Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Saddleback’s New Definition, Courtesy Of Dan Savage

Daniel Gonzales

January 28th, 2009

Gay sex advice columnist and author Dan Savage isn’t known for holding back against people he views as enemies of the LGBT community. Angered by anti-gay comments made by former Senator Rick Santorum, Savage named a rather disgusting and previously un-named phenomenon relating to anal-sex after him. Performing a Google search on “Santorum” turns up Savage’s definition as the top item.

And now we get to Savage’s recent anger with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church. What is a “Saddleback” exactly? Savage wasn’t sure it had any definition so he took it upon himself to create one. After polling his readers Savage has announced his new definition of Saddleback / Saddlebacking:

From the new website Saddlebacking.com

Savage finds this new definition apropos because of Warren’s ideological promotion of abstinence-only programs which not only don’t work, but result in teens substituting anal-sex and oral-sex believing they aren’t “real” sex.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Dave
January 28th, 2009 | LINK

Hmmm. I wonder were today’s teenagers got the idea that oral sex isn’t really sex.

Could it be the whole Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair? You know, where President Clinton claimed he never had sexual relations with “that woman”?

Devon
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

Hmm…I didn’t know it was that common. There were a few in my high school who did exactly that, and I wondered at the time how exactly that made them any more virgin than someone else.

Interesting how the elders will include most sexual conduct under “sex”, but the teens use their own ways to mend the cognitive dissonance.

Alex
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

Yay! I voted for this one!

Richard W. Fitch
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

It is all really quite obvious. Same-sex couples cannot marry because procreation is the function of marriage. Therefore, an act that does not make conception possible does not divest a person of one’s virginity.

Devon
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

Fitch,
The problem is that they maintain different definitions at the same time. If oral or anal expressions are not “sex”, then why the condemnation of these activities? Even within their minds, they make a connection approaching the broader definition of sex as something which produces arousal and can lead to orgasm. Ultimately for them, there is a certain expression only allowable through marriage.

Those mentioned behaviors above often fall under the category of immoral sexual activities or perversions under the Bible anyway, so these kids are no more upholding their chastity than if they were to go the official procreative route. All sexual activity outside marriage is wrong in their views (fundamentalist).

GING
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

LOL LOL LOL!

John
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

“Could it be the whole Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair? You know, where President Clinton claimed he never had sexual relations with “that woman”?”

Nope. Much more likely to come (as it were) from the Kevin Smith movie Clerks, which contains similar sentiments, and was shot and released (again, as it were) prior to the Clinton/Lewinsky conference.

Timothy Kincaid
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

In college I had a friend, a good Catholic, who became quite upset. He was having not-sex with a girl when he got the angle wrong and slipped inside. Just from one little angle adjusment he had lost the virginity which he so treasured.

I found it odd that his God was interested in technicalities and not the principles of the thing.

David C.
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

I found it odd that his God was interested in technicalities and not the principles of the thing.

I think this says a lot about the warp and weft of the fabric of belief.

Alex
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy…. having “not-sex”? Hahaha I love it!

Jim Burroway
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

Could it be the whole Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair? You know, where President Clinton claimed he never had sexual relations with “that woman”?

I doubt it. These kids today don’t even know who Monica Lewinsky is. That was so 1998.

Jim
January 30th, 2009 | LINK

I, for one, rather enjoy having “non-sex” in a very regular basis. Who knew it was “non-sex”. I’ve considered it “real sex” for years.

Yuki Choe
February 1st, 2009 | LINK

I guess this leaves lesbians out of a sexual equation. Kinda sad, is it not?

Emily K
February 1st, 2009 | LINK

Don’t be so sure, Yuki. Unfortunately, a lot of people consider everything two women will do together to be “not-sex.”

we’re “kinky” or “confused” or “practicing for boys.”

But I think that is even more sad.

Suricou Raven
February 1st, 2009 | LINK

But lesbians have one advantage where the fundys are concerned: The bible doesn’t mention them. If you consider what they do as not-sex, they are in the clear. No condemnation, no prohibition, no sin at all. They can go at it all they want, and if th fundys want to condemn they can’t just quote a verse. They have to spend a good thirty seconds imagining a reason for God to agree with them.

Emily K
February 1st, 2009 | LINK

Unfortunately, while MY Bible (the Tanakh ["old testament"]) doesn’t mention us, the Christian scriptures – specifically, the letters – do (kind of.) There’s that verse about women exchanging their “natural” lusts for unearthly lusts, or something….

Suricou Raven
February 2nd, 2009 | LINK

I know the verse – it’s in Timothy – but it’s rather weak. For a start, it doesn’t have divine backing, like the words of Jesus – it’s just the personal oppinion of someone who was important enough to get included in the standard canon. It’s also very vague about just what it refers to – just says that women exchanged what is natural for what is unnatural, in a sexual context. Could mean they went lesbian, but it could just as easily mean they got into incest or bestiality, or just kinky sex. I’m sure even back then many kinks were known. Maybe it means they just became promiscuous. So it’s a tricky verse to interpret.

This argument only works on the scriptial geek type of christian though. It’ll be ineffective on the block-headed variety, who simply answer that their version is the obvious truth but that you can’t see it because you havn’t invited the holy spirit into your life, and without the holy spirit it’s impossible to understand the bible.

marthafines
December 24th, 2009 | LINK

Merry Christmas to all… and to all a good night.

Fred farmer
January 8th, 2010 | LINK

So me getting saddlebacked by a friend isn’t real sex. Is it okay to tell my wife then?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.