"==Disgusting==

This guy is a disgusting sex columnist. He revels in it. He does it on purpose, and it's what gives him and his column their edge. It seperates him from every other sex advice giver I've ever read  and it's his signature attitude, tone, and approach to the issues. But there seems to be no way to adduce this highly pertinent and relevant information without violating the lame, loose, sloppy, ill-thought-out NPOV rule. Hilariously (and disgustingly), people tell me providing this information violates article ""neutrality."" Any help here by any person of quality, integrity, and intelligence would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.129.156 (talk) 

Imagine that  a sex columnist who enjoys sex. How can we work that into the article?  ;-) Nik (talk) 

What, Nik? Hello? ...I would still like to hear an answer to my question  if anyone out there has any integity and intelligence. Is insight and perceptivity BANNED on Wikipedia? Must everything be banal and bland?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.129.156 (talk) 

I marvel a bit that even my attempt to DISCUSS this issue gets censored repeatedly (by anonymous censors who do nothing on Wikipedia save delete THIS). Must even the DISCUSSION of this issue be censored and not allowed to exist? I'm a longtime reader and fan of Dan Savage, but he IS a distinctive columnist with a distinctive style. Must even a DISCUSSION of that uniqueness  which goes unmentioned in the article, due to phony NPOV considerations  be rigorously censored?       

"