"Philadelphia Asexual Examiner" is the best job title ever.

Why a tissue, Dan? Was there a spider on that website?

(Seriously, if this is the kind of junk your Google alert kicks up, why torture yourself?)

By the second date the question "how often do you masturbate?" should be asked and answered honestly by any prospective couple. Sure would save a lot of hurt feelings down the road.

I don't understand why asexuals (or like the initial letter-writer, minimally sexual) people are offended by your advice. I'd think they would WANT to stay out of a relationship with someone who is going to want a lot more sex than they do, and is likely to feel resentful and hard-done-by when they don't get it. And yet, they get annoyed when you point out the very, very obvious: you're going to make a regularly-sexed person miserable if you date them, and they are probably going to return the favor. Recipe for disaster; stay away.

Dan, Not really about this letter but I have been thinking this for a while.
The phase DTMFA makes perfect sense a great deal of the time...but to use it when it is best to part ways with a partner who is awesome in every way except for the "deal breaker" seems totally unfair. A good example would be, you want kids- your partner doesn't. Your partner is not a motherfucker for telling you the truth. On the contrary, that makes them an pretty upstanding individual for not pretending or lying about what is important to them in a relationship. Can someone come up with a better phrase that emphasizes the need let it go already with out blaming two individuals that just don't belong together?

A tissue for the crying caused by attempting to read such an incoherent post? Please un-link that: you don't usually post emails written to you that incoherently, so why link to something so poorly written?

Hi gus! Yes, best job title ever, although I'm still partial to Blackberry's Rimjobs...

And why on god's green earth would someone who identifies as asexual want to date someone who likes gettin' it, unless they were also a masochist/passive-aggressive, in which case, it would totally make sense.

A tissue for the tears of laughter, emma's bee...

If you're expecting a puppies and rainbows response when you write to Dan, you obviously haven't been reading Savage Love for very long...

@ K, the person asked for Dan's opinion and he gave it. I'm not saying Dan is always right... I'm just saying asking him to keep his mouth shut would mean him not doing his job.

A tissue, Dan? Maybe you meant to type, "Grab the world's tiniest violin before you click through."

^what FLgirl said in #4. It seems like asexuals seem to not understand that sex is a NEED for someone with a sex drive, and by dating a sexual person they are inherently creating a problem at the outset.

Hey Canuck! You made me laugh with that reminder. I checked just now, and if you google "rimjobs" the top result is still that Blackberry careers page. Followed, of course, by links to every post making fun of it...

@9: Oh. My. God.

You can't be serious? Telling people to seek out sex partners—or non-sex partners—with whom they will be compatible is akin to telling people to date only within their race?

Go away.

I don't get the offense they take either. When some conservative christian gay men have the same marriage rights as everyone else: they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, we rightfully condemn it as ridiculous and cruel. It traps some poor woman into a relationship with a man who may love her but he doesn't want to or really enjoy having sex with her.

This is very analogous to asexuals who think dating and marrying someone who is sexual is okay. Unless they are open and honest and willing to let their partner have sex with other people it's cruel to deprive them of being with someone who wants to have sex with them. I wonder if because asexuals don't understand why sex is so important to those of us who are sexual that they don't understand how much being deprived of it can make someone unhappy and resentful?

@4

I'm reminded of smokers. Smoking cigarettes numbs the palate, so smokers have difficulty smelling & tasting the things non-smokers do. So they don't understand the stench that shouts from their clothes, their breath, and lingers long after they've left. Even if they didn't smoke in the room itself, it still smells. But they're oblivious, and feel they should smoke wherever they like.

Same for asexuals. They don't understand the drive, the joy, the hunger. So it's nothing to them to demand monogamy out of their spouses. And man, @9, is that blindness ever apparent in your rant.

Maybe I'm missing something in the asexual responses, but I don't see anyplace where Dan advocates asexuals not having any relationships, ever. He's instead saying that asexuals should have relationships with other asexuals. Then both people can ignore sex and things will be gravy.

In fact, I find it amusing that the possibility of dating other asexuals never enters their heads. Hi-larious.

Also: not getting the tissue reference. Maybe it's sarcasm, but the tone just didn't come across this time.

gus....
"Dissatisfied with advancement opportunities as an Asexual Examiner, Claude put on his best Pegged Boyfriends and went looking for a Rimjob."

(I crack myself up...)

When told to grab a tissue before clicking through, I thought it would indicate that there was good masturbatory material to be found.

Sadly, I thought wrong.

I dunno - I just didn't think the guy sounded like an asexual. When you cite lack of confidence or stamina as your reasons... that's a mental/physical health issue. I thought asexuals were just permanently uninterested. Or am I getting this completely wrong?

This guy just sounded like he had a really low sex drive and whether he chose to address the underlying causes of it or not was his business - and he should be up-front about it with potential partners.

@20: He's not just looking at the asexual partner's needs, but the sexual one's too- unlike you. It isn't fair to expect a sexual partner to not want sex just because you don't. Full Stop.

Now, if the sexual partner is able to get that NEED met elsewhere, then the "realistic and workable compromise" solution has been found that Dan addressed. Being pissed at a sexual person for continuing to have a sex drive whether they are with an asexual or not is just plain silly, though.

That Landis is one angry asexual.

Canuck, that remark earns you a rimshot.

To speak for the asexuals here (and try to come across as sensible), most of us do have the sense to date other Ace folks, or have open relationships, or whatever. For myself, I'm aromantic as well as asexual, which makes things way simpler. Gotta say I count my blessings that way.

As to why asexuals might want to date sexual people: There aren't many of us. Even allowing for all the various ways to be or degrees of asexual, it's a TINY portion of the population. (For very clear reasons, of course. Having a sex drive results in having offspring. Asexuality is going to be rare in any species that's successfully evolved.) While there's beginning to be an asexual community, there aren't a lot of mixers, so to speak. A romantically inclined asexual is very likely to fall for someone sexual. Emotions, love, etc. All that junk. Not much different from the way a gay man might fall for a straight dude. But since society plays down the need for sexual compatibility and asexuals don't usually get how important sex is going to be (it's hard to intellectualize, I must say), there aren't going to be the inherent barriers to the above-referenced gay/straight relationship. So it happens. And it usually ends poorly unless they're the sort of Ace who's not put off by sex, just indifferent, and can fake it. Rare, and not good for anyone, but that's why.

And as to why some (whiny/entitled/selfish/naive) asexuals feel that anyone telling them not to date this way is a big ol' meanypants? It's not something asexuals do, really, it's something people do when they feel offensive. Think of that wince-inducing, militant atheist you know, or the shrill harridan of a Childfree obsessive, or some insufferable Yankees fan. You'll usually find they grew up in some horrid Christianity-steeped small town, were harassed constantly by their mother about grandkids, or... Hell, I don't know what's up with Yankees fans. Bottom line: When society pressures you to be something you're not, you get defensive and angry and difficult. Sometimes that energy manifests in useful ways, like building up the Asexual community. Or at least harmless ways, like soapboxing at every possible opportunity about every possible over-intellectualized term for all the tiny variants on human sexuality ever (ugh). Sometimes, though, you become an evangelical, a self-righteous parody of what once was inflicted on you. It's sad, but it sure as hell happens. And everyone else laughs.

P.S. Commenter 9, it's destructive and negative to characterize asexuals as losers who just can't get laid or morons who don't know what they're missing. It's not destructive and negative to point out that asexuals don't generally want to have sex with people and should take that into account when making decisions. Please stop advocating for me. I wish you all the best.

Thank you, gus! no one's ever given me a rimshot before...

Hope Dan got out of Ottawa okay and down to his lunch date with the president...

Dan was annoyed that a minimally sexual person wasn't dating other like him. I don't think he'd have been writing to Dan if it was *that* easy to find others like him. Not that he shouldn't try. But NSNA's letter was merely asking Dan about the *possibility* of whether a normal would date him... He was merely curious.

@20 I'm tripping over your statement: "Anyone who has a partner who doesn't appreciate their sexual orientation should probably reevaluate their relational priorities." From the tone of your posts I'm reading this as "Anyone who has a partner [and] doesn't appreciate the partner's sexual orientation should probably reevaluate [his or her] sexual priorities."

Are you recommending that sexuals who eventually find out that their partners are asexual/minimal delve deep and figure out what is really important in a relationship. WTF? Shouldn't people know their partners' orientations long before the relationship gets serious. That's what Dan has always advocated.

If you poll the men out there, I bet you'll find that frequency of sex is amongst the top three reasons for their getting into serious relationships/marriage. It probably ranks right up there with companionship and emotional support. For women, it's probably amongst their top five (I would estimate...tell me if I'm wrong ladies).

I personally don't see much room for reevaluating a typical man's "relational priorities" around this issue. Or a woman's, for that matter.

@27, this line of your comment: "And it usually ends poorly unless they're the sort of Ace who's not put off by sex, just indifferent, and can fake it." was jarring. Indifference is so much worse that someone who is put off by sex.

I think one of the things that asexuals fail to take into account is that a healthy sex life isn't just the frequency of sexual activity. A healthy sex life requires desire. Even if I had someone who was willing to endure daily sex with me because he knew it was an important factor in my relationship, it wouldn't satisfy me if I didn't feel that he desired me. Being wanted by your partner is one of the sexiest things about sex.

Maybe the guy was just worn out from his four younger girlfriends.

Speaking of that, did you see Maria Schneider died...and man, did she age badly!

I think if Marlon Brando had seen her at 58 he wouldn't have been crying at that dance hall in Paris.

@33: That's been mentioned to me, now that you mention it, and I guess it makes sense. It's rather like learning about a different religion or a language unrelated to one you actually speak, I think. There are all these rules completely obvious to the natives that no one ever feels the need to explain and that seem damned arbitrary if you're not in the loop. That said, my intention was more to point out that there are asexuals who think sex is icky, who think sex is just kinda weird, or who think sex is just fine or even kinda fun, just not a driving force (that last one would be gray asexual or "minimally sexual," as we're going with here). And some people in the latter two categories can work things out with sexual partners that seem to work. Don't ask me how. I've never gone digging for details.

@34: Well, at least Marlon Brando aged gracefully.

Asexuals shouldn't be the least offended by Dan's advice to NSNA, since NSNA doesn't consider himself part of the asexual community.

Dan's advice is realistic and honest even if sometimes offered a little more bluntly than sensitive people can handle. If someone has come to terms with the fact that they are asexual, then when they date non-asexuals they have a responsibility to be honest about that fact and should be prepared to offer a reasonable, nonmonogamous compromise -- or else they are setting themselves up to fail, period.

If an asexual insists on hiding their asexuality from their romantic partner, or insists on monogamy with their romantic partner even while resenting their partner's normal sexual needs, or not providing for their partner's normal sexual needs, then the asexual should not complain when their partners are deeply unhappy, or when their partners cheat on them, or when their partners dump them, or when their partners write to snarky sex advice columnists for help.

Or they can avoid all the heartbreak and drama by finding partners with compatible sex drives. Like the rest of us have to do.

I'm getting the feeling that trying to explain the importance of sex to someone who identifies as asexual is like trying to describe colour to a blind person. I completely agree with @31 (approaching 40) and @33 (humorless) re: their descriptions of sex within a relationship. And yes, app 40, from the limited sample size of my friends, I'd say that sex is in the top three for men (probably ranking pretty close to #1) and while not typical of the average sex-positive Slogette, I'd say for the average married woman, your "top 5" estimate is probably pretty close (if not a bit generous.) What I'm taking away from the explanation by @32 (Sara Beth Brooks) is that there's more to a relationship than sex, and if your sexual partner doesn't see this, and appreciate you for the asexual person you are, you'd do well to move on. The problem with presenting it that way is that you make the sexual person sound like an unfeeling horndog who is simply too unevolved to appreciate you. I think because you ( the asexual person) don't really "get" this level of importance, you perhaps think, "well, I'm so interesting, and we have all this stuff in common, yet he's letting this minor quirk get in the way of a real relationship." It's not like that. For most people, sex is what separates a relationship from a friendship.

*and I think there's a big difference between people who have been together for a while, and something happens, either over time or suddenly that takes sex out of the relationship, but because you have so much invested, you decide to stay together in a sexless relationship, and this other idea of people who come together as one sexual and one asexual, and then think they'll work it out.

Just a comment about the guy who doesn't understand why his friend doesn't like bacon but keeps his mouth shut about it her preferences and thinks Dan should keep his own shut when people ASK him for advice about the relationships they're having with people (not pork products):

If the bacon wrote to Dan and said that he was having this amazing relationship with a vegetarian and everything was great but she didn't want to eat him and said that she never would, I assume Dan would offer similar advice to the bacon as he has to the sexuals dating asexuals: break up with the vegetarian and go find an omnivore who thinks you're delicious and craves your bacony goodness and wants to eat you all the time.

Would I want to date a gay man? No. I expect sex out of a relationship because I'm a sexual person. If I went around proclaiming how upset I was because gay men wouldn't date me, everyone would tell me that I was being ridiculous.

How would that be different if I was to date someone who is asexual? If I expect sex out of a relationship, I'd be an asshole to pursue one with a person who did not want to have sex with me.

And sure, some people discover that they're asexual while they're in a relationship. Some people discover that they're gay when they're in a relationship. You know what happens? They break up.

Guess what? Sexuality is an important factor in a relationship.

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive as well, but I get the impression that @32 is advocating for "relationship ambush":

if you're in a relationship with someone who doesn't respect your orientation [bi, straight, ace, or otherwise], then I hope you're re-evaluating whether or not that person is someone worth continuing to have a relationship with (relational priority).

Here's the thing: those of us who are sexual would likely categorically refuse to date a known asexual at the inception of the relationship. So we wouldn't end up in that situation in the first place.

So it sounds to me like @32 is knowingly or unknowingly advocating for trickery: date a person for a while, maybe get married, maybe have a couple kids, and then spring the asexuality on them. This strikes me as a complete asshole move. IMO, self-aware asexuals have an obligation to identify as such at the beginning of the relationship, before the other person is too invested.

To see why, @32, consider another relationship characteristic that most people consider really really important: monogamy. Suppose I'm polyamorous, but I don't let me girlfriend know about this aspect of my sexuality. While I don't actively lie, I certainly allow her to believe that I, like most people, aspire to monogamy. I may even refrain from dating anyone else for a while. Maybe we get married, maybe we have a couple kids. And once she's locked down, I spring my polyamory on her, and tell her that henceforth I will be dating and sleeping with the hot 20-something in my office. That would be quite the dick move, right?

I'm asexual, and I'm not sure why anyone is offended by Dan's response either. Granted, I'm an aromantic asexual--the whole lovey-dovey sex thing was never for me in any form. However, I always took it for granted that romantic asexuals just dated other romantic asexuals.

Still, asexuals are a minority and find another asexual could be difficult. I suspect any issues arising between sexuals and asexuals are coming from asexuals in denial of their asexuality. Think of gays that married someone of the opposite sex to prove to themselves and others that they were straight. Asexuals have done the same thing. This is why I believe in increasing visibility for asexuals--all too often we are told growing up that we aren't asexual, we're just late bloomers, and wow surprise surprise when marrying someone doesn't makes us sexual. I think (and hope) that with increased awareness, people can start realizing their orientation and date accordingly (for those asexuals that date, that is--you're not going to see me in the dating pool anytime soon).

So what, SBB, is the problem? If people should be with other people whose values and expectations line up with their own, as everyone has been advocating all along, what is the point of all your arguing?

What is the purpose of all your advocating? The right to not have sex? Granted. The right to not be defined by your sexuality? Granted. That's the same thing we all want. No one here knows whether I fuck men, women, or both, and no one could care less. I do not care who you fuck or whether you fuck, so stop trying to make us all care. Have meaningful relationships with people of all sexualities, have sex with them, don't have sex with them, who cares.

Maybe your problem is that people aren't excluding you from relationships because you're asexual, they're excluding you because you never shut up about it.

I completely agree that a partner who is objects to your sexuality is not worth keeping as a partner.

For that reason (among others) people should be upfront about their sexuality before they partner off so everyone can make an informed decision.

Also (and here is the important part): an asexual who objects to the sexual needs of their sexual partner is not worth staying partnered with! (See first sentence.)

It is all well and good to claim dehumanization and discrimination and plain old meany pantsness, but at least carry the bold statements you make to their logical conclusion Sara Beth Brooks. If someone can't hack staying partnered with and meeting the needs of an asexual or a bisexual than the ace/bi should feel free to dump them. Similarly, if someone can't hack it with a sexual, then they should feel free to find partners more compatible.

@43 - sorry, that comment hadn't posted by the time I started writing mine @46
However, what you say @43 is definitely not what comes across in your earlier posts, especially the first couple. Quite the opposite, in fact.

@47, wait, looking at the timestamps I may have just overlooked the comment @43 because of the whole "unregistered comment" thing. I still stand by what I said in @46 and @47, however.

Thanks, @27, you said it perfectly.

To reiterate one of your points: the reason we asexuals don't date other asexuals is because there are so few of us.

In theory, it's a great idea. In practice, it means we're outta luck.

We should work harder to host mixers and make our own online dating site, etc. We definitely should. But even if I had the online profile of every asexual within 200 miles, the numbers say that I wouldn't find anyone compatible. I'd still be better off trying to find a sexual person who will go on a date with me knowing that I'm asexual. Why would any sexual date an asexual? As we know, sometimes when two people are in love, there's some big obstacle. Sometimes it's a deal-breaker, and sometimes they work out a compromise. My odds are better going this route. Remember, when you imagine an asexual, you're probably imagining an unappealing stranger. Instead, picture someone you love, and imagine how you would feel if they were "minimal". It changes the equation when it's someone you care about.

(And yes, of course it's never okay for an asexual/"minimal"/anyone to trick someone else into dating them by withholding the fact that they have a low or no sex drive. That's clearly wrong and completely unacceptable)

(And, yes, this is the same reason bisexuals don't date other bisexuals.)

Since being "minimally sexual" seems to be more common among women than among men, I'd think that a "minimally sexual" man would be a good catch if he found a way to market himself to the right community. There's probably a dating website for them somewhere. My point being -- DISCLOSE!

Asexuals shouldn't inflict themselves on on normals. Simple, sane practical advice; why do so many people these days have trouble hearing the truth?

Believe me, I've been there. Dating an Asexual is hell. Being constantly rejected by somebody who claims to love you is pure torture and destroys your self-esteem.

Does Asexual = Sadist? That's what you become when you trick a normal person into dating you. Stick with partners who share your particular sex drive if you really want to find happiness instead of spreading misery.

First, I can't help but think - in regard to this post and the original column - that minimally sexual individuals could try dating extremely pious catholics. Right? I mean, a very good friend of mine is a crazy, traditional catholic. So catholic, she believes in waiting until marriage for sex, and that, to quote her, "the POINT of having sex is to create children." I can't even imagine how impressed and delighted she'd have been if she'd met and dated a minimally sexual guy while she was still on the market (she recently married a normal guy who is apparently capable of putting up with her crazy). He'd have said things like, "I'm fine with waiting until marriage. Let's just kiss for now," and "Well, of course the point of sex is to make children. That's why I don't want to do it very much until I'm ready to be a dad," and OMG, she would've fallen head-over-heels for that guy. But like I said, she's a little crazy, and I realize most catholics aren't that traditional these days. Still, I think at least hypothetically, a minimally sexual dude could land a traditional catholic girlfriend and keep her happy whilst impressing her with his "godly" morals. Or maybe that's just the satirical version of the situation..?

Second, I am a meat eater, and I think bacon is somewhat gross and mostly boring. However, I feel the same way about steak, so I'm obviously not a mainstream meat eater.

@43: What you are saying now is exactly what Dan said.

You seem to think that "asexuals" are some kind of oppressed minority. Bullshit. Victorian prudes are plenty empowered in our society. Look at all the abstinence education programs our government funds. Look at all the clergy preaching that sex is for baby making only, not pleasure. And when your partners inevitably cheat on your sexually frigid ass, our culture condemns them, not you.

You are not oppressed. You are not misunderstood. It's the people who like the sex that need to fight for their rights, not you.

Get a clue, or as Dan advised, go away.

I think the issue is that there are no good spaces for asexual people to find each other. Sure, there are a few meetup groups... in the world. But have you ever heard of an asexual bar? And if you want something like a borderline-asexual bar, you should just give up now.

Gray-asexuals like me have only a few options: 1. Using an asexual dating site, getting extremely lucky, and being satisfied with a sexless relationship, 2. Pursuing friendships instead, or 3. Dating in normal spaces and finding a partner with whom compromise is possible.

I prefer the last option. If you think that sounds impossible, then obviously you are not the kind of person who would be compatible, and you're also projecting your experiences onto everyone else.

@52: WTF makes you think I would be okay with dating a pious Catholic? I am pretty sure that would be a much bigger problem than anything sex-related.

I think the issue is that there are no good spaces for asexual people to find each other. Sure, there are a few meetup groups... in the world. But have you ever heard of an asexual bar? And if you want something like a borderline-asexual bar, you should just give up now.

Gray-asexuals like me have only a few options: 1. Using an asexual dating site, getting extremely lucky, and being satisfied with a sexless relationship, 2. Pursuing friendships instead, or 3. Dating in normal spaces and finding a partner with whom compromise is possible.

I prefer the last option. If you think that sounds impossible, then obviously you are not the kind of person who would be compatible, and you're also projecting your experiences onto everyone else.

@52: WTF makes you think I would be okay with dating a pious Catholic? I am pretty sure that would be a much bigger problem than anything sex-related.

@40, well said, I agree 100%.

In particular I think that the line in NSNA's letter where he strongly implied that one of his reasons for not desiring sex was a "lack of confidence" proved that his reaching for "asexuality" was really, in truth, a defense mechanism against his internalized idea that if he had wanted sex, and not been able to get it, that was somehow far worse than not wanting it and not getting it. I agree with dan. If you really are into asexuality, you should come clean from the get-go so your partner knows what they're signing up for. (Yeah, Sara Beth Brooks, you obviously don't think sex is a big part of a relationship, and that's your rightful opinion, but most men would not agree). And if anyone is just saying that "I guess I'm asexual" because they are intimidated by the intimacy of sex, don't. If you're like most people, just try sex, you'll screw it up the first few times, but you'll get better at it and enjoy it more as you practice. I am not denying that there are real, honest and honorable asexuals out there who really think that sex is boring as all hell and don't want anything to do with it--those people deserve respect and dignity--but I'm sure that there may also be some young, inexperienced people out there who are reaching a little too eagerly for a label to put on themselves so they can shoehorn into a community.

She should totally eat bacon or at least feel bad about it.

Sibby, thanks for your comments.

And, it sounded to me like NSNA may be suffering from physical and/or mental issues unrelated to his sex drive itself. A lack of confidence or stamina aren't necessarily reasons to give up on sex. I'd advise him to get in touch with his body through exercise, and to get evaluated for depression. Not to pathologize people who are actually asexual or minimally sexual, but I'm not sure NSNA truly belongs to that group.

@57
I'm pretty sure most self-identified asexuals tell their partners about it. I don't know why Dan Savage makes it out like we're trying to hide or trick people. On the contrary, I tell partners before we even date, and then they tend to forget it or not take it seriously enough.

The asexuals who don't tell are the ones who are in denial about it, because they're told that they just "lack confidence" or something like that. You are part of the problem.

Well, if she seeks your advice on bacon, then you no longer have an obligation to keep your mouth shut, do you?

Geniuses, these people with their analogies.

Leaving aside the specific case of NSNA, it seems to me to be true that (a) Dan is right in suggesting asexual people should try to date only similarly asexual people, and (b) that the Philadelphia Asexual Examiner is also right in saying that people make mistakes, that realizing one's sexuality is different from the models one sees and reads about in the media is a difficult and lengthy process, and that being afraid that they'll be abandoned by people they love if they reveal their asexuality is also a human, albeit wrong, feeling. I'll bet many asexuals (like gays in the past, or many kinds of kinksters in the present) first get the impression they're the only person in the world who feels that way in the beginning, and are thus afraid that if they reveal their asexuality that'll mean never having any meaningful romantic relations ever in their lives.

I mean, asexuals don't HAVE to ALWAYS be just manipulative jerks who love to torture sexuals. They may simply be misguided people who don't really understand the situation -- just like most of us.

Maybe what's necessary is that Sex Ed at school becomes a topic in which all those various forms of sexuality are acknowledged and discussed -- so that people could start figuring out how they feel and how strongly they feel about sex as soon as possible and thereby avoid some of the most obvious -- and most tragic -- mistakes.

Siggy_m, that's my point above. But don't make the opposite mistake, i.e. don't imagine that sexuals who criticize asexuals are just trying to oppress/persecute/throw stones at them. No -- sexuals can also be confused about asexuals and their reasons for doing things (because, after all, asexuals, just like sexuals, have all kinds of personalities with all kinds of other potential problems and issues as well; nobody is really simple).

The big problem here is not whether X or Y is "part of the problem", but a lack of information about what's out there and how you should react. People who assume we all should be sexual -- be they sexual or asexual (and you and I know there are both kinds in this population) -- are the ones more likely to judge asexuals as either "lacking in confidence" or "traumatized", or as "manipulative jerks."

What should happen is people should get to know more about that. And people should learn to be more sincere about their sexual tendencies, as soon as whatever relationship they're involved in starts moving towards the sexual area. At most after the few first dates.

This is why I believe in increasing visibility for asexuals--all too often we are told growing up that we aren't asexual, we're just late bloomers, and wow surprise surprise when marrying someone doesn't makes us sexual.

To complexify the issue, @44, there ARE people who really are late bloomers -- if you told them they're simply asexual and they identified as such, what would happen when their sexual impulse started growing? Would they feel like they're "betraying" the asexual community? Would they also, in turn, jump to the conclusion that all asexuals are "late bloomers" too?

People should stop paying attention to labels and start paying attention to people. Including themselves.

We should work harder to host mixers and make our own online dating site, etc. We definitely should. But even if I had the online profile of every asexual within 200 miles, the numbers say that I wouldn't find anyone compatible. I'd still be better off trying to find a sexual person who will go on a date with me knowing that I'm asexual.

This sounds like a gay man saying he's better off trying to date girls, because there are oh so few gay men within a 200-mile radius of his little town. Right?

Yet Dan's advice to such people -- and I believe, also to you -- is: internet, and move. You don't have to limit yourself to a 200-mile radius: if you're interested in looking for long-term happiness, you have to invest time and effort. (And even within the 200-mile radius... have you really looked? People get married in small villages too, where the number of options is small enough that even sexuals would statistically in principle have a hard time finding a compatible match; yet they do...). The internet helps with that, as it has help so many other kinksters (and asexuality is, after all, no different from other kinks, in terms of numbers at least). Secondly, if you move to a larger city, you'll have a larger number of asexuals within that 200-mile radius of yours -- which should make things easier.

Bottom line is: if you marry someone whose sex drive is very different from yours, you'll have a big problem. It doesn't follow that you'll necessarily fail -- but you'll have to tackle that problem, and this may be difficult. Maybe more difficult than looking for another asexual, even if it means more than 200 miles.

There seems to be some confusion in the letters about who is oppressing whom, asexuals or sexuals. Or if there is any oppression at all.

Let's leave aside the world "oppression" (in many cases it's a misnomer anyway). Do sexuals and asexuals suffer because of their orientations? I think the answer is yes.

For sexuals, about asexuals: of course you should see that asexuals suffer in a society in which the idea of love and sex is becoming more and more intertwined. So much is said about sex these days that it's probably hard to grow up as an asexual being told all the time that "sex is terribly important." Let's say it probably feels like growing up as a closet atheist in the middle of a religious community. And since you don't know everything while you're growing up, you can internalize all kinds of low-self-esteem bullshit because of that; or force yourself to do things you don't want to do just because you're told you're supposed to like them, "like everybody else." That can create confusing thoughts and beliefs about where your self-worth comes from, and if anybody is ever going to like or love you.

For asxeuals, about sexuals: despite the current omnipresence of sex in the media, still sex is one of the most misunderstood aspects of a sexual's life. We hear conflicting information on sex: it's good but it's bad, it's healthy but you should hide it, it's beautiful but it's icky, etc. etc. etc. If you like it, while growing up, you can become confused by these images and end up feeling like you're strange, attracted to something icky, like a person who has an embarrassing, shameful addiction. Especially for boys, who supposedly have a higher sex drive: a girl who refuses them may simply be asexual -- in which case it's not the boy's fault -- but it's sometimes sooo easy to fall into the trap of believing that you're just an animal who keeps obsessing about icky ugly things while the woman you love is this angel of kindness who is free of this icky obsession so you must be the wrong guy, and why can't you be as good as she is, etc. etc. etc -- can you imagine how bad this can be for his self-esteem? And if the woman is simply asexual, it's all unnecessary suffering, because there are sexual women who would be delighted to do the icky ugly thing with him.

Ergo, there's suffering on both sides, in both cases coming from lack of sufficient information and from stereotypes about what sex is or isn't. Our society clearly needs to evolve.

siggy @60, I think you're missing what CharlesF @57 is saying. He's not saying that all asexuals are simply inexperienced and nervous and should give sex a try, he's saying that some of the people who are young and identify as asexual may be doing so out of insecurity rather than true asexuality.

The other part, where you are dating people who are not asexual, because it's hard to find other asexuals, seems understandable on your part--who wouldn't want a bigger dating pool?--but so unfair to sexual people. It's one thing to consider opening a years-long relationship when one of the partners becomes asexual, but why would a sexual person be willing to do that from the get go? You say that for some sexual people (presumably the ones you would date) when they fall in love, they are willing to compromise. That seems like a pretty huge thing to expect a sexual person to compromise on. Partners who are both sexual have enough trouble sorting out slightly different sex drives, I can't imagine beginning a relationship with that sort of stumbling block. I think if asexual people truly understood how important sex is in a relationship (for sexual people), they wouldn't ask sexual people to compromise on it.

I'm SHOCKED to find out that there are a huge number of people out there who make absolutely no effort to understand how others experience their lives. Black is not white, gay is not straight, sexual is not asexual, and on and on. Deal with it already!

@64: While not all asexuals go on to become Victorian prudes or clergy, quite a few of you have. History is abundant with powerful and self-righteous asexuals who have vigorously imposed their distaste for sex on the rest of us, using religion and other moral frameworks to bully and persecute "sexual deviants" and restrict sexual freedoms.

Given this history, it's ridiculous for Sarah Beth Brooks to play the victim card. Maybe she was bullied, but I'm guessing she was targeted because she's a social misfit, not because she is disinterested in sex. (And of course, that doesn't justify the bullying.)

What I took the much maligned Sara Beth to be trying to say was that a gentle tone towards asexuals - who might, like many young gay youth be struggling with their identity and grieving the loss of having a perceived "normal" relationship - might have been more kind and helpful. I thought she was saying that asexuals could benefit from the same support demonstrated in the it gets better project.

It was unfortunate, however, that she started her first post with the race reference because that undermined what followed.

When are people going to stop expecting Dan to be 'compassionate'?

Sure it's tough to find other asexuals (I guess, I've never gone looking for any) but guess what? No one has an inalienable right to have a partner in life. There are plenty of sexual folks out there who'd like to be in a relationship but for one reason or another, aren't.

If you can't find someone you're compatible with, you don't get to be in a relationship. You certainly don't get the right to mislead people so they'll make decisions they'd never make if they were fully informed.

@3 masturbation does not equal sex drive, I don't find solo sex very entertaining at all but I have a very high sex drive with my partner.

Second, I just want to reiterate that it is not always the man who has a greater sex drive, though the predominance of that has certainly led many a woman with a high sex drive to feel like she was the one with the problem when she was with a man with a lower sex drive. The fact still remains that regardless of the gender of the participants, closely matched sex drives make for happier relationships.

Also, what seems to keep recurring is this idea that asexuals should go ahead and date whomever and as long as they soon after they start dating, disclose their asexuality, it will be ok. Well, if they disclose and the person they are dating is willing to work with that, find some sort of compromise, then congratulations! They just found a minimally sexual person to date. Because a very sexual person will probably call that a deal breaker.

I think the thing here is that for most of us more sexual people the thing that makes something "a relationship" and not a friendship, is that added element of sexual desire. Most of us don't have the experience of uncoupling romantic love from sexual desire, and that is fouling up our communication on this subject. Us sexuals don't get it when an asexual says they want to date someone and not have sex, and the asexuals don't get it when we say but it's just a friendship without the sex. I think its valuable for us to try to listen to each other and better understand each other's viewpoints, but I'd still back Dan on saying that even within the ranges of moderately sexual to very sexual, we're all going to do better in relationships with people who closely match our sex drive.

I'm minimally sexual, my wife has a sex drive like no other. We've found that my watching her masturbate daily and saying a few pre-determined phrases (yeah, I like that, you dirty girl, you love ****ing yourself don't you, ect) sates her desires and also arouses me more than avoiding sex in all forms, as I would if left to my own devices. I don't understand people who feel the need to leave someone who is minimally sexual instead of trying to find a happy middle. If I had my way 100% we'd have sex maybe 3 times a year. If my wife had her way we'd have it at least 3 times a day. With our agreement she gets sexual pleasure daily, and I feel more sexually aroused and am likely to initiate sex a few times a month. It's not exactly what she wants, but many days it's not what I want either. I'd rather sleep in then get up and watch her in the shower every morning. But it's something I do for her because I love her, and it's something she doesn't do for me because she loves me. Life and love are about finding happiness for yourself and for your partner, not perfection. If I wasn't willing to bend her way she shouldn't be expected to bend my way however. Compromise means both parties give a little to gain a lot. She's given me a much higher sex drive and appreciation for lust and desire, and I've given her an appreciation for non sexual intimacy, like holding each other and doing favors to show love.

@65 (ankylosaur): "People should stop paying attention to labels and start paying attention to people. Including themselves."

Yes.

Point taken, yoohah.

@27
"Think of that wince-inducing, militant atheist you know...sometimes, though, you become an evangelical, a self-righteous parody of what once was inflicted on you. It's sad, but it sure as hell happens. And everyone else laughs."

This is such a pet peeve of mine.

We are called anti-theists. We believe that religion is bad for the human race. It is an opinion we have arrived at through reason and logic, not some childhood wounds you imagine we are nursing. We consider it a cause that we are fighting.

If we annoy you, it is in the way animal rights activists annoy you, or environmental activists annoy you. It is because we loudly and passionately oppose what we perceive to be evil and we do it often.

Fervor is not bad in a vacuum. Fervor is why we don't have slavery any more. It's why women get to vote in this country. Fervor is only bad if it serves something that is ultimately bad for society and the human race. Religious fervor is bad because it's religious, not because it is fervor.

Our spokesmen are four of the most intelligent, coherent, funny/entertaining people on the planet who have a seemingly endless wealth of patience to explain our philosophy over and over and over and have been doing it for more than a decade. One of them is currently dying of cancer, bald from chemo and continues....to.....explain......it.

Just from your characterization of us, you have no idea where we are coming from and have clearly never bothered to find out as this information is readily and widely available.

Yes, we are zealous. Just from this post you can see that I am incredibly zealous about this. You could even prevaricate and call me "evangelical". But please stop talking about why we're so passionate. It's inaccurate, dismissive, and indolent.

@ 71 How can I put this... No. Asexuals have not been responsible for any fucked up repression of sexuality. You sexual folk did all that yourself. How many crazy sex-negative preachers of all stripes are one day found with a mistress or rent boy or whatever poison they most railed against? There are, I reiterate, really, really few asexuals. And most asexuals aren't revolted by sex, just bored and confused. That's usually what happens when you're at odds with your own sexuality or desperate to control everyone else's or both.

@ 81 Sorry to rain on your painfully self-congratulatory parade, but I'm anti-theist. I read lots of Richard Dawkins (though, admittedly, most because of his biology, because I am a nerd), I enjoyed Religulous (even if Bill Mahr is damned annoying sometimes), and so on. You'll notice my qualifications of "wince-inducing" and "militant." I am not attacking people who hold anti-religious views. You'll notice I'm, uh, reading Dan Savage's blog, for instance. I'm attacking the one's who turn every conversation that touches remotely on religion into a rant, that act offended if someone in the room dares be religious, and otherwise behaves exactly like the most insufferable Christian nutjob. Holding views-that I happen to share, thanks-and being passionate about them does not excuse the "Everyone's mean to me and I'm a martyr and now your conversation is mine to fill with blathering rants" school of social interaction, whatever your reason. I'm also childfree, and I'm still aware of the rude, boring, short-fused, dim-witted, and entitled among us. Way to go telling me off, though. I definitely don't think you're any of those things now.

Not a Yankees fan, though. Bleh.

@78: I think your solution is brilliant! I especially like how you point out that this arrangement leads to you actually wanting sex more, which is a win-win! Your post illustrates my problem with this "asexual" or "minisexual" label. People are being branded "asexual" when it is really just a matter of not having the right turn-ons or situational comfort. This is not the same as lack of attraction! and it can -- theoretically -- be resolved without drastic knee-jerk solutions like open relationship or DTMFA (which are Dan's #2 and #1 "solutions", it seems).

@78 thinks people who like to fuck don't engage in non-sexual physical intimacy. While, in reality, the reason why you'd likely come across a lack of non-sexual physical intimacy in a sexless relationship between a sexual and an asexual is because the sexual feels rejected by their asexual partner. I wouldn't hold your hand either.

Additionally, I am in a wonderful, sexually compatible relationship with a man who's sex drive is as high (and sometimes higher, I'll always "lend a hand") as mine. If he was to turn around tomorrow and tell me he was asexual, I'd drop him like a hot rock. Life is too short to not be having all the sex that I want. Sorry asexuals.

@5: You're absolutely right, we need an alternative to "DTMFA", it's being overused.

@49: You write:

"Remember, when you imagine an asexual, you're probably imagining an unappealing stranger. Instead, picture someone you love, and imagine how you would feel if they were "minimal". It changes the equation when it's someone you care about."

No it fucking doesn't - it doesn't matter how much I care about someone or how appealing they are, if they're asexual, that is a dealbreaker. There are very few sexual, non-desperate people who would disagree with that. I don't give a shit how sexual my friends are. I very much DO give a shit how sexual potential partners are. That's because I'm a sexual person - if someone else isn't, we're not compatible, period.

And yes, asexuals need to work harder to build connections with each other. That's not the problem of sexual people, though.

@82: I keep hearing about these "tiresome militant atheists", but I've never, ever met one. The atheists I know (myself and pretty much all of my friends) would rather not talk about religion at all. Same goes for the childfree - don't want kids, don't want to talk about kids either.

@65
The asexual community, generally speaking, tries to cultivate a safe space where people feel free to explore without feeling like they're betraying anyone if they leave. For example, I used to identify as asexual, now I consider myself borderline asexual. It's a different culture from the gay community, which often pressures bisexual men to hide themselves. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's not nearly as bad as you think.

@68
I know what people say about asexuals, that some of them are just insecure, or that they're late bloomers, or that they have hormone problems, or they're prudes, or they can't get laid, or that it's really because of their gender, their disability, etc etc etc. I've heard it all a million times. Every self-identified asexual has. Seriously, you don't even need to say it. Asexuals are not allowed to even consider the possibility that they are asexual until they have eliminated absolutely everything else. Is it any wonder that asexuals often discover themselves in the middle of a relationship? Some people are always going to be wrong, so why is it so much worse when people wrongly believe they are asexual?

Also, I was talking about compromises between sexuals and gray-asexual/minimally-sexual people, not compromises between sexuals and completely asexual people. If an asexual wants a completely sexless relationship, that is obviously a major obstacle. But for a "minimally-sexual" person, it could be a smaller difference than you might think, depending on the person. And some people are more willing to compromise than others; obviously those who write to Savage are the kind of people who don't deal well with compromise.

@5, 86 - I have used SYNAM (Sorry, You're Not A Match) on occasion - I toyed with Just or Well being in there somewhere, but YJNAM or YJNWM both just looked too weird, and I liked Sorry for emphasis that there is no MF involved. And it can be pronounced in two syllables, an advantage over DTMFA.

I don't see why an asexual/grey-a and sexual relationship is doomed to fail. It's all a matter of personal preference and ability to compromise. For some relationships, a person under the asexual umbrella and a sexual person won't work. In some, it would. To generalize and say "An ace/sexual relationship will NEVER work and is doomed to fail," is a)inaccurate and b)insulting. I definitely think that an asexual, or even somebody who is sexual but has a low libido, should be very honest with their partner about their sex life from the get-go. If somebody is accepting of that and willing to compromise, then great, they might even get married and stay married. If the person doesn't seem accepting or doesn't think the relationship can work, it's best that the people stay friends or something.

Also, I can't help but ask why a sexual person's sexual needs always have to trump an asexual person's romantic needs? Seriously. Technically, neither are needs because you CAN, believe it or not, live without romance or sex, but both fill voids in peoples' lives that many people can't live without. To tell an asexual to STFU about their needs just because of their orientation is just plain effed-up. People aren't like ferrets. They don't die if they don't copulate while in heat. You never really hear of people killing themselves because they couldn't get laid. However, people do suffer immense grief, psychological trauma, or are even driven into mania because of (often unrequited, purely romantic) love. That's not to say that romantic needs are /more/ important than sexual ones. I'm just saying that romantic needs are needs too, and they need to be met, and they should be viewed as being just as important and valid as sexual ones.

I don't see why an asexual/grey-a and sexual relationship is doomed to fail. It's all a matter of personal preference and ability to compromise. For some relationships, a person under the asexual umbrella and a sexual person won't work. In some, it would. To generalize and say "An ace/sexual relationship will NEVER work and is doomed to fail," is a)inaccurate and b)insulting. I definitely think that an asexual, or even somebody who is sexual but has a low libido, should be very honest with their partner about their sex life from the get-go. If somebody is accepting of that and willing to compromise, then great, they might even get married and stay married. If the person doesn't seem accepting or doesn't think the relationship can work, it's best that the people stay friends or something.

Also, I can't help but ask why a sexual person's sexual needs always have to trump an asexual person's romantic needs? Seriously. Technically, neither are needs because you CAN, believe it or not, live without romance or sex, but both fill voids in peoples' lives that many people can't live without. To tell an asexual to STFU about their needs just because of their orientation is just plain effed-up. People aren't like ferrets. They don't die if they don't copulate while in heat. You never really hear of people killing themselves because they couldn't get laid. However, people do suffer immense grief, psychological trauma, or are even driven into mania because of (often unrequited, purely romantic) love. That's not to say that romantic needs are /more/ important than sexual ones. I'm just saying that romantic needs are needs too, and they need to be met, and they should be viewed as being just as important and valid as sexual ones.

@90: "I'm just saying that romantic needs are needs too, and they need to be met, and they should be viewed as being just as important and valid as sexual ones."

Yes, but... if an asexual and a sexual are in a romantic relationship, then the asexual is getting his romantic needs met 100% of the time, while the sexual is getting her sexual needs met... what, 10% of the time? 40%? Whatever the number is, it is less than 100%.

The fact that I have sexual needs does not mean that I do not also have romantic needs. I agree entirely that they are as important and valid as my sexual needs. But if I were in a relationship where only my romantic needs were being met, I would not be satisified.

Incompatible sex drives are a relationship killer. That's okay - lots of other things are. (Incompatible politics, incompatible diets, incompatible pets...) A sexual isn't a bad person for not wanting to be in a relationship with someone who considers their sexual needs to be unimportant.

Why is dan 'so mean' to A-sexuals?
Cos he gets letters like this from sexual people who are fucked up from dating an asexual and trying to make it work.
It's like cruising for dates at Julliard and then telling your Opera singer girlfriend that you actually hate music, and she can't listen to music anymore, ever again. "But she gave up music and says she's happy with me!!" Congratulations, you've given her a heart wrenching decision and killed something beautiful within her. Don't expect any of us to clap.

When you're a sexual person, and you're dating an a-sexual person, that constant rejection can be soul destroying. Sure it may be harder to find a minimally sexual person/asexual person to date, but isn't it better than this emotional violence you could inflict on someone you've essentially tricked into dating you?

It happens to a lot of people. I'm on a forum, on which there is a a-sexual thread, where the a-sexual women congratulate each other on having browbeaten their sexual husbands into not asking for sex anymore. Ever. I think that is a terrible thing to do to someone. It happens a lot, and it's abusive. Cut that shit out.

90: Oo, my romantic needs are just as important as your sexual needs!

Fine. Go meet your romantic needs with someone who doesn't have my sexual needs, then. Your whole "just-as-important" formulation totally glosses over that you are asking your partner to go without, for the sake of your Just As Important Needs. Deciding the two of you are incompatible and breaking up is not asking you to go without. Breaking up means both of you get your needs met, albeit each with someone else. Staying in the relationship means at least one of you isn't getting their needs met.

92: "When you're a sexual person, and you're dating an a-sexual person, that constant rejection can be soul destroying."

Yes, this. And the asexual person is never going to understand this. As far as they can tell, it doesn't feel like rejection. To take your metaphor a little farther, it's like a deaf person cruising for dates at Julliard, and then demanding the opera-singer-significant-other gives up singing.

Regarding the response from the "minimal" in the posting, the bacon analogy is pretty half-bac'd.

You personally don't say anything about the bacon to your vegan friend because her distaste for meat doesn't affect anybody else but herself. To be analogous to this situation, there would have to be a carnivore boyfriend who was being made miserable by the vegan's refusal to ever have meat in the house, and refusal to allow him to so much as stop at McD's for a burger. In that case, Dan's advice wouldn't be "C'mon, try the bacon, you don't know what you are missing." It would be "Stupid vegan, don't date carnivores."

@91 and 93: Did you ever think that for some people, satisfying somebody's sexual needs might make somebody feel less romantic, ie they get turned off or feel awkward? Their romantic needs may not be met at 100%, but they might be okay with that because they're open to compromise, as is their partner. You might not be personally open to a relationship that requires that much compromise. Some people are. To assume that NOBODY is open to such a relationship is pretty damn closed-minded. If you don't want to date an asexual, then don't. But don't tell other sexuals that they can't, especially if they /are/ willing to try and make it work. Dan flat-out assumes that just because /he/ isn't willing to compromise and won't feel at all satisfied in such a relationship, nobody is. That is incorrect. Some people, believe-it-or-not, would be willing to date an asexual if they were willing to have some sex or participate in some sort of sexual activity. Some people would not mind being in an open relationship with an asexual. Some people (few, but some) actually could go without sex from their partner, even though they're sexual. Like I said, if you don't want to date an asexual, don't do it. Everyone has their preferences and limits. But don't tell other people that they're being sadistic/cruel/whatever because they're looking for a type of relationship that you would not want to be part of.

@81
If you agree with my position, I would ask that you be more clear that you are talking about a minority of passionate, vocal atheists when you deride us in the future.

Just consider doing this favor and, in the future, when you talk about wincing at vocal atheists, just give it a mention that you only really mean those who are obsessed to the point of being almost mentally deranged. Maybe toss it in there that you support vocal, passionate atheism when not taken to the most ludicrous extreme your imagination can provide.

That was an unfair dig. I'm leaving it because I think it's funny but I do think it's possible that you know a person like the one you describe. Though I sort of think you're getting that idea somewhere else.

See, the way you characterize the atheists you meant in your post is exactly how many, many Christians endlessly characterize any and all vocal atheists. Again, I'm not sure how you managed to not know that.

Like, Christians are constantly describing Dawkins the way you described atheists in your post. When Christians want to insult atheists, they say the stuff you said in your post.

It is weird to me that you are so unaware of that. However, now that I have called your attention to that fact, I'm sure you will be more careful about using that sort of characterization yourself.

In reading these comments it seems the big problem here is that when most people mention compromise it comes at the expense of the more sexual partner. As someone who has A LOT of issues I've worked through over the years I have to say that I think it's unfair to expect other people to accommodate me all the time. Being uncomfortable isn't the end of the world. It's a bit presumptuous to put the entire burden of my comfort on another person. Certainly some people are more willing than others to work with me but I have had to be willing to work with them as well. It's only fair.

I like Dan's 'price of admission' idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ObrFwjes….

From the last dozen posts, I am wondering what asexuals mean when they use the term "romantic needs". To me, romantic needs include my human needs for intimacy, sexually suggestive contact, foreplay and sex.

Do asexuals mean companionship, emotional support, physical stress relief (massage), etc. when they use the term "romantic needs"? I can get all of that from my friends, associates and masseuse.

@96: "Did you ever think that for some people, satisfying somebody's sexual needs might make somebody feel less romantic, ie they get turned off or feel awkward?"

To be perfectly honest, no, I never thought that. And to be frank, I cannot imagine that this would be the case for a sexual person. If a person is romantically and sexually attracted to someone, having sex would not mean they felt less romantic. Typically it would be the exact opposite.