Wasn’t “pegging” also from Savage Love? I don’t remember.
You seem to be the only one who has a problem with it… 
Yep, both “pegging” and “santorum” were the result of reader contests in his column.
Wait, that didn’t come out quite right…
It’s just sarcasm - I was confused by your question until I realized you simply hadn’t understood the sentence. There’s nothing opaque about it. He’s just snarkily saying, “Believe it or not, you don’t have the right to pass AIDS on to others at will. Whodathunkit?” It’s in reference to some criticism he got a few months back from advocates for people with HIV when he offered a thunderous condemnation of people being irresponsible when they know they’re infected with HIV. A few people decided to get all pissed off and read that as some sort of condemnation of the HIV-positive population in general.
Pegging? 
Women doing their boyfriends with strap-ons.
It seems to me roger’s question is not about Dan Savage’s take on it, but this:
In which case the answer is NO. But it’s a non-mainstream opinion that Savage has had to deal with as he gets letters from the whole spectrum of humanity (including the “stupid fucking morons” and “evil scumbags” Miller mentioned) and which he refutes eloquently. Not because it’s the common thinking in the gay community but because it’s a evil thought that deserves stamping out.
Putting my linguist’s hat on for a moment, the difficulty that this sentence presents has to do with the context - not just the immediate linguistic context (or ‘cotext’) but with knowledge of Savage’s previous columns (which many people here who don’t have a problem understanding this sentence acknowledge reading) and indeed of gay debates in general in the USA.
One aspect of the lexis used by the author that causes inferences to be generated is the use of the adjective ‘absolute’ in the phrase ‘an absolute right’. By writing that gays don’t have an absolute right to give other men HIV, the inference is made that they have some kind of right. Herein lies one source of confusion. Another is created by dint of the fact that Savage has already (for the first-time reader, such as myself) established himself as something of an iconoclast by means of his deliberate use of base language to shock, and also by his rather unexpected (for someone of a liberal persuasion) contention that “You” statements (normally seen as judgemental and to be avoided in liberal circles) should be adopted in the circumstances he is responding to.
Thus, much as I would like to be able to claim that I am unique in being in a situation where my understanding of the text is not aligned with some other readers’, I would be claiming too much!
Uh, what sort of linguistics do you have a degree in? This doesn’t strike me as anything related to linguistics.
Are you familiar with the rhetorical tool called “understatement”? Because I can’t imagine reading this any other way. It’s admittedly true that I read his column pretty religiously - perhaps I’m being unduly influenced by the context of it. But this seems clearly like understatement - of course no one has an absolute right to pass on HIV. That’s the point - it’s understatement to underscore the notion that the HIV-infected have a strong responsibility to not infect others.
You seem to be fond of making blanket statements - liberals do this, gay people do that. Why is that? I think that you have a very warped view of liberalism if your view of it is defined by the most mush-brained, marijuana-enhanced ravings of college liberals.
I’m not sure why you misread this - I really think that, while one needs to read it in a non-literal way as with many texts, the meaning was quite clear. Nevertheless, you misinterpreted it. That’s fine. You’ve been disabused of your notion. Why are you still making a big deal out of it? You misinterpreted a line in an online column.
I’m going to try hard to take you at face value, and assume that it was an innocent mistake when you suggested that most gay people have such shockingly amoral ideas about personal responsibility. Please stop making blanket assumptions about gay people and liberals until you learn enough to make slightly more accurate ones. You’re edging close to being very offensive again (as you did with your previous comments about gay men and anal sex). I’m not yet convinced that you have some sort of axe to grind in the matter, but I’m starting to suspect it more and more strongly.
Never mind theories of reading and pyscholinguistic research on inference generation, which may be debated elsewhere if wished, but I am concerned about your comments about my stance. Perhaps you could cite the offending words.
To answer your enquiry about my educational background, I have a BA (First Class Honours) in Linguistics from The University of Lancaster, a Masters in Apllied Linguistics from The University of Birmingham, and will very shortly (d.v.) receive my doctorate from Reading University for my thesis on critical discourse analysis, which you may or may not be familiar with. I’d ba happy to provide introductory readings if you’re interested.
I made myself as clear as I can. Again, I’m trying to provide you with the benefit of the doubt, but in your OP you imputed (or came close to it, anyway) a disgusting amorality to the queer community - you asked if the opinion of one newspaper columnist (which we now understand was the result of your misinterpretation) represented the views of the queer community as a whole. Surely you would think it was ridiculous if I read one column by Cal Thomas or one of the other lesser lights syndicated in the mainstream media and asked if his views were those of the entire “straight community”. In short, you seemed awfully ready to come to a sharply negative interpretation of Dan Savage’s words - when a simple, common rhetorical tool was at work. Then you seemed awfully ready to apply that negative idea to most gay people in general. Perhaps you think a sex columnist is considered an intellectual leader among queers - he’s not, though - but for you to even be willing to entertain the notion that most queers think it’s okay to pass AIDS on suggests to me that you have a very damning conception of queer people. Again, I would like to assume that I’m looking too hard at this - but in the past, I have not known you to be a strong defender of queer people.
Is critical discourse analysis normally considered to be under the umbrella of linguistics? I’m reasonably familiar with it, but it strikes me as far closer to literary criticism than to any of the linguistics I’ve studied. I don’t have much formal education in it - a few undergrad classes - but I’m strongly considering pursuing a masters in linguistics, though I couldn’t begin to decide what specifically to study.
Dan Savage was once my precinct committeeman to the Washington State Republican Party, back in 1996.
He joined the Party as a stunt because there are virtually no Republicans residing in this precinct (Seattle’s Capitol Hill), and he knew that he could automatically get a seat at the state convention. As I recall, he used the threat of showing up in drag and heels to get the Party to tone down some odious platform item.
Gotta love that fella’s guts.
You sound like you might be a bit disappointed with some of the stuff that passes for linguistics these days. Both your question and your comment are spot on: CDA owes much to two politically-motivated movements, critical linguistics of the 70s - mainly British and pioneered by linguists and literary theorists - and Michael Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (with an avowedly Marxist basis). For many years, Americans have shown their eminent good taste by largely avoiding CDA (largely because - like me - they were brought up on Chomsky), but recently figures such as James Paul Gee and Rebecca Rogers are picking up the baton from their transatlantic cousins, led by Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak (now both at Lancaster).
My thesis is a critique of CDA (that’s also its title). Here’s an extract to give a flavour of my concerns about the enterprise:
With regard to Savage’s column, when I first read the article a few days ago, I re-read the relevant part a couple of times, but couldn’t make sense of it. I’ve always believed that sarcasm is a weapon that can quite easily backfire (simply because lots of people won’t get it - for a whole variety of reasons). I think this sentence is a very good example of that. Perhaps it should be used in classes!
Re my having a damning conception of queer people, that’s the risk in terms of “other-perception” that I must take each time I write on the matter, in the view of the fact that (as documented elsewhere and as understood by among others you) I believe that homosexual activity is wrong.
If everything you do or say is geared towards converting me from that belief, then discussion will become sterile and futile. By the same token, I certainly would not try to convert you to my way of thinking.
If you believe that someone who holds the kind of views I hold is tainted by that in respect of other knowledge, insight or understanding he might possess, then that’s a problem in itself, but not I think a problem that cannot be overcome. If I might quote Karl Popper, who refers to this kind of thinking as the myth of the framework, which he states as:
Of course, he completely disagrees with this myth.
And now, I really must exercise a bit of self-discipline and go back to the tedious job of proofreading my magnum opus! I’ll be back to contimue the discussion later.
:: yawn ::
No offense. This sounds like the sort of post-modern, theory-drenched bullshit I run into far too often when I take sociology classes. I think it’s an intellectual game and bankrupt of any serious potential to contribute to the body of human knowledge. This - note - is my kneejerk response. I couldn’t make it through the essay quote, I’m afraid - I simply cannot read another text that uses the word “discourse” and take it seriously.
Again, your own experience may be very unusual. Part of gaining wisdom is recognizing that one’s own experience is occasionally very different from that of others.
I didn’t know that, but it’s certainly come through pretty clearly in what you’ve written. Clearly I was right - you were indeed attempting to prove some sort of amorality amongst queer people; I’m afraid, though, if you wish to prove something about queer people or “homosexual activity”, you’ll have to do better than just to prove we believe in a hedonistic disregard for morals.
If you expect me to do that, you assign yourself far too much importance. I couldn’t care less what you believe, but I apparently was quite accurate in ascertaining your attitudes from your writings without knowing them. That’s pretty strong evidence that these views color your views of queer culture and reduce your ability to honestly understand it.
Yet I was able to figure out your attitudes from your ‘analysis’ of Dan Savage’s writings.
Shocking.
Return to your Derrida and enjoy.
Wow. I didn’t know this. Not like I follow your posts terribly closely but I recall a few times when you’ve entertained me or been thought-provoking.
Sorry to hear you’re planning on clinging to ignorance like this.
I appreciate your willingness at the very least to refrain from spreading this particular bit of ignorance.
Damn straight!
Well, as kneejerk reactions go, not a bad one. And it’s a reaction I share, but I decided to do something about it. My “Critique of CDA”, which I have had to fight hard to get accepted as a doctoral level thesis, is my attempt to hold back the floods of bullshit and suggest alternative approaches to text analysis.
You might (hope you’re still reading this…!) be interested to know that when I submitted an initial paper to a journal (that study - essentially a case study - has been incorporated into my thesis) 7 years ago, the two reviewers absolutely panned it. One said that I was a “clone” of a well-known figure in the field, while the other (Tweedledee) said the only value of my paper lay in its possible use as an example to his students of how not to do research! To his eternal credit, the 75 year-old editor of the journal (Journal of Pragmatics) wrote to me to say that he had most unusually in light of the bitterness of the comments decided to read the paper himself, and though he disagreed with my political stance, that was irrelevant, and he thought the paper itself was interesting. So he put it in. That’s why I’m dedicating my thesis to him.
I’m mortified - that’s the result of 46 years of accumulated thinking, reading, criticism, writing and discussion! (Bloody long essay too - at 100,000 words)
We have much in common. I hate the word too. But (see above) I decided to contest it, appropriate it and fight back. (I’m a bit of a closet liberal really, aren’t I?!)
I’m not saying that homosexuals are amoral, and I don’t believe that. What I do believe is that some of them (the trend-setting leading thinkers and writers, especially) want to have it both ways. "We’re like everyone else, we don’t want to be treated no different, (but, yes, we’re all brilliant, sensitive, high-income, etc. etc. ad nauseam).
Never knowingly read a word by him, though that has not stopped me of course in time-honoured academic fashion from citing him! (i.e. mediated through other authors)
I think you had an axe to grind in asking what you did. And now I think you’re making unsupported assertions about a group of people who you have very little knowledge or understanding of, per past discussions. I’m afraid I don’t think your revelations have much value, especially when uncoupled from evidentiary reasoning.
Unfortunately, queer theory is an area of academia (along with gender studies) so heavily drenched in said post-modern bullshit that I am quite unfamiliar with it, and quite unwilling to become familiar. However, outside of the purely academic world (and I would challenge any queer theorist’s credentials as an important figure in the mind of the regular day-to-day gay person on the street.)
Research shows, incidentally, that gay people tend to be poorer than straight people - lesbians in particular, though in their case most of the difference is the result of not having a higher-income male in the household. Gay men, too, are more likely to occupy marginal social positions - the transient and homeless populations are disproportionately likely to be composed of sexual minorities of all stripes. This adds up to a situation far different from the Will and Grace portrayal of the handsome, successful, wealthy gay man. I’m not sure how much of that mythology is particular to gay people or whether it’s more of an overall societal belief; it’s hard to step outside my own academic knowledge of the area to guess at the average queer’s views.
Does that mean I don’t have to feel guilty when I do that?
(My emphasis)
So you don’t mind homosexuality per se, you merely object to the sexual practices of homosexuals? What a bizarre distinction. Would you object to the same practices between a man and a woman (eg anal, oral and manual sex)?
If it wasn’t apparent I was limiting my comments to men, I do that now.
I don’t doubt that male homosexuality has a kind of caste system that contributes to this situation, in addition to the causal fator of societal disaffiliation.
This particular line of mythic discourse is spread on this board by gay men. A number of times different people have referred to such things as gay men earning more than straight men and achieving more in their chosen fields. I’d have thought sexual orientation had nothing to do with such things.