Welcome back to the Deep Dive, where we tear
through a stack of sources and pull out the essential
knowledge nuggets customized just for you. Today,
we're tackling a figure who has built this really
extraordinary career, sort of mastering a tightrope
walk. Definitely. Between being an esteemed journalist,
a hugely influential activist. And arguably maybe
the most abrasive cultural provocateur of his
generation. Yeah, that feels about right. We
are deep diving into the life and work of Dan
Savage. It's quite a career to unpack. It's truly
sprawling. Yeah. Multifaceted. Born in 1964,
Savage basically channeled his sex advice column,
Savage Love, into this massive global platform.
Books, TV, social campaigns. Right. And our mission
today really is to understand the mechanics of
that. How did he leverage talking frankly about
sex and relationships into, well, a tool? A tool
for progressive politics, for LGBTQ rights advocacy.
And just, you know, relentless public debate,
often very controversial debate. And when you
look at the evidence, I mean, the success of
that platform is just undeniable. Before we even
get into the controversies or the whole media
empire thing, let's try and nail down his core
identity, his major achievements. Yeah, the writing
and punditry are vital, sure. But you're right.
The activism really defines him in many ways.
So where do we start with that? What's the cornerstone?
I think that has to be the starting point. The
single most visible, most defining achievement
of his activism is co -founding the It Gets Better
project. Right. In 2010 with his husband, Terry
Miller. Exactly. And this was a direct. digital
intervention aimed squarely at preventing suicide
among LGBTQ youth who were facing bullying. And
that project, it really shifted the conversation,
didn't it? Fundamentally, yeah. How society addresses
queer youth, isolation, mental health. It was
huge. An incredible achievement. Digital advocacy
at its most impactful, really. And then like
on the complete opposite end of the spectrum,
but still talking cultural impact. You have to
mention the language. Yes. His influence on just
everyday sexual language. Yeah. The sources are
clear. Savage and his readership, they officially
coined the neologism pegging back in 2001. Defining
a woman anally penetrating a man with his strap
on dildo. Correct. And that word, it didn't just
stay niche, did it? It wasn't just in the alt
weeklies. No, not at all. It pretty quickly infiltrated
mainstream sexual vocabulary. You hear it everywhere
now. It's amazing. It is. And that little linguistic
act, it kind of perfectly encapsulates his specific
genius, I think. How so? Well, he treats sex
advice seriously, right? Yeah. But he does it
in a way that generates real cultural, even linguistic
gravity. He turns these private. intimate things
into public political discussion often with really
surprising far -reaching results okay so let's
unpack the origins then yeah because it's kind
of hard to imagine the guy behind savage love
starting out yeah well where he did yeah it's
quite a journey how does a kid from chicago who
is seriously considering the priesthood end up
creating a sex advice empire right that brings
us to section one the unexpected path to advice
columnist so chicago native Savage. Yeah, Daniel
Keenan Savage. Born in Chicago, October 7, 1964.
And raised strictly Roman Catholic. Ah, okay.
That upbringing, that's got to be a foundational
layer, right? Even though he later moved away
from it. Absolutely. He later identified more
as an atheist, or maybe his term, a wishy -washy
agnostic. But he still called himself culturally
Catholic. You can almost feel that tension in
his writing sometimes. You really can. That exploration
of sin, morality, challenging dogma. It's all
there. Baked in from the start. And his high
school choice kind of reinforces this early religious
path. He attended Quigley Preparatory Seminary
North. Which was specifically for? For boys considering
the priesthood. So a deep immersion in that formal
religious structure, the rhetoric. It surely
influenced his later style. His very formal rhetorical
style sometimes. Definitely. But clearly the
path shifted. Towards performance. It did. Big
shift. He got a Bachelor of Fine Arts and acting
degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana
-Champaign. Okay, the acting background. That
feels critical. It's hugely important. He wasn't
just a writer. He was a performer. Yeah. He understood
staging, rhetoric, shock value, how to grab public
attention. You see it in his media appearances.
Totally. And remember, he later worked as a theater
director sometimes. Use the name Keenan Hollihan.
His whole public persona has this theatrical,
very intentional quality. Right. It's the performance
degree that maybe makes him a media pundit, not
just a journalist. Good point. So that performative
flair, it eventually lands him in the right place,
right time, early 90s. Where was he when Savage
Love started bubbling up around 1991? He was
in Madison, Wisconsin. working as the night manager
at a video store. A video store? What kind? Called
Four Star Fiction and Video, specialized in independent
films. And crucially, this is where he befriended
Tim Keck. Ah, Tim Keck of the Onion fame. One
of the original co -founders, yeah. And then
Keck makes the move, Seattle. Right, Keck moved
to Seattle to start a new alternative weekly,
The Stranger, and Savage gave him some advice.
What was the advice? Savage told him the paper
had to have an advice column. Said something
like, everybody claims to hate him, but everybody
seems to read him. Probably true. So Savage pitched
himself, wrote a sample column. Keck was apparently
blown away. Offered him the job. Offered him
the job. Savage moved to Seattle, and that decision,
as Savage himself said, forever altered his life
path. A total pivot. So the column wasn't just
like... A gig. He was conceived as cultural commentary
from day one. Absolutely. What was the core idea,
the philosophy behind it? It was provocative
right out of the gate. Savage's stated intention
was basically to provide mocking advice to heterosexuals.
Mocking them? Why? He felt that the established,
you know, street advice columnists were often
judgmental or just clueless when they tried to
answer letters from gay people. Ah, so he flipped
the script. Exactly. Took a deliberately confrontational
stance. to turn the tables on what he saw as
the clueless cultural norm. And this leads directly
to one of his most, let's say, infamous rhetorical
moves, right in the formatting of the column
itself, the salutation. Oh, yeah. His initial
idea, which the editor shot down, was to call
the whole column, hey, faggot. Oh. He wanted
to reclaim the hate word. That was the idea.
Editor said no to the title. But. For several
years, he successfully used, hey, faggot, as
the salutation at the start of every single printed
letter. That is astonishing. For a newspaper
column, that level of provocation. Right. He
used that framing until 1999. That's nearly a
decade. Why does he stop? He claimed he retired
it only when he felt the reclamation had been
successful, or maybe just when the shock value
wasn't as useful anymore. What does that tell
you, though? about his early strategy. It tells
you Savage understood very early on that progressive
social change could be driven by really aggressive,
attention -grabbing confrontation. His column
was engineered for that. Totally. Engineered
as a vehicle for cultural critique, not just
relationship help. Designed to force discomfort,
make people notice. Well, that framing certainly
worked to build an audience, which takes us right
into section two, building the media platform.
Once Savage Love found that defiant voice, it
didn't stay local in Seattle for long. No, it
blew up pretty quickly. It became internationally
syndicated, popping up in alt weeklies all over
the U .S., Canada, eventually further afield.
But he wasn't just mailing it in from afar, right?
He was involved with The Stranger. Deeply involved.
He eventually became editor -in -chief and then
editorial director there. Which gave him significant
local political influence in Seattle. Huge clout,
yeah. And while he's primarily known as an LGBTQ
advocate, he was smart. He broadened his focus
to what he called straight rights issues. Yeah,
arguing that the sort of political war on sex
was universal. How did he frame that? He basically
made the case that the right -wingers and the
fundies and the sexphobes, as he put it, weren't
just targeting the queer community. They were
coming for your asses, too. Exactly. His words.
He focused on conservative opposition to things
like the HPV vaccine, the morning after pill,
stuff that affects everyone. So by fighting for
access to mainstream sexual health stuff. He
positioned sex positivity as a necessary defense
for everyone against, you know, prudish government
control over people's bodies and lives. It's
actually a really brilliant way to broaden the
political base for sexual freedom. Makes it universal.
Totally. And that philosophy, that sex is universal,
it translated perfectly into audio with the Savage
Lovecast. Ah, yes, the podcast. Let's do a real
deep dive here. How does the Lovecast actually
work? So it's a weekly audio podcast, basically
an extension of the column. But what makes it
unique is how he gets the questions. How's that?
Callers leave anonymous questions on a dedicated
voice recorder, like an old school answering
machine, essentially. OK. And then he answers
them on the show. Right. And unlike typical radio
call -in shows, he... he often actually returns
the calls. So the live recorded conversation
becomes part of the show itself. Oh, interesting.
That must create a different kind of feel, more
immediate. It really does. It creates this sense
of intimacy, authenticity, and the structure
is dynamic, you know? It's funny, it's serious.
But he's careful with the advice, right? Especially
medical stuff. Yeah, that's crucial. He's very
responsible about expertise. For questions that
are complex or medical, he often consults doctors,
sex therapists, relationship experts, sometimes
calls them live on the show. And he'll say it's
above my pay grade. Explicitly, yeah. He's the
funny, frank guide who knows exactly when to
turn in the science or the therapy professional.
The combination must be key to its success. I
think so. That blend of, like, frank comedy and
responsible fact -checking. It's why the Lovecast
is consistently recognized. It's huge, right?
Top of the iTunes charts in health. Routinely.
Yeah. And often in the top 20 podcasts overall.
Got nods from the AV Club, The Atlantic. It's
a massive media success. Proving that whole alt
-weekly vibe could really thrive in the digital
age. Definitely. And beyond the core column in
the podcast, he became a pretty central figure
in broader media too. He certainly did. He had
an early call -in show, Savage Love Live, way
back 94 to 97. And an online column for ABC News.
Yeah. Dear Dan, 98 -2000. He became a familiar
voice on public radio, too. frequent contributor
to This American Life. And politically on TV.
He was a real -time, real reporter on HBO's Real
Time with Bill Maher for a while. Always in the
mix. And we can't forget those acting roots.
You mentioned the theater work he did under the
name Kenan Hollihan. Right, that acting background
wasn't just history. It led him to found Seattle's
Greek Active Theater. What was their thing? Known
for taking classic works and giving them these
queer interpretations. Staging a tragicomic Macbeth,
for instance. playing with gender roles. It's
that kind of theatrical impulse reinterpreting
classics that you see in his cultural critiques
later. Totally connects. Although, as our sources
note, his own attempt at playwriting, Letters
from the Earth in 2003. Oh yeah, what happened
there? It got an absolutely scathing review from
his own paper at The Stranger. Ouch, that's got
a sting. Famously brutal, but also kind of self
-aware for the paper, it highlighted that alt
-weakly philosophy. Critique has to be ruthless,
applied equally, even to the boss. Fair enough.
Okay, let's shift to his television work. He
had that MTV series, Savage U. But the really
significant TV project was The Real O 'Neils
on ABC, right? Yeah, that was a bigger deal.
Savage was an executive producer on that, ran
for two seasons on network TV. And it was based
on his idea. Based on his concept, yeah. About
this seemingly perfect, tight -knit, Irish -American
Catholic family in Chicago. Whose secrets all
come tumbling out. Exactly. Triggered when the
middle child comes out as gay. This feels like
his core political work smuggled onto mainstream
TV. Like a Trojan horse. It really kind of is.
The show reveals, okay, the middle kid's gay.
The oldest daughter is anorexic. The youngest
is maybe an atheist running some scam. And the
parents want a divorce but are hiding it. Wow.
All the secrets. It takes all that deeply personal
pain and complexity, especially for queer youth
in strict religious homes, and puts it right
into a primetime network comedy. That's a deliberate
act of normalization using major media exposure.
Absolutely. That move from private pain to public
platform, that's the perfect bridge to Section
3. The blending of private life and public activism.
Savage's personal life, it seems, has never really
been separate from his political mission. No,
they're completely intertwined. His own family
life is totally central to his advocacy work.
So he and Terry Miller, his husband, they married
early, right? Before it was widely legal. They
did. They first married in Vancouver, Canada
back in 2005, long before same -sex marriage
was recognized across most of the U .S. Just
going to Canada to get married back then was
a political act in itself. It absolutely was
a form of protest, a statement. And then when
Washington state finally legalized same -sex
marriage, they made sure their commitment was
highly visible. When it became legal in Washington
in 2012, they were among the very first couples
to get state marriage licenses. They got married
publicly. Yeah, at Seattle City Hall, December
9, 2012, along with other couples. It was a very
calculated, very public declaration of equality.
And the couple also adopted a son around 1998.
Yeah, adopted their son DJ as an infant around
1998. And Savage was incredibly public about
that whole process. He wrote a book about it,
didn't he? He did. Chronicled that whole intense
personal journey in his 1999 book, The Kid. What
happened after my boyfriend and I decided to
go get pregnant? That book must have been really
important for normalizing queer families. Hugely
important. Showed the emotional side, the logistical
hurdles, the legal realities of gay couples building
a family through adoption. It basically turned
their private story into foundational reading
for the movement. OK, let's pivot to the It Gets
Better project. The name itself is now like a
global mantra. What was the specific tragedy
that kicked it off? The project was founded September
21st, 2010. Directly in response to the suicide
of a 15 -year -old named Billy Lucas. Who was
bullied. Relentlessly bullied, yeah, for his
perceived sexual orientation. Savage and Miller
saw this awful tragedy and just felt they had
to do something. Leverage their platforms. And
the idea was simple, but powerful. Incredibly
effective. Just ask adults. queer straight famous
regular folks to submit video testimonials messages
assuring lgbtq youth that life absolutely gets
better after the hell of high school bullying
and isolation flood the internet with hope basically
that was the goal and the response was just The
scale tells you how desperately that message
was needed. How big did it get? By November 2013,
so just about three years later, the project
had over 50 ,000 user -created videos, testimonials,
and over 50 million views combined. Wow. That's
incredible velocity from a heartfelt response
to this massive digital movement. And it got
major recognition to awards. Yeah. Won a Webby
Award for special achievement in 2011 and significantly
the Emmy Governor's Award in 2012. The Governor's
Award. That's a big deal. It's for achievements
beyond standard TV categories. Exactly. It's
cemented. It gets better and not just as successful
activism, but as like essential public service
media. Really profound impact. OK, so moving
from life saving activism to. Well, something
very different. Boundary -pushing art. We have
to talk about the annual HMP film festival that
Savage coordinates. Right. The juxtaposition
is classic Savage. That cognitive dissonance
he relies on to keep everyone talking. It feels
like a radical move. What exactly is HGMP? It's
an annual pornography festival. It showcases
short five -minute porn clips submitted by viewers.
Basically, anyone can submit on any pornographic
topic they want. And it's successful? It tours.
Hugely successful. Tours theaters across the
country every year. But the curation, the philosophy
behind it, that's the key part, right? It's not
just random homemade porn. No, exactly. The unique
element, and this is the political statement,
is the mixing. The winning submissions are all
shown together. Mixing what? Deliberately mixing
straight porn, gay male porn, bi, lesbian fetish
stuff, all one after another in the same program.
Ah, okay, breaking down the silos. Right. It
challenges the traditional, highly segregated
way the porn industry usually works, suggests
all kinds of sexual experiences deserve space
on the screen, together. And there's that final
crucial detail. What happens to the films afterwards?
Savage publicly destroys all the submissions
after the tour ends. Destroys them. Why? It acts
as a kind of protective mechanism for the filmmakers.
By destroying the tapes, he ensures this ephemeral
homemade art isn't permanently exploited or leaked
outside the festival context. Is the amateur
participants a layer of security? Exactly. Security
that traditional commercial porn definitely doesn't
offer. It's performance art, sure. but layered
with these ethical considerations for the people
involved. It really seems like Savage has this
history of not just writing about things, but
outright weaponizing language for his campaigns,
which takes us perfectly into section four, campaigns
and controversial neologisms. We absolutely have
to start with the infamous Santorum campaign,
2003. Yeah, that one's legendary. The catalyst
was then U .S. Senator Rick Santorum. He gave
this interview comparing homosexual sex to bestiality
and incest. Awful stuff. Truly egregious. And
Savage felt the attack was so harmful, so beyond
the pale, that he needed a response beyond just
a column. He launched a campaign, a cultural
sabotage campaign, really. He sponsored a contest,
right, to redefine Santorum's last name. Correct.
Held a contest among his readers. And the result
was coining the term centaurum. Defined as? Defined
as the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter
that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
Oh, my God. And he didn't just coin it. He successfully
leveraged the Internet, set up a dedicated website
spreading centaurum .com, I think it was. publicized
the definition relentlessly. With the specific
goal of dominating search engine results for
the senator's name. Exactly. It was a modern,
aggressive form of political action, using digital
media, using gross -out humor, shock value, to
inflict a very specific kind of reputational
damage. And it worked, didn't it? Incredibly
effective. Saravage essentially turned the senator's
name into this widely known scatological joke.
It overshadowed a lot of his political messaging
for years. Did he ever offer to take it down?
He did in 2010. But with the political price
tag, he said he'd remove the website if Santorum
donated $5 million to Freedom to Marry, the gay
rights organization. Which Santorum obviously
didn't do. He condemned the campaign. Of course.
Called it hateful, disgusting. Savage, in response,
basically argued that his campaign, while aggressive,
was nonviolent. And it was a direct response
to Santorum propagating real discrimination and
harm. And that website or the definition, it's
still out there. A permanent digital scar. It
really proved the long -lasting power of a successfully
weaponized neologism in the Internet age. And
it wasn't a one -off strategy for him, was it?
He used the same playbook in 2009 with the saddlebacking
protest. Right, saddlebacking. That was aimed
at Pastor Rick Warren, head of Saddleback Church.
Why Warren? Warren was a very vocal supporter
of California's Proposition 8, the ballot measure
that banned same -sex marriage. And was there
controversy because Obama invited it to the inauguration?
Exactly. That heightened it. President Obama
invited Warren to give the invocation at his
first inauguration. Savage used the neologism
to protest both Warren's politics and Obama's
association with him. So what was the definition
this time? Equally provocative. Oh yeah. It defined
saddlebacking as the phenomenon of Christian
teens engaging in unprotected anal sex to preserve
their virginities. Wow. Okay. Linkey perceived
hypocrisy about abstinence -only preaching. with
specific, often undiscussed sexual behaviors
among some religious youth, designed purely to
provoke and critique. This kind of activism sometimes
had consequences for him, though. Didn't a paper
drop his column over Prop 8? Yeah, the sources
mentioned that the Salt Lake City Weekly dropped
Savage Love after he vowed to boycott Utah because
of the strong Mormon church support for Prop
8 there. So he was willing to take the hit. Seemed
to be, yeah. If the goal was applying political
pressure, and beyond these big national language
-based campaigns, Savage was also a really powerful
voice in local Seattle politics, mostly through
The Stranger. What was his big local fight? His
most high -profile local battle was against the
Seattle Teen Dancers. ordinance, and the related
crackdowns on all ages, music venues, and events.
Fighting the no fun police. Basically. It was
a fight against what he saw as moral panic disguised
as city governance. Savage argued pretty forcefully
that closing down supervised venues, places like
Ground Zero or the Kirkland Teen Center, it didn't
stop teenagers from getting together. It just
pushed them somewhere else. Exactly. Pushed them
into unsupervised, potentially more dangerous
situations. He specifically cited like 7 -Eleven
parking lots or unsupervised houses where boredom
and lack of structure can lead to reckless behavior.
It's the classic savage move, isn't it? Defend
youth, defend fun, defend sex or dancing. And
use that as a wedge issue to fight broader government
control and, you know, moral prudishness. Looking
at the pattern, national or local, he consistently
frames these fights against sexphobes as fights
for freedom, for self -determination. And often,
crucially, for the physical safety and well -being
of young people. That consistency, though, it
brings us to Section 5, the hot zones of viewpoints
and controversy. Because while Savage is generally
seen as liberal, the source is making clear he
has this fierce contrarian streak. Oh, definitely.
Which sometimes led him to attack his own allies
or use language that just generated huge backlash.
His politics are, yeah, broadly liberal, but
with these really undeniable libertarian and
contrarian impulses just woven through. He constantly
used his column to push readers, encourage them
to voice opinions on politicians, get active,
not passive. An early sign of that libertarian
side was his opposition to laws banning the sale
of sex toys. Yeah, that came up. When an adult
video store owner in Mississippi got arrested
after some local journalist did an expose. What
did Savage do? He satirically suggested that
his readers should mail all their unwanted sex
toys directly to the journalist who wrote the
story, Candace Krohn. Huh. Turned the moral enforcement
into a logistical nightmare. Exactly. Use humor
and absurdity to push back against what he saw
as prudish overreach. Okay, but now we need -
to get into the comments where his aggressive
style really backfired, where he had to issue
public apologies. Let's start with that 2006
comment about the Green Party candidate Carl
Romanelli. Right. Savage believed Romanelli was
basically a spoiler candidate funded by Republicans
to siphon votes. And in an interview, his rhetoric
just went. Way over the top. Way over. He suggested
Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck
until there's nothing left but the rope or just
run over. I mean, that's extreme language, even
for him. Absolutely extreme. And the condemnation
was swift and widespread. Savage had to immediately
issue a regret and an apology. Calling it? Calling
the truck metaphor stupid, rude, thoughtless.
He emphasized he didn't mean the threat literally
at all, but it really highlighted the risks of
using that kind of violent hyperbole in political
talk. It wasn't an isolated incident. A few years
later, 2011, he did something similar on real
time with Bill Maher during that tense debt negotiation
period. That's right. He was expressing his utter
frustration with the congressional Republicans
blocking things, and he just blurted out, I wish
the Republicans were all fucking dead. Another
immediate walk back required. Yep. Had to apologize
quickly later that night on his blog. Said he
didn't actually feel that way. Call it a flubbed
expression of disgust. These moments really show
that constant tension in his work. Between wanting
to use shocking language for effect. And the
literal harm or offense such language can actually
cause, even if not intended literally. But maybe
the most audacious and personally consequential
act of political provocateurism came much earlier.
The 2000 Iowa caucuses incident. Oh yeah, that
story's wild. Savage went to Iowa to cover the
caucuses for Salon magazine. And he was initially
going to write about Gary Bauer. The conservative
candidate. Yeah. He apparently intended to write
a sort of humanizing piece on Bauer. But then
Bauer's anti same sex marriage comments just
enraged Savage so much that he abandoned the
whole journalistic approach completely. And what
he claimed he did next was just shocking. What
do you claim? He'd been sick with the flu. So
he claimed he volunteered for the Bauer campaign
specifically to try and spread the flu to Bauer
and his staff. Good out. He claimed he licked
doorknobs, coffee cups, other surfaces in the
campaign office. And the most infamous detail
allegedly coated a pen in his saliva right before
handing it directly to Gary Bauer himself. He
claimed he licked a pen and gave it to a presidential
candidate. That's that's next level provocation.
It truly is. And the description. when published
in Salon led to immediate and harsh criticism.
Camille Paclia, who also wrote for Salon, called
the described behavior sociopathic. Did Savage
stand by the story? He later clarified, said
the story was highly exaggerated for comedic
effect, more like journalistic performance art,
claimed the doorknob licking was made up and
insisted he was actually no longer contagious
by the time he joined the campaign team. But
the controversy didn't stop with just the sensational
claims, did it? There were actual legal consequences
from that Iowa trip. That's right. It wasn't
just performance. While he was there, Savage
illegally registered and voted in the Republican
caucus. He actually voted illegally. He did,
and he later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor
charge. Fraudulent voting. What was the penalty?
Got probation, had to do community service, and
pay a fine. It's kind of a sobering reminder
that pushing boundaries with performance art
journalism can have very real, tangible costs.
Definitely. Okay, let's pivot a bit to his views
on social issues, sexuality itself. He's described
his approach to family as conservative, which
seems... counterintuitive given his public image
yeah it sounds odd but his point is that he values
commitment building a stable family unit, which
is conservative in that traditional structural
sense. Okay. However, he is deeply skeptical
of what he calls simplistic views of monogamy.
His column has consistently been a space to discuss,
explore, and frankly normalize non -monogamy
and polyamory for his readers, pushing boundaries
there constantly. And he caused a huge stir back
in 1997 with a very blunt take on the AIDS crisis.
Oh, yeah. A reader wrote in and asked, simply,
is the AIDS crisis over? And Savage answered.
Just answered, yes. One word. Wow. That must
have generated some heat. It generated weeks
of intense discussion and debate right there
in his column. His argument, contextually, was
based on the medical reality emerging then. The
new treatments. Right, the arrival of effective
antiretroviral combination therapies. They were
transforming HIV aids, at least in developed
countries with access, from a near certain death
sentence into a manageable chronic condition.
So he was saying the crisis of mass death was
ending. That was his point. Acknowledging the
shift in the medical paradigm in places like
the U .S., of course, it was hugely controversial
given the ongoing global pandemic, the high transmission
rates, the lack of access elsewhere. But he was
forcing his readers to confront that specific
medical shift. He seems willing to push against
orthodoxy from any direction, left or right,
which leads us, I think, to the most complex
area of controversy surrounding him. His repeated
clashes with parts of the LGBTQ plus community
itself and allies, specifically around transgender
issues. Yeah, this is a significant and recurring
point of friction in the sources. Savage has
faced repeated sustained criticism for his use
of slurs targeting the transgender community.
Slurs like? Specifically the word tranny. And
also for other remarks on trans issues, like
jokingly suggesting former Washington Attorney
General Rob McKenna was a transgender man, just
generally seen as insensitive or harmful comments.
And these comments didn't just stay in the column,
did they? They spilled out into real world protests.
They did. Most famously, he was glitter bombed
three times. Glitter bombed. Yeah. Protesters
threw glitter on him during public appearances
twice in 2011, once in 2012. explicitly alleging
that his column and comments promoted transphobia.
And the controversy really came to a head during
a seminar at the University of Chicago in 2014.
That was a major flashpoint. Savage was there,
talking about his own history with using the
word tranny, discussing the idea of reclaiming
slurs. And a student objected. A student asked
him to please use the term T -slur instead of
saying the actual word. Savage objected to that,
the policing of language, he felt. And to make
his point about discussing slurs openly, he apparently
listed examples of various other slurs. Which
did not go over well. No. Some students in the
room claim they felt threatened, deeply uncomfortable,
targeted by his use of those words. even as examples.
It illustrates that central paradox of his whole
career, doesn't it? Perfectly. His goal, presumably,
was to talk about repurposing hurtful words for
empowerment, something he genuinely believes
in and practiced with faggot. Exactly. That was
his defense. A university representative backed
him up, saying he was clearly discussing the
process of reclaiming language, not directing
slurs at anyone in the room. But the impact was
different for some listeners. Right. And Savage
himself later demanded a public apology from
the students or critics who had accused him of
actual hatred. It just perfectly captures how
volatile using abrasive language for progressive
aims can be. The attempt to reclaim can simultaneously
cause genuine offense and alienate the very allies
you might need. OK, we also need to touch on
his controversial comments from back in 2001
about child sexuality. This is obviously an extremely
sensitive area. Extremely. And the context is
absolutely crucial here. Savage was arguing against
what he saw as cultural hysteria surrounding
children. Saying society assumes what? Saying
society wrongly assumes children have absolutely
no sexual agency or desire, that childhood is
completely asexual, which he disputed. Okay.
But then he brought Anambita into it. Yes. And
this is where it got really complicated and drew
criticism. He critiqued Ambele, the North American
man -boy love association, saying that group
packages potentially reasonable arguments about
teen sexuality and age of consent laws alongside
irrational, insane arguments about seven -year
-olds. And that mixing, even just to critique
Ambele, muddied the waters. Hugely. Savage argued
that because of Anambita's toxic association
with pedophilia, any rational public discussion
about acknowledging teen sexuality or debating
age of consent laws becomes impossible. It just
gets simply shouted down. Yeah. So he was trying
to distinguish between acknowledging healthy
teen sexuality and protecting children from abuse.
But the mere proximity of his critique to NMBLA,
even to condemn their conflation, drew immediate
and intense backlash. Very difficult territory.
Another major moment of public confrontation
happened during an anti -bullying speech he gave
in 2012. Right. He was... Speaking to the National
High School Journalism Convention. High school
students. And during the speech, he encouraged
them to. He encouraged the students to learn
to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay
people. Okay. That's direct. Very direct. And
it prompted a walkout by some Christian students
and advisors in the audience. How did Savage
react to the walkout? His immediate reaction
was apparently to call the walkout a pansy -assed
move. He later apologized specifically for that
comment, for the name -calling. But not for the
core message? No. He stood firmly by the central
point of his speech, which was anti -bullying
and challenging religious justifications for
bigotry against gay people. His contrarian streak,
like you said, even hit close to home, inside
his own newspaper. We have to mention the criticism
he got from his colleague Lindy West about fat
shaming. Yeah, that's an important one. In 2011,
Lindy West, who worked with Savage at The Stranger
Them, published this really powerful piece directly
criticizing him. For what specifically? For repeated
comments he'd made in his columns. about fat
people, saying things like, rolls of exposed
flesh are unsightly, just casual digs. And West's
argument was? That this was just a cruel, subjective
opinion, and she called the act of shaming an
already marginalized and shamed population shameful,
especially coming from someone like Savage. And
this internal friction, this disagreement within
the progressive media world there, it was later
fictionalized, right? Yeah, it became a significant
storyline in the Hulu series Shrill, which was
based on West's memoir. It really shows that
even Savage's closest colleagues and allies sometimes
felt compelled to publicly challenge his rhetorical
choices and blind spots. Okay, finally on the
controversy front. Yeah. How did he respond in
2017 to the allegations against Kevin Spacey?
That was a moment where he applied his sharp
moral line very clearly. When Kevin Spacey put
out that statement, coming out as gay almost
simultaneously with Anthony Rapp accusing him
of assault when Rapp was only 14, Savage's reaction
was quick and unequivocal. He tweeted something
like, There's no amount of drunk or closeted
that excuses or explains away assaulting a 14
year old child. Drawing a very bright line. Yeah.
Using his platform instantly to say basically
child abuse is child abuse. Full stop. Regardless
of the alleged perpetrator's sexual orientation
or status or whatever else was in that messy
statement. OK. Wow. So we have covered a lot
of ground here. Video stores, Catholic seminary,
search engine warfare, Emmy Awards. Glitter bombs.
It's time to try and pull this all together.
Yeah, synthesize it. What's the essential summary?
Savage's impact, his legacy as seen through these
sources. I think Savage's career is uniquely
defined by these three simultaneous and often
really contradictory pillars. Okay, pillar one.
First, he's the essential guide, the voice of
reason, science, empathy, and savage love, the
person people turn to for actual advice. Pillar
two. Second, he's the massively successful activist,
the co -founder of the Emmy -winning, genuinely
life -saving It Gets Better project. That's undeniable
impact. And pillar three, the messy one. Third,
and maybe the most defining, yeah, he's the relentless
cultural provocateur. The guy who invented Santorum,
who claimed he licked pens for political protests,
who constantly uses abrasive, shocking language
to force difficult conversations into the public
square. Like her or not. His career really feels
like the ultimate test case for blending radical
sex positivity with super aggressive political
commentary and highly visible public advocacy.
He didn't wait for change. He instigated it using
every single medium available to him. And his
influence, it's recognized well beyond just the
alt -weekly world or the LGBTQ community. Oh,
yeah. The awards for his books alone show that.
The kid won a Penn and West Award back in 99.
Skipping Towards Gamora won a Lambda Literary
Award in 2002. And he got that Humanist of the
Year Award. Right, from the American Humanist
Association in 2013, specifically for his advocacy
of church -state separation and, crucially, his
work for LGBTQ youth. He has a legitimate claim,
I think, to being one of the most culturally
influential columnists of the last, what, 30
years? He really does. Yeah. But the sources
also consistently show that his specific method,
that enthusiastic, hypercharged, abrasive language,
even when used arguably in the name of reclaiming
slurs or advancing progressive causes, it frequently
led to public apologies or intensified scrutiny,
not just from opponents, but often from allies.
That paradox is what defines him. Savage proved
that shock tactics absolutely generate visibility.
They can win campaigns like the Santorum effort
undeniably. The cost. The cost, as we saw with
the transgender controversies, the fat shaming
critiques, is often paid in trust, in alliance.
Within the very coalition he was at least ostensibly
trying to build or support. Which brings us perfectly
to our final provocative thought for you, the
listener, to maybe chew on. When you're navigating
these really complex cultural and political issues,
especially ones that require huge shifts in public
opinion, is the success of a movement better
served by, well, Savage's signature style? That
enthusiastic, abrasive provocation that grabs
attention dominates headlines. Or is it better
served by more measured, maybe more careful language?
Language that deliberately seeks to avoid alienating
potential allies, that prioritizes building broader,
even if maybe slower, coalitions. Savage's entire
legacy forces us to confront that fundamental
choice, rhetorical velocity versus rhetorical
patience. It's a powerful dilemma, a really potent
question to leave you with. We've covered everything
from seminary to sovereignty, from scandal to
success, and that's our deep dive into the complicated
career of Dan Savage. Thank you for joining us.
Dive deeper next time.