STRUGGLE SESSION: Maybe Don’t Do The Thing?

...ld Trump came down that fucking escalator and, as Dem U.S. Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow lamented on The Bulwark, Democrats still don’t have a slogan that fits on a hat. I floated a proposal at the top of last week’s show — DO THE THING — and the reviews are in! And they’re mixed! “Do The Thing” got lots of fire and clapping hands emojis on Instagram and Fake Kristin jumped on BlueSky to say… #dothething — works well as a hashtag, too! I think it’s a good one! …but Lovecast listeners weren’t as into the idea. Says Joe the Slogan Man… “Do The Thing” requires too much explanation. And Trump is doing plenty of things. Terrible things. How about “Save Democracy?” Um… wasn’t saving democracy what Kamala Harris ran on? And lost? It was: “Harris Asked Voters to Protect Democracy. Here’s Why It Didn’t Land.” So, while I personally think saving democracy was a great reason to vote for Harris, a majority of my fellow Americans obviously didn’t agree. So, looks like we’re gonna have to come up with (and run on) something else. Says BiDanFan… Hat idea: “Make America Sane Again!” Lots of post-election analysis — the ultimate Monday-morning quarterbacking — has focused on the trap Democrats found themselves in last year: defending the status quo — defending institutions and norms — at a time when voters were deeply unhappy with the status quo. We’re gonna need to figure out how to attract enough “flip the table” voters to start winning elections again… and I don’t think promising to restore America to sanity (read: promising to return us the pre-Trump status quo) is how we do that. We need to promise to flip the table ourselves — in a different (and hopefully better) direction. Says Steve McClean… “Do The Thing” is also too similar to “Do Nothing” which is what the Democrats are being accused of in this moment. The best hat-worthy slogan I’ve seen is actually already available on a hat: “Freedom • Democracy • Truth.” That doesn’t create a nice acronym but it sums it up nicely for me. Says NoCuteName… “The thing” that people are being exhorted to “do” could be almost anything. What if a MAGA-person hears Do the Thing and assumes it means, say, try to assassinate a Democratic governor and kill his family? What if do the thing suggests calling ICE on a neighbor you don’t like who has a Latin-sounding last name? Any political message that fits on a hat is open to interpretation. (Did Republican voters in 1952 like Ike? Or did they like like Ike?) Someone running for president from the left in 2016 — someone like Bernie Sanders — could’ve campaigned on a promise to “Make America Great Again” by bringing back 1950s unionization levels and 1960s top marginal tax rates. But it was Trump who put “Make American Great Again” on a hat, and it was Trump who got to define what that slogan meant. Once Dems figure out what to put a fucking hat — once Dems come up with a slogan — Dems can get out there and define what our slogan means. But we are talking about a slogan here… not a platform. Unless we’re going to go with a hat that looks like this (and we really shouldn’t), whatever winds up on our hat is going to be open to open to interpretation. Some other Dem slogan suggestions from commenters: “Keep America’s Promise” (Delta35), “Give a Damn!” (Gunnar), “Love Your Neighbor” (Thingamajig), “We’re All In This Together” (Red Blonde), “Make Lives Better!” (NoCuteName), “Make America Work for Everyone!” (Dimples and Dumples), “Do Big Things!” (Generalist). I still like my own suggestion — unsurprisingly — but “Get Shit Done!” (Tim) is my first runner-up. A helpful reminder from Life Is Terminal… @dansavage.bsky.social Love ya Dan! [image or embed] — Life is Terminal (@mc-mac.bsky.social) April 16, 2025 at 10:00 PM My response to Q#3 in last month’s Quickies let Gendun down… I’m genuinely astonished that Dan Savage, who, in thirty years of reading, I have rarely seen encounter a fetish, kink, or quirk so obscure that he didn’t know about it, say he knows “nothing about” tantra, which is an important tradition of meditation that sometimes involves sexual visualizations or (rarely) actual sexual activity, and which dates back at least 1200 years. Obviously, when he says he “knows nothing” about something that most high school students have heard about, he’s saying “I am studiously disinterested in it.” That is just so strange. It’s one thing to not be into neo-tantra à la Sting, it’s another to show no interest in a unique, important, and extremely old cultural engagement with sexuality that has left a deep influence on the religious cultures of Hinduism and Buddhism. Have you no intellectual curiosity, Dan? I do! I mean, ask me about the Hanoverian Succession or the housing crisis — two topics that have nothing to do with human sexuality — and I have a lot to say. (Actually, the Hanoverians — unlike the Tudors and Stuarts — were pretty fucking good at fucking and most people prefer to fuck inside, so both topics arguably touch on human sexuality.) But as intellectually curious as I am about sex and sexuality, I’ve never been curious about tantra and/or tantric sex practices. Perhaps my childhood — I was raised religious — left me with an aversion to “smells and bells” and mantras and chakras alike. But luckily for Q#3 — luckily for everyone — I’m not the only source of information about human sexuality. And, hey, if I only managed to let you down once in thirty years, Gendun, that’s a pretty good batting average, right? Says Thingamajig… Regarding the last caller and Dan’s continuing incredulity at people who demand monogamy but won’t have sex with their partners either, I think it often comes down to this: For some people the point of monogamy is the sacrifice their partner is making. I want you to prove you love me by agreeing not to have sex with any of the other eight billion people on the planet. If then I cut you off, you’re not having sex with eight billion and one people. Mama Rose said it best: That’s peachy for some people — for some hum-drum people — but some people ain’t me. Says NoCuteName about the same call… I lose all patience with problems like those the caller articulated when they’re articulated the way the caller does it, and Dan’s response. It’s unthinkable, the thinking seems to go, that someone should go without sex for years on end or the rest of their life because sex has — for whatever reason, including pain — become intolerable to their partner. I mean, monks do without; the vast majority of prisoners aren’t able to get their “needs met” via any other means than masturbation; incels — the non-murderous ones — manage to somehow live without having partnered sex; and as I and all my single, menopausal female friends would attest, sometimes other factors determine that one has no or little choice but to go without fulfilling, partnered sex. And yet somehow, the world goes on. Believe it or not, some of us manage to find a scrap or two of happiness, nevertheless. But the conventional thinking here in Savageland seems to be that going without sex is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and virtually any other arrangement is preferable. There’s a lot more to NoCuteName’s comment — there’s more to NoCuteName’s critique (which NCN revised in response to feedback from other commenters) — and you can and should take a moment to read the whole thing here. I’ll just say this: I know people can live happily without sex — which is why, when the topic of sexless relationships comes up on the show, I almost always take a moment to acknowledge the existence and validity of companionate partnerships/marriages. A sexless relationship is only a problem if one or both partners are unhappily sexless. But I’m not going to budge from this position: no one is obligated to have sex they don’t wanna have — or sadly can’t have — but no one has a right to decide that another person’s sex life has come to an end. Okay, here’s a question that I’m not going to use in the column… I’m a cis queer woman who was married to a man five years ago. Then I realized I was queer and that I loved women — and that churchy shame kept me from going for what I wanted — and so I got a divorce and I’ve been having a blast exploring my sexuality ever since. After my divorce, I moved to a progressive place, got on the apps because I was ready to date ALL the women. To my surprise, most of the women who’ve approached me have been trans! By a lot! I’ve dated about nine trans women and one cis woman since my divorce. I’ve really struggled to get cis women to meet IRL. Seems like cis women just want to chat forever. But I’m horny, and I’m not getting any younger, and I want to have fun now and make up for lost time. Most of the trans women I’ve met want to hook up after a date or two, and I’ve had a blast with all of them. Will I ever be able to have the same kinds of connections with cis women? I’ve met so many amazing trans people, I know I can be happy dating and fucking them. I guess I thought cis women would trust other women more. Are cis women OK? This One Precious Life  P.S. Humble brag (LOL): I’ve dated women 25 years younger since my divorce and more than kept up! Life is fun! Any advice for TOPL? Drop it in the comments…