- Australia’s first same-sex marriages attract widespread supportPosted 16 hours ago
- Madonna’s continued support for gay RussiaPosted 2 days ago
- Bingham Cup takes pride of place in ARU trophy cabinetPosted 2 days ago
- Nelson Mandela – a leader in LGBTI rights & AIDS awarenessPosted 2 days ago
- A balancing act with a differencePosted 2 days ago
- Prisoner star joins the partyPosted 2 days ago
- Equal Love banner attracts unwanted attentionPosted 2 days ago
- A pucking cute Christmas videoPosted 3 days ago
- From the diving pool to the cabaret stagePosted 3 days ago
- Calling condom-free sex “fucking stupid” is stigmatisingPosted 3 days ago
Men are pigs according to Dan Savage
American sex advice columnist and gay rights advocate Dan Savage has brought discussion of gay hook-up apps to the national stage in an appearance on the ABC’s Q&A on Monday night, endorsing them because “they’re very popular with gay men because gay men are men and men are pigs”.
Responding to an audience question about whether gay hook-up apps “normalise a culture of instant gratification”, Savage defended apps such as Grindr.
“We need these apps because we have said that it is not okay to hit on people at work, that it is not okay to walk up to somebody on the bus and the street and ask them for their phone number,” Savage said.
“We’ve defined these things, rightly so to make the world safer for women, as sexual harassment. So we need these places that when you enter them you are saying, you may approach me.”
Savage’s response prompted host Tony Jones to ask for an explanation of the phenomenon for the broader audience.
Savage also attracted laughs from the audience when he argued against moral puritanism, saying: “I give a wicked blowjob.”
Marriage equality was a topic of discussion, with Savage arguing the legal framework and protections provided by marriage was a necessity for minority communities.
Feminist and academic Germain who also appeared on the show argued against Savage’s position that marriage as an institution has moved beyond a foundation of power imbalance, saying it should be rejected.