As Mercury editor Steve Humphrey mentioned earlier, folks in Seattle have their own opinions on the Ruiz question. But in light of the latest development in this story, there’s another aspect to all this that requires at least some scrutiny, namely: Ruiz’s close relationship with The Stranger editor, Dan Savage. Full disclosure: Index Publishing co-owns The Stranger and The Mercury. Savage announced his support for Adams, earlier, and his intent to appear in Portland at City Hall tomorrow afternoon, for a pro-Sam rally. Savage endorsed Adams for mayor, earlier this year, with the Willamette Week quoting him as follows:
“Sam?” Savage said, when asked why he was endorsing Adams. “He’s a pole smoker like me. I’m like those old women voting for Hillary.”
Since Savage has known Amy for years, served as her mentor at The Stranger, and allowed her to babysit his kid, we thought we’d ask Dan the following emailed questions to see if his support of Sam is in anyway influenced by his relationship with Amy. Because that’s how we roll.
THE QUESTIONS
1.Is your defense of Sam Adams in any way related to your close relationship with Ruiz, who is mentioned in your books and whom you at one time even “married” as part of a marriage equality demonstration?
SAVAGE: Of course not. If Sam was guilty of something I’d regularly decried — raping children, spreading HIV through malice or negligence, selling or using meth, voting for or being Republican — and I came out swinging in his defense, then you might want to go looking for a “real” reason. But all Sam is “guilty” of here is having a consensual sexual relationship with another adult. I am not against older/younger relationships, per se, which is why I crafted the “campsite rule.” I think they’re ill-advised, but they’re not illegal.
3.Did Ruiz contact you, asking for you to support Adams, or get involved in the issue, over the last few days?
Ruiz did not contact me. I contacted her, on Tuesday, via text. And all I told her that her friends in Seattle — me and my boyfriend and our dog — were thinking of her.
4.When was the last time you spoke with/heard from Ruiz, and what was the nature of that conversation?
She responded to my text, saying basically, “God, what a day.” We haven’t spoken on the phone since this news broke.
5.Were you planning to disclose the nature of your relationship with Ruiz at the rally tomorrow? Or in the mean time? Or not?
Well, it hadn’t occurred to me that our relationship was exactly relevant or in need of disclosure. I don’t think Ruiz is “story” here, despite the WW’s efforts. And it would seem to be common knowledge that Ruiz and I had a connection, through the Merc and the Stranger. And, again, Ruiz isn’t pulling in any favors — if I was acting in a way that was somehow contrary to the shit I’ve hammered away at in Savage Love for years and years, then the question might have some merit. But that’s not the case.
This whole situation has really jaundiced my view of Dan, I’m sorry to say. (And before anyone says it: I know he’s not crying any tears over losing an anonymous internet commenter’s support.) Dan’s really one of my few living pop culture, political, and journalistic heroes, but I don’t understand why he’s sticking his neck out for a public official who has behaved in this way.
Adams personally asked people to lie to the press and the public. Doesn’t matter what about. It’s scummy.
That is to say, Adams himself lied repeatedly, and he asked other people to lie on his behalf. Not honorable.
As someone who follows Dan’s media presence closely, I can say that his decision to support the mayor and not make a big issue of what he did is ENTIRELY consistent with his views on his podcast, in his column, and in posts on SLOG.
This line of questioning seems like grasping at straws, but at least you came to an appropriate conclusion. Still, not sure it’s newsworthy. ; D
Of course there’s no conflict of interest, even though it’s readily apparent to all you horrible skeptics. I believed Dick Cheney when he said he had nothing to do with Haliburton no-bid contracts, and I believe Sam, Dan, and Amy, too.
Those horrible journalism ethics folks at The Poynter Institute are just saying there’s a conflict of interest to be mean. Ignore them, everything’s fine.
The rest of the comment is all quoted From Dan’s column on July 17, 2008:
I’m a 19-year-old gay boy, and while I have tried dating guys my own age, I realized a long time ago that I am far more interested (romantically and sexually) in older men. I understand, though, that many older men out there looking for a guy my age may not have the best of intentions. Do you have any tips for someone in my situation?
Timid Whelp In Needa Knowledge
Gay men in their 30s and 40s who will date teenage boys are almost always scum, TWINK, as you’ve surmised. But gay guys in their 30s and 40s who will date 23-year-olds? Some are scum, of course, because some of everyone is scum, but the scum makes up a far smaller percentage of the total. And these nonscummy older men are much more likely to be interested in a 23-year-old who has his shit together.
So I would advise you to skip the older guys who’ll date you now and go and get your shit together. Get your ass into a decent college, fuck the odd TA (and they’re all odd) to earn a little dating-and-mating wisdom, and then, after you graduate, take your gathered figurative shit to a big city where you’ll meet plenty of attractive, older men.
Oh, and all the angry middle-aged gay men out there who “date” teenage boys and don’t regard themselves as scum: Spare me the angry e-mails, fellas. I didn’t say that you’re all scum, guys, I wrote that you’re “almost always scum.” Unfortunately, scum never thinks it’s scum, which can make it difficult to tell the scummy ones and nonscummy ones apart, particularly for young and inexperienced guys.
I’m so glad to be a Puretowner. I get a kick from punishing people who think they can get up to any sexual hi-jinks they like and rub it in all of our faces by pretending they aren’t doing anything. When we all know they are getting their rox off. Damnnn. Prudeland I’m proud of ye.
YIKES!
Nothing like the MERCURY BLOG that’s for sure!
HOLY MUTHA OF HAYZUES!
Matt you are doing some fine work. I thought I recalled such earlier similar postings by DS.
Haha!
Dan six months ago:
“Oh, and all the angry middle-aged gay men out there who “date” teenage boys and don’t regard themselves as scum: Spare me the angry e-mails, fellas. I didn’t say that you’re all scum, guys, I wrote that you’re “almost always scum.” Unfortunately, scum never thinks it’s scum, which can make it difficult to tell the scummy ones and nonscummy ones apart, particularly for young and inexperienced guys.”
Dan now:
“But all Sam is “guilty” of here is having a consensual sexual relationship with another adult.”
That’s the sort of situation ethics one would expect of Dr. Laura.
http://www.straight.com/mark-foley-me
Savage Love, Oct. 12, 2006
Dan on the fact he gets come-on emails from teenage boys:
“I delete them. Responding—to say nothing of taking any of these kids up on their offers (offers they would most surely withdraw when they saw me in person)—wouldn’t be right. Because the last thing gay teenage boys need in their lives, in my opinion, are gay middle-aged men.”
So how is his view of the Adams situation “entirely consistent” with what he preached in the past?
Sam and Beau were dating? Sex means dating? That’s a new revelation!
Consider that Adams is dating someone older than Breedlove and Breedlove is dating someone, well, older than Breedlove.
Dan Savage just got pwned.
Matt, I don’t see how that DS post proves anything. He clearly states they’re not always scum. Besides, he even said in his article supporting Sam that he doesn’t think young gay guys should date ones Sam’s age and states that he’s always said that, which the quote you cite proves.
Sorry, but I don’t see any “Gotcha!” there, buddy. ; D
From an article Dan Savage posted on this very blog, yesterday: “But quickly: I’m pretty much con fucking 18 year-olds. I’ve warned gay teenagers to steer clear of older gay men and it’s clear that older gay men who get involved with teenagers may not be doing themselves any favors in the long run.”
I think there is some “progressive” hypocrisy at work here. Adams supporters would feel differently if this was a Republican mayor.
And if the 42-year-old male mayor had hung around a 17 year old girl until her birthday, and then screwed her, I think a lot of you would be reacting very differently.
Being tolerant doesn’t mean having no standards whatsoever for a gay person. Actually, being tolerant means holding them to the same standard you’d hold anyone to.
Will, give it up. That’s just sad at this point. Dan has made it clear in the past how he feels about 40 going into 18, and his rationalization in this case bears no relation to his record.
“They’re not ALWAYS scum”? That’s about the weakest tea that can be poured.
Savage is a total hypocrite and I have lost respect lost respect. How wonderful he can come down from Seattle and tell us our corrupt elected official is AOK because he’s gay, while ripping the same behavior in his column as quoted several times above.
But then again his column is simply attempting to be a shocking Ann Landers. There hasn’t been much realistic relevant advice in his column for a while. DTFMA is the cliche’d theme throughout his column, and that is exactly what we should be doing to the lying mayor that put gay efforts back a decade.
Blabby:
“…if the 42-year-old male mayor had hung around a 17 year old girl until her birthday, and then screwed her, I think a lot of you would be reacting very differently”: I think the reaction would have been much the same. Shock and horror at the lie; the “bunch-o’-prudes” taunts from the free-love crowd; peasants waving torches and threatening to burn down Frankenstein’s castle; and a handful of us pleading for patience and temperance. All that would be missing is that extra underlying tang of homosexuality and homophobia.
But since that hasn’t happened, we don’t really know…
“…Being tolerant doesn’t mean having no standards whatsoever for a gay person. Actually, being tolerant means holding them to the same standard you’d hold anyone to”: …and since we don’t know, you can’t use it as a yardstick to judge peoples’ reaction to Adams’ situation. It’s an interesting red herring, but a red herring nonetheless. So thanks for playing.
breedlove….breedlove….breedlove. It’s not wrong to fall in love with an idea is it? Not yet..