Santorum Runs

...class="savage_question">Did she have sex? Now, I think any time you have an orgasm you’ve had sex, and if someone else is present, even if they’re clothed, you definitely had sex. My wife’s view is that since he never got his clothes off and she never saw his cock, she really didn’t have sex. We would like your opinion on this. Definition Essential For Intensely Novel Experience Let’s say you and I met in a bar, DEFINE, while the wife was out of town, and we hit it off. And let’s say I took you home, stripped you naked, made out with you, sucked your dick, ate your ass, spanked you, tossed you in a sling, fist-fucked you, and then—with my right arm buried up to my elbow in your ass—slowly stroked you with my left hand until you blew a massive load all over your stomach, chest, and face. Now let’s say I taped the whole thing and e-mailed a copy to your wife. I think it’s highly unlikely that your wife would turn to you after watching the video—remember: I don’t get naked, you never see my dick—put a hand on your knee, and say, “Well, I’m glad you didn’t have sex with Dan Savage.” Your wife clearly regrets going to that guy’s room; she regretted the moment she came, just as you would probably regret going home with me. These feelings prompt her to round this experience down to Not Sex, to minimize it, to exclude it from her sexual history on a technicality: He didn’t get naked, she didn’t get fucked. Your wife can attempt to rationalize away the sex she had in that dorm, DEFINE, but she had sex with that guy—and that guy’s vibrator—whether she wants to admit it or not. I’m writing to you to let you know that a huge fan and reader of your column has been in a coma since September 5. He had a bad motorcycle accident and has a severe brain injury. His name is Jon Broom, and he’s my boyfriend, the love of my life, and my best friend. Even though he still hasn’t woken up, I’ve been reading your columns out loud to him so that he never misses one. I know you’re a busy man, but I thought I’d take a chance and ask if you could pass on his Facebook support group at “Get Well Jon” in one of your columns (www.tinyurl.com/m3ngc3). I think it would be awesome for him to look back and see your column when he wakes up and is able to function again. We appreciate your writings and support for the people who ask for your advice. Here’s to hope, faith, and community. Penny Kim Oh, Penny, I’m so sorry. Best wishes for a full and speedy recovery. If you’re on Facebook—and who isn’t?—please join Jon’s support group. I just had to share with you my first reaction to reading this headline: “Santorum dips toes in 2012 Iowa waters.” My first thought was “Ewwww,” followed quickly by “Is that even possible?” After all, santorum is something that is dipped into, not something that can dip. And then I remembered that before “santorum” meant santorum it actually designated a person, a senator. But it took me a few seconds. Congratulations on a job well done. I expect I am not the only one who had this moment of cognitive dissonance upon reading this headline. A Faithful Reader Ben Smith at Politico reported last Tuesday that Republican former U.S. senator Rick Santorum plans to run for president. Political Wire linked to Smith’s post and added that “Santorum has a serious Google problem.” Truthdig linked to Political Wire’s post and spelled out Santorum’s Google problem: “The former senator’s rampant homophobia inspired sex columnist Dan Savage to launch a campaign to usurp the conservative’s name. The result: If you type ‘Santorum’ into Google, you’ll find that it refers not to a former senator, but ‘that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.'” From uppercase Santorum to lowercase santorum—in just three links. And who deserves the credit? Not me. The credit is yours, dear readers. It’s thanks to you that SpreadingSantorum.com—a blog that I haven’t updated since July of 2004—remains the number-one hit on Google when you search “Santorum.” It was a Savage Love reader who first suggested that we usurp Rick Santorum’s name, another Savage Love reader who suggested the “frothy mixture” definition, and Savage Love readers who chose the winning definition in a free and fair election. Well done, gang. We can’t take credit for Santorum losing his seat in the U.S. Senate to Bob Casey by 18 points. That was Rick’s doing. But we helped to make him ridiculous—there were so many headlines during his failed reelection campaign with “froth” or “frothy” in them. And for a politician, being an object of ridicule is a problem, which is why SpreadingSantorum.com and the “frothy mixture” definition of santorum are going to be a problem for Santorum. “Maybe it’s time to start updating Spreading Santorum.com again,” writes Savage Love reader P.B., “now that Rick is running for president.” I couldn’t agree more, P.B., but I’m a busy guy. Back when I was writing for Spreading Santorum.com, I had only the column on my plate. Now I blog every day on Slog, I do a podcast, I’ve got a bad case of talking headism, and I’m working on another book. I don’t have the time to give SpreadingSantorum.com the attention it needs. But maybe some Savage Love readers do? If SpreadingSantorum.com is going to remain Google’s top hit when you search “santorum”—and it should—then the site needs to come back to life. So I’m looking for a few folks who want to torment Rick Santorum by following every twist and turn of his sure-to-be-disastrous run for the White House on SpreadingSantorum.com. (I may dip in every once in a while and post myself.) It would be labor of love—read: a nonpaying gig—but you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that you’re driving Rick Santorum and his supporters absolutely batshit (batshittier?). If you think you’re the right person for this gig—if you think you’re right for Spreading Santorum.com—write me at mail@savagelove .net. [email protected]