Skip to main content

Dan Savage Sounds Off On Gay Sex Vs. Straight Sex, Monogamy And More In Playboy

12/11/2014    The Huffington Post   By

Outspoken lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocate Dan Savage opens up about straight sex vs. gay sex in a new interview with Playboy magazine.

“Male sexuality is crazy, perverse,” Savage tells Playboy’s David Sheff. “Straight men would do everything gay men do if straight men could, but straight men can’t, because women won’t. Female sexual reserve acts as a check on straight men’s ability to spin out of control sexually.”

He went on to note, “My point of view has always been that straight people need to have more sex and more sex partners than they do, and gay people need to have fewer sex partners than they can.” And while he believes it’s “hard for straight guys to get laid,” he nonetheless added, “I don’t think women are naturally any less horny.”

Savage, 50, also spoke at length about a number of intimate topics, his well-known opposition to monogamy among them.

“If your partner won’t f**k you, one person doesn’t have the right to unilaterally declare another person’s sex life over,” he said. “We’re not natural monogamists … Then why in so many cultures — Judeo-Christian, Islamic — is adultery a death penalty offense? What species has to be threatened with death to do that which comes naturally?”

Savage didn’t mince words when it came to Dr. Laura (“Dr. Laura is a vile piece of sh*t”) or former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (“F**k you and f**k your pity, Mike Huckabee”).

To read the full Playboy interview with Savage, head here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/dan-savage-playboy-interview_n_6310844.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

Playboy Interview with Dan Savage

12/11/2014    Playboy    By David Sheff

In pre-1960s America, if you had questions about sex (Is masturbation cheating? What’s a butterfly flick? Butter or margarine?), you were at the mercy of your friends, who probably knew less than you did. Then came the sexual revolution with its free-flowing sex advice, some of it accurate. We like to think the Playboy Advisor column, as it reassured, instructed and entertained several generations of men, gave birth to a genre that thrives today.

One of the most read and most controversial sex columnists working now is Dan Savage, whose Savage Love column is syndicated in more than 50 newspapers around the world. Savage also dispenses his hilarious and sage advice in best-selling books, podcasts and blogs, as well as a smartphone app. And he’s gay, but the majority of his readers are straight. “His columns answer a Chaucerian panorama of correspondents,” according to Washington Monthly. “Gay Mormons, incestuous siblings, weight-gain fetishists, men yearning to be cuckolded and otherwise ordinary Americans grappling with an extraordinary range of problems and proclivities.”

Along with his unconventional sex advice, Savage is known for his advocacy of LGBT rights, including gay marriage. He has frequently appeared as a liberal pundit on CNN, Real Time With Bill Maher and The Colbert Report. And he has been repeatedly attacked, even condemned, by conservative politicians, media pundits and clergy. Savage hasn’t been reluctant to fight back against those he deems homophobic and dangerous. After Rick Santorum compared homosexuality to bestiality, Savage announced a contest to redefine the word santorum. The winning definition—which he explains in this interview—continues to plague the former senator, who is reportedly exploring another presidential run in 2016.

Savage, 50, was born in Chicago, where his father was a police officer and his mother a homemaker. He now lives in Seattle with his husband, Terry Miller. They married in Canada in 2005 and renewed their vows in 2012, following the legalization of gay marriage in Washington. The couple has an adopted son, DJ, who has come out of the closet to Savage and Miller—as straight.

In September 2010, prompted by the suicide of a teenager who had been bullied because classmates thought he was gay, Savage and Miller created the It Gets Better project. They made a video in which they speak to gay kids who are isolated and feeling hopeless. They posted it online and encouraged others to follow suit. “The idea was simple,” Savage explains in American Savage: Insights, Sights and Fights on Faith, Sex, Love and Politics, his latest best-seller. “There were LGBT kids out there who couldn’t picture futures with enough joy in them to compensate for the pain they were in now. We wanted to offer them encouragement.” The It Gets Better project currently has more than 60,000 videos. Celebrities and politicians, including President Barack Obama, have contributed.

At a time when support for gay marriage is increasing, gay sports stars are coming out of the closet and more openly gay members are serving in Congress, we asked Contributing Editor David Sheff, whose last interview for us was with the Chinese artist-dissident Ai Weiwei, to meet with Savage. Sheff says that when he arrived to begin the interview, Savage admitted he was nervous about speaking to Playboy, thought by some to be a bastion of heterosexuality. “But he quickly relaxed,” Sheff says. “Soon he was animated, speaking passionately, emotionally, vividly and hilariously about a wide range of subjects. Clearly he warmed up to talking to Playboy, as evidenced by a text he sent soon after the interview’s conclusion. “I forgot to say one thing,” he wrote. “I have lusted in my heart.”


PLAYBOY: According to the Playboy Advisor, the number one question sex columnists are asked is “Am I normal?” What’s behind the obsession with normalcy?

SAVAGE: Even though everyone has non-normative desires—variance is the norm, in fact—people are terrified by what they think and want. When you ask people what they see in their minds when they imagine two people having normal sex, they say the missionary position, vaginal intercourse and husband and wife, with the intention of making a baby. How rare is that? That’s freaky shit right there. That is not normal.

PLAYBOY: If the non-normal is normal, why do people need to be reassured?

SAVAGE: Sex negativity is imposed on us by religion, parents and a culture that can’t deal with sex. We pretend sex doesn’t interest us, while the culture is sexually obsessed. I also think sex negativity is hardwired into the human experience. You’re born with it, because when you’re a kid, prepuberty, sex is this fucked-up thing grown-ups do. When you hear about it, you think, Creepy, gross. Like, oh my God, you adults do whaaaat? Then you hit puberty and the riptide pulls you out; you get sucked under by this thing you swore you’d never do. It’s terrifying. That’s why people are plagued by their desires and why they need to be constantly reassured. They never wanted to get into that ocean, and they’re suddenly drowning. Your dick or your pussy seizes control of your brain and tells you who’s really in charge.

PLAYBOY: What’s the root of religious conservatism about sex?

SAVAGE: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and almost every other faith have constantly tried to insert themselves between your genitals and your salvation, because then they can regulate and control you. Then you need them to intercede with God, so they target your junk and stigmatize your sexual desire. If you have somebody by the balls or the ovaries, you’ve got them.

PLAYBOY: And then you come along, telling us that when it comes to sex, anything goes.

SAVAGE: I don’t say anything goes. I don’t believe all sexual expression is good. Sex is powerful, and you must approach it thoughtfully, because it can destroy you.

PLAYBOY: Destroy us how?

SAVAGE: Sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancy, partner violence. It’s why we need comprehensive, responsible, kink-inclusive, queer-inclusive sex education for all kids.

PLAYBOY: Did your parents talk to you about sex?

SAVAGE: When my brothers and sisters were teenagers and having their first relationships, my parents were all over them. “Who are you going out with?” “Where are you going?” “I want to meet this person.” My sister was sexually active, as I was, in high school—sorry, Laura, I hope your son doesn’t read this—and she could go to my mom and say, “My boyfriend is saying ‘If you loved me, you wouldn’t make me use a condom,’ ” and Mom could blow up and yell at her boyfriend if he was stupid enough to show his face at our house. When I had a boyfriend at 16, I couldn’t rely on my mom to vet this shit. I wasn’t out to her at that point, so I couldn’t confide in her at all, which is a problem for a lot of queers. They fly blind into adult relationships.

PLAYBOY: With what result?

SAVAGE: You’re 15 and watching your siblings have relationships, and you want to have a boyfriend too. But because their age-appropriate boyfriend targets aren’t out yet, a lot of young gay kids date older people, which is a recipe for potential disaster. My first boyfriend when I was a teenager was 28, and he was a wonderful guy and good for me. But the odds that it might be an exploitative relationship are that much higher.

PLAYBOY: If not your parents, was there an equivalent of Dan Savage you could go to for sex advice?

SAVAGE: I read Xaviera Hollander, the Happy Hooker, her Call Me Madam column. She took questions about kinky sex, crazy sex, bi sex, BDSM, and was so unfazed. She gave advice that was constructive, not judgmental.

PLAYBOY: What do you think of others in the media who offer sex advice? How about Dr. Laura?

SAVAGE: Dr. Laura is a vile piece of shit.

PLAYBOY: Dr. Phil?

SAVAGE: He’s part of the advice-industrial Oprah complex. I’m not a big fan of telling women that when their husband looks at porn it’s a form of cheating. That’s what you say if you want to drive the divorce rate up even higher than it is.

PLAYBOY: What do you tell a woman whose husband looks at porn?

SAVAGE: He’ll pretend not to look, you pretend to believe him, and then give him some credit for covering his tracks if he does so successfully. If you stumble over evidence once in a great while, then you repay his courtesy of covering his tracks most of the time by ignoring it.

PLAYBOY: What impact does the availability of limitless porn online have on kids as they grow up?

SAVAGE: A lot of girls have the expectation that they’ll have to do all these things they see in porn, whether they want to or not. And it weighs on the boys too that they’ll have to perform all these acts. It’s as big a stressor for boys as it is for girls. They see these 20-inch dicks and rock-hard abs and all that. I tell my son, “You have to be careful when you look at porn. A lot of porn is for men who can’t get laid, who can’t get girlfriends. A lot of porn is created for angry men.” Kids see porn and think that’s what sex is. So we have to say to boys and girls what the right-wing fundamentalist fucktards won’t say, which is that other kinds of sex are normal and at your ages it might be better to masturbate together. That oral sex is less risky. That a lot of what adults do isn’t vaginal intercourse. That everyone doesn’t have a 20-inch dick. It can lift the burden from them. But parents don’t talk about sex at all with their kids. It’s hard talking about sex with a teenager. My son doesn’t want to hear it from me or anyone else, but you have to meddle. You have to say, “You can roll around and jerk off. That’s a lot of what adults do.”

PLAYBOY: What impact has the internet had on the kinds of questions people ask you about sex?

SAVAGE: Before the internet came along I used to get a lot of “What’s a butt plug?” “How do I do…whatever?” Those were easy columns to write, but now butt plugs are on fucking Wiki pages, so I get questions about situational ethics.

PLAYBOY: What are the differences between what men and women ask?

SAVAGE: I get a lot of questions from young women who don’t know what men really are, because they’ve been lied to all their lives. “He looks at porn and it makes me feel I’m not enough for him.” “He checks out girls on the street and it makes me feel I’m not enough for him.” I write them back and say, “You aren’t enough for him, and he’s not enough for you either.” Girls who are smart about that shit aren’t writing me questions about why they feel they’re not enough for their boyfriends. They know they’re not. Why isn’t making the sacrifice to be monogamous considered to be nobler than this myth of effortless monogamy that’s a result of love and passion?

PLAYBOY: Why is a sacrifice nobler?

SAVAGE: You’re told that if you’re in love, you won’t want to fuck other people. But if you’re in love, why do you have to make a monogamous commitment at all? It should be implicit and understood. So I get a lot of questions from women like “I’m not enough for him and he wants a three-way. What should I do?” I get questions from men about how to talk their girlfriends into having three-ways.

PLAYBOY: And your answer?

SAVAGE: You ask. I say you ask for a three-way, and if that’s important to you and she’s not up for it, maybe you aren’t right for each other. I tell people to communicate. Put your needs out there, and if they reject you, then you know you’re not compatible. You need to keep putting your needs out there until you find either somebody who’s willing to meet your needs because they take pleasure in the pleasure they’re giving you or somebody whose needs are a close enough fit with your needs. The problem with some of the advice out there is that people are told they should never do anything in bed that they don’t want to do. That’s bullshit.

PLAYBOY: Are you saying people should do whatever their partner wants them to do?

SAVAGE: You should never do anything in bed that scars you. You should never do anything in bed that leaves you curled up in the fetal position on the floor crying afterward. But yes, we should tell people they have to be whores for each other. You shouldn’t be an ingrate or a dick or selfish, but we should tell people who are in sexless relationships and who aren’t doing what their partner wants, “You bought the dairy, so milk the fucking cow. If you don’t milk it, it’s going to find somebody else to milk it.”

PLAYBOY: What if someone asks what their partner wants and doesn’t like the answer?

SAVAGE: It happens all the time. Young women write me that they pressed and pressed their boyfriends to share their secret fantasies with them and then were terrified when they found out what those fantasies were—when it’s not “I want to fill the bed with rose petals and light a thousand tea candles in the bedroom.” That’s not a male fantasy. Girls tell me about Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice and romantic comedies and all that bullshit. I always tell my female young-adult readers, “Careful. If you press him about his fantasy, you’re much likelier to hear ‘a three-way with you and your sister’ than ‘a trip to Paris.’ ” Male sexuality is crazy, perverse. Men are testosterone-pickled dick monsters. We just are.

PLAYBOY: What if she doesn’t want to have a three-way with her sister?

SAVAGE: It depends how badly he wants it. If that’s what he wants and you don’t want to do it, maybe he should find someone who does, and you should find someone whose fantasies are more in line with yours.

PLAYBOY: What are some of the most surprising questions you’ve received over the years?

SAVAGE: The ones that surprise me are from people who want my blessing to do things that are just absolutely, positively wrong. People who think intergenerational sex—I mean fucking kids—is okay. Or fucking dogs. I have a complicated relationship with bestiality. The standard argument against it doesn’t logically hold up. “An animal can’t consent.” Well, I’m wearing a leather belt. I know that if I were a sheep, I’d rather be screwed than stewed. Still, I think it’s wrong and people shouldn’t do it.

PLAYBOY: How often do people—we imagine it would mostly be men—complain about the infrequency of sex in their relationships?

SAVAGE: Actually, I get letters from women who are distraught because they had fun, inventive, active sex lives with their husbands until they had children, and then their husbands saw them as just moms and couldn’t see them as sex objects anymore. But that doesn’t mean the men don’t want to have sex. Straight men would do everything gay men do if straight men could, but straight men can’t, because women won’t. If I told straight men there was a park with all these women from the ages of 18 to 60, some of them insanely hot, some of them average, all of whom want to fuck you and don’t want to know your name or your phone number and never want to see you again, that park would be full of straight men tomorrow. Not all gay men go to those parks. Not all straight men would go either, but many, many would.

PLAYBOY: Have you?

SAVAGE: I’ve never been to a bathhouse. I’ve never had sex in a bush. That doesn’t interest me, but gay guys do do that. Female sexuality is different, whether you believe sexual reserve and caution are biological or cultural or some combo of the two, which is what I believe. The risks of being sexually active fall disproportionately on women’s shoulders. Sexually transmitted infections are easier to pass from male to female. If she gets pregnant, that’s all on her, particularly if it’s an anonymous encounter. She’s vulnerable to intimate-partner violence, to rape. When straight men complain that women aren’t up for anything, I always write back and say, “Well, tackle the rape problem and maybe more women will be. Tackle the intimate-partner violence thing.” Female sexual reserve acts as a check on straight men’s ability to spin out of control sexually. The challenge gay men have—and I wish there was more HIV-AIDS education about this—is to find inside ourselves that check that straight men have imposed on them externally, or we can spin out of control sexually and destroy ourselves, which is what we did [during the AIDS crisis]. You can fuck yourself to death, and we shouldn’t do that again. My point of view has always been that straight people need to have more sex and more sex partners than they do, and gay people need to have fewer sex partners than they can. It’s just hard for straight guys to get laid. Pussy is hard to get, and it’s hard to get because of disease, pregnancy and violence. I don’t think women are naturally any less horny.

PLAYBOY: After a point, do things other than sex become more important for couples? Friendship? Love?

SAVAGE: They say your priorities are out of whack if you look at an otherwise serviceable, decent, loving relationship and think, Well, the sex isn’t there; I have to end this. You do have to end it if you’re going to have a sexually exclusive relationship and the sex sucks. But if you’ve been married 20 years and the sex has died, but you love each other, are good parents and partners together, or two extended families have been knit together and there’s shared property, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to stay together and fuck other people. How is that not a marriage? That’s more of a traditional marriage than this idea that marriage is supposed to be a lifelong fuck-fest passionathon. We know that the longer you’re together, passion dissipates and fades. There may be sex and it may be regular, but it will be less intense, and you may miss that intensity. The only way to get that is with other people. The research into sexless marriages seems to indicate that women have the low libidos, but it’s not that they don’t want to have sex. They just don’t want to have sex with their husbands. How do you fix that? Well, a lot of what you hear in polyamorous circles and from swingers is that as soon as you start having sex with other people, you also start fucking your spouse more; you desire your spouse more when your spouse doesn’t represent the end of novelty and adventure. One of the beefs conservative assholes have with gay male couples is that we’re less monogamous. I like to think we’re more likely to be successfully not monogamous. By the way, lesbian couples are more likely to be monogamous than heterosexuals or gay men.

PLAYBOY: Bottom line, do you advocate cheating for men and women who are bored?

SAVAGE: Sometimes. Better to do what you need to do to stay married and stay sane. If your partner won’t fuck you, one person doesn’t have the right to unilaterally declare another person’s sex life over.

PLAYBOY: But you said a partner’s refusal to have the sex one of them wants could be a deal breaker, that that’s when you realize you’re in the wrong relationship.

SAVAGE: Sometimes, but there are situations when the least worst option is cheating. We’re not natural monogamists. People argue that we are. Then why in so many cultures—Judeo-Christian, Islamic—is adultery a death penalty offense? What species has to be threatened with death to do that which comes naturally?

PLAYBOY: Okay. So you cheat to save your marriage. Should you lie about it?

SAVAGE: Absolutely. I don’t want my husband to tell me the truth about everything all the time. What relationship could survive that kind of a scalding, deposition-style nightmare?

PLAYBOY: Isn’t lying another betrayal?

SAVAGE: I want to be lied to. He wants me to lie to him. There are things you don’t say because they can’t be unsaid and would be shattering, so you protect each other. Sometimes the most loving thing you can do in the wake of an affair is lie.

PLAYBOY: Aren’t you giving men a free pass to cheat all they want and then lie about it? No wonder a lot of heterosexual men like your advice.

SAVAGE: I’m not giving a pass to serial adulterers or people who are vicious and manipulative.

PLAYBOY: You’ve said you believe that couples can be “monogamish.” Are you and your husband? Do you tell each other about cheating?

SAVAGE: In my relationship with Terry, a couple of things came out a decade after the fact. Because so much other water had gone under the bridge, what was revealed didn’t seem as threatening or devastating as it would have if it had been revealed in the moment. Because we’re solid. Looking back, I wouldn’t have wanted to know then what I know now, and knowing it now doesn’t bother me.

PLAYBOY: You and Terry have been married for a decade. Now more Americans support gay marriage than are against it. Are you convinced it will eventually be legal everywhere?

SAVAGE: Well, the polls here move in one direction on this issue. We win the persuadables. Period, the end.

PLAYBOY: And what about the non-persuadables? Is it only a matter of time before they come around too?

SAVAGE: No. This will always be an issue, the way abortion will always be an issue. Can you believe we’re still debating access to birth control, that access is increasingly restricted? We will forever have to fight a rear-guard action to defend our right to marry. The religious right is not going to give up on this.

PLAYBOY: But just as the tide is turning on marijuana legalization, it appears to be turning on gay marriage. Will the opposition at least become less fervent?

SAVAGE: I would hope so. I hope we get to the point that we’re the new pot. I mean, I enjoy the old pot; I’d like to be the new pot. But I don’t think so. Judeo-Christianity-Islam has thousands of years invested in stigmatizing and policing nonprocreative sex.

PLAYBOY: Some opponents of gay marriage do believe marriage is solely for procreation.

SAVAGE: That’s why Rick and Karen Santorum have had sex only seven times, right? That’s why Mike Huckabee and his wife have had sex only three times. That’s why now, with in vitro fertilization, nobody should be having sex at all. Humans average 1,000 sexual contacts for every one live birth. What’s sex for? Our genes are desperately trying to get out there. Some part of my reptile brain, when I fuck my husband in the ass, is trying to get him pregnant. My brother Billy got a vasectomy, yet still, when he has sex with his longtime partner, a woman, he’s thwarting the control. His higher mind is saying to his reptile brain, “I’m in charge,” while his reptile brain is spewing away, trying to get his girlfriend pregnant. And it won’t work. And I’m spewing away trying to get my husband pregnant. We don’t look at people eating in restaurants or cooking unnecessarily elaborate meals and think, Well, that’s perverse. We should eat like the squirrels and cheetahs and just tackle something and devour it. We should save that desire for nourishment, because food is only for nourishment; food is not for pleasure. But we say that about sex.

PLAYBOY: You mentioned Santorum. He has been the object of some of your fiercest attacks. Why him?

SAVAGE: In 2003 Santorum gave an interview to the AP in which he compared gay couples who wish to marry to people who rape children and fuck dogs. That’s a vile and disgusting thing to say. In response, my readers came up with a vile, disgusting and proportionate response.

PLAYBOY: That response was to your contest to redefine the word santorum.

SAVAGE: Yes. The winner defined santorum as “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.” The operative term there is sometimes, by the way. If you’re doing anal sex right, there is no santorum, lowercase, as opposed to Santorum, uppercase.

PLAYBOY: In your view, who are the most offensive homophobes now?

SAVAGE: Vladimir Putin and the president of Uganda. We expected the backlash here in the U.S., but the backlash is abroad. What is our responsibility to queer people in Uganda who are being brutalized because of the rapid success of the gay-rights movement in the West? In countries like Uganda, leaders have this easy way to assert their moral superiority: hating gay people in the same way shitty, fucked-up Christians in America do. Putin is very blunt about this. It’s how they prove their moral superiority to the West. They don’t have to take better care of their citizens, they don’t have to have a functioning democracy, they don’t have to have a decent environment, they don’t have to have a justice system that works. They just have to hate gay people really hard and they’re better than the United States, better than Canada, better than France. It’s exactly like the Christians. They don’t have to stop masturbating, stop having premarital sex, stop drinking, stop getting divorced and remarried. All they have to do to be good Christians is hate gay people. “I don’t have to keep my dick out of anybody; I just have to hate you and where you’re putting your dick.”

PLAYBOY: Another sparring partner of yours has been former governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. He once said that you must be “not a happy person,” because you’re so “rude, vile and angry.” You responded, “You can rest assured that I’m a happy person, Mike. Have you seen my husband in a Speedo? No gay man with a husband who looks like mine in a Speedo is unhappy.”

SAVAGE: I love that pseudo, false, pious, ersatz, bullshit empathy. Fuck you and fuck your pity, Mike Huckabee. Suck my fucking dick. I don’t need your pity, and I also didn’t need your approval. Neither interests me.

PLAYBOY: Have you had the opportunity to say that to his face?

SAVAGE: No, I never said to Mike Huckabee “Suck my dick.” There is a long list of people I’ve invited to suck my dick, though, figuratively. Rick Santorum never got the invite. Herman Cain did. He always says that being gay is a choice. I’ve always felt the correct retort to “It’s a choice” is “Prove it. Suck my dick, and suck my dick like you like it. You don’t have to have a boner while you suck my dick, but you can’t be crying like it’s an Oz repeat on HBO.” They’re arguing that basically, kids, there’s a switch in your brain that you can consciously flip, and it makes you gay. It’s a choice you make. So let’s have them make the choice and prove it. The fly in that ointment is that some of them are closet cases, so they could probably do it and claim they won the argument. But at least we’d have videotape of them sucking people off.

PLAYBOY: Closet cases? Who?

SAVAGE: Look at Marcus Bachmann, Michele Bachmann’s husband. Anybody who has gaydar—anybody who has eyes—looks at him and sees a tormented closet case who has externalized his internal conflict and is abusing other people, doing his reparative-therapy bullshit. It’s so sad and pathetic. A lot of the self-destructive behaviors gay people are prone to drifting into are directed inward, and then you have these shitbags like Marcus Bachmann for whom it’s all directed outward. Marcus Bachmann is the photo negative of the guy on the last bar stool in the gay bar, drinking and smoking himself to death, except instead of destroying himself, he’s destroying other vulnerable queer people in an effort to destroy the queer inside himself.

PLAYBOY: Why do you think homophobia in some manifests not in disagreement but in hatred?

SAVAGE: The religious justification for homophobia undergirds much of it. Also there’s paranoia

PLAYBOY: Paranoia?

SAVAGE: We have very poor sex education in this country, so a lot of teenage boys experience paranoia that it could happen to them, that it’s a trapdoor you can fall through if you put a finger in your butt or if it feels good when someone plays with your nipples—that it’s evidence of the cancer of homosexuality growing inside you. And because we can’t talk about what causes homosexuality, we can’t reassure kids who are paranoid about their own sexuality. Male heterosexuality in this culture is a bundle of two negatives. To be a straight man is to not be a faggot and not be a girl, so anything that’s faggy or girlie can shatter your heterosexual bona fides.

PLAYBOY: As a child, did you feel paranoid that you might be gay, or did you always know and accept it?

SAVAGE: I knew.

PLAYBOY: How difficult was it for you to come out of the closet to your parents?

SAVAGE: I was about to come out to my mom when I was 15 or 16 years old, but my dad left. He walked out. She was not emotionally prepared for it, and she was destroyed for a while. I thought, If I go in there now and tell her I’m gay, it’ll kill her, and I can’t do that. I was a cliché fag boy, a mama’s boy. I baked. I stayed home. So I waited until I was 18 to tell her, and that was hard, because we’d grown apart. She became suspicious, but I just couldn’t do it.

PLAYBOY: But she knew and you were both pretending?

SAVAGE: She didn’t know. Well, years later she was like, “Yeah, I guess I kind of knew,” but that was an era when people looked at Liberace on TV and didn’t think he was gay, because thinking someone was gay was literally the worst thing you could think of someone. You didn’t allow yourself to think that, particularly of your own children. So the fact that when I was 13 years old and my parents asked me what I wanted for my birthday and I said tickets to A Chorus Line—the national tour was coming to the Shubert Theatre in Chicago—it didn’t register as maybe I was gay. What 13-year-old straight boy wants to go to A Chorus Line as opposed to a Bears game? When I was a kid I was gay-ish, a sissy boy. Not all gay men were sissies as kids, but almost all boys who are sissies grow up to be gay men. I would put on high heels and a wig when I was two and tell my mom I was going to be a girl when I grew up. I mean, not all gay men have feminine traits like that—Jason Collins doesn’t strike me as the kind of gay man who was jumping around in dresses when he was four, but who knows? I was.

PLAYBOY: Some parents try to force macho behavior on children they suspect are gay, because they think they can “fix” them.

SAVAGE: You can’t beat the gay out of a kid, but you can kill that gay kid trying. One result is that once you’ve assembled yourself to appease your sports-obsessed father, to fool your peers, your girlfriend…once you put that together, it creates a cognitive bifurcation. The pride you take when you do fool people, when you put together this bullshit version, this Potemkin kid who isn’t you, and people buy it and you’re like, Oh wow—there’s power in that. There was for me. But some kids are crushed by it. The guys I knew who were self- or otherwise destructive were guys who believed they were terrible, that there was something wrong with them. The guys who were healthier believed there was something wrong with everybody else. I was that guy. I thought, I’m fine. My church is crazy. My parents are crazy. Everyone in my Catholic grade school is crazy. Everyone in this neighborhood I live in is fucking nuts. But I’m fine.

PLAYBOY: Why did you have a sense of self-esteem compared with kids who think there’s something wrong with them?

SAVAGE: I think my parents gave me that.

PLAYBOY: But you had to hide. As you say, you were nearly 20 by the time you came out to your mother. And you were Catholic.

SAVAGE: Yeah, but the Catholic Jesuit thing came back to bite them on the ass in the end. We weren’t knuckle-dragger Catholics. My parents beat into us that Jesuit thing about integrity and honesty and scrutiny and thoughtfulness. Don’t lie, be truthful and live with integrity. You have to be yourself and you can’t lie to Jesus. God can see you. In the end it was just, I can’t lie to my parents about this, even though they probably would have preferred to have been lied to.

PLAYBOY: Were you initially devout, or did you always question religion?

SAVAGE: I remember distinctly when I was seven or eight years old looking at some sort of illustrated encyclopedia of world history. It showed a procession of priests in long robes with feathers and people marching in front of a Mayan pyramid. I think they were going to cut somebody’s heart out. I told my dad, “This looks like Mass!” What I couldn’t wrap my head around is that those Mayans thought they were right. So I thought, How is it proof of anything when my parents tell me what they think is right? I thought about all those George Carlin–esque Catholic grade-school brainteasers. What about all the people who lived and died and never heard about Jesus? They’re all in hell? What about the unbaptized babies? They’re in hell? What about Hitler? If somebody heard his confession, he’s in heaven, but Mahatma Gandhi’s in hell? It seemed so arbitrary and irrational. Mainly, when I realized I was gay, it brought me into conflict with what my church was telling me. I didn’t just move two steps over and find the affirming Lutherans. I looked at the whole religion racket and it kind of fell apart, especially when I saw how much it was torturing gay kids.

PLAYBOY: You started the It Gets Better campaign so gay kids would have an easier time than you did. What specifically inspired it?

SAVAGE: A suicide, Billy Lucas’s suicide. It was devastating. Then someone put a blog post on the Facebook page his family had put up to memorialize him. The same kids who had brutally bullied him in school visited it—to celebrate his death. To call him a faggot. To say they were glad he was dead. I was furious. But someone wrote, “I wish I had known you, Billy, and been able to tell you that things get better. Rest in peace.” That just leaped out at me: Things get better.

PLAYBOY: Do they get better?

SAVAGE: They do. On a macro level, in society, and on a personal level. But there are kids out there who don’t know it, who are lied to about what it means to be gay, and they are in despair. They think it can’t get better for them. Gay kids commit suicide at higher rates. We abuse alcohol and drugs at higher rates; we smoke at much higher rates—all these self-destructive behaviors. But the truth is many of us made it and it did get better. My feeling about Billy Lucas was if I’d had five minutes with that kid I could have talked him out of it, just by giving examples from my life. But I didn’t have access to that kid. That kid is growing up in a part of the country that doesn’t have LGBT support groups. I went to the White House conference on bullying. Until I got into a breakout session, nobody said that LGBT kids’ worst and most destructive bullies are often their parents. What do you do about that? Before that I had been going around the country just gutted reading about Lucas. I went from college to college but was thinking I should be going from high school to high school. But I would never get an invitation to speak at a high school, and I would never get permission to talk to a kid who needs to hear from a gay adult, because his parents are homophobic. Then it occurred to me: I don’t need anyone’s permission anymore. I don’t need an invitation. I have YouTube. I have Twitter. I have Facebook. I can bring the gay support group to that kid, whether his parents like it or not. Now that corporations and politicians have made videos—Obama, Hillary Clinton—people have lost sight of the fact that there is an upright middle finger at the heart of the project. It says that we, LGBT adults, are going to talk to your LGBT kids whether you like it or not. We’re going to reach into their computers and their phones, and we’re going to speak to them. You can’t isolate your kids the way you used to. You can’t terrorize your kids. The religious right gets it. The religious right freaks out about It Gets Better because we’re talking most specifically to their kids. They’re the kids with homophobic parents, and we’re making a run around their pastors, their churches, their teachers and their parents. These videos have gotten millions and millions of views.

PLAYBOY: Do you hear from kids who have been helped by the videos?

SAVAGE: The project is four years old. I’ll go to a college and meet a 20-year-old who was 16 when it started. I’m standing there and someone bursts into tears and runs and grabs me and Terry because it was the thing that made the difference for them. I get e-mails from emergency room nurses who are dealing with homophobic parents and some kid who just attempted suicide. A nurse wrote that she spent all night lying in bed with this kid who’d attempted suicide. She had her iPad and was watching videos with him. She said, “I hope his parents don’t find out.” That’s the subversiveness of the project. A girl wrote to thank us. She came out to her parents at 15, and they rejected her and connected her to a therapy program at her church. She was watching videos in the middle of the night. She wrote to say, “I’m watching It Gets Better in my parents’ house in the middle of the night in the bedroom under the covers.” Her parents can’t stop it anymore. We kicked down their front door and crawled into bed with her, and they can’t stop us. She said, “I watched the videos at night, and every morning I’d get up, go downstairs and look at my mom and my dad, and I loved them for who they were going to be in 10 years.” She had that image in her head that will get her through this, because she’s seen so many kids in the It Gets Better project talking about their parents who did exactly what her parents were doing but who now love and support their kids. Kids who have been bullied by their parents are flabbergasted to find out many of us with supportive parents didn’t have supportive parents when we first came out. She is able to love her parents now, while they’re incapable of loving her. We also hear from parents who are grateful because they’re raising some sissy kid in the woods. A woman wrote me from Georgia, and her son is clearly gay. She wrote early on to say she was using the exact phrase, telling him “It gets better.” “He didn’t believe me, because who am I? What do I know?” Just hearing it from his straight mom wasn’t good enough. But having all of us say it made it credible.

PLAYBOY: But in the meantime there are still frequent reports of gay kids being bullied.

SAVAGE: It’s the best of times and the worst of times for queer kids. If you’re out and gay and your parents are on your side, and there’s a gay-straight student alliance at your school and you have friends who’ve got your back, there’s never been a better time to be a gay 15-year-old boy than right now. If you’re out and gay and your parents are fundamentalist Christians and you go to some shitty Christian school where kids bully you and the administration bullies you, and there are no services where you live, then there has never been a worse time to be gay than right now for that kid, because there’s no hiding. There’s no closet. We’ve deconstructed the closet for those sissy boys, and they’re exposed. But it does get better, and they need to know it does. I remember going to gay pride parades when I first came out and seeing parents of queer kids willing to march down the street for us. That was from Mars. I think we’ve reached a point where more parents love and accept their queer kids than not. The rejecting parents are the exceptions, the freaks. I’m constantly blown away. Constance McMillen is this lesbian kid in Mississippi whose school was fucking with her around prom and painting a bull’s-eye on her back. Her whole family was on her side. A lesbian in a tiny town in Mississippi, and her dad was yelling into TV cameras, “Nobody’s going to fuck with my daughter!” A tiny town in Mississippi! These news stories constantly pop up about queer kids being bullied by teachers and administrators, and their parents are on their side. It hasn’t quite sunk into the thick skulls of high school administrators and teachers that they can’t abuse queer kids with impunity anymore, because the families are likely to be on the kids’ side. We’ve got lawyers now and we will come after you. We’re winning and we’re not going to sit idly by anymore. You can’t just beat up a queer kid at a high school in Mississippi and have it be a local story. We will jump down your fucking throat.

 

http://www.playboy.com/articles/playboy-interview-with-dan-savage

 

Out100 2014: the year’s most compelling LGBT people – in pictures

12/6/2014   The Guardian

Ellen Page
This year Ellen Page came out publicly while speaking at HRC’s Time to Thrive conference. She was influenced, in part, by a chat TV host George Stroumboulopoulos held with Dan Savage, who voiced his opinion that coming out is a moral imperative. “The way he spoke left very little leeway, and it really stuck with me”. Page is the latest in a line of LGBT artists who come out after devoting themselves to queer-themed projects, and if you want to label that a fashionable phenomenon, be her guest. “Even if it did become a trend, who cares?” Page says. “Let being yourself become a trend”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2014/dec/06/out100-2014-in-pictures

A Chronically Single Person Asked Dan Savage For Relationship Advice. Here’s His No-Nonsense Reply.

11/26/14    Upworthy

Sex columnist Dan Savage was at a speaking engagement and received this question from an audience member: “I can’t stay interested in a guy for longer than two months. What is wrong with me? I find a flaw and can’t get over it. For example, if a guy chews with his mouth open, I could never see him again.” Here’s his no-holds-barred response.

“There is no settling down without some settling for. There is no long-term relationship without not just putting up with your partner’s flaws, but accepting them and then pretending they aren’t there. And we like to call it, in my house, ‘paying the price of admission.’ …

Your boyfriend who chews with his mouth open, you can say, ‘Chew with your fucking mouth shut,’ and hopefully he’ll get there. But if he never does, him chewing with his mouth open might be the price of admission. …

And you can’t have a long-term relationship with someone unless you’re willing to identify the things, you know, the prices of admission you’re willing to pay, and the ones you’re not. But the ones you’re not, the list of things you’re not willing to put up with, you really have to be able to count it on one hand. And it can’t be superficial bullshit like chews with the mouth open.

When we were young, we had to say, you know, there’s someone out there who’s perfect for me. …

‘The one’ doesn’t fucking exist. ‘The one’ is a lie. But the beautiful part of the lie is that it’s a lie you can tell yourself.

A long-term relationship that’s successful is really a myth that two people create together … and myths are built of lies. There’s usually some kernel of truth.

My boyfriend and I have a relationship built on a solid foundation of lies and deceit. When you think about it, you meet somebody for the first time, and they’re not presenting, you know, their warts-and-all self to you. They’re presenting their idealized self to you. They are leading with their best. … And then eventually you’re farting in front of each other.

Eventually you get to see the person who is behind that facade of their best. … And they get to see the person behind your facade. You know, your lie self.

And what’s beautiful about a long-term relationship, and what can be transformative about it, is I pretend every day that my boyfriend is the lie that I met when I first met him. And he does the same favor to me.

And we then are obligated to live up to the lies we told each other about who we are. We are then forced to be better people than we actually are, because it’s expected of us by each other.

And you can, in a long-term relationship, really make your lie self come true. …

And that’s the only way you become ‘the one.’ It’s because somebody who is willing to pretend you are ‘the one’ that they were waiting for, ‘the one’ they wanted. Their ‘one.’

Because you’re not. Nobody is.

No two people are perfect for each other. Ever. Period.”

This may come off a lot more grating than it actually is, but Savage’s delivery makes a big difference. Here’s a video of the full response:

http://www.upworthy.com/a-chronically-single-person-asked-dan-savage-for-relationship-advice-heres-his-no-nonsense-reply?c=hpstream

Ellen Page Quote

Although no single incident led to her decision, she does reference a Dan Savage  appearance in July 2013 on the Canadian talk show George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight as having had a profound effect on her. Savage, the in-your-face columnist behind the “It Gets Better” campaign, laid out his argument for coming out in very plain terms.

“He was like, ‘It’s a social responsibility and a moral imperative,’ ” recalls Page. “And I was like, ‘You’re right. You’re really intense — but you’re right.’ “ By early fall, her mind was made up. The next step was to call a meeting with her closest confidante, who also happens to be her main career strategist: manager-slash-bosom buddy Bush, who, as founder of ID Public Relations, is one of Hollywood’s shrewdest image-wranglers.

Dan on George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight:

(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/x-mens-ellen-page-life-701414)

Never Date a Writer. You’ll End Up As Material.

12/11/2014   The Cut   By

More than five years had passed since Sam and I had last seen each other when he sent me an email with the subject line: “IMPORTANT.” The email was sent to my work address. It was terse but portentous. “You might be in a position to help me,” he wrote, “so I’m sending you this.” Attached to the email was a manuscript. A novel.

I was a character, a central one. I had been given a pseudonym (as I am giving him here), and there were some elements of other women — fictional or real, I wasn’t sure — that had been grafted on. But there were also features that were unmistakably mine. The pseudonym he’d given me was more of an inside joke than a disguise.

I stayed up late that night and finished the manuscript, reading with a strange sense of honor. Isn’t it every woman’s fantasy, to some extent, to be someone’s muse — to feel as though her beauty, intelligence, and grace are so extraordinary that they inspire not just devotion but art? I’d never admit to desiring celebrity, but that doesn’t mean that I’d turn down the chance to be immortalized — or at least captured for a moment — by someone else. At art museums, I’ve always played a game: Matisse or Picasso, Manet or Degas, Rembrandt or Rubens — whom would I prefer to sit for?

But there was horror mixed with the honor. I’d never asked myself: Bellow or Roth, Hemingway or Fitzgerald, Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky? It seemed too terrifying to be made three-dimensional — to be faced with someone else’s portrait of your psyche. If the depiction seems to miss the mark, but includes just enough to make you recognizable, then you’d have to wage an endless personal PR campaign with anyone who came in contact with the text: No, reader, you don’t know me. But if the novel contained some shades of truth — perhaps the attributes you don’t share widely (aren’t they always the most compelling?) — then you face an even scarier prospect: Yes, reader, you know parts of me before we’ve ever met.

Reading Sam’s novel, I vacillated between annoyance that he’d gotten parts of the story wrong and annoyance that he’d gotten parts of it right. Sam and I had met our freshman year at college and had quickly fallen in love; the two main characters similarly, speedily fall for each other. It was flattering to read his account of first setting eyes on “my” character — a scene that involved something like a vision emerging from across the campus quad. (He remembered the outfit I was wearing! I still had that skirt!) But the closer he got, the more uncomfortable it became. The character was elegant but uptight; generally correct, but also a scold, deploying righteousness to shield impatience. In my most honest assessment, I’d say I possess shades of all these attributes and that they are some of the things I like least about myself.

Of course, there is no “right” or “wrong” in fiction — and no “right” or “wrong” in the way he chose to assemble elements of our shared past. Fiction requires no fidelity to reality, just dedication to the elements from which it is composed. And all prose has perspective; he was going to tell our story however he wanted. But I still couldn’t help but think I was allowed to feel annoyed that he’d turned me into both some kind of idol and a nag.

***

I should not have been surprised that this manuscript appeared. In one of our infrequent post-breakup phone calls, Sam had mentioned he was writing a book. But, more fundamentally than that, Sam and I were both compulsive scribblers. Freshman year, he’d slip poems under my door. I thought they were embarrassing; my roommates thought they were brilliant — or maybe they were just being kind. Sam left school for a spell, and we wrote letters while he was away. Wandering around the country, he did not have regular access to a computer — I’m not sure he even had an email address, though by that time everyone did — so we would use his parents’ house as our poste restante. Occasionally, he called when he found a phone, but it is the letters that I remember.

The novel wasn’t even the first time Sam had made me into material. When he returned to school a few semesters later, we took a creative-writing class together. (Not a good idea.) We fought over what he could and could not write about; I made him change the details of some of his stories so that I could sit through class without passing out. I wasn’t entirely prudish about privacy, however. Sam published some stories in a campus magazine that made me feel proud rather than violated.

When I graduated and moved to Washington, D.C., Sam remained at school. We both assumed we would stay together, but the distance strained. We grew apart, and then he broke up with me. Perhaps every surprised girlfriend feels that her would-be boyfriend is not being rational when she’s rejected, but I truly thought he was making a major mistake.

That changed when I visited him a few months after our split. I don’t remember much about that trip, but I do remember that a plant that I had given him had grown so large it was as though someone had slipped it steroids. The branches reached the ceiling; Jurassic leaves blocked the light from his tiny dorm room window. It had mutated into something that pushed against the confines of the room — a kind of organic manifestation of the claustrophobia I felt. I saw him a few months later, and then again a few months after that, then the time between our encounters yawned into years.

After several years, I got engaged and, not knowing where to find him, left a message on the voicemail of the last phone number I had for him. I felt like I was throwing pebbles into a black hole; the communication had no tail. I never heard back. This is how it ends, I thought.

Except, it didn’t, quite. I worked Sam into stories I was writing — squeezing them in whenever a niggling memory made my fingers twitch. Perhaps, I thought, if I had had more affairs, I would have more inspiration. (I’d met my now-husband a few weeks after Sam and I broke up.) But I never really felt a dearth; there was plenty in my head to keep me going. I didn’t try to publish any of these fragments. I don’t think I even showed them to anyone. When I read over them with a little distance, they seemed immature and raw. But even if I knew the work wasn’t for publication, I could still sense it had a pulse.

***

Sam’s novel had a pulse as well. It was messy, but it had the ingredients of good campus fiction: privilege, precociousness, girls on bikes, and boys in scarves. Was this assessment what he wanted? Some pointers — like I’d given him in Creative Writing 101? Or did he want something more practical? I’m loosely connected to the world of publishing and I had no idea where or how Sam was spending his days. Maybe I was only a connection to be tapped for professional help? And if so, wasn’t there something shamelessly mercenary in his pressing me into service: Yes, you’re a character; get over it and help me with my prospects. Or did he dispatch the manuscript with slightly more aggressive undertones: Screw your memories; here are mine.

Eventually, I wrote to ask. The answer was straightforward: He wanted me to tell him what I thought, and to help him, possibly, figure out how to get it published. I could deliver on the first request; I could hardly stop myself. I told him where the structure did not seem entirely successful. I felt certain elements of the plot were too sketchy. And I took issue with one character in particular: me. Why didn’t he give me more of an internal life? Why did I make such bad decisions?I tried to keep my questions from seeming too whiny or too prude. Too similar to objections the character would have voiced herself.

There was no way, however, that I could help him with his second request. Promoting the book would seem underhandedly conceited, as well as just bizarre. And I wasn’t sure that the novel was good enough to overwhelm my hesitations; I was pretty sure that it was impossible for me to judge. (It didn’t help that my judgment was certainly clouded by annoyance that he’d put me in such a position.) In the end, I gave him some names of people he might contact but made no invitation to use mine.

***

About a month after I sent him my notes, he texted me to say he would be visiting Washington, where I still lived. We met for lunch the following day. It had been years. I was nervous, repulsed by my chicken salad. He came out with it: Did I mind, he asked, that he had made me a character? Underneath the question lay a proposition, maybe: He was offering to bow out, concede the contest.

Sam was no Matisse or Manet, but he was probably the only man who would know me well enough to attempt to distill a little piece of me, to boil it down and strain it into art. My husband, for all his wonderful features, is not stirred by creative impulses. But I don’t think it was pure vanity that led me to turn down his offer. It was part of reckoning with what it meant for him — and with the labor of writing itself. I did not want him to pull apart his work because I understood the sweat it had involved.

Okay, I had to feel this way. Sam’s novel had sent me back to my computer to write this essay. Was I trying to do to him what he’d done to me? You use me, and I’ll use you. “Whoever writes best wins,” said a writer friend, shrugging, when I told her what I was up to.

When two writers meet, and fall in love, and break up, and then begin to write, is this competition impossible to avoid? Even in nonfiction, truth one can butt up against truth two. I haven’t intentionally invented anything here, but if Sam swore that he’d sent those freshman-year notes to my campus mailbox rather than slipping them under my door as I remember, would I vehemently disagree? Did we really send letters to his parents’ house? (Or do I just read too many 19th-century novels and like the antique feel of a “poste restante”?) Would Sam even remember the overgrown plant, which has become for me a symbol of a love that no longer fit?

More important, does it matter if our accounts diverge? Probably not, and not just because one is nominally fiction. Fiction or non — there’s no such thing as a single truth when you’re writing the story of a breakup.

Years later, Sam sent me a new version of the manuscript. I skimmed it and got the impression that it cohered much better than before. He’d taken my advice and dramatically revised “my” character — he’d revised her so much, in fact, that she had ceased to be a recognizable representation of me. I felt relief, and then I felt sad.“The End” had finally arrived.

 

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/12/never-date-a-writer-youll-end-up-as-material.html?mid=facebook_nymag

George Clooney Is Pitching a TV Dramedy About the 1990s Movie Business

12/11/2014   Vulture  

George Clooney, who shot to stardom in the 1990s, is headed back to the decade for a new TV project. The actor/producer/director, whose Smokehouse Pictures production company signed an overall deal with Sony Pictures Television last summer, has teamed up with Foxcatcher director Bennett Miller and Rescue Me creator Peter Tolan for a one-hour comedic drama that will explore the movie business of the early 1990s, Vulture has learned. Details of the project are scarce right now, but people familiar with the project call it a dark comedy looking at the movie business through the eyes of the studio executives running it.

Though it’s likely the characters in the show will be fictional, Clooney’s experiences in the business at the time seem like a logical source of inspiration for Tolan, who will write the script and executive produce with Clooney and Smokehouse partner Grant Heslov. Tolan also has plenty of experience chronicling the craziness of Hollywood, having served as head writer (with Garry Shandling) on HBO’s iconic The Larry Sanders Show. Miller, whose directorial credits also include Moneyball and Capote, is set to direct the pilot. Not surprisingly, given the auspices involved, the project has drawn strong interest from network execs who’ve heard the pitch from Clooney and Tolan this week: Two people familiar with the potential series tell Vulture the only question now is where it will land and what sort of financial commitment it will generate. Sony has had meetings with basic and premium cable networks, as well as at least one streaming service. If and when the project goes to series, it won’t be the first time Clooney has put his name on a TV show about Hollywood: He, Heslov, and Stephen Soderbergh produced 2005’s Unscripted for HBO.  

http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/george-clooney-is-pitching-a-tv-dramedy.html?mid=facebook_nymag

7 Traits Of Truly Sensational Startup Employees

12/9/2014   LinkeIn  by Dharmesh Shah

While you might think a great employee is a great employee no matter where she works, what matters in a small, growth-oriented startup is often very different from what matters in a huge, stability-oriented corporation.

For one thing, the ability to successfully navigate politics-filled waters is usually a lot less important in a startup. Plus, since the organizations tend to be flatter, standing out is often more a matter of what you accomplish than of whom you know.

(But then again I love startups and I love startup cultures… so I’m probably biased.)

I’ve been in an around startups for a long time and known some great startup folks (including many that work at HubSpot). I think I have a sense for what makes for truly sensational people at a startup.

Here’s my (partial) list:

1. They would much rather act than deliberate.

I’ve only written one business plan in my life. It was while I was in business school, and it was required. Generally, I think business plans are pretty useless (but the planning process can be quite useful).

The problem with business plans is that things change so quickly in the startup world. Before the ink is even dry on that 100+ page business plan as it shoots out the printer, things have already changed and “the plan” is already outdated. Stuff happens: Good stuff, bad stuff — and every now and then, amazing stuff.

Very few startups I know – or companies I’ve invested in – resemble their original business plan. (And that’s a good thing, because it means they’re shaping their businesses to meet the needs of their customers.)

Great startup employees are the same way. They think a little and then do a lot. And then they adapt and modify.

The best companies often don’t start with a brilliant idea, they iterate into one.

It’s hard to learn from thinking. It’s much easier to learn from doing.

2. They don’t care about what’s behind the curtain.

In some corporations, offices – and the perceived status that come with them – are everything. A corner office makes you better than someone with a hallway office. A hallway office makes you better than someone in a cubicle.

(At my company I don’t have an office – I’m not sure what that makes me.)

Startups generally avoid politics. Instead of obsessing who has the bigger desk/office, they obsess over the customer.

Sensational start-up employees understand calories are best spent making a real difference for customers. Every business has finite resources. The key is to spend as much of those resources as possible on things that matter to the customers — or, at least genuinely matter to the team. Fretting over trivial things doesn’t help anyone. It’s just a waste of energy.

3. They don’t see money as the solution to every problem.

Sure, capital-intensive ventures that require extensive investment may need significant cash to get going, but most businesses require little funding to get started. (A quick glance at the Inc. 5000 list shows just how many startups were founded with relatively little funding.)

One of the key lessons first-time entrepreneurs need to learn is resourcefulness. How do you take limited resources and turn them into something remarkable?

That’s also true of the best startup employees. They’re remarkably resourceful. They’re not looking to build an army of people to do their bidding They’re not looking to spend thousands on advertising to avoid the hard work of writing a blog. They’re constantly looking for creative ways to make the most of the resources they have.

In short, they throw brains at problems, not money. And the solutions they come up with are almost always better. And, the connections built between people from solving problems creatively are some of the strongest connections that can be built.

4. They see every customer as an individual that deserves respect.

Maybe you have hundreds or thousands of customers. If so, that’s awesome – but that also can mean you face the danger of thinking of your customers as a nameless, faceless group of revenue-producing entities.

But no matter how many customers you have, each is an individual. The day you start thinking of them as this amorphous “collection” and stop thinking of them as people is the day you start going out of business.

Great startup employees never lose sight of the fact that every customer is a person: a person with hopes, dreams, expectations, needs… and a person who ultimately wants to be treated as a person. Yes, they worry about the “market” and work to build a business that can scale as it grows. But, that’s shouldn’t be an excuse for not caring about customers.

Great startup employees solve for the customer – and in so doing, they solve for the business.

5. They love a meritocracy.

Sensational startup employees hate politics. They hate hidden agendas. They hate the “good old boys” network.

They’re willing to succeed on their own merits – because they believe in themselves.

And they believe in others, too.

6. They care much more about their peers than the perks.

Catered meals. Free massages. Lavish parties. These are all perks — and they’re great if you have them. But, the best people care much more about who they work with (their peers) than the perks they get.

This is for a very simple reason: The #1 benefit of working at a startup is that you get to learn. And, how much you learn is largely a function of how much autonomy you have — and who you’re around.

Also, stars know intuitively that life is short. Too short to work with people you don’t enjoy.

7. They instinctively focus on the company’s mission.

Walk through any huge corporation and you’ll find people who have created their own jobs (and not in a good way.)

Some will have developed databases filled with data (but resulting in no usable insight) because they love building databases. Some will have created fancy charts (again resulting in no usable insight) because they love creating fancy charts. Some will schedule meeting after meeting (none of which resulting in meaningful decisions) because they love being in charge… and they love hearing themselves talk.

Great start-up employees focus on the core mission of the company. They build products customers want. They meet customer needs. They help other employees succeed. The best people don’t just bide their time while they’re at work. They squeeze as much value out of that time as they possibly can in furthering the organization’s mission.

They try to make tomorrow better than today for everyone around them – because that’s what they love to do.

By the way…If you found yourself nodding your head a bunch while reading this article, you should check careers at HubSpot. We’re constantly looking for people with these traits. (We’re a public company now, but have the soul of a startup).

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141209185905-658789-6-traits-of-sensational-startup-employees

5 Startup Tips No One Bothered To Share With You—Until Now

If you could get advice from a time-traveling entrepreneur from the future, this is what he might say.

Fast Company  By Rob Hull

Anthony Bourdain’s CNN Show Inspires Rush of New Culinary Series

‘Epic Meal Empire’

12/11/2014  The Hollywood Reporter   by Lesley Balla

This story first appeared in the Dec. 19 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.

In the past decade, food-themed television has gone from Emeril Lagasse‘s “Bam!” to chefs bow-hunting for buffalo in the Arkansas backcountry. That colorful scene, from a recent episode of Nat Geo’s Eric Greenspan Is Hungry, is not an outlier. It’s part of an onslaught of new culinary series on a half-dozen cable networks and marks a major departure for the genre. Call it the Anthony Bourdain effect.

“The beautiful thing about food programming is the ability to be broad,” says Tim Pastore, president of original programming and production at Nat Geo U.S., who also has ordered booze-centric Chug and six-part doc EAT. “It’s a way to grab our core audience but also attract new viewers, to find a new demographic.”

Bourdain, with his landmark No Reservations on Travel Channel, and Bizarre EatsAndrew Zimmern laid the groundwork for food exploration on TV. And now that Bourdain is a CNN poster boy, nabbing Emmys and driving the struggling news net’s biggest ratings with Parts Unknown, many are seeking to duplicate that success — including his former network. Travel launches Breaking Borders with Top Chef winner Michael Voltaggio in 2015. The 13-episode order puts Voltaggio and journalist Mariana van Zeller in war-torn countries to resolve conflict through cuisine.

It’s an evolved food TV landscape from the days of just Food Network and Bravo’s Top Chef, admits Ross Babbit, senior vp programming and development at Travel Channel: “We want to convey the uniqueness of food and how culture is expressed in food. That’s what you saw with Bourdain and Zimmern and now with Breaking Borders.”

Food also is an obvious choice for upstart lifestyle networks like Esquire and FYI — both of which have made it a focus. “People are interested in shows that they can see themselves experiencing, as opposed to just passively watching,” says Esquire originals head Matt Hanna, who has a Bourdain-produced offering in The Getaway. “Food is an equalizer, but making it relatable to people’s everyday lives is the challenge. You want to create something that can be watched across all platforms.”

FYI is being equally aggressive in the culinary space. The new A+E-owned network’s culinary offerings skew toward comedy with things such as Epic Meal Empire, a cooking show-meets-Mythbusters. This is where execs see wide-open spaces for expansion. Coming at food from different points of view — be it humor or history, adventure and exploration, politics or hunting — allows for a broader audience.

“Most people don’t actually want to be a renowned chef or the best baker, but they do want to taste the best noodles in Thailand or curry in India,” adds Hanna. “It’s all about giving viewers a visceral experience that immerses them in sounds, smells and tastes.”

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anthony-bourdains-cnn-show-inspires-755515?mobile_redirect=false