Olivia: Alright Jackson, I'm going to say a name: Dan Savage. What's the first thing that comes to mind? Jackson: Oh, that's easy. The guy who gives sex advice that would make my grandmother faint and my therapist take notes. And probably something about Rick Santorum that we can't say on air. Olivia: Exactly! He’s one of America’s most provocative and, frankly, most important cultural critics. And today we’re diving into his 2013 collection of essays, American Savage: Insights, Slights, and Fights on Faith, Sex, Love, and Politics. Jackson: It’s got a reputation for being pretty polarizing, right? The reviews are all over the place—some people find it hilarious and brilliant, others find it abrasive. Olivia: They do, and that’s because he pulls no punches. But what's wild is that this isn't just a random collection of rants. Savage co-founded the Emmy-winning It Gets Better Project in response to a tragic wave of LGBTQ youth suicides. This book was written right in the heat of that activism, so every essay is charged with this incredible, life-or-death urgency. Jackson: Wow, that puts a totally different spin on it. It’s not just being provocative for the sake of it. Which makes his ideas on relationships, which are already pretty out there, even more interesting. Where does he even start with that?

Olivia: He starts by blowing up one of the most sacred ideas in modern relationships. He argues that sometimes, in very specific situations, it’s better to cheat than to leave. Jackson: Hold on, that's a huge leap! Is he really saying infidelity is the solution? That sounds like advice that would end more marriages than it saves. Olivia: It sounds shocking, but his logic is surprisingly compassionate. He tells this heartbreaking story of a man who writes to him. He’s been in a loving marriage for over a decade, has two kids, he adores his wife, they’re great partners in every way… except one. They haven't had sex in years. His wife has declared she’s just not interested anymore, ever. She won’t go to counseling, and she gets angry if he even looks at porn. Jackson: Oh man, that’s a trap. He’s a good father and husband, so if he leaves, he’s the villain who abandoned his family over sex. If he stays, he’s facing a lifetime of resentment and deprivation. Olivia: Precisely. And Savage’s point is that our culture offers only two solutions: divorce or misery. He looks at that situation and asks, what if there's a third option? If the marriage is a beautiful, functioning, loving thing in every other respect, is preserving that family unit by discreetly getting your sexual needs met elsewhere really the worst possible outcome? He argues it’s a form of harm reduction. Jackson: I can see the logic, but it feels like playing with fire. What about the dishonesty? Olivia: That’s the crux of it. For Savage, the greater dishonesty is pretending you can be happy in a sexless partnership forever. He believes that leads to a slow, corrosive resentment that kills the marriage anyway. This is where he introduces his famous concept of being "GGG" in a relationship. Jackson: Right, I’ve heard this. What does "GGG" actually mean in practice? Olivia: It stands for "Good, Giving, and Game." "Good" in bed, "Giving" of equal time and pleasure, and "Game" for anything—within reason. It’s not about being a pushover; it’s about being an enthusiastic and adventurous partner. It’s about being willing to try things for your partner's sake, because in a sexually exclusive relationship, you are their only outlet. Jackson: So the "Price of Admission," as he calls it, to a long-term, happy relationship might be expanding your horizons a bit? Olivia: Exactly. And he backs this up. He cites studies showing that couples who are willing to make what researchers call 'sexual transformations' for each other—trying new things, accommodating desires—report much higher levels of satisfaction and desire over the long term. Being GGG isn't just a favor to your partner; it actually strengthens the bond for both people. It’s his proactive solution to prevent the kind of despair that leads people to even consider cheating. Jackson: That makes a lot more sense. It’s less about sanctioning affairs and more about demanding a more honest and engaged form of monogamy. One that doesn't pretend desire just vanishes. Olivia: And this idea of being honest about what you want, even if it's messy, is the exact opposite of what he attacks in the political world. He goes after the hypocrisy of the closet.

Jackson: Okay, so he pivots from the bedroom to the Beltway. How does that connect? Olivia: The connection is honesty versus hypocrisy. In the book, he profiles what he calls the "four closet cases"—prominent, powerful men like former Senator Larry Craig or pastor Ted Haggard. These are men who built their careers on fiery anti-gay rhetoric, all while secretly being gay themselves. Jackson: The classic trope. Why do these men do it? Is it just self-loathing? Olivia: Savage argues it’s more cynical than that. It’s about power. They use homophobia as a shield to protect their own privilege and position. He tells the story of Ted Haggard, a hugely influential evangelical pastor. He was outed by a male escort in 2006. And the escort said he only did it because he was so disgusted by Haggard’s hypocrisy—preaching against gay people on Sunday, and paying for gay sex on Wednesday. Jackson: So the sin, in Savage's eyes, isn't being gay. It's the hypocrisy. Olivia: It's entirely the hypocrisy. And he argues that the foundation of this hypocrisy is the ridiculous idea that being gay is a "choice." This was a huge talking point for conservative politicians at the time, like Herman Cain during his presidential run. Jackson: The "choicers." The idea that you can just decide not to be gay. Olivia: Yes, and Savage finds this argument both infuriating and absurd. He points out the mountain of scientific evidence showing sexual orientation is biological. But then he deploys his signature weapon: satire. He issues what he calls the "Choicer Challenge." Jackson: What on earth is the "Choicer Challenge"? Olivia: It's brilliant. He challenges any of these "choicers" to simply choose to be gay for one year. Just one year. Give up their opposite-sex attractions, their relationships, their families, and live as a gay person. If it’s a choice, it should be easy. Of course, no one ever takes him up on it, because it instantly exposes the argument as a lie. It’s a lie designed to do one thing: justify discrimination. Jackson: Because if it's a choice, then you don't deserve civil rights protections. You can just "choose" to be straight and avoid the problem. Olivia: Exactly. It’s a political weapon. And Savage’s response is to turn that weapon back on them with logic and ridicule. He’s fighting these battles on all fronts—in the bedroom, in politics... but the book gets deeply personal too, right? I heard about this wild story involving a dinner party.

Olivia: Oh, it's one of the most incredible stories of political engagement I've ever read. He calls it "Bigot Christmas." Jackson: "Bigot Christmas"? You have to explain that. Olivia: So, after a public spat, Savage challenges Brian Brown—the president of the National Organization for Marriage, the country's leading anti-gay-marriage group—to a debate. But not in a sterile TV studio. He invites Brown to his house. For dinner. With his husband and his son. Jackson: He actually came? To their house? I can't even imagine the tension. Olivia: He did. And the book describes the scene perfectly. Savage's husband, Terry, is furious. He says his humanity and his family's validity are not up for debate. He initially refuses to be there. Their teenage son is mostly just annoyed he has to wear a collared shirt. They're cleaning the house like it's a holiday, hence "Bigot Christmas." Jackson: That is completely surreal. What happens when he arrives? Olivia: The initial small talk is painfully awkward, but they find these tiny slivers of common ground—they're both Catholic, they're both dads. But then the debate starts, and Savage goes for the jugular. Brown makes the standard arguments against gay marriage, often citing the Bible. So Savage challenges him directly on the Bible's moral authority. Jackson: How? Olivia: He brings up slavery. He reads passages from both the Old and New Testaments that explicitly condone and regulate slavery. His argument is devastatingly simple: If the Bible was so profoundly wrong on something as morally obvious as slavery, how can anyone claim it's an infallible guide to human sexuality? If your moral compass is broken on that, why should we trust it on this? Jackson: Wow. That’s a conversation-ender. How did Brown even respond? Olivia: He couldn't, really. The debate goes on for hours, even after the cameras stop rolling. But the real climax comes later. Terry, Savage's husband, comes back in. He listens for a while, getting more and more agitated as Brown continues to argue that his family is a threat to society. Finally, Terry just snaps. He looks at Brian Brown and says, "Get the fuck out of my house." Jackson: Whoa. That's the whole book in one scene, isn't it? The attempt at dialogue, the confrontation with immovable hypocrisy, and finally, drawing a line where tolerance ends. Olivia: It is. It’s the moment where the intellectual debate becomes a raw, human defense of one's own dignity. It’s not about winning an argument anymore; it’s about protecting your home and your family.

Jackson: So when you pull it all together, what's the central message of American Savage? It's so much more than just a book of essays. Olivia: Exactly. Savage's argument isn't just about being provocative. It's a fierce, consistent demand for honesty. Whether it's admitting your marriage isn't perfect, or that your political platform is built on a lie, or that your religious text has, in his words, "bullshit" in it. He believes the path to a better, "less evil" world is through brutal honesty, not polite hypocrisy. Jackson: It really makes you ask: where in our own lives are we choosing polite fictions over difficult truths? In our relationships, at work, in what we say we believe. Olivia: A powerful question. And it’s what makes the book so enduring. It’s not just about the specific political fights of 2013; it’s about that timeless, personal struggle. We'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Does Savage go too far, or is this the kind of honesty we need more of? Find us on our socials and let us know. Jackson: This is Aibrary, signing off.