked out the barista. He was being rude she was being as subtle as they she could be. And so was demonstrating some consideration by not just going oh Wooga wooga at the barista. And they deserve some credit for that. It's just like, you know, I get out here all the time for people who like I demanded my partner never look at porn. And they told me they stopped and I caught them. And then it turns out they caught them because they were digging through their things or broke into their computer or phone and scoured their browser history. And they their partner Yeah, looked at a little porn and went to an effort to to hide that from you, so that you wouldn't be tormented by the thought of it. And that is one way of consideration and not invading someone's privacy like that is one way of honoring their zone of erotic autonomy. I demand consideration from my husband about my insecurities about certain things and I also allow for him to have a private life and an inner life and you need that even when you're in a couple, you can't be expected to sacrifice that. That's not a relationship. That's a police state. And nobody wants to live in a police state. And no one lives joyfully in a police state. You want someone to be joyfully in your relationship. Don't police them? You're not the Staci, you're the partner.

Do you think that most I mean, this is an unfair question. But But do you think that most couples are unhappy and struggling? Or do you think that they're happy and negotiating? I mean, like I said, it's an unfair question. But I'm looking at one of the one of the questions that I got from the submitted, and it's the only one that's, that's a little heartbreaking, although there's, there's another that's a little negative. The person says it's normal to feel lonely when you don't have a significant other, but what should you do when you have a partner, but still feel lonely? So the first question I have is, you know, is there an epidemic of unhappiness in relationships? And the second is, how do you respond to a question like that where someone is admitting that they're, that they're in a relationship, and yet they still feel lonely?

There seem to be concurrent epidemics of good people talking about the sexual recession, people are less likely to marry now less likely to be married or be partnered now, and an epidemic of unhappiness in relationships. My favorite, I wanted to cite Joan Pryce writes about sex and older people. And she has famously said that it's better to feel lonely because you're alone and to feel lonely in a relationship. And it's a bad sign. If you're in a relationship and you feel lonely, and maybe a sign that it would be better to be alone. And then, you know, if you're alone and you feel lonely, you can do something about it. You can put yourself out there. You can join clubs, you can volunteer, you can go places do things, you can have autonomy, but my favorite philosopher when it comes to feelings of these ambiguous feelings that are a part of being in a relationship that that yet that people that identify as a sign that maybe they should be out of the relationship is Stephen Sondheim who wrote musicals? And in company, an unmarried characters asks a married character, are you ever sorry, you got married, and companies a show about marriage? And the person it's a song and the person replies to this question, in song, you're always sorry, you're always grateful. And that's the tension that we live with, when we're partnered, when you're in a couple like to enter into a couple is to go one way at a fork in the road, except it's a fork in the road that had at that point, hundreds of 1000s and millions of other possible forks, you could have walked down with other potential partners. And you look back and you have regrets and your partner isn't perfect for you, and you're not perfect for them. There is no the one you know, people talk about, I gotta find the one is this person, the one and they feel like I don't know, they're the ones that's proof, they're not the one, there is no the one there is at best a point seven too, and it's your job to round them up to the one. And they're doing you that favor too. And you should be mutually grateful. And, you know, I've been with my husband for 30 years. And we have made it work by not drilling down on things that we are unsatisfied about, but Shifting our focus to things we are happy to be with each other for and taking care of each other. And not solving what we can't solve. You know, I talked about in my show the price of admission. To be in a relationship, there are certain prices of admission, you're going to have to pay. And just you go to the carnival, you pay the price of admission you ride the roller coaster. If they're charging too much to ride the roller coaster, the price of admission is too steep, you don't ride the roller coaster, but don't buy a ticket and then complain the entire time you're on the ride, just don't ride. I look at my husband. There are lots of ways I've paid a price for admission to be with him. But it's worth it for this ride, that we're up together. Only you know if it's worth it for you, but people have it in their heads that a relationship should fulfill all their emotional sexual needs, and that they should be happy, like relationships make you happy. And then they go when they're not happy. Well, obviously, this relationship isn't working, because I wouldn't ever feel unhappy. If it was doing what it's supposed to do. You are going to feel unhappy at times. Maybe it'll just be briefly during the day where you're otherwise content or even delighted at times, and maybe it'll be a period of months or even years. But just, I'm unhappy, right this minute is not enough evidence that you need to exit the relationship, in my opinion. That is me saying you need to work on the relationship. But there's also a point at which you have to recognize that no amount of work is going to make the relationship make you happy enough to stay to achieve that balance between always sorry, and always grateful.

How representative Do you think your audience is to the wider sexual world? And there are times when I listen to your show, and I think everyone has a polyamorous fairy who loves to hang from the ceiling and record their their their orgies on a Thursday night. And, you know, obviously,

you get a lot of calls from Poly people.

You get a lot of calls from Poly people. And there is an element where certainly many poly people would like to argue that poly should be the new normal. So how representative is your audience? And how much? How much do you consider yourself on the vanguard of sexual behavior that you're really pushing a future? And I don't mean an agenda. But I mean, just that you're you're out there enough that you're really telling us what we're expected what we should expect to see in the next five or 10 years?

My agenda is not polyamory. I'm not an advocate of polyamory polyamory exists. And I think we should be able to talk about it and see it. Poly open relationships, polyamory. I don't I'm not prescriptive about it. I don't think you know, when I was young, I attempted to have monogamous relationships. And I failed. And I thought for a long time, I am failing at monogamy. And then one day I had an epiphany, my road to Damascus moment where I realized oh, no, monogamy is failing me. This doesn't work for me, and I can choose to do still have ethical relationships, but not have sexually exclusive relationships. And monogamy really in the gay community has always been a choice that a couple made, it was an opt in choice. It was not a default setting. That's what I'm an advocate for make an active thoughtful choice. That choice can be monogamy. I think there are advantages to monogamous relationships. If it's a successfully monogamous relationship, you're less likely to contract a sexually transmitted infection. If you're having children, you have a certain degree of security about paternity. If you're the man, the woman always knows it's her child, but the man will know it's his child too. If you're monogamous. For many people, there's a huge degree of emotional security in a monogamous relationship. I'm not dismissive of that. There are advantages to openness and polyamory that I think monogamous people should be willing to acknowledge as well. One of the things that often destroys a monogamous relationship is boredom. Sexual, you know, desire ebbs and flows. And in a lot of monogamous relationship, it ebbs entirely until the relationship is not sexual, and becomes very much like siblings who live together. And there are you know, if you're open or poly, you are able to have new experiences, to have variety and excitement. And to go on adventures together. One of the things I've been sort of toying with a lot in the last couple of years is this idea that a lot of people bring to me who are in monogamous relationships. They've been together 10 years and they say the spark is gone. And they think that there's something wrong with their partner them or the relationship when actually what created the sparks wasn't some like energy or chemistry between them like magic that's now gone. were created the spark the beginning with they barely knew each other. At the beginning of a relationship. It feels like you're on an adventure because you are, you're the adventure they're on there, the adventure you're on. And it's effortlessly adventurous and exciting. And then 10 years in, you're the constant you're the given for each other. You're not the adventure they're on anymore. You're not the adventure. You're up there not the adventure you're on. You're not the adventure there. How do you get that adventurous feeling back? You have to consciously decide to go on adventures together. At the beginning, you were the adventure now you have to go on adventures together. How do you do that? Well, you could open the relationship or you can make a conscious decision to do risky things together that make you feel alive. You know, the first time you you're dating someone or you hook up with somebody for the First time, if you've met on an app, you let this person into your home or you go into their home, you let them into your body or they let you into their body and it's risky. That can be Jeffrey Dahmer. That could be a crazy person, you're you're taking a risk and it gets the adrenaline flowing, and the cortisone flowing, and it's arousing risk and danger arouses us as a species. It's hardwired into the human experience. You have to manufacture that a decade in my husband and I manufacture that by, you know, sometimes having three ways with other men where we went on an adventure together, we did this thing together as a couple that enhanced our sexual connection that actually didn't drive us apart. It brought us together, sometimes on top of another adult male. I'm for monogamy, if that's what, as a couple works for you. I think some humility from people in monogamous relationships would be good. A lot of people believe they're in monogamous relationships, and they're not because they're being cheated on. A lot of people in monogamous relationships, eventually open them a crack or open them wide. Most people who are open or poly were in monogamous relationships at one time, some people in monogamous relationships now were open or poly at the start or open or poly for a time that worked for them. You know, it's not like they're like, you know, blue sneetches and green sneetches, like two different kinds of people when it comes to monogamy or polyamory these are all the same kinds of people making different choices that work for them. And those choices may evolve or change over the life of a relationship that most people hope will last for 3040 50 years. And the choices that worked for you, when you knew each other for a year versus the choices that work for you, when you know each other for three decades are going to be perhaps very different.

And I want to point out also that the risk is relative because it need not be introducing someone or having sex in a place you can call it may be trying to toy that makes you a little nervous or using language that that makes you a little anxious or, or that the risk can be just the two people exclusive that it doesn't have to be although it can be introducing uncontrollable variables outside of your relationship, right. Because for someone who's never used a toy, right, using a toy is is is a big deal.

But you need that a partner who's Gigi G, but three G's, I call them good giving in game, you know, we should all aim to be good in bed development skills giving, which means sometimes you give pleasure without an immediate return that in the context of a relationship. Sometimes the reciprocity comes a day or two later or a week later, not immediately. And game for anything within reason. You know, you want to be able to meet your partner reasonable sexual needs. And what is reasonable is highly subjective, but I consider reasonable when it comes to my husband may not be what you consider reasonable when it comes to listener, if you have a husband, your husband, you get to decide for yourself what reasonable is. But the more sort of engaged and playful you are, the more content you're going to be sexually all of this, like introduce toys, try this try that it presumes to people who are still or ever were sexually attracted to each other. Sometimes people get together with people and partner up because they want to have a partner or have a family. And it was never about a strong sexual connection. There's just so like, there's so many layers to these conversations. I talk a lot about companionate marriages. And I think that they are wonderful and that they work. If that's what both people want, right? They want a companion, they don't necessarily want to play full sex partner sex isn't important to them. You don't have to be having a certain amount of sex or any sex in your relationship or your marriage. For it to be valid or worthwhile or fulfilling. It just has to work for both of you. And if one person wants to companionate marriage without sex, and the other person doesn't want that or didn't sign up for that. Now, what do you do? I think you have to make an accommodation. I think you allow your partner to do what they need to do to stay married and stay sane, to discreetly get their sexual needs met elsewhere on their own time and come home to you and be the companion that you want them to be. I don't think you have a right to say to someone, particularly if you've decided, you know, 15 years and three kids in that you're done with sex. You don't get to tell them that they have to be done with sex. And then you may tell them that and they may say okay, and then they're going to do what they need to do to stay married and stay sane anyway. And I think it's better when those Some things are above board even if what's above board is not telling me every detail, but da DT Don't Ask Don't Tell arrangements where I'm not interested in sex anymore. I still love you still want to be married to you? Don't humiliate me. Right? Don't do anything that is going to make our kids feel insecure, don't have affairs, but like, take care of yourself and come home. That can work. There's a lot of people out there and who have those kinds of relationships, who I publicly identify as monogamous because when it comes to monogamy, there's really two different kinds. There's sexual monogamy sexually explicit relationships, and there's social monogamy, where two people are a couple. And they're perceived to be monogamous because everyone is thought to be unless they self identify as open or poly believed to be monogamous. So that is just like straight people or unless you come out as gay, you're perceived as straight. People are a lot of people out there have socially monogamous relationships where everyone in their lives everyone, neighbors, friends, family, coworkers all think they're monogamous? Because they allow people to make that perfectly reasonable assumption because most people who are pair bonded coupled married are monogamous, but not all people who are married or monogamous.

You're making me think of Esther pearls comment that sometimes the victim of the affair isn't the victim of the marriage, right? That sometimes stepping outside of the marriage is the healthiest thing that someone can do for that relationship. But I want to I want to I want to change gears a little bit. Because if I don't, if I don't ask a couple of the questions that were sent here, I'm gonna get yelled at. And I think and I do want people to have the experience of of hearing Dan savages advice. So the first one I'm going to ask is, I'll just read aloud. I'm a 23 year old cisgendered female and I recently came out as bisexual. I want to experiment with other women. But because of my traditional background, I never really learned how sex with other women works. I have two questions. First, how do you define sex? And second, is there any advice you can give to a newbie like me? And I do want to say that one of the things that's striking about this is that this person's signed it by curious. And is there a difference between I mean, if if if you come out as bisexual, can you claim to be bi curious? Are those old? Or is it just that that this person is just trying to find the right vocabulary to ask the question?

Think Right? Or maybe what they mean is by curious about getting started on this bisexuality stuff already? Right? Or by anxious to get started?

I like by anxious I like the that's an excellent term. So what advice do you give to this person who first wants to know what counts? Is sex in this situation? And also, how does someone get started with exploration of their own sexual of their own bisexuality or or sexuality in general?

People should have a broad definition of sex. The broader your definition of sex, the more sex you're potentially going to have. I often hear from often heterosexual men will say to me, you know that they hope to have sex. They went home with somebody they didn't have sex, but it turned out they had oral sex and like is oral sex, not sex? I thought we resolve this during the Bill Clinton sex scandal that oral sex counts. Last name is sex. Michelle Obama isn't Obama. She's not the Obama that comes to mind when you say Obama, but isn't Obama. I'm sure Michelle will not like this metaphor. But anyway, the broader your definition of sex, the more sex you're going to have and the more sexually fulfilled you're going to be. Sex can be mutual masturbation, sex can be penetrative sex. Sex can be oral sex, sex can be shared fantasies and solo masturbation. Sexting is a kind of sex, sexism, the name this is a problem that straight people tend to have. But sex is one thing, it's pi v. Gay people are less. Our definition is less narrower and broader. And it benefits our sex lives. It's why gay people have more sex and are better at sex because we have a broader definition. Because we don't default to penetrative sex necessarily. We have a negotiation straight people get to consent. Yes, we're gonna have sex and they stop talking. Because they know what that means. That means p IV. Two men going to bed together for the first time they get to consent they get to gas, let's have sex. It is the beginning of the conversation. Because what happens can't be assumed we have to negotiate what our sexual desires expectations wants needs are. So this caller's question about how to get started. Apps like before the pandemic, something like 75 80% of same sex couples met on dating apps and how kebabs, and a plurality of opposite sex couples were already beating out apps after the pandemic, I believe it's the overwhelming majority of both not quite 80% Plus, or opposite sex couples, since a couple of them were opportunities to meet through friends at work, parties, whatever. But if you want to meet other women who are bi curious, get on hookup apps, dating apps. And many, many, many women who are bisexual have come out in the last 1015 years. bisexual women represent by themselves, the majority of the LGBTQ community. And so you have lots of choices, but you got to hang your shingle. And you got to put yourself out there and then sex is whatever you want it to be sexist, whatever, in a moment, or radically, with another human being, or beings gives you pleasure gives them pleasure. And what does that look like for you? I can't tell you what sex should be for you, this person who asked this question, I can't tell you what sex is? That's, that's a question that only you know the answer to. And it may take some experimentation with women before you figure out for you with women, what is sex, and then what from everything that is sex with a woman? What is the sex that you enjoy most or prefer, or good at and want to pursue further. But you got to put yourself out there, you got to take risks. And there are lots of other women in your shoes. So don't think like, Oh, I'm gonna put myself out there. And it's all gonna be very experienced lesbians who are annoyed that I'm an experienced bisexual adult women. Most of the women out there seeking other women to date or have sex with are like you. Only a very small percentage are grumpy lesbians who don't want to date by women.

Okay, so next question. And this is also from a I guess everyone's in the early 20s. How do I get past dating guys who are great in bed but horrible to me outside of bed

by having a zero tolerance policy for that, and if you aren't, if you can't trust your judgment anymore, because you keep landing in bed with guys who that are awful to you outside of the bedroom, you should probably kick the can down the road a little bit, you should get to know somebody. Not that people can't have sex with somebody right away. And it turns out to be a great relationship. My husband and I had a one night stand. It stuck. But you this particular person, because there's some you have some blind spot where you if this keeps happening, it's it's a them problem. They're not nice people, but it's also it's a huge thing to solve. How do you control for this? By drawing it out a little longer making them wait, and having a better sense of who they are before you go to bed with them for the first time.

Okay, next question. And I love this question because it's one that you get on your show a version of a lot. It's I'm a hetero male, and I have a crush on one of my best friends. I've been friends with her for three years, and she hasn't expressed any interest in relationship with me. But she doesn't really talk to me about other guys either. One time we were drunk at a party and I told her I liked her. But when I asked her if she remembered she said she didn't I want to ask her on an official date, but I'm scared I'll mess everything up somehow and ruin our friendship. What should I do?

risk ruining your friendship? Because it's not really a friendship. If you're I'm not saying that this person is a bad actor, but does have a kind of ulterior motive. Lots of people good people can have an ulterior motive. There's something you want from this person in this relationship. And you're afraid to ask for it because the answer might be no. People are terrified of rejection. Right, separating out like I might ruin this friendship, which is also a risk. Terrified of rejection rejection is helpful in clarifying if she has no interest in you in the way that you hope better to know. So that you can cauterize that wound and stop living in hope or false hope that something might happen. You got to you got to ask. And then when you ask, say look, if the answer's no, say no. When it's men asking women on a date. Women are socialized to defer to men not saying no to men, which can lead men to believe that they're just not getting a straight answer or lead to believe they got the job. They wanted to get it because the know was so subtle. Right? So I really think it behooves men asking women out to the women they've known for three years on a date to say look, if it's no if you're not interested in me romantically please, please tell me that just say so you can say no to me. I won't be angry. You know, a lot of women are afraid of men. Men are dangerous. Intimate partner violence is a thing women are murdered in bus stops because some dude told them to some And they didn't, like women have a very rational fear of how men react to rejection. So you say, I can take it like, I will accept a no, and it'll be awkward. The next time we see each other be awkward for three months, six months, and then we can be friends again. And it's possible to do that I know people who are terrific friends who were with each other for a while, or one wasn't interested in the other. And it just takes some time to emotionally get past that you'll get past it faster. If you've moved on from this to these hopes, if they're false if you've moved on, and found somebody to invest time and emotional energy, and who actually wants you to be their romantic partner risk finding out that this person doesn't want to be that person so you can get to that next person faster.

We're almost out of time. And there is one topic that it's a big topic, but we haven't had a chance to really deal with it. And I want to ask, quite explicitly, has the nature of consent changed? Since you've been doing this? There's this current generation Gen Z is so focused on what consent means? And how has that how has that discourse changed since you've been doing it? And what does the consent discourse bring to sexual ethics?

Well, we've been having the consent discourse for a long time, you know, the first kind of mocking articles about the culture of consent and yes means yes, as opposed to No means no came out like 20 years ago, when certain, you know, liberal college campuses instituted consent policy. Yeah. Used to be that people thought sex should happen spontaneously, and you should make a move and talking about it would ruin the vibe. And it wasn't sexy. You're supposed to lunge at someone. And then if they didn't want that, if that was unwelcome, they would say no, obviously, like I just said, women are socialized to defer to men and not say no to men. So that culture of like you got to opt out, put a burden on men and advantage burden on women. And it advantaged men in those moments where women would wind up going along with sex they didn't want to have because they didn't know how to say no, or didn't feel safe saying no. And men would think it was completely consensual. And it may have been like she went with it. And that is the kind of consent, but it's consent under kind of coercive circumstances. So you had situations where women had sex that they felt violated by and guys had no idea. Guys who wouldn't have wanted to violate her guys who liked the women that they had that kind of sex with, then found out that she felt terrible out of it and felt like monsters like that situation, set everybody up to fail, or get hurt or hurt someone. So now we have like conversations about yes means yes. Active, enthusiastic, ongoing. Consent. What's interesting about Christine Amber's book is she writes about consent is a floor not a ceiling, right? It's not enough to get a yes, that sex needs to be better. And we need to be better at it and better to and with each other. And that people need to have standards. And not just, you should want it to be a good experience, not just a consensual experience. And you can hold both those thoughts in your head at the same time. There's a lot of consensual sexual experiences people have that are terrible, that leave them feeling used or dehumanized. You want this experience to be consensual and rewarding. Now sometimes sexual relationships. In retrospect, we feel bad about things that in the moment we felt good about. No, you're with somebody for three months, you have a lot of sack that's great sex, you have hopes for this relationship. They dump you. And then all of that sexual activity that was good and you enjoyed that was consensual, you feel very differently about not talking about that, right? Talking about God to a yes. And then the sex was bad or clumsy or aggressive or dehumanizing in a way that a person didn't enjoy some dehumanization is a cake that's actually some people enjoy, but dehumanizing in a way that most people don't enjoy. And this is a complicated, more informed conversation about consent that we're having now. You know, we went from no means no. To yes means yes to yes has to be enthusiastic and ongoing and sober to, yes, even enthusiastic. yeses are ongoing. yeses may not be enough that we need to hold ourselves to higher standards and expect better from our sexual partners than just fastidiousness about getting a yes

expect better from our sexual partners. I think that in itself is one of the great themes of your advice expect except better from what we expect for ourselves of how we treat others and what constitutes good, consensual interest in playful sex. Dan, I can't thank you so much I have wanted to talk to you for so long. And this has been about 4% of the stuff that I wanted to talk about. I want to talk about labels I wanted to, there's just so much that I want to talk about but but we have to stop here. So, Dan, for everyone who wants more Dan Savage, the savage love podcast, where can people find you?

I'm at I'm in still in a bunch of newspapers by column is. But if you want the full column, it's at savage dot love, where you'll also find my podcast, the savage lovecast. And there's, you know, 1000 word column available for free every week. There's a bonus column if you subscribe. There's a 45 minute version of the podcast. It's for free. So nice and lots of content, lots of questions, lots of answers and guests. And there's an extended version of the podcast for people who subscribe at seven o'clock.

And I will tell you that as a member of the Magnum subscribers, it is absolutely worth it. Dan Savage, thank you so much again for joining us on why.

Thank you for having me. Thank you for being a sub. You've been listening

to Dan Savage and Jack Russell Weinstein on why philosophical discussions about everyday life. I'll be back with a few more thoughts right after this.

Visit IPP ELLs blog P QED philosophical questions every day. For more philosophical discussions of everyday life. Comment on the entries and share your points of view with an ever growing community of professional and amateur philosophers. You can access the blog and view more information on our schedule our broadcasts and the Y radio store at www dot philosophy and public life.org.

You're back with why philosophical discussions about everyday life. I'm your host Jack Russell Weinstein, we were talking with Dan Savage and asking how to give sex advice. One of my favorite pieces of sex advice is actually from the Talmud, which is a Jewish religious text. It is not prohibited in the Hebrew scriptures to have premarital sex despite what people tell you, it's just not. And so there is advice on how to manage that in the Talmud, which is this other text and it says, you probably shouldn't do it. But if you are, you should go into the next town and wear black. And I love that. Because basically what that saying is, look, do what you got to do. But be discreet and don't ruin everyone's life. Don't Don't ruin someone's reputation, don't ruin your own reputation, go in the next town Be discreet, were black. So much of what Dan is talking about in this episode is a version of this. You want to have a playful, good, interesting, lively sex life, but you want to do it in a way that doesn't hurt anyone. And that really fulfills you and everyone else. What does that mean? What does it mean to fulfill it means to be g g g, good giving a game. It means to take the interests of your partner into your own heart, and follow through with those in a way that you are comfortable with. So much of this discussion is about what it means to be a good person what it means to be a good sexual person is a subset of what it means to be a good person. That's why we're having conversations about ethical non monogamy right now. That's why we're having conversations about consent. That's why we're having all of these discussions because ultimately, whether Dan realizes it or not, all of his advice is philosophical advice. He's trying to tell people how to live a good life, having good sex and being good people, while at the same time embracing the sex positive attitude where this central part of our humanity is on display is up for discussion, communication. He didn't use the phrase in our discussion, but he always uses the phrase on the show. Use your words, when it comes to sex. Use your words, use your words for play, use your words for expressing your desire and use your words to advocate for yourself. You know, this discussion could have gone a whole variety of different ways and we could have really gone down some rabbit holes, including some things that maybe some people wouldn't have been comfortable with. But I really hope in the end, the discussion was something that was accessible to everybody and that everybody even if they're made a little squeak Amish by the topic. They walked away learning something because I have learned a tremendous amount from Dan Savage and I hope that you all continue to learn from him and me as well. If you've been listening to this episode on Sunday evening on Prairie Public, please know that a longer version with almost 30 more minutes of discussion is available online and that's a podcast visit why radio show.org To listen or subscribe for free. For everyone else rate us on iTunes and Spotify to help spread the word about the show. Follow us on all the usual social networks our handle is always at why radio show and please help us continue broadcasting by making your tax deductible donation at y Radio show.org. Click donate in the upper right hand corner to go to UND alumni donation portal. We exist solely on the money you provide. Thank you again to my guests. The folks at pro publica especially skip would our long suffering engineer I'm Jack Russell Weinstein signing off for y radio. Thanks for listening and as always, it's an honor to be with you.

Why is funded by the Institute for philosophy and public life? Prairie Public Broadcasting in the University of North Dakota is College of Arts and Sciences and Division of Research and Economic Development. Skip wood is our studio engineer. The music is written and performed by Mark Weinstein and can be found on his album Louis Sol. For more of his music, visit jazz flute weinstein.com or myspace.com/mark Weinstein philosophy is everywhere you make it and we hope we've inspired you with our discussion today. Remember, as we say at the institute, there is no ivory tower