Dan Savage started it.
He held a reader contest asking for a euphemistic definition for the term “Santorum”—yes, after you-know-who.
The winning answer (I warn you, this is gag-worthy):
“The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.”
Gross.
Then a bar in Brooklyn invented a cocktail called The Santorum. Not inspired by the politician himself, but by Savage’s reader-chosen definition.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you’re anywhere near Brooklyn, find your way to Pacific Standard and cozy up to the bar to taste The Santorum like Slate.com‘s Troy Patterson did. The drink itself doesn’t sound too bad: “[The bartender] listed the drink’s primary ingredients as Baileys Irish Cream and orange-flavored vodka.”
But I think I’ll stick with my plain old Stoli and soda.
How about you?
Are we taking our jokes about politicians just a little too far with gross-out tactics like these? Or does Rick Santorum deserve such backlash for his religion-based politics?
Photo courtesy of Dinner Series
I’m no santorum fan, -at all- but Dan Savage is a biphobic moron. I’m waiting for the day when someone better can take his influential role.
Also transphobic…..though recently he’s made an attempt not to make comments that are either trans or biphobic. He went from being a guy with a small readership to becoming a household name…well in certain households anyway….I think he’s had to get used to the more intensive scrutiny of what he says. Hopefully he’s also reconsidering a lot of the crap he’s assumed along the way…though I don’t hold out much hope for him actually changing his more hurtful opinions.
Damn, seriously? I know I should expect it given that I’ve come across it before, but intentional and heartfelt biphobia and transphobia (as opposed to stupid, thoughtless jokes) within the LGBT community always blindsides me. You’d think gay people would know better having been on the business end of homophobia.
“You’d think gay people would know better having been on the business end of homophobia.” I know right…but then you’d think you wouldn’t find any anti-Semitic African-Americans either by the same logic…ya know? Or anti-LGBT African-Americans for that matter…but you do. But yeah, somehow it’s even worse when it’s within the LGBT community considering it’s in the freaking name. Like…come on…our communities have been joined for a few decades now…get with the program. With regards to Dan Savage – yeah he’s made some choice remarks. But he’s also been the victim of an ill conceived glitter bombing (the second time… Read more »
Hahhaahaha! LOVE Dan Savage!
Although I love the original Dan Savage joke, from a technical perspective it is important to point out, we are all responsible for what turns up when someone Google’s our name.
There’s a great article written by a digital strategist on this issue: http://usefularts.us/2012/02/15/rick-santorum-seo-google-bomb/
Why not ask the MRM to come up with a euphamistic definition of the word “Obama”?
By the way, anal sex does not produce any such gory horror. Suggesting that it does is MORE homophobic than Santorum himself. Anal sex is no more messy than vaginal sex. If you are interested in why anal sex is not messy, look up the function of “rectum” in any anatomy book.
By the way, I was not suggesting that the author of this post is homophobic. I would prefer if she had been more aggressive in pointing out the obvious problems with Dan Savage’s sick “survey”, but that is a matter of strategy, not morality. The author is to be congratulated for identifying these disturbing goings-on.
Given the nature of the source (a gay satirical comic) I don’t think he was being homophobic.
What difference does the source make?
All the difference in the world: motivation. His intent was clearly to troll santorum (politician), not to spread disgust regarding gays.
The source of any comment provides part of context which we can use to derive meaning. If I were to use the term ‘dyke,’ for example…chances are I wasn’t being homophobic. If some random guy I met on the street called me a dyke, I’d take it to mean he was trying to insult me. Same word, different context. Same thing here.
“The source of any comment provides part of context which we can use to derive meaning ..”
Insert “intended” between derive & meaning. Santorum’s intent is also noble. So what? The result of both men’s actions are wrong and hurtful.
I wasn’t commenting on whether Santorum or Savage were right (or wrong) in their actions. I was explaining how the source of a comment (or action) informs the meaning behind that comment (action). Thus, because Savage is an out gay activist, we can determine that his actions (creating the definition of santorum) were not homophobic.
You asked how the source makes any difference…I answered.
You’re missing the point Zarat. But you should be commended for physiological and biological knowledge. What gives when suggesting to find a “euphemistic definition of the word ‘Obama’?”? What is the “intended” meaning for it? Are you so against being rude, and hurtful you will deem it wrong? Santorum is a public persona who has taking a stand against homosexuality in no unclear terms. He himself open himself -and the creativity of Mr. Savage- to this ridicule by equating some peoples’ personal choices with bestiality. I’m all for speaking out against injustices and such, but you cannot expect silence if… Read more »
Hahahaha! 😀 Yes! I don’t have any orange flavoured vodka, maybe cointreau or triple sec would do?
How about a virgin santorum anyone? Or a santorum on the rocks? Maybe if you up the vodka content you could have a flaming santorum?