Follow Dan

Facebook    Twitter    Instagram    YouTube
Savage Lovecast
Dan Savage's Hump
It Gets Better Project

Savage Love Podcast

Got a question for Dan Savage?
Call the Savage Love Podcast at 206-201-2720
or email Dan at mail@savagelove.net.

Savage Love Archives

More in the Archives »

More from Dan Savage

More in the Archives »

Books by Dan Savage

Want a Second Opinion?

Contact Dan Savage

Savage on YouTube

Loading...

Raw Dog

February 3, 2011

I read your column every week, mostly out of abstract interest. My thoughts reading your advice are usually some variation on "Wow, that's a lot of work to do, just to have a sex life." So reading you, I came to the conclusion that I was asexual. I liked this conclusion, as it was a sexual identity that made sense for me.

Then I joined an asexual community. I soon realized that I was unlike those people, too. It turns out that they have no sexual attractions either way, whereas I comfortably identify as a straight male. I look when a pretty girl walks past (much to the chagrin of an asexual I dated for a short time), I like to kiss, and I enjoy some genital contact—but I'm in the mood for penetration very rarely. Asexuals seemed to be turned off by physical intimacy.

I soon realized that asexual was the wrong label for me. In reality, what I am is minimally sexual.

Here's the question: How do normally sexual persons feel about being with someone who can perform but doesn't particularly want to? I know that being in a relationship means making compromises, but will a normally sexual person accept a partner who is able to have sex but does not wish to for certain reasons, e.g., a lack of confidence or stamina? Can a person please a partner without pleasing said partner in the euphemistic sense?

Not Sexual, Not Asexual

It should come as no shock to someone who reads my column every week—or any other advice column—that there are lots of people out there who want to be in relationships but don't particularly want to have sex. We don't usually hear directly from these "minimally sexual" types. Instead, we hear from their maximally unhappy partners, i.e., the "normally sexual persons" who find themselves unhappily married to and/or otherwise stuck with minimally sexual persons.

With all the minimally sexuals out there making normally sexuals miserable, NSNA, it should be obvious to all regular readers that there's not exactly a shortage of people who aren't interested in sex. With that being the case, why would you even contemplate inflicting yourself on a normally sexual person? Why not go find another minimally sexual person? You'll be doing your minimally sexual self a favor, you'll be doing your future minimally sexual partner a favor, and you'll be doing all normally sexual persons everywhere a favor by removing two minimals—you and your future partner—from the dating pool.

Unless you're more interested in sex than you let on, NSNA, and you find the idea of a normally sexual partner appealing because a normal might be able to help you build your confidence and learn to enjoy sex. I certainly hope you're not another asexual/minimally sexual person who wants a normally sexual partner because you take a perverse pleasure in depriving someone else of sex, constantly rejecting that person's advances, and ultimately destroying their confidence.


I'm a 22-year-old queer chick who came out only a couple years ago. Right when I was starting to talk honestly with my friends about my sexuality, I met a girl with whom I got along great. Fairly quickly, we both realized that she wanted the relationship to go further—she says this was the first time she had ever been attracted to another girl. I was not at all attracted to her, so I said something about being too unstable myself in the coming-out process to date someone who's also just coming out. It worked, she dropped it, and we have since become extremely close friends. She began identifying openly as bi, and identifies me as the reason.

Here's the problem: Yesterday, out of the blue, she told me that she still really likes me and thinks we should be together. Dan, this girl is really important to me, but I am still not at all physically attracted to her. Am I a totally superficial a-hole? What can I tell her that won't ruin this friendship? How can I make it clear that I don't feel the same way without giving the actual reason?

Can't We Just Be Friends

"I'm too unstable in the coming-out process to date someone who's also just coming out" is a baby-dyke variation on "I'm just not ready for a relationship right now." Unfortunately, CWJBF, not everyone on the receiving end of that white lie is smart enough to realize that their white liar actually means "I'm not interested in being in a relationship with you and I never will be."

This poor girl waited until you were further along in the coming-out process to ask you out again because she was foolish enough to believe you when you blamed bad timing. Now you're going to have to tell her the truth—yes, you're going to have to give her the actual reason—and the hurt is going to be worse when she realizes what a fool she was to wait.

Apologize for not being direct when she first asked you out. Tell her you love her as a friend but you're not attracted to her sexually or romantically and never will be. Leveling with her won't make you an a-hole, CWJBF, but it could cost you this friendship.


CONFIDENTIAL TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: I was supposed to speak on your campus last Thursday night, but God had other plans. I was at the Cornerstone bar when the blizzard really started slamming and power lines started catching fire and all hell broke loose. The evening's most distressing development: The bar had to stop serving once the power went out.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to coming back to your campus—the Savage Love Live event/shoot is being rescheduled and may take place this week—and when I return, I'd really like to meet the person responsible for some graffiti I spotted in the men's room at the Cornerstone: "Don't Raw Dog a Random."

That has to be the most effective peer-to-peer safer-sex message I've ever read while taking a piss in Maryland. It did take me a second to work out exactly what it meant, as I'm old, so here's a quick translation for other olds: "Don't raw dog a random" means "For heaven's sake, don't engage in unprotected vaginal intercourse—don't have sex without a condom—with a woman you've only just met, particularly if you met her in this drinking establishment. Bro."

It's not a fail-safe strategy for avoiding sexually transmitted infections—people can get very specific STIs from completely nonrandom sex partners—but the number of STIs could be cut dramatically if all male college students everywhere refrained from raw-dogging those lovely lady randoms and vice versa. (I realize that "random" is not gendered... but if you saw this bar, you would know that an exclusively heterosexual clientele can be safely assumed. A straight boy wrote that message, and he was addressing other straight boys, and "random" refers to female pickups, not male pickups.)

I want to add that I was particularly impressed by the use of the word "random" in place of, say, "bitch," "slut," "whore," or any of the other sexist/hostile/demeaning terms that college-town-bathroom-stall-graffitiing types typically use in place of "woman," "female," or "young lady coed." Well done, DIY safe-sex educator!

Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.

mail@savagelove.net

 

Comments (210) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Lilliable 1
That first one isn't going to end well.
Posted by Lilliable on February 1, 2011 at 4:25 PM · Report this
Lilliable 2
No, the second one.
Posted by Lilliable on February 1, 2011 at 4:26 PM · Report this
3
NSNA might try online dating sites. I know OKCupid allows you to specify how often you like to have sex, so you could search for other people who say "once a month" or whatever.
Posted by EricaP on February 1, 2011 at 4:51 PM · Report this
4
"Raw dogging some randoms" is a line from the movie "She's Out of My League."
Posted by bmmurph on February 1, 2011 at 5:33 PM · Report this
5
I don't agree with Dan on the first letter. I think I would need much more information about Minimally Sexual Guy before giving him such specific advice to date other "Minimally Sexual" people.

For example, how old is he? If he's for example in his mid 20's, he just may not have found the Right One or even his Right Type yet. If I were his therapist, I would not assume that this is his permanent state, nor would I advise him only to limit dating to those people similar to him. Perhaps a certain "Normal" could elicit a more sexual response. For that matter, this could even apply to later bloomers.

There was a pretty bold article in this weeks New York magazine about how today, many guys are much more able to get aroused watching porn on the Internet than they do with their real life partners. Maybe there is something to this new age.....the ease of HD porn and the wide open menu of choices, leading to a loss of desire for the "real thing"? Just wondering.
Posted by gayBoiNYC on February 1, 2011 at 5:36 PM · Report this
6
I'd guess "don't raw dog a random" could apply to straight OR gay men OR women.
Posted by ackack on February 1, 2011 at 5:41 PM · Report this
7
There are some chicks on this forum I go on regulary...they have a whole thread dedicated to asexuals. I almost threw up when I read all these ladies feeling sorry for themselves that their husbands always 'bother them' for sex. I feel fucking awful for the husbands. It's almost as bad as asexuality.org's line "Asexual people are just as likely to date sexual people as we are to date each other."
I think it's downright abusive.
Posted by Caralain on February 1, 2011 at 5:54 PM · Report this
8
Sometimes we get into long-term relationships when we are too young and inexperienced and don't realize we aren't compatible with our partners. Add on to that the libido killer called the birth control pill and sex can feel very much like a chore. I finally left my partner for a variety of reasons, and found out I was not minimally sexual at all. In fact just the opposite with the right partner.

And thank you Dan for expanding our horizons...
Posted by Ruralgirl on February 1, 2011 at 6:57 PM · Report this
Robin8 9
It doesn't matter how much sex NSNA wants or doesn't want, as long as he finds someone who wants the same. Most of the relationships we see here--probably most relationships, period--have some sort of libido imbalance. Heck, it's the reason I'm not married any more. So NSNA needs to, and, I'm confident, will find someone whose libido matches his.

PS: GO TERPS!!

PPS: After reading all month about unrest in Egypt, the economy, and that insufferable cunt Sarah Palin, I'm really looking forward to some good old bread-and-butter poo-eater letters. How about you guys?
Posted by Robin8 http://shutyoureverlovingpiehole.wordpress.com on February 1, 2011 at 7:38 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 10
That grafitti might have been put up there by the local AIDS organization. Of course, it wouldn't be an official activity of the group, but...
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on February 1, 2011 at 7:39 PM · Report this
11
NANA: Kudos for realizing that you are minimally sexual and for seeking out others of the same ilk. But, as Dan said, please don't look for people with normal libidos to build a relationship with. As others stated, that will always turn out badly.

If you're older, go hit on divorced women seeking to be "friends." That will probably be the type you're looking for. They're out there, buddy. Millions of them are definitely out there.

If you're younger, I can't help except to suggest that you hit the church circuit. In my twenties, the only people I knew who weren't looking to get laid were uptight religious types.
Posted by Approaching 40 in LA on February 1, 2011 at 7:57 PM · Report this
12
To "queer chick" letter writer: I hope the friendship dies. In my experience, when one person is pining away for his or her friend, the pined-for friend has a lot more power in the relationship. Obviously you enjoy having people fawning over you and sucking up to you. Try giving a little more in your relationships instead of taking advantage of poor unattractive schleps.
Posted by Seether on February 1, 2011 at 7:59 PM · Report this
13
@5 - I agree with you. The key to NSNA's letter is when he names "lack of confidence or stamina" as hypothetical reasons someone wouldn't want to have sex. He sounds like he has a sex drive, but has fears that need to be overcome through practice with a patient, understanding partner. He should either find someone similarly inexperienced on a dating site or start paying a professional.
Posted by Amanda on February 1, 2011 at 8:22 PM · Report this
14
Dan did a great job, but ugh....how can he have the patience to deal with such boring people.

to the first letter: Why are you trying to label yourself? You ain't special honey, and trying to fit in with people you think are even extra interesting just because there happen to be less of them. Guess what? You aren't interesting to them either. You have a low sex drive. Congratulations.
Posted by dakoneko on February 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM · Report this
XiaoGui17 15
That message in the stall is effective because it's presented as hip stall-scrawler advice. Most people tune out PSA's the second they recognize them as PSA's.
Posted by XiaoGui17 on February 1, 2011 at 8:30 PM · Report this
16
I disagree with Dan's advise to the minimally sexual fella. If he's only interested in sex say 10% of the time, and he finds someone with a similar frequency of occurence of sexual interest, how often do you really think that their sexual inclinations are going to magically coincide? I'm going to say not very damn often, making them both unhappy.

I'm surprised that no one has suggested a nice open relationship, in which he can make an emotional connection with a partner with more typical sexual needs, but allow that other person parameters to satisfy those needs if he's not so inclined.
Posted by catballou on February 1, 2011 at 8:44 PM · Report this
17
NSNA can choose whatever label he wants, but "asexual" or "grey asexual" are reasonable labels. It's not true that all asexuals are turned off by physical intimacy.

@7: I agree that sexual compatibility is very important, but if an asexual and a sexual are open and honest about their sexuality and want to try dating each other, why not? Especially if they discuss non-monogamy as well. There are working asexual-sexual relationships. I'm not sure why you're against asexuality.org: I think it's a very helpful site and if more asexuals knew more about asexuality, we could all have more successful relationships.

@5: You can search for people who gave a specific answer to specific questions?
Posted by BlackRose on February 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM · Report this
18
@17, are you asking about OKCupid? If so, then, no, you can't do a search that way, but you can search by other qualities (age, location, etc.), and then read through their answered questions to see what they said about specific questions. Not everyone answers every question publicly, but I've found a lot of useful information that way. Does take time...
Posted by EricaP on February 1, 2011 at 9:03 PM · Report this
19
@18: Yes, thanks, that's what I had thought. It would be pretty awesome if you could do a search that way, though you could theoretically approximate that result by erasing all your answers to questions, only answering that particular question, and then search based on match percentage.
Posted by BlackRose on February 1, 2011 at 9:30 PM · Report this
20
Don't RawDog at Random is great advice to put right next to the condom machine.. Goes for everyone, Straight, Gay, Bi, TG and TS.
Posted by ggg on February 1, 2011 at 9:45 PM · Report this
21
#2 is a case of norousal! Last word defined in the following image.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages…
Posted by Calcaneum on February 1, 2011 at 9:48 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 22
@1 and 2,

Hell yeah! Absolutely excellent firsties-and secondies-holee sheeit!-and an extra big helping of the canceraids to you. And I mean that with all of my heart.

*Moonwalks out the door, does a spin, and faints dead away...*
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 1, 2011 at 10:10 PM · Report this
23
"That's a lot of work to have a sex life....like lack of confidence"

This guy is not asexual. He is a moron looking for some type of identity so he can understand his pathetic life a little better. Harsh? Probably.

It's just I am married to one of those so called asexuals and Dan hit it out of the park. I am just not clear how an asexual can date. What precisely is there to date? If you want a friend go out for some drinks. If you are dating it means you are looking for a wife/husband/lover. So if you don't ever want to fuck, then how can you be out looking for something besides a friend? A life partner? Give me a fucking break, get a dog.

And to those "low drive" people who want to whine about how wonderful it is to live in a sexless marriage, where you just share your love and lives and whatever pathetic worthless bullshit it is that you do I have two words: FUCK YOU.

On the Queer chick Dan gave us his typical bluster. Is that a bit of anti-lesbian bias from a fag? My advice is perhaps she can give her friend a nicer lie- maybe even one that is a lot of truth, like her signature name. How about: "Oh baby we are such good friends and I just don't think of you in that way. Can't we just stay good friends." No need to tell your "friend" you think she is a toad after all.

Don't Raw Dog a Random: LMFAO. Since calling a girl a random is such an elevation above bitch, Ho or even whore, right? Jeez, misogyny all over the place in this column. Love it!
Posted by Professor on February 1, 2011 at 10:57 PM · Report this
24
#9 Nice one! Bread and butter poo eaters, I would NEVER eat any poo without lots of butter! And warmed up, so the butter melts. If the butter is solid it coats my tongue, and I can't taste the poo. Plus it just doesn't slide down the same cold. Shit I'm grossing myself out here!
Posted by timbeecharmer on February 1, 2011 at 11:10 PM · Report this
25
Dan messed up with NSNA. Treat grey asexual as fetishists instead: just disclose the low sexuality up front, and each partner can decide if he/she's ready to be GGG.

Limiting yourself to other greys creates the same problem as fetishists - could be too small a dating pool.
Posted by twocents on February 2, 2011 at 12:01 AM · Report this
26
If your reasons for not having sex are lack of confidence or lack of stamina, you're not asexual, you're a loser. Get some therapy or get some exercise, and get over yourself.

@5: it's not a "new age", people who are sexually unsatisfied by their partners have always made use of other avenues for stimulation. It's possible that in many cases this is due to unrealistic expectations on the part of the male ("what, you mean you don't want to do DVDA?"), but it's also quite possibly due to the sexual hangups of their partner (see first letter). Unfortunately American culture is so sex-negative that this is a common predicament.
Posted by Chase on February 2, 2011 at 1:31 AM · Report this
27
Whoever wrote that message in the bar bathroom must play a lot of online games. I hear that all the time. Randoms referring to the random people that matchmaking pairs them with.
Posted by Hybrid Vigor on February 2, 2011 at 1:37 AM · Report this
28
NSNA,

Consider testosterone therapy. You might find being hornier not an improvement. At least you'll have tried it.
Posted by Hunter78 on February 2, 2011 at 2:50 AM · Report this
saxfanatic 29
For those who are interested, it's not difficult to get an education that gives insight into different cultures.

Wouldn't the world be a better place if only families/schools/churches/pop culture/whatever spent more time explicitly talking about the whole spectrum of different hormonally-charged impulses humanity has to offer.

Perhaps that's the real reason I read SLOG. Well, that and the poo eaters.
Posted by saxfanatic on February 2, 2011 at 3:05 AM · Report this
Gregory Forman 30
I am a family law attorney in Charleston, South Carolina and I've always loved your column. Even though I am heterosexual, married 21 years, and with a rather vanilla life, I seem to represent a number of what the rest of my culture would consider "perverts" (not pedophiles). Perhaps it is my late-70's Southern California upbringing but such folks don't bother me. However, I find that they have a hard time accepting themselves and their own shame is often their biggest problem.

Anyway, I loved your advice, "Don't raw dog a random." My business would be cut by at least 20%, and there would be many fewer folks trying to "coparent" with someone they can't stand, if everyone followed it.
Posted by Gregory Forman http://www.gregoryforman.com on February 2, 2011 at 4:31 AM · Report this
31
I think Dan was way too hard on NSNA. It sounds like he's realized his sexual level and is trying to be responsible about who he dates but isn't quite sure how to go about it. Dan laid into him as if he was just itching to ruin some normal-sexual person's life when the evidence points to just the opposite.

I'll hazard a guess that he didn't mention the possibility of finding a minimally sexual woman because he's not sure how to find her. Asexuals congregate (or the responsible/self-aware ones do) and everyone else is assumed to be normally sexual. Finding women to date and then having to announce that, oh yeah, I'm not into the whole "fucking" thing is going to put him in a lot of awkward situations and it could take him forever to find an appropriately matched woman. I suggest looking online and placing your sexual preference (non-preference?) on your profile. Consider yourself a fetishist without a fetish. You are a member of a minority that can only be happy with people well suited to tolerating or better yet sharing your minority sexuality. This means you'll have to work harder to find someone.

However before you do any of that make damn sure you're really what you say you are. If it's low self-esteem, or depression, that's causing a temporary low sex drive, fix that. Just as unfair as springing asexuality on a sexual partner is sprining sexuality on a nonsexual partner when you pretended otherwise.
Posted by Lynx on February 2, 2011 at 4:37 AM · Report this
32
NSNA: At first I thought "I should introduce you to my churchy girlfriends!" There are *so* many pretty Christian girls who are turned off by sex but are waiting for love and romance.

But... Dan should have noticed the tip-off words "lack of confidence, stamina." NSNA, you're not asexual, or minimally sexual, you're messed up. You need to figure out why you're not confident and fix it. You need to exercise -- there's a fair chance it'll raise your testosterone, make you better at sex, and make you good-looking enough to raise your confidence (vanity can be a good thing.) It's pretty likely that you're only "minimally sexual" because of your *present* situation, and you could be "maximally sexual" and you'd enjoy it.
Posted by drizzle89 on February 2, 2011 at 5:13 AM · Report this
33
Is lack of stamina or confidence typically an underlying driver of asexuality? Because those two factors don't seem to me to constitute a whole sexual identity. I mean, gay men aren't gay because it's too much trouble to date women (a reason an evangelical I know once suggested).

I do wonder if the guy shouldn't just see a shrink. I can't help but wonder if he suffers from a "I don't want to play if I can't win" mentality. It reminds me strongly of my recent ex-boyfriend (who was very sexually adept and had a crazy sex drive) who would not play scrabble with me EVEN ONCE in more than a year of dating because he knew he couldn't beat me. He doesn't want to do anything that he's not automatically excellent at. And it's not a good way to go through life - it's led to nothing but misery for him.

Or am I totally misunderstanding the situation?
Posted by JrzWrld on February 2, 2011 at 5:18 AM · Report this
34
I should add that Scrabble is my favorite game ever, because I love words, and I spent a lot of time participating in my ex's interests. We never had an argument about it, but his flat-out non-negotiable refusal gave me a lot of insight into his character.

NSNA, the more I think about it, you should really really talk to a professional. Maybe this is a little hump you need to get over, but that kind of outlook can be really really insidious. A therapist - especially one comfortable with sexual matters - wouldn't hurt.
Posted by JrzWrld on February 2, 2011 at 5:24 AM · Report this
35
I think the response to NSNA was a little harsh. He was asking, rather than "inflicting himself" on someone. He had tried dating asexuals but found that he was not quite asexual, but just low libido.

I think he's asking the right questions, at least, and trying to be conscientious.

I think he's in an OK position, actually, because there are more low-libido women than low-libido men out there I think.

One thing is, if he's under 30 or dating women under 30 he might have more of an issue, because women's sex drives can change a lot (in my own experience) in their 20s and so if he meets a nice minimally sexual 24-year-old, she may turn into a raging nympho at 31, and that could be a problem.

I think that he just has to treat this like a foot fetish -- date women and disclose on the 10th date that he has a lower than average libido, but he is attracted to them, blah blah blah. He'll probably get dumped a few times but hopefully if he keeps looking he'll figure it out.
Posted by Annee on February 2, 2011 at 6:30 AM · Report this
36
The first letter writer sounds like he might have a medical problem. I don't want to suggest that a lack of stamina is necessarily medically pathological, but when he points to a lack of libido and stamina, it could be a symptom of something else. If his disinterest is caused by, say, diabetes, this might not be a permanent state. If he does find there's an underlying medical issue and treats it, he could find himself dissatisfied with his minimally sexual partner.

He might decide that a lack of libido is a symptom he doesn't want to treat, and that's fine, as long as his health isn't in danger. But he should get a physical just to be on the safe side.
Posted by kingx54 on February 2, 2011 at 6:46 AM · Report this
37
I wish Dan had told NSNA that no two people are ever going to have perfectly matched libidos. He may have other problems but don't think the rest of us having sex never have that argument.
Posted by Texans on February 2, 2011 at 6:53 AM · Report this
38
There are plenty of fat men with no confidence who are typical horn dogs. Even if it's manifested mainly in self-pleasuring. I think if this guy thinks he is minimally sexual, he really is. If I were him, I'd look into hormone levels. If that was all normal, then definitely try online dating and being upfront about it. There must be some women out there who want to date, but aren't that into sex. Although...I think most of these sexually frustrating relationships we see in Dan's column probably didn't start out that way. It may be hard for a minimally sexual person to find someone who doesn't want the thrill of a new relationship and the hot sex that goes with that. You're basically limited to people with weird hangups. The good news is there are a lot of those.
Posted by mickeymammoth on February 2, 2011 at 6:57 AM · Report this
shahnahnah 39
Whenever I hear about these people who just aren't that interested in sex looking for a relationship, all I can think is, "Why would I even put up with trying to have a relationship with a man if it weren't for the sex?"
Posted by shahnahnah on February 2, 2011 at 7:28 AM · Report this
40
When the Cornerstone was the 'Vous (and AIDS was a Haitian thing), there was a lot of raw dogging of randoms in that bathroom and it was usually about 3/4" deep in beer. Nostalgia!
Posted by Testeudo on February 2, 2011 at 7:58 AM · Report this
41
I don't think Dan's advice to NSNA was too harsh - he did seem to be looking for justification to date "normally sexual" people. Judging by the tone of his letter, probably because it's too much work to do otherwise.

I would suggest seeing a therapist or maybe even a doctor (lack of stamina? How old is he?) if those are really his primary reasons for not having sex. He might have a physical issue, or perhaps he is depressed and this is why sex is too much "work." I'm just not completely convinced by the information given that he's definitely "minimally sexual." He could be, but there might be other things going on that are important to check out.

If he is minimally sexual, YES, he should not "inflict" himself on normally sexual people. This is not cruel. Actually, when reading the letter and before getting to Dan's response, I was yelling at him in my mind - "How can you even ask this question if you read Dan all the time?!" It's much crueler in the end, both to his potential partners and to himself, to date people with a normal expectation for sex.

And I am also with the people stating that asexuals should not seek to date sexuals, either. That does strike me as abusive, if they are not up front with it until the person has become strongly interested in them, or misguided at best. As #23 said, get a dog. Most sexual people are not interested in committing to someone who just wants to be friends/companions, so why not limit your dating pool to others like yourself? It's not really any different from a gay man limiting himself to dating other gay men, or a kinky person limiting themself to dating other kinky people. It's NATURAL to gravitate towards others of your own sexual preferences, because it leads to less confusion and a greater chance for happy relationships for all. The idea that asexuals, though they want to be treated as a legitimate sexual orientation, also want the right to get into relationships with sexual people, strikes me as a sense of assholish entitlement. How is becoming involved with an asexual, only to find out they will never want to fuck you, any different/better than a straight person becoming involved with a closeted gay person, only to find out they don't want to fuck you? It's just assholey, there's no way around it.
More...
Posted by DrReality on February 2, 2011 at 8:07 AM · Report this
42
I shouldn't ever advise anyone I liked to decline an overture with an inclusion of the N word. Then again, Mr Savage is surely entitled to dislike CWJBF. It's hard to tell whether he advises brutality because the dumpee in question will need it or whether he thinks CWJBF ought to have to sacrifice the friendship.

Maybe after the first awkward moment she ought to have made a match for the friend in question. That has worked for me on more than one occasion and from either side of the situation.
Posted by vennominon on February 2, 2011 at 8:21 AM · Report this
mixy 43
Sweet! Glad you're going to return to Maryland Dan! I dutifully went to your scheduled Q & A that Thursday even though the power in my house was out and I hadn't showered... was a little worried about signing that film waiver. Now I have another chance to show up to your seminar nice and clean!
Posted by mixy on February 2, 2011 at 8:22 AM · Report this
44
"PPS: After reading all month about unrest in Egypt, the economy, and that insufferable cunt Sarah Palin, I'm really looking forward to some good old bread-and-butter poo-eater letters. How about you guys? "

STFU about Palin; only other obsessive, dimwitted partisan tools think like you. Go to Kos or somewhere else. Seriously.

I am sick to damn death of retards thinking their posts are incomplete without some obscene, mindless comment about Palin, or worse, thinking that their ritual 2 minutes of Palin Hate demonstrate their Ghandi-esque moral and intellectual attainments.

Fucking. Morons. All of you.
Posted by I vote for Obama, so don't bother on February 2, 2011 at 8:25 AM · Report this
45
I love your column, Dan, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with your advice to CWJBF. You correctly identify that her friend would be completely devastated to find out the truth, namely that CWJBF is not and has never been sexually attracted to her. How humiliating! Further compounding the humiliation, this friend has been telling people CWJBF is the reason she came out as bi to begin with. Confessing to this friend would not only be crushing/humiliating, but potentially lead her to question her bi identity.

My non-advice-columnist suggestion to CWJBF: tell your friend something like, "We've been close friends for so long, I honestly see you as part of my family. You're an amazing woman, but I would feel too weird about dating someone who I consider like a sister to me. That said, you're a wonderful person and I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a cute bi/lesbian lady to date who's not pseudo-related to you."
Posted by Just some lady on February 2, 2011 at 8:35 AM · Report this
46
I love your column, Dan, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with your advice to CWJBF. You correctly identify that her friend would be completely devastated to find out the truth, namely that CWJBF is not and has never been sexually attracted to her. How humiliating! Further compounding the humiliation, this friend has been telling people CWJBF is the reason she came out as bi to begin with. Confessing to this friend would not only be crushing/humiliating, but potentially lead her to question her bi identity.

My non-advice-columnist suggestion to CWJBF: tell your friend something like, "We've been close friends for so long, I honestly see you as part of my family. You're an amazing woman, but I would feel too weird about dating someone who I consider like a sister to me. That said, you're a wonderful person and I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a cute bi/lesbian lady to date who's not pseudo-related to you."
Posted by Just some lady on February 2, 2011 at 8:38 AM · Report this
47
@44 - Why are you scanning the comments looking for Palin references? Seriously? Get a life.

NSNA - try some weed. You may find your libido is more alive than you think.

And for the record - Palin is a moron - the reason she gets talked about so much is because our corporate media won't let us forget about her. Her and her one-way communication style should be enough to make her irrelevant, but the 32%ers out there are just in lurve. Ugggh.
Posted by Crabbey on February 2, 2011 at 8:44 AM · Report this
sissoucat 48
@7 "I almost threw up when I read all these ladies feeling sorry for themselves that their husbands always 'bother them' for sex. I feel fucking awful for the husbands."

I don't. Ever tried being married to a douche who'll never ever go south on you after the wedding day, nor try in any way to let you share a bit of the sexual pleasure he's enjoying - but will still ask to ejaculate inside you every night, as a god-given right ?

There are many more normally sexual women in their 20s than in their 30s. Ask their husbands why.
Posted by sissoucat on February 2, 2011 at 9:00 AM · Report this
49
Meh, some people really are a lot more romantic than sexual. Even if romance isn't the easiest thing to define, it's definitely different than having a friend, regardless of the presence of sex. There are tons of people out there, for example, having long distance relationships where sex (or at least sex on a regular basis) isn't an option, and the relationship still is a lot different from just being friends.

I'm not very sexual, but I'm still pretty relationship oriented. I'm lucky that my current girlfriend is the same way, because I've been with people who were a lot more sexual than me and ended up having a lot of unwanted sex because I didn't want to be the bad girlfriend who withheld sex when their partner wanted to have it. It sucked for me though. I didn't enjoy the sex because I felt it was something I had to be doing, regardless of whether I wanted to.

Dan talks a lot about the partner with the higher sex drive's right to get sex within the relationship and have their needs met. That's important, but nobody's entitled to get laid, and it sucks just as much to feel you have to put out all the time as it does to feel like you're never getting any. The solution probably is just to try to find someone who's got the same sex drive as you, or (if you don't mind nonmonogamy) to find someone who doesn't mind opening it up.

ugh basically just people who fuck aren't better or more interesting than people who don't. Or vice versa. We are grown ups and we get to decide what we want to do with our genitals.
Posted by After All on February 2, 2011 at 9:05 AM · Report this
50
Also, totally in agreement with 45.
Posted by After All on February 2, 2011 at 9:07 AM · Report this
51
Snow day = sex day
Posted by susan42468 on February 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM · Report this
52
Jesus Christ, 49, you're full of shit. You said:

"Dan talks a lot about the partner with the higher sex drive's right to get sex within the relationship and have their needs met."

NO HE FUCKING DOESN'T!! Dan talks about the partner with the higher sex drive having the right to either ask to "go outside" to get their sexual needs met, or to end the relationship because it is unsatisfying to both partners.

Why is it that so many of these people who don't like sex very much (or at all) want to impose their limitations on their partners and make the relationship toxic and unhappy? Why?

It all seems to go to the inherent self-centredness of some people. "I don't like or want sex very much, and I can't be bothered to understand or empathize with someone who does, so fuck him or fuck her, he/she can just live with it!"

And p.s. to #49 - maybe if you told the boyfriend you didn't want/like sex (I agree with you that putting up with unwanted sex is nasty), he'd have been horrified and humiliated at how you were abasing yourself, and would have responsibly ended the relationship. Jesus, people TALK to each other!
Posted by Hairhead on February 2, 2011 at 9:44 AM · Report this
53
@48

And there are a lot of very eager husbands whose wives won't let them go south after their wedding day, and won't let their husbands touch them anywhere else for that matter, and who hate foreplay and who make their husbands feel like crap for having a libido.
Posted by cbs16 on February 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM · Report this
54
@48: Judging by the seething resentment in your post, I'd say you two were made for each other. People have an uncanny knack for seeking out spouses who will stoke their own sense of righteous indignation because deep down, many people are more interested in being right than in being happy. (Happiness is frightening, after all.)

Besides, for every male douche like you describe, there's a female douche who, as soon as the ring is on her finger, stops performing oral sex and will only have missionary sex once a month (if that). It'd be nice if we could just marry them all off to each other, but then it'd deprive people like you of the opportunity to exult in how victimized you are.
Posted by If it's Wednesday... on February 2, 2011 at 11:16 AM · Report this
55
NSNA sounds like he's depressed. Depression is a ruthless killer of sex drives. He should definitely go to both a doctor and a psychiatrist to find out if any medical or psychological problems are interfering with his sex drive. If they are, he'll never be happy living as a "minimally sexual". If not, well then at least he knows for sure.
Posted by ML77 on February 2, 2011 at 11:19 AM · Report this
56
did that first writer read like an asshole to anyone else? doesn't seem like a lack of interest so much a lack of motivation. standard sex is too much effort so i MUST be asexual! isn't that a lot like saying "that guy has a nice ass, i MUST be gay" and then proceeding to dive into that, no questions asked? unless dan edited a lot out or the writer left a lot out, because there seems to be a pretty serious jump in logic. but that aside, he just doesn't even fathom why fucking "normally" sexual would be cruel. especially since, to be 100% frank, it'd be on him to have the sex. that's not to say the woman can't initiate, but if she wants intercourse he's gotta either get it up or do something else. and doing something else begrudgingly is going to be shit, and if he can't get it up that's right off. at the VERY least, if a woman is having sex "just to get it out of the way" or something, he can take charge and fuck HER, since she doesn't have the biological limit men have. his problem doesn't just inhibit excited lively sex, it inhibit's ALL sex within the relationship. it'd be intentionally cruel to not mention it, and he knows it by merit of reading dan's column. it reads more like a fundie right wing trap "DON'T READ DAN SAVAGE'S COLUMN! IT'LL TURN YOU OFF ALL SEX!" or something thereabouts. maybe i'm just aggravated and reading into things that aren't there.
Posted by franky on February 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM · Report this
57
NSNA: the answer to your question is: yes, but only in an open relationship!

And you should try to get medical help regardless. Why miss on something that gives so much pleasure to other people? Maybe you can like it after all.
Posted by Ola http://petite-lambda.livejournal.com on February 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM · Report this
puppydogtails 58
Aren't "minimals" just neuters? You know, from John Waters' "A Dirty Shame"? OK maybe they aren't exactly the same -- they aren't uptight -- but what they want is the same.
Posted by puppydogtails on February 2, 2011 at 11:40 AM · Report this
59
Ah, 52? Number 49's partner is not a "he."

Jesus, people, READ more carefully!
Posted by justchecking on February 2, 2011 at 11:43 AM · Report this
60
Re: NSNA

Another option is to find someone with a higher sex drive and let the relationship be open. Be together and emotionally intimate (physically from time to time, as much as you are comfortable) and let the other person get their kicks elsewhere.

I say this because I've seen it work for five years...from the POV of someone who's helping the "normally-sexual" partner get their kicks! And I gotta say, they are a great couple even with their sexual disconnect.
Posted by clarkma5 on February 2, 2011 at 11:55 AM · Report this
61
I'm just a lurker, but I'm one of those asexual types who actually loves Dan's column. It's kinda like reading about other people's hobbies, knowing that I have no interest in doing them myself.

It is wholly possible to not have interest in sex and still like romance and being held, cuddled, a kiss on the cheek, and affection. Not every asexual is also aromantic. I have a romantic partner with a very low sex drive, and it took a very long time to find someone who is compatible with me in so many ways. It's been going on for a few years, and even without the exception of sex (once in a blue moon, literally), we have the same relationship issues as everyone else.

NSNA seems to have other issues that may lead to his minimal sexual desire with mentioning his lack of self-confidence and stamina that he totally needs to get looked at, but his lower drive doesn't preclude him getting into a relationship.

I agree with Dan and the commenters that a pairing with someone with "normal" and "high" sex drive isn't a great idea. It's unfair to both parties to expect the other to conform to each other's drives when there's no chance of reconciliation. On a high point, should things end with my partner, the desire for sex is one less thing I have to worry about while I seek out or wait for someone new.
Posted by Acegal on February 2, 2011 at 11:56 AM · Report this
lewlew 62
Some people like to have someone around who is pining for them. I dated a guy who had what he called "boyfriend applicants" -- he managed to keep a couple of them around most of the time. These were unfortunate types who loved him and wanted to be with him, but they had no chance because he was a vain ego-damaged person with a heart so ruined that he was incapable of love with anyone who actually loved him, and he also was continually crushing someone who had no interest in him. (Bitter much? Not really, just accurate.) Anyone who is like this should try to learn what it is to love someone actually. And if you don't really love them, cut them loose. I cut myself loose pretty quickly.
Posted by lewlew on February 2, 2011 at 11:56 AM · Report this
63

@DAN: The one thing I continually fail to understand in all of your otherwise great advice (and I've read every single column that's been available since the online archive started) is why you sometimes advocate lying in relationships, long term, short term, casual, kinky, vanilla, or any variety. In the past you've invoked the idea that all relationships have a mythology to them, which I agree with to an extent; it's foolish to walk around with every dark thing about one's past on display in casual conversation, and some information should not be shared without the right the setting and context. I also understand that since the LW is now facing the consequences of her lie, you advise her to come clean. What I disagree with is the idea that she had a right to be overtly dishonest in the first place and I find this concept that "not everyone on the receiving end of that white lie is smart enough to realize what their white liar actually means"to be dangerous. No honest people are mind readers, and most people are not non-verbal communication experts either. If CWJBF really cares about her friendship with this girl than she needs to find a way to be honest from here on out and apologize genuinely for her previous mistake. She may want to consider taking her to a quiet, private place where they both feel relaxed, and putting the truth to her in the most gentle way she possibly can (sometimes it helps to rehearse or even write down what will be said first.) If these two are close, CWJBF must have some level of trust that her friend will respond to a kindly spoken truth in a reasonable way, even if her feelings are hurt and she needs some time to process them. She might be relieved not to have to wonder any more if CWJBF is just playing hard to get. I also disagree with the assertion of @12 that there is an inevitable power struggle or malice going on here that must end the relationship. What's happening is a miscommunication due to dishonesty that can be fixed if it's done right.
More...
Posted by zell_zyte on February 2, 2011 at 12:06 PM · Report this
64
@63 -- I agree with you. Although I generally understand that honesty is not always the best policy as you have to weigh it with compassion (sometimes the white lie is preferrable). But in this case, I agree that the white lie wasn't about protecting the friend, it was about protecting the LW. She didn't want to deal with an honest discussion from the get-go and hoping the friend would "read between the lines" instead of having the audacity to actually believe her (gasp!), and now she's having to deal with the consequences of this. If folks would really evaluate their own motives -- is it compassion or cowardice -- regarding white lies, I think you'd avoid these such situations. And Dan should have yelled at the LW for being such a coward that now has to grow some spine and take her lumps for her lack of honesty beforehand.
Posted by KL on February 2, 2011 at 12:18 PM · Report this
65
NSNA has the slack to commit a violent murder. He will get flooded with marriage proposals, and not have to worry about sex with any of them while he's in jail. After their conviction, one of the infamous Menendez brothers married a playboy model.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 2, 2011 at 12:21 PM · Report this
66
To #59 - Note that later in my answer I used he/she. The issue is not about the sex(es) of the persons involved, but clashing sexual compatibilities and the importance of communication and honesty. That goes for gay and heterosexual relationships.
Posted by Hairhead on February 2, 2011 at 12:30 PM · Report this
67
Is "raw dog" (as a verb) a straight idiom?

I use it all the time and am surprised that this is the first time you're hearing it.

Love ya!

@23 You sexist pig. "random" is inherently gender-neutral.
Posted by Doot on February 2, 2011 at 12:39 PM · Report this
68
I have to ponder joining an asexual community to pick up chicks. Isn't that silly on the level of being a Swinger for Jesus?(and yes I have observed big cross wearing people at swinger clubs)
Posted by Kylere on February 2, 2011 at 12:59 PM · Report this
69
Yeah, I'm with @23 and @45 on CWJBF. There's much better ways to spin "I'm not, and never will be, sexually attracted to you AT ALL!", such as "I love being with you so much, but for some reason I just don't feel that spark/chemistry for you in that way." Saying something about how the friendship is so great you don't want to mess things up isn't the best response either, as the person can still interpret that to mean that there's sexual/romantic potential. but spark/chemistry- harder to misinterpret..
Posted by freshnycman on February 2, 2011 at 1:20 PM · Report this
70
@45, 46: Oh my god, no. Please don't ever do that. That really would be rubbing salt in that poor girl's wounds. She waits all this time for CWJBF to be ready for her, and then CWJBF says, in effect, "Now I'm finally ready, but because you were my friend all this time, I can't date you. Guess you shouldn't have been my friend." There's pretty much nothing more hurtful or anger-inducing than that.

It's much kinder to just say "I'm sorry, I just am not attracted to you, and I should have been honest with you from the beginning."
Posted by BlackRose on February 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM · Report this
CharlesF 71
NSNA
>>>"lack of confidence, stamina"

You aren't asexual and you don't have a particularly low sex drive. Your problem is you have never HAD sex, and have come to fear it.

I disagree with others above who would say you are a "loser". However, the fact remains you need to build up your confidence, get dating, and start trying out sex to see what your actual sex drive is. How do you do this?

Step 1.-Clean yourself up, increase your hygiene, make yourself look nice
Step 2.-Get exercise, and/or get a hobby, something you like doing (not as hard as it sounds, just try things one by one)
Step 3.-Get on OKCupid and start hitting people up. You will do just fine.
Posted by CharlesF on February 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM · Report this
WordyGrrl 72
Diplomacy doesn't have to be deceptive. CWJBF should just say "I don't feel THAT way about you, but you are one of my best-est friends. And I need you to be in my life as a best-est friend."

As for "semi-asexual guy", does "normal sexual" now mean "I am hormonally-driven as a young goat and ready to hump the paint off a barn, 24-7?" Frankly, I'd think letting the bits rest a bit is restorative.
Posted by WordyGrrl on February 2, 2011 at 4:39 PM · Report this
73
How does NSNA feel about polyamory? I'm currently in a poly relationship with two girls, one of whom is asexual and the other of whom has a pretty high sex drive - higher than mine, to be honest. If I was monogamous with the asexual girl it might be a problem, but when I'm getting all the sex I could possibly want with the other girl, I don't feel any need to pressure the asexual one to do anything she doesn't want to. We kiss, and we sleep together in the literal sense - and if it frustrates me at all, then I console myself with the knowledge that I can fuck the other girl as much as I like the next night.
Posted by duck on February 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM · Report this
74
freshnycam,

Thank you for giving a loving, thinking, caring answer.
Posted by Hunter78 on February 2, 2011 at 5:46 PM · Report this
75
@45

Speaking as a straight male who's gotten that kind of response before, it's one of the most cruel things you can do to a friend you're trying to keep as a friend.

The least that CWJBF owes to her *friend* is to tell her the honest truth. Lying to her will only cause more strife and more pain for the friend. Because that's basically saying "I would have has sex with you if you hadn't been such an awesome friend to me", which is where we get all the male crap about the "friend zone", and the PUA bullshit.

You're perpetuating the kind of dishonesty that leads many an unrequited lover to become bitter and angry. Don't.

@48

Well, I guess it depends on ones background. My first relationship was with a woman who would go on to describe herself as "asexual" (and even before her hormone problems, she had never been particularly randy), so even though I did go down on her, and tried to pleasure her, it always felt like I was intruding to do so.

Where your experience is in rejecting sex because your husband was selfish, mine is in being subtly told "knock it off", even though I was giving.

@52

My understanding of Dan's policy is that you have the right to expect the same amount of sex that you had at the beginning of the relationship, and not to be given the bait and switch. I've always figured that his advice to someone who dated a LSD (low sex-drive) person expecting to change her/him would be "you're a stupid jackass, break up with them, and let them find someone who isn't a total asshole."

@63

I guess the distinction is between social niceties and outright lying. Personally, I think that rejection should always be handled in a frank and honest manner, but it's worth remembering that rejecting someone you like (but don't want to sleep with) is hard on the rejector, as well.

Having been in that position, I felt the temptation to lie and get out of it, and it took a hell of a lot to force myself to be honest. I guess my point is to remember that it sucks for everyone involved.
More...
Posted by Seldon2639 on February 2, 2011 at 6:16 PM · Report this
Rach3l 76
@9 ew, bread and butter poo
Posted by Rach3l on February 2, 2011 at 6:33 PM · Report this
Bluejean Baby 77
@ 23 (Professor) i scrolled down and just happened to stop at your post, and ~wow~ you hit it out of the park for me. I can tell you that while my asexual husband dated me, he misrepresented himself by duping me into believing that he was as highly sexual as what i am. It wasn't until after we were married that he started letting his guard down, stopped being sexual with me, and refused to come to bed with me. I ended up begging him for sex. To this day, he still has not come clean (excuse the pun) he won't admit his situation, but i have scoured the internet, researched, done my homework, and i know with all certainty that he is asexual. Asexuality is not a choice; you are born with it just as surely as homosexuals are born gay.

Look at http://www.asexuality.org for more info.

How one handles their sexuality (or lack thereof) is their business, but they shouldn't dupe an unwitting date into a lifelong partnership that ends up as a friendship without benefits. He should have told me. We've been married for 15 years now, and yes, we've had counselling, to no avail. I have accepted my fate due to our 2 children, however, as poster #1 states, this will not end well.
Posted by Bluejean Baby on February 2, 2011 at 7:34 PM · Report this
78
NSNA,
I'm sure it must be possible for you to find a like minded partner. Why not try my wife, or any of the roughly 2 billion other happily married women who no longer fancy shagging their husband? While you're with her in your platonic semi-erect relationship, would you mind getting the ok for me to have it off with a variety of 19-30 year olds? Sounds like we could all get what we want and I no longer have to spend so much time wankquilizing myself so frequently...
Posted by Whonew on February 2, 2011 at 10:08 PM · Report this
79
Dude, NSNA, which asexual forums have you been hanging out on? There are all types of asexuals: Aromantic asexuals are not interested in any sort of relationship and have no attractions, but romantic asexuals (of which you seem to be one) want a relationship, and usually cuddling, even kissing, etc, without the sex.

There are also a fair number of girls on the asexuality.org forums that identify as "semisexual." They don't DESIRE sex, but they are not disgusted by it, and if their partner initiates it, say that they do in fact physically enjoy it. They would not want a relationship with frequent sex, but can deal with occasional sex.

One of these girls would be PERFECT for you. She would want the same things you do most of the time, and the few times you wanted sex, she would probably go along with it--considering you'd want sex much less often than normal sexuals (whom semisexuals often date) it would be a plus for her, too.

Go back to the asexual community and look for these semisexuals. Seriously. If I can find out about them after that one evening I spent browsing Aven's forums for fun and education, you should be able to, as well.
Posted by Loocy Goosey on February 2, 2011 at 11:48 PM · Report this
80
@23, 46 & 72 Dan was actually right on is his advice to CWJBF. She should have told her that she just wasn't in to her in the first place but she didn't. Unless she want to lie to her friend even more she need to come clean now. Also pleas please for the love of everything nice in this world stop spreading that "oh were too good of friends" bullshit. I've been on the receiving end of that comment a couple times and its so much worse than someone just telling you look we're friends but I don't like you that way and nothing will ever happen between us. It sucks for a couple of reasons, number one because it screams cop-out. I mean it doesn't even make any sense. Its a bullshit excuse for bullshit people that want to have a string of friends fawning over them all the time.
Posted by Square101 on February 2, 2011 at 11:59 PM · Report this
81
@4 not sure if that's where the term "raw dog some randoms" originated, but that movie is where I first heard it as well.
Posted by tofu oyako on February 3, 2011 at 1:14 AM · Report this
82
Jesus - what a crap response to LW1. I guess we only go out of way to make the sexual freaks of the world feel good about themselves? In most polls I see about sexual activity there seems to be a split - somewhat equal groups of people that seem to have and want sex a few times a week and those that have it rarely. Why is it assumed that all the people in the rarely column are frustrated or that those who want more sex than the LW describes are the 'normal' ones?
Is he asking these questions about 'normals' because he thinks his dating pool is so restricted? It isn't. He doesn't have to worry about that. Nor do I think he has to walk around wearing a 'minimally sexual' sign just in case he stumbles upon a normal who might be oh so offended by his reduced interest. The entire tone of Dan's response just sucked.
Posted by Vivic on February 3, 2011 at 1:41 AM · Report this
83
I have to agree a bit with Vivic. Not all asexuals are frustrated, nor do they get their kicks looking for sexual mates to "dupe" or "fool" or string along in relationships. I've done my share of dating and mating though my early and mid 20s and it wasn't until my previous relationship that I finally realized that while my body was going through the motions, my mind was never engaged. Talk about some Oscar winning performance orgasms. Was I just a big fat liar the whole time?

Well, no. Just like a gay or lesbian person who doesn't realize the truth of themselves until they're married to an opposite sex spouse with kids and a mortgage, I simply didn't realize who I really was. And in a society where sex is considered a huge deal, and it's assumed everybody has it or wants it, and if you're not interested, there's something wrong with you, it is difficult to do that sort of soul searching.

It took that sort of soul searching before I was okay with myself, and the first letter writer needs to do the same. And if he is demisexual, or romantic asexual, he needs to realize that finding a compatible mate will take some time. It's not impossible. My BF understands that I'm not into sex, that the actual physical act bores me, that I will not orgasm from it. But his drive is so low that he doesn't ask for sex but once every so often anyway, so that's our compromise. We show our affection for each other in other ways (that shockingly enough, closely resemble how sexual couples show how they care besides the sex act).

It can work, if LW1 is willing to wait. Though, I'd agree that in the meantime, he could totally work on his self image. Whatever he is, it's okay and normal.
Posted by Acegal on February 3, 2011 at 3:16 AM · Report this
84
There is nothing about "don't raw dog a random" that's misogynist.

The word "random" = someone you have random sex with. It has nothing to do with gender. Like Dan pointed out, it could just as easily be written in the men's bathroom of a gay bar - or in a woman's bathroom.
Posted by Fidelio on February 3, 2011 at 7:33 AM · Report this
85
Does anyone else think #48 & #53 might be a match made in heaven?
Posted by Susan on February 3, 2011 at 7:35 AM · Report this
86
@52:

"Why is it that so many of these people who don't like sex very much (or at all) want to impose their limitations on their partners and make the relationship toxic and unhappy? Why?

It all seems to go to the inherent self-centredness of some people."

There's self-centeredness on both sides. People who really don't like a lot of sex at all shouldn't have the "fuck it, my partner can just deal with it" attitude. People who want more sex than their partners also shouldn't have the "fuck it, my partner can just deal with it" attitude (whether it's about badgering your partner for sex, cheating, insisting you change the rules of the relationship to allow sex with other people, whatever). A relationship is toxic and unhappy if one person isn't getting to do something that's really important to them. But it's also toxic and unhappy if one person is having to continuously do something they don't enjoy. All I was trying to say is that it goes both ways.

Also, I really doubt asexual people (or people with low but existing sex drives like myself) WANT to make sexual people unhappy. You could just as easily say "Why do people who want tons of sex try to force their partners to have more sex than they want? Are they just trying to ruin everything?" It's not like one group is out to hurt or disrespect the other- everybody's just different. And yes, sometimes that means incompatible, but fuck, if a square peg won't go in a round hole, then that's not the peg being a little bitch and trying to make the hole sad and unfulfilled.

And it does seem like Dan can err on the side of "you should do this thing because your partner really wants it." I'm not saying his advice is bad or that he's a bad person- I usually enjoy this column a lot! But perhaps being GGG goes both ways with libidos too? I mean, in cases where, say, a foot fetishist was in a monogamous relationship with a vanilla person, Dan would probably say that they should compromise and do feet things sometimes and vanilla things other times (and if one/both of them were not okay with sometimes feet and sometimes vanilla, they should break up because they're incompatible). Couldn't it work with this, too?
More...
Posted by After All on February 3, 2011 at 8:32 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 87
The problem isn't that asexuals (or demisexuals, or minimally sexuals) have a low sex drive. The problem arises when they partner with someone who has a higher sex drive and expect that partner to conform to their pattern of desire.

In couples where partners have mismatched sex drives, for the most part the partner with the lower sex drive is in control. Think of a man who wants to have sex twice a week partnered with a woman who wants it once a month. Unless he is a rapist, he isn't getting sex when he wants it unless his wife consents. Now, say that she wants to be GGG and agrees to give him sex sometimes even if she doesn't feel like it. Is she likely to give in all the time? No - and of course her husband isn't being GGG if he insists that she does.

The result? She decides when they get to have sex, which is twice as often as she wants and half as often as he does. In the long term, that is a recipe for an unhappy sex life for both of them.

It's not the same as being GGG with a fetish. If I like footplay and my partner can put up with it, we can come to arrangement where sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. But the times we don't, we are still getting sex. For the (typical) fetishist, sex with the fetish is better than sex without the fetish, but both are better than no sex at all. A GGG, not-every-time-but-often-enough arrangement can work. I don't think the same can be said when the fetish is "I like to have sex."
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM · Report this
88
""That's a lot of work to have a sex life....like lack of confidence"

This guy is not asexual. He is a moron looking for some type of identity so he can understand his pathetic life a little better. Harsh? Probably.

It's just I am married to one of those so called asexuals and Dan hit it out of the park. I am just not clear how an asexual can date. What precisely is there to date? If you want a friend go out for some drinks. If you are dating it means you are looking for a wife/husband/lover. So if you don't ever want to fuck, then how can you be out looking for something besides a friend? A life partner? Give me a fucking break, get a dog.

And to those "low drive" people who want to whine about how wonderful it is to live in a sexless marriage, where you just share your love and lives and whatever pathetic worthless bullshit it is that you do I have two words: FUCK YOU."

No, fuck YOU. So you're suggesting that a relationship is somehow less valid when the people involved are having less sex then you? And when exactly did looking for your identity, sexual or otherwise, become a "moronic" thing?

It looks to me like this guy is seeking advice so he DOESN'T HURT SOMEONE. How exactly is that moronic and/or pathetic?

It looks like NSNA isn't the only one with issues here >.>
Posted by Corvigryph on February 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM · Report this
John Horstman 89
@45: Ugh, I fucking hate that line, almost as much as the initial "I'm not in a place to date anyone right now" lie. Dan's right: stop it. You're not being kind when you lie like that, and you're not protecting the other person's feelings. What you're doing is making up a bullshit excuse for not wanting to date/fuck the other person because it protects you: you don't want the other person to see you as a shallow person who's primarily concerned with appearance (although not wanting to fuck someone because you don't find hir attractive is a perfectly valid reason, and people should not be demonized for saying so) and/or you don't want to lose the attention/affection/love of the person who wants to fuck you. It is, consciously or not, disingenuous, manipulative, disrespectful, and eventually humiliating.

(It's also, to a certain extent, rape/assault/harassment-enabling, as it constructs a normative dynamic where people cannot be taken at their word with respect to sexual desire. By not being clear and direct about your sexual desires, you legitimize the rapist/assaulter/harasser rationalization, "She said no, but I thought she meant yes." This is almost always bullshit when someone says it, but it's still better to avoid reinforcing this aspect of rape culture by providing assholes with legitimizing cover.)

The kind response to someone to whom you are not at all sexually attracted asking you out/to bed is to be direct and honest. Say, "I think you're a nice guy/girl, but I'm not attracted to you, and that's not going to change."

@77: While people may be born with strong predispositions toward a given expression of sexuality in a particular cultural-historical context (e.g. someone can be born with a genetic makeup and following a prenatal environment whereby the person will likely become a gay teen/adult in our culture), no one is born with an adult sexuality, and expressing childhood sexualities in terms of adult sexualities is to strongly misrepresent them. Of course, even treating sexuality groupings like "gay" and "straight" as unified or cohesive categories is also to misrepresent them. "Asexual" is a potential exception (as the term means "not sexual", presumably in any capacity), though I have a feeling one finds a degree of variance in terms of sexuality among those who identify as "asexual" as well (unless they really all have no interest whatsoever in sexual activity of any kind).
More...
Posted by John Horstman on February 3, 2011 at 10:17 AM · Report this
90
Don't Raw Dog at Random should be the new tee shirt catch phrase.
Posted by bafarley7 on February 3, 2011 at 10:45 AM · Report this
91
Professor #23 seems like she'd turn a lot of men and women into asexuals. God, what a tool she is.
Posted by Ho Ho Ho on February 3, 2011 at 10:45 AM · Report this
92
"Don't Raw Dog at Random" sounds like a great tee shirt slogan.
Posted by bafarley7 on February 3, 2011 at 10:48 AM · Report this
93
@89 to say that someone *should not* be vilified, obviously, does not mean they won't be. I tend to be perfectly frank with people and say 'no, I'm sorry, I'm not interested' and it's a 50/50 chance I'll inevitably meet with said person's wrath somewhere down the line. So, yes, sometimes people really do have to protect themselves. People who have had their affections thwarted can be vindictive and have perfect opportunities to act on that if they're in your circle of friends, a co-worker, etc.

I'm not saying to lie and deliberately obfuscate the truth isn't wrong if you feel there's a *better* way to handle things, but there is an ugly reality to some people if you simply tell them honestly how you feel... even if you do it with as much compassion as you can muster.
Posted by just me not you on February 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM · Report this
94
NSNA sounds like he could probably benefit from some kind of therapy (physical and emotional) since there are hints his minimal sex drive perhaps stems from either his health or some kind of hangup.

That said, as a (highly sexual) person who has been in relationships with people with minimal sex drive -- PLEASE DO NOT DATE US. It's freaking miserable. No amount of good self-esteem can withstand constant sexual rejection, especially when the "twice every 3 months" times you DO put out, everything seems fine. At the very least, be completely forward about yourself from the get-go. The second you lean in for a kiss, you might want to add "By the way, I will almost never put out, so get ready for the niggling sensation that you might smell weird or be in some way unattractive."
Posted by pygmybugs on February 3, 2011 at 11:40 AM · Report this
95
Dan I'm so bummed! I live in College Park and was going to go to your seminar but I moved to New York 4 days later! Guess I'm missing out on round 2 :-(

And as a side note, Cornerstone, while very straight, isn't strictly heterosexual. It's more known as the upperclassmen bar, and as a gay female, we've been known to congregate there as well, and I know many a gay boy who has spent many a night there... though of the bars in town, the gayer bar is Bentley's right next door. As the "athlete's bar" it is a regular hangout of the women's rugby team and the women's basketball team... if you catch my drift.

@23. Dan isn't being discriminatory against lesbians by telling them to tell the truth. EVERYONE should tell the truth. What you're telling her to do is lie, and you're fake excuse is a terrible lie at that. There's an episode of How I Met Your Mother that talks about keeping people "on the hook", you should probably watch it.
Posted by jessitect on February 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM · Report this
96
Dan,
If this bar (The Cornerstone) was as exclusively straight as you say, how in God's Good Graces did you, a non-straight, come to be in said bar?

Unless you believe yourself to be the first gay man in that bar, you'll have to admit there is some chance that the message was written by a gay, intended for all audiences, and that the word 'random' could have been written to imply inclusivity in sexual preference.
Posted by fetish on February 3, 2011 at 11:51 AM · Report this
97
@89: "Asexual" in this context does not mean "not sexual." It means someone with little or no sexual attraction to men in general, or women in general. Most people are generally sexually attracted to at least one sex; asexuals may enjoy masturbating, dating, and romance, and they might even feel sexually attracted to a particular person they're close to sometimes, but they're not generally attracted to men/women. See asexuality.org .
Posted by BlackRose on February 3, 2011 at 1:49 PM · Report this
98
@88
"What precisely is there to date? If you want a friend go out for some drinks. If you are dating it means you are looking for a wife/husband/lover. So if you don't ever want to fuck, then how can you be out looking for something besides a friend? A life partner? Give me a fucking break, get a dog."

It's possible to want a human romantic connection and love and dates and someone who share their life with and all that mushy shit and not want sex. You don't have to understand it, just as I don't understand people who are into poo, but I don't feel the need to (figuratively) shit on them.

I agree that it a relationship between sexual and an sexual person probably is misery for both, but a loving relationship between two asexuals can work out just as fine as between two sexual people. No better, no worse.
Posted by Acegal on February 3, 2011 at 2:19 PM · Report this
99
If CWJBF actually started dating that girl it would probably ruin the friendship anyway because she's probably not bisexual.

Go ahead, call me biphobic. That term is used so much it's lost all meaning. But the likelihood of a girl being bisexual for only one girl is really low.

There is such a thing as non-sexual "romantic friendships." (See: Gayle and Oprah) And when it's between two straight people it may seem more clear cut that it's not sexual. But when one is gay, it creates a possibility of it being more.

Those of us who know we have a same-sex sexual attraction, whether we're gay or bi, have a clearer understanding of the difference between a friendly non-sexual attraction (even if it's really intense) and a "WOW that person is HOT, I wanna (insert sexy thoughts here)." We have to because it's part of the coming out process.

Straight girls get confused, probably because they've been exposed to one too many romantic comedies that downplay sexual attraction and highlight personality compatibility. When they say "I'd go gay, just for you" or "that one person" it's only true up to the point it becomes sexual. Then they're no longer interested. They're not even thinking about sex. They're thinking "gosh, we're so compatible we should be together and and...be compatible all the time! We'd be happy and never fight because we're such good friends!"
Posted by GrrrlRomeo on February 3, 2011 at 3:10 PM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 100
If CWJBF is in luck, she can tell her friend "I think you're the greatest, but I'm just not attracted to [friend's personal non-perjorative characteristic]." If Friend is, say, tall, and CWJBF really isn't going to run off and start dating another tall person in the near future 'cause she's truly not into them, that would at least be a fairly face-saving excuse. But if she lies about not liking tallness, and just thinks she's out of Friend's league, then yeah, Friend is likely to bail when she finds out.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on February 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM · Report this
101
Re LW2: I have to agree with the other readers that while, "I don't think you're attractive or romantically interesting, and never will!" is unnecessarily cruel, LW2 doesn't have to lie to cushion the blow, either.

What ever happened to simply telling someone, "I like you as a friend, but you're just not my type"???
Posted by BeingABear on February 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM · Report this
102
Susan,

"Does anyone else think #48 & #53 might be a match made in heaven?"

No.
Posted by Hunter78 on February 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM · Report this
BEG 103
I agree that "don't raw dog a random" is a FABULOUS way to word that warning and that it *could* be completely neutral with respect to the sex of the people involved... I love it.

But it does seem like "raw dog" in popular usage typically refers to unprotected P/V sex. Try googling it & checking it on Urban Dictionary. I don't see that it *has* to be limited, but when Dan says it seems like a message from one straight boy to another, he's likely right & not just b/c it was a relentlessly straight bar.

But more crucially to the point, Dan finding himself in such a bar? Oh, the travails of travel...
Posted by BEG http://twitter.com/#!/browneyedgirl65 on February 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM · Report this
waterouzel 104
Using the term normal to describe the sexuality of a person with AVERAGE sex drive is problematic. It looks like Dan is saying having a low libido is abnormal. I doubt this is what he meant. If so, we are all abnormal.
Posted by waterouzel on February 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM · Report this
105
don't raw dog a random

seems like a unbiased statement to me, except it presumes dicky play. Leaves out Lesbos, you know, but otherwise it's pretty open.

Posted by Hunter78 on February 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM · Report this
106
Perhaps NSNA should date asexuals, but... get their permission to go to a prostitute every once in a while? Or perhaps see if there are other low-but-not-no libido people who have also been drawn to the asexual community?

NSNA could also try dating polyamorous people... He would not be responsible for all of one person's sexual needs, so there'd be less pressure.

Or maybe he could find a woman with an interest in cuckolding or male chastity? (I know the appeal to those kinks is usually that the man is supposed to *want* all the sex he's not getting. But maybe it's worth a shot?)

Perhaps start a yahoo group for low libido people, and ask the asexual websites to link to it?

Best of luck NSNA. Stay honest and always disclose fully. :)
Posted by Brie on February 3, 2011 at 6:20 PM · Report this
107
The young generation seems much more hip to the gender-neutral language and having gay friends in college.

I very sincerely believe "Don't raw dog a random" is a way to talk to every single person in the toilet, not just the jockocracy.

And it's a great line because it totally applies to everyone.
Posted by Extuno on February 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM · Report this
108
I was surprised that Dan didn't encourage NSNA to get a full psych eval -- or why NSNA hasn't done so himself. I know there's quite a wide range of libidos out there, but I wondered if some abuse or trauma might not have caused him to be uninterested in penetration. His examples of his own conduct seemed like normal straight male hetero behavior, so this very specific distaste for penetration may have a very specific origin.
Posted by hel.soph on February 3, 2011 at 9:16 PM · Report this
109
all i have to say mr.savage is you sir are great i was at work bored when i ran upon one of your columns and it was entertaining how people put there bids up in the air like this,but who am i to judge we all have issues but you are clever keep it up i will look forward to your webcast.........sincerely bored at work
Posted by bored at work on February 3, 2011 at 9:33 PM · Report this
110
"seems like a unbiased statement to me, except it presumes dicky play. Leaves out Lesbos, you know, but otherwise it's pretty open."

Well, it was written on the wall of the men's room, so there is that.
Posted by tensor on February 3, 2011 at 10:13 PM · Report this
111
I've been in NSNA's shoes. I understand exactly where he's coming from. There was a time when I had the same concerns. You see, as a person who ISN'T consumed by lust, when I think about whether or not to date someone, I'm more concerned about little things like shared interests and values than I am in making sure our libidos are in sync. I worried that it might be wrong to impose myself on a sexually "normal" person. My guess is that NSNA isn't looking for "permission" to date a "normal" BECAUSE that person is "normal." He's worried that he'll actually get to know someone and maybe even fall in love, only to find out that his partner finds him unsatisfactory on the basis of his minimal libido. At least, that was what I worried about - not because I was planning to go out looking for someone "normal" to date, but because I recognized that, unless I went out LOOKING for another "minimal," it was a situation that was likely to come up.

To those of you who think something's wrong with NSNA for being "minimally sexual": get over yourselves. There's more than one right way to be human. Not desiring penetration regularly isn't the same as having an aversion to it - my understanding is that he enjoys penetration very much on occasion, but it isn't something he's in the mood for OFTEN. I feel the same way about buttered lima beans. Maybe I suffered some sort of legume-related childhood trauma?
Posted by ARJ on February 4, 2011 at 12:29 AM · Report this
112
I so agree w/ @94. And - poly is NOT always a good answer. I was for most of my life a liberated, sexually confident, high-sex drive bi, poly female. And I unknowingly got involved w/ a very low sex drive person. I was dating a few other people when I started dating him, and so we would only see each other 1x or 2x a month, so having sex with him 1x a month was ok (the sex was ok to awesome). but ugh, when we started to spend more time together about 6 months in, he just would not put out, he'd say he was tired or that sex was "not a priority" for him. My body and brain chemistry could not understand, and I was totally in love with him as a person by then. It took me 4 months to decide that this was never going to get better, so even though we had a sweet heart connection and were great activity/conversation/travel partners, the no-sex thing was really damaging for me emotionally. about 2 years later, and I still have not really recovered from that experience - it damaged my self esteem & sex drive. Low sex drive/ low sex interest people need to ID themselves to others at the outset of "dating" or else they are willfully & knowingly damaging the other person.
Posted by SeattleShyLady on February 4, 2011 at 3:38 AM · Report this
sissoucat 113
@75 Yep, knowing what one enjoys in a big issue for a young girl with insecurities... and it's she alone who can solve it. I think masturbating would ease that out.

Anyway, I did not reject sex even if I found it pretty annoying ; I was determined to make the marriage work, so unless I was really utterly fed up with the boinker, I still had it every night. The only thing I refused to do is to fake orgasm - a faking that he explicitly asked for, because without sounds he was not enjoying himself enough.

@53 In your country maybe it's a problem with both genders, but not in mine.

The attitudes towards sex are still very patriarchal here. The male is supposed to have most of the pleasure. If the female has any, it's either because the male is a superlover "who'll make any women climb to the curtains", or because she's a sex-crazed harlot whose children won't be her husband's. It's our Catholic left-overs.

My mother's generation married when virgin (the girls). If they had any idea of what female sexual pleasure could be, and if they'd ask for it from their husbands, it had had to come from them not being virgins at the wedding, or having cheated since. A wife was for procreative purposes ; a mistress was for enjoyable sex, and was not to get married with. In the 70s, the students started having sex with each other but the male students of good families still went on to marry virgin non-students.

My generation has had a great sex education, focused on procreation and how to avoid it, not on pleasure. So we girls grew up thinking that there's nothing more to sex than penetration and ejaculation, and a real threat of a baby or STDs. And boys have relied on porn to make them "better lovers".

Still now, there is an awful peer pressure against female pleasure among teenagers. Any young woman who'll publicly admit that she enjoys sex will be labelled a slut and a whore amongst them, by girls and boys alike, no matter how high her profile.

Don't worry for me though : the selfish asshole has gone on boinking another hapless unaware female, and thanks to my GGG lover, I've found now what sexual pleasure could be. Now that I've experienced it, I'm not ever going to endure lousy sex again.
More...
Posted by sissoucat on February 4, 2011 at 4:42 AM · Report this
114
SeattleShyLady, I've been in that situation from the opposite side, and I can understand how both sides can be hurt when you're sexually incompatible.

It was painful to deal with my ex-partner who wanted something I couldn't give him, and just 'lying back and thinking of England' (and I've put it to him) wasn't acceptable to both of us.

I bent over backwards trying to learn to enjoy sex more, and we were poly on the outset, and even that became a trial as we became more emotionally separated as he spent more time with his more sexually interesting partners. I spent years after our breakup feeling completely unlovable and broken and certain I was going to spend the rest of my life alone because of my "issue". Those are issues that I'm still dealing with my new partner and being afraid that he'll one day suddenly want more sex and there goes rejection again.

I hope we all can find healing and solace with compatible partners. It's what we all deserve.
Posted by Acegal on February 4, 2011 at 5:57 AM · Report this
femwanderluster 115
@39, holla! My thoughts exactly.

Also, I have yet to find a guy who can match my high sex drive and who also wants a relationship or with whom I'd actually want a relationship.

Crocodile tear.
Posted by femwanderluster on February 4, 2011 at 9:46 AM · Report this
116
re: CWJBF: Dan's advice continues to follow the principle that you can a) be slick in your relationship if your relationship is your first priority, or b) make your relationship something other than your first priority if you aren't slick in it. So CWJBF's dilemma can be framed in terms of being slick in a relationship that was something other than your first priority.

Sticking with that implicit principle, maybe we can say the preventative action would have been to tell the girl interested in her that CWJBF wasn't ever going to be the kind of slick to preserve whatever relationship might develop, and that she (the girl interested) was entitled to that.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 4, 2011 at 10:51 AM · Report this
117
@116, Can you explain what you mean by slick? I'm confused again...
Posted by EricaP on February 4, 2011 at 4:10 PM · Report this
118
Erica, for all the requests for help Dan gets, the questions about, for example, what truths the LWs are obliged to disclose -- those are technically questions about how much slickness is fair game to get away with for the given situation.

Being GGG, for another example, is a slickness for accommodating a relationship established as genuinely loving. But for CWJBF to jump into bed with an admirer she would have every intention of trading-up from at the first opportunity, what would be GGG would be cruel. Faking orgasms, for another example, is a form of slickness Dan portrays as there never being a good occasion for.

Feel like an asexual misrepresented his/herself to establish an LTR with kids? A CPOS will take the first opportunity to cheat on such partner. Whatever telling your partner you're getting your needs from elsewhere is, it ain't slick.

So for the general pattern of advice Dan gives, he seems to follow the principle as I described before: you can a) be slick in your relationship if your relationship is your first priority, or b) make your relationship something other than your first priority if you aren't slick in it. But you can't be slick in a relationship that's something other than your first priority.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 4, 2011 at 4:41 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 119
@118: Dude, you make no sense at all. Sorry about that, but there it is.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 4, 2011 at 8:55 PM · Report this
120
The random line is from a movie, can't remember which one. While still good advice it's only minimally original.
Posted by edibleaudio on February 5, 2011 at 12:17 AM · Report this
Gregory Forman 121
If anyone's interested I blogged about Savage's advice not to raw dog a random: http://www.gregoryforman.com/blog/2011/0…
Posted by Gregory Forman http://www.gregoryforman.com on February 5, 2011 at 4:45 AM · Report this
122
The woman unattracted to her friend is clearly "Noroused" by that friend. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18798_6-w…) Once more people accept that norousal is not something you should take offense over, lots of friendships will be saved!
Posted by Brian From The Net on February 5, 2011 at 5:37 AM · Report this
123
Brie,

"Perhaps NSNA should date asexuals, but... get their permission to go to a prostitute every once in a while? "

What are you reading? He's not into prostitutes-- he's not in to penetrating.

He's rightly concerned that many women at end will not be into not being in by him. Dan is right that many dissatisfied women would like to be a non-penetrative relationship with a man. However, I remain by my suggestion that he try testosterone. Will a minor chemical addition change his feelings about fucking? Will he like his change? If yes, he can keep it. If no, he can quit and at least be the wiser for it.

I think most women want their men to want them.

Posted by Hunter78 on February 5, 2011 at 6:06 AM · Report this
124
God, all of you assholes who are dogging #1 for not making sex his #1 priority in a relationship are a billion times harsher on #1 than Dan ever was. Dan was simply trying to translate his own narrow world perspective into constructive advice for the low libido dude, but all you jerks and morons who are all, "I don't see the point of getting into relationships without the sex," (a.) aren't getting the gist of it and (b.) are clearly not formulating good relationships in the first place.

First of all, a GOOD relationship has as its basis shared interests and a delicious meeting of the minds. If you can stay up all night talking on the telephone with your boyfriend/girlfriend/lover/sweetie, that's a great sign for a relationship. Secondly, if you're delving into relationships just for the sex, you're clearly not seeking any ACTUAL relationships but are seeking something better suited by going to prostitutes or hooking up with random strangers at bars and clubs. Those arrangements deal with sex first and foremost. Don't waste the time of people who are trying to seek out people to bond with on multiple levels by simply seeing them as living sex toys. If you haven't matured yet to the point where you see sex as a complement to a good, solid relationship, don't get into relationships in the first place.

Having said that, I do tend to think that minimal sexual interest guy needs to figure out whether his sex drive is biological or psychological in origin. If it's biological, excellent! He could go to eharmony.com or something and seek out like minds who'll be completely compatible with him. If it's psychological, however, he could get the help he needs and -- maybe even then he'll still lack the sex drive of most. That's still fine! There'll be people out there who'll have a similar sex drive, whom he could relate to on multiple levels. If not, however, he'll have cleared up whatever issues that needed to be resolved and enter into regular relationships with greater ease.
More...
Posted by reliantrobin on February 5, 2011 at 11:44 AM · Report this
125
"First of all, a GOOD relationship has as its basis shared interests and a delicious meeting of the minds."

No, a GOOD relationship has as its basis shared interests, a delicious meeting of the minds -- and the more-or-less frequent desire to tear each other's clothes off and make like bunny rabbits.

What you've described is the basis for a good friendship. A lovely thing, but it's not a romantic relationship.
Posted by ribbit ribbit on February 5, 2011 at 12:12 PM · Report this
HellboundAlleee 126
Minimally Sexual Guy doesn't want to work hard to maintain a sexual relationship. Here's the crux: is he willing to make up for his minimal sexuality with concessions?

I have a minimally sexual partner who makes up for it in many ways. Firstly, he allows me to seek sex elsewhere. That's pretty much what you're going to have to do, unless you find someone who isn't interested in sex much.

But here's what else you need to do: you have to be a REALLY good partner, like mine: one who gives his share and maybe more into an emotional and economical relationship. Plenty of physical affection, industry in the home (what people think housewives do--you have to develop these skills), and TIME. Lots of time. If this sounds like "too much work" for you, then you are not relationship-worthy, at least in a minimal sex kind of way.

What I'm saying is, a lot of faults can be made up with good, frequent sex. But infrequent sex can be made up for by sex with another person, a few nights apart, KINDNESS, and an equal share of household duties--and at least one talent that makes you irreplaceable. Cooking, perhaps. And a calm disposition. No name calling, no contempt. Can you do that?
Posted by HellboundAlleee http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com on February 5, 2011 at 12:29 PM · Report this
127
@125

I assure you, it is very, very possible to want and desire love without the desire for sex. I have friends. I have a partner. My feelings for each are very, very different. I wouldn't dream of (for example) planning for a Valentine's Day dinner with all the mushy trappings with my best friend. That would be just as weird even if my brain could get aroused.

Other than the "tear each other's clothes off" bit, I don't think an asexual/asexual relationship is any different than two people who like to do the dirty 3 times a week.

And the bonus of staying with our own "kind" so to speak, we don't have to be super extra accommodating/awesome to make up for our apparent "flaw". If LW1 finds out that his miminal sex drive isn't a symptom, but who he is, he can then consider that the price of admission to be with him. Maybe he'll find a taker.
Posted by Acegal on February 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM · Report this
128
I have thought about this for a while, Mr. Savage, and I have to say I have a problem with your response to NSNA. It isn't the final advice: Telling this guy to seek another minimally sexual person is fine. It's the way you said it.

If this had been someone with almost any other sexual peculiarity, you would have been your usual open-minded, encouraging and sensible self. But instead you treated this guy like dirt.

Sure, maybe OTHER minimally sexual people have mistreated their partners, but NSNA hasn't. (And keep in mind, you only hear from the people who aren't happy with their minimally sexual partners. For all we know, there are many who are.) He deserves your usual level of courtesy and your usual benefit of the doubt.
Posted by DRF on February 5, 2011 at 6:52 PM · Report this
129
NSNA, asexuals are not turned off by physical intimacy - they are turned off by sex.
Posted by Clarabella on February 5, 2011 at 9:29 PM · Report this
130
@119: your criticism isn't actionable and, therefore, the sense of it remains a mystery. Sorry to have to inform you you're a hypocrite, but there it is.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 5, 2011 at 9:48 PM · Report this
131
"Unless you're more interested in sex than you let on, NSNA, and you find the idea of a normally sexual partner appealing because a normal might be able to help you build your confidence and learn to enjoy sex. I certainly hope you're not another asexual/minimally sexual person who wants a normally sexual partner because you take a perverse pleasure in depriving someone else of sex, constantly rejecting that person's advances, and ultimately destroying their confidence."

Excuse me but wtf?
A little hostility there?
Are there not such a-holes of every stripe of sexuality taking perverse pleasures in inflicting damage on their partners and destroying their confidence?
Posted by amelia clankshon on February 5, 2011 at 10:17 PM · Report this
132
Why are people complaining that Dan are too harsh to #1. Did you all miss the sentence, where the guy claims to be a regular reader of Savage Love? And yet he still asks how 'normal' people who feel about being with him. Well, d'oh! Of course Dan rips him a new one, just like he would do to someone who claimed to be a regular reader and then asked if it was safe to eat poo or how he could get his girlfriend to come from vaginal intercourse, since he couldn't be bothered to give oral or use his hands.
If this guys has read all the letters from people with mismatched libidos who are miserable and he is still contemplating getting a 'normal' partner rather than seeking out another low-libidoed partner then Dan is right to call him out on the bullshit.
The guy doesn't even mention the idea of being in a open relationship, where his partner can get her needs met outside, so apparently he DOES entertain the idea that he can trap a partner in a sexless relationship. He is a totally clueless and selfish asshole and he needed the verbal smacking around.
Posted by Adacia on February 6, 2011 at 1:21 AM · Report this
133
What really is troublesome is the assumption (not in Dan's response, but mostly in the comments) that asexuals trade in their desire for fucking for the desire to deliberately fuck with their sexual partner by denying them sexual access. I'm sure there are exceptions, as there are sadistic assholes of every sexual stripe there is. I can totally sympathize with how demoralizing and painful that can be, too.

It can be just as demoralizing and painful from the other side as well. But for the most part, it's not deliberate. Maybe they thought they could become sexual with the right person. Maybe they discover it while in a relationship. What is the difference between that and figuring out that you like to eat poo, or that you're actually gay, or you can only get off while having your earlobes licked by the family pet? Sexual incompatibility happens all the time, as many of Dan's letters scream out. You get honest, and you make compromises - or you move on.

(or get a divorce...harsh and unfair, I know, but I don't appreciate being told that I should forsake all human romantic connection - apparently even with people like me - and just "get a dog" either. It's never that simple for anyone.)
Posted by Acegal on February 6, 2011 at 2:48 AM · Report this
134
For #1: When I started my sexual life I was very highly sexual. That's how I met my first husband. We went at a same rhythm for at least a year. Sadly, I have no idea why, I started to loose interest. After 26 years I still wonder what happened. I started faking, didn't work,then we just did it less and less. Finally, after 7 years, we broke up. Now I am enjoying someone just like me. Under your definitions, after many years, I would catalogue myself as a minimally sexual person. But when I was younger my body hormones deceived me for a long time. What I mean is, it's not so crystal clear and time change us.
Posted by eternal newcomer on February 6, 2011 at 9:16 AM · Report this
135
NSNA: how do you feel about open relationships? Polyamory would solve your problem, and whether or not it'd create others is your choice. Check out Taormino's "Opening Up" or any of the "also bought" books on Amazon. Not many people (maybe 10%) will be interested in that either, but the set of nearly-asexual partners plus the set of open-relationship-worthy partners is bigger than either set alone.
Posted by something on February 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM · Report this
136
@117

I'm with you on 116, EricaP. I don't understand Mike's use of the word "slick" either. After re-reading his comment(s) a number of times, I can only conclude that he means dishonest in the sense of "the Clintons are slick politicians."

In that sense, his first comment may be about how much disingenuousness a person is willing accept to survive the dating game. Some people view dating as an amusing sport – a game of skill, strategy, and sometimes deception which, though it seems unromantic at first, may be a sign of experience and maturity. I'm of two minds about this perspective, but after having my heart broken a few times by being unwilling to accept any dishonesty, I'm starting to think a less romantic view may be the best way to survive.

Maybe he's writing in another language and using a translator? This I can understand; but why not just say so, rather than getting so defensive?

Posted by GasparFagel on February 6, 2011 at 12:04 PM · Report this
137
Anyone who thinks Dan was too hard on NSNA is wrong wroNG WRONG!! Someone needs to tell him to not even THINK of being in a relationship with a "normally-sexed" woman & if being mean or sarcastic Dan-style is gonna drive the point home, then so be it! I've been married to a man for 15 yrs (almost 16-we were together 6 mos before we married)in our late 20s. For the first 2 yrs of us being together, he wanted to have sex frequently enough-few times a wk, whatever... After that, nope; he got depressed, hated his job & no sex for me. He didn't want to get therapy, or have his testosterone levels checked. He told a friend of ours, about a year ago, that he DIDN'T CARE. REALLY?! Cuz I sure as fuck do! At this point in our marriage, I'm "lucky" if I get it once a month. With my husband's not-so-great self-esteem/confidence (much like the LW's) he'd NEVER agree to an open relationship; one needs a healthy self-esteem & a lot of confidence in themselves to agree to an open relationship. I'D be cool with it, but with his abandonment issues, etc, it would kill him. So far, I've only read about 1/3 of the comments, so I,m gonna finish reading what y'all have to say & then, unfortunately for you guys, lol, I might chime in again.
Posted by Elsalover on February 6, 2011 at 12:44 PM · Report this
138
@136, thanks, that seems like a plausible interpretation. And I'm with you, that I find occasional dishonesty to be more survivable than I had thought. If we draw bright lines and insist our partners be perfect (in any area, even honesty), we may lose out on imperfect but wonderful human relationships. Or maybe I'm deceiving myself, now, out of fear of change. That's always possible.
Posted by EricaP on February 6, 2011 at 12:46 PM · Report this
139
"How do normally sexual persons feel about being with someone who can perform but doesn't particularly want to?" Those persons are called married men.
Posted by Crash on February 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM · Report this
140
@136: "Maybe he's writing in another language and using a translator? This I can understand; but why not just say so, rather than getting so defensive?"

If what I'm saying is being garbled by a translator, then what makes you say I'm being defensive? That doesn't add up.

What instead seems to make sense is that you're looking at my ethnic name, and "interpreting" my common-usage of the word slick, and making that the basis for challenging my English fluency, to give a shout-out to other haters. Congratulations, you're validating the kind of chicken-shit Dan labors to handicap with his advocacy.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 6, 2011 at 8:54 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 141
@140: "interpreting my common-usage of the word slick"

If a number of people here are commenting on how they don't understand the way you are using a word, that usage may not be as common as you think.

Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 9:45 AM · Report this
142
I think I may be the only person here who is actually more interested in the answer to CWJBF. It seems to me that quite a bit of Dan's answers on how to handle problems in relationships are predicated on the idea of being open and honest with the people that you are interacting with.

Dan, as a mildly autistic 34 year old, I think you do wrong when you state that some people are "not smart enough" to understand when little white lies are just that. I can complete a verbal portion of GRE in 4-5 minutes with a near perfect score. I don't understand non-verbal cues well at all.

It's not that I'm not smart enough to understand that people use "little white lies" to extricate themselves from uncomfortable situations. It's that I'm smart enough to realise that using such "little white lies" tends to never end well and expect the people that I interact with to be smart enough to understand the same (in and of itself, not smart on my part).

Variations on this simple message seem to apply to 95% of your advice. Be honest and direct with the people that you choose to interact with, both in word and deed. Giving people the information they need to understand where they stand allows them to make the choices they need to protect themselves from hurt and suffering.

As to CWJBF, letting this "friend" know that you aren't interested in having a deeper relationship with them doesn't make you an asshole. Not letting them know that at the outset quite possibly does. When you mislead people, they quite often get the wrong idea.

You're 22, however, so you get a pass, for now. In the future, I'd urge you to have the unpleasant conversation at the outset. It will save both of you a lot of trouble and pain in the long run.

And you know, if you tell this person that you care about them as a friend, but don't share the desire for the relationship to move beyond that, you may be left with a pretty good friend.
More...
Posted by CoffeeandCigs on February 7, 2011 at 10:50 AM · Report this
143
@141: it was common enough for you to catch what I meant, then somehow jump to me not being fluent in English. Like that makes any kind of sense.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 7, 2011 at 10:58 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 144
@143: In your post @116, you wrote the following:

"Dan's advice continues to follow the principle that you can a) be slick in your relationship if your relationship is your first priority, or b) make your relationship something other than your first priority if you aren't slick in it. So CWJBF's dilemma can be framed in terms of being slick in a relationship that was something other than your first priority.

"Sticking with that implicit principle, maybe we can say the preventative action would have been to tell the girl interested in her that CWJBF wasn't ever going to be the kind of slick to preserve whatever relationship might develop, and that she (the girl interested) was entitled to that."

Let me be clear: I did not "catch what [you] meant." I have no idea what you meant. Some of that lack of understanding is due to your use of the word "slick" in a way that is totally unfamiliar to me. The rest of it is down to some fairly tortured syntax on your part.

I haven't commented at all on whether or not English is your first language - I just think you aren't using it very well.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM · Report this
145
From 136: "After re-reading his comment(s) a number of times, I can only conclude that he means dishonest in the sense of "the Clintons are slick politicians.""

From 144: "Let me be clear: I did not "catch what [you] meant.""

Yeah, like everything you say be reconciles.

From 136: "Maybe he's writing in another language and using a translator?"

It's funny how your inconsistencies means you're fluent in English, and your vague complaints of what the guy with the ethnic name says mean he's not.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 7, 2011 at 11:35 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 146
@145: You do realize that I am not the same person who posted @136, right? Check the posting handle, check the profiles. Two different people.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 11:38 AM · Report this
147
Has it occurred to you, Mike L., that if you have to lie to someone to tell them you care about them, then you're telling them that your caring is a lie? If you have to lie to someone to say that you're a good person, then you're admitting that you're not a good person.

That's not "slick." It's manipulative and sick.
Posted by CoffeeandCigs on February 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM · Report this
148
@139: Any particular reason you singled out men for that comment? Plenty of married women "refuse to perform", after all. Once you're out of the Savage Love petri dish, the majority of "my spouse won't have sex with me anymore, and I don't know why" laments seem to be coming from men, not women.
Posted by ribbit ribbit on February 7, 2011 at 1:00 PM · Report this
149
@148: You and 139 are saying the same thing.
Posted by avast2006 on February 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM · Report this
150
BB@119: "Dude, you make no sense at all. Sorry about that, but there it is."

me@130: "@119: your criticism isn't actionable and, therefore, the sense of it remains a mystery. Sorry to have to inform you you're a hypocrite, but there it is."

BB@146: "You do realize that I am not the same person who posted @136, right? Check the posting handle, check the profiles. Two different people."

Yeah, I got that wrong, because I don't understand why so many people need to make it my fault they don't know "slick" can mean insincere, like there's something wrong with me for it. I think better of people than that.

Did y'all have this much trouble getting through Men in Black, where Tommy Lee Jones antagonizes Will Smith by calling him slick? Are y'all MiB-challenged?
Posted by Mike Leung on February 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM · Report this
151
@147: "Has it occurred to you, Mike L., that if you have to lie to someone to tell them you care about them..."

Has it occurred to you that you have to be less than 100% sincere to be GGG[iving]? From what you're saying, being GGG seems to qualify as manipulative and sick as well.

If you're in a relationship, and can get along with being 100% sincere, good for you. But I'm chafing here in a smaller world, and heaven forbid I should consider a principle to open up that smaller world that still seems to add up as faithful.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 7, 2011 at 3:16 PM · Report this
152
@149: Ah, yes. Oops. Perhaps you can see how I misread that one.
Posted by ribbit ribbit on February 7, 2011 at 3:28 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 153
@150: "Dan's advice continues to follow the principle that you can a) be insincere in your relationship if your relationship is your first priority, or b) make your relationship something other than your first priority if you aren't insincere in it. So CWJBF's dilemma can be framed in terms of being insincere in a relationship that was something other than your first priority. Sticking with that implicit principle, maybe we can say the preventative action would have been to tell the girl interested in her that CWJBF wasn't ever going to be the kind of insincere to preserve whatever relationship might develop, and that she (the girl interested) was entitled to that."

That doesn't help much, to be honest.

And, about honesty? You ask "Has it occurred to you that you have to be less than 100% sincere to be GGG[iving]?" I don't see that, actually. Are you saying that in order to be a good partner, it is necessary to be insincere? How is that?
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 3:51 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 154
@150: . If you use a word, and people don't understand what you mean... it isn't necessarily their fault, you know? But whatever.

I do wonder about this statement: "Has it occurred to you that you have to be less than 100% sincere to be GGG[iving]?" Because... no. I don't see at all how it is necessary to be insincere to be a good partner.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 3:57 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 155
@154: Nice double post, dipshit.

(@155: do I hear triple?)
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 3:58 PM · Report this
156
re: BB@153:

I didn't say rule. I said principle.

Maybe you're getting by in your relationship without being GGG. Maybe you're only hearing you're GGG. Maybe you're worth telling you're GGG because you're otherwise worth it to your partner. None of which are good-faith reasons to crap on what I have to say without saying why. I am sorry, but there it is.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 7, 2011 at 4:11 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 157
Well, I think I implied why. I am crapping on what you are saying because what you are saying does not make sense. You use words in uncommon ways and string them together into tortured sentences that do not parse. If your aim is to communicate, you are failing to do so.

Even when I can make out what you are trying to say, it doesn't make sense. For example, you seem to be saying that to be a good ("GGG") partner, it is necessary to be insincere. That seems misguided.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 4:22 PM · Report this
158
CoffeeandCigs (142),

As an autistic you have our sympathies, but the writers here can't cut you much slack. You're not carrying a white cane. Autistics are severely handicapped in this column, which deals with relationships.

CWJBF is just too obviously wrong to be commented on much. I think you may understand that. She's young, and most leave it that.

NSNA's situation is really more like yours, it's a crisis of not conveying emotions among many.

Posted by Hunter78 on February 7, 2011 at 4:39 PM · Report this
159
BB@119: "@118: Dude, you make no sense at all. Sorry about that, but there it is."

Apparently hate is so common-sense for you, you just had to crap on what I had to say -- in the very next post.

GasparFagel@136: "After re-reading his comment(s) a number of times, I can only conclude that he means dishonest in the sense of "the Clintons are slick politicians.""

GasparFagel took an understanding from what I had to say. Therefore, insisting I made no sense at all is self-serving on you part. Self-serving to your hate.

BB@144:

"In your post @116, you wrote the following:

""Dan's advice continues to follow the principle that you can..."

BB@157: "For example, you seem to be saying that to be a good ("GGG") partner, it is necessary to be insincere. That seems misguided."

Are you challenged in distinguishing the meaning of "can" from "must?"
Posted by Mike Leung on February 7, 2011 at 4:42 PM · Report this
BedlamBabe 160
I feel compelled to play Devil's Advocate here, not for NSNA specifically, but for people with... lower sex drives than their partners.
I just got out of a relationship with someone who had a much higher [arguably unhealthily, but that's another story] sex drive than I did. It wasn't something I bitched and whined about, I did my damnedest to give everything I could, even when I had no interest in doing anything but curling up next to them [yes, snuggling, go ahead and mock me] and going to sleep. It hurt knowing that no matter what I did, INCLUDING having an open relationship, it couldn't be enough, and made me feel horribly inadequate, though I've had other sexual partners that matched up just fine.
This isn't something to be taken lightly, to be written off as people being nasty and selfish, especially by "daring" to date "normal" people. It's a serious relationship dynamic that can ultimately leave some ugly bruises in places people can't ever see. Everyone has heard that you can't choose who you love, and you can't, especially based on sex drive. For the love of all you hold holy, when this is an issue, talk to each other and talk to a counselor, before it becomes something capable of ripping you apart.
Posted by BedlamBabe on February 7, 2011 at 5:33 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 161
@159: "Are you challenged in distinguishing the meaning of "can" from "must?"

Yes. In your post @151, you wrote the following:

"Has it occurred to you that you have to be less than 100% sincere to be GGG[iving]?"

That's "have to be", as in "must".

Look, drop the 'hate' stuff, okay? I don't 'hate' you, or anyone for that matter. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM · Report this
162
Me@151: "Has it occurred to you that you have to be less than 100% sincere to be GGG[iving]?"

Me@156: "Maybe you're getting by in your relationship without being GGG."

Whatever, hater.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 7, 2011 at 6:20 PM · Report this
163
@160: I'm not sure how you're being a devil's advocate. I think Dan and most commenters here would agree that it's painful for both people in a mismatched relationship, and both the higher-sex-drive partner and the lower-sex-drive partner can feel inadequate.

I have to dispute your characterization of very high sex drives as 'unhealthy' though. Are you just saying that because of the difficulties you had in this mismatched relationship?
Posted by BlackRose on February 7, 2011 at 7:10 PM · Report this
164
@Backyard Bombadier, I recommend stepping away from the thread. His explanations don't help you understand (or me) so it hardly seems as if you're going to get anywhere by continuing...
Posted by EricaP on February 7, 2011 at 7:18 PM · Report this
165
A sincere inquiry given in good faith would have looked something like "Mike, you lost me when you said [x, y, and z]." I got some vague complaints about comprehension, and I gave an explanation that worked @136. I am a good person.

My understanding is that while not everyone baffled is a victim, all victims are baffled by someone. No one is saying how what I'm saying doesn't add up. Because leaving an account that adds up is how decent people conduct themselves.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 7, 2011 at 7:58 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 166
@164: Yeah, but it's not like I have a hobby or anything...
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 8:01 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 167
@165: Yes, yes, you are a good person, I am a hater, got it, thanks. Good day, sir.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 8:03 PM · Report this
168
Well, if you're going to crap on what people have to say in your bad faith, you should learn to like to hear that that's the case. You only have another option by imposing on the person who's account you're crapping on.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 7, 2011 at 8:35 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 169
Oh for fuck's sake. "In bad faith"? I am fairly certain you don't even know that means.

Here's some good faith advice, Mr. Leung: You write poorly. You use words in ways that do not make sense, based on their standard meanings. As a result, it is difficult to understand the points you are trying to make. If you wish people to understand you and respond positively, you should work to improve your writing skills.

That is 100% constructive criticism. Take it or leave it.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 7, 2011 at 9:39 PM · Report this
170
BB@119: "@118: Dude, you make no sense at all. Sorry about that, but there it is."

Me@165: "A sincere inquiry given in good faith would have looked something like "Mike, you lost me when you said [x, y, and z].""

BB@169:

"Oh for fuck's sake. "In bad faith"? I am fairly certain you don't even know that means."

[BB refuses to cite anything I said.]

"That is 100% constructive criticism. Take it or leave it."

100% constructive, like there's no room to be more generous than that. Ok, Nurse Ratch-hate, please don't tell my mother.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 8, 2011 at 6:43 AM · Report this
171
Holy shit, Mike Leung, please just shut up. You were unclear, and became defensive at a simple request to clarify what you meant (and for the record, I had no idea what you meant by "slick"). You could have just explained, and saved us all this absurd cross-examination between you and BB.
Posted by offfwhite on February 8, 2011 at 7:15 AM · Report this
172
I was responding to posts directed at me. Like I'm doing now to your post. If that bothers you so much, why don't *you* shut up?
Posted by Mike Leung on February 8, 2011 at 7:24 AM · Report this
173
@172...

If you're comfortable appearing like a belligerent child, then carry on.
Posted by offfwhite on February 8, 2011 at 7:30 AM · Report this
174
#67 "random" may be gender neutral, but "raw dog" is not. Let's put it this way - if A is raw dogging B we know for sure that A has a penis.
Posted by Bob the payaso on February 8, 2011 at 7:42 AM · Report this
175
offfwhite@171: "Holy shit, Mike Leung..."

offfwhite@173: "If you're comfortable appearing like a belligerent child..."

Being a belligerent child isn't a moral failure, like being a hypocrite is. So why don't *you* shut up?
Posted by Mike Leung on February 8, 2011 at 8:18 AM · Report this
176
@175...

And again, you're not making sense. But you are revealing yourself to be nothing more than an antagonistic troll.

Signing off (and feeling more than a little stupid for jumping to your bait).
Posted by offfwhite on February 8, 2011 at 9:37 AM · Report this
177
You heard it from "offfwhite": opening an exchange with "holy shit" isn't belligerent or childish at all. Calling it that is trolling and makes no sense at all. Holy shit on you too.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 8, 2011 at 9:51 AM · Report this
178
@Mike Leung.

Try using a dictionary:

slick
adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb
–adjective
1. smooth and glossy; sleek.
2. smooth in manners, speech, etc.; suave.
3. sly; shrewdly adroit: He's a slick customer, all right.
4. ingenious; cleverly devised: a slick plan to get out of work.
5. slippery, especially from being covered with or as if with ice, water, or oil.
6. deftly executed and having surface appeal or sophistication, but shallow or glib in content; polished but superficial; glib: a writer who has mastered every formula of slick fiction.
7. Slang . wonderful; remarkable; first-rate.

I think you have heard definition #3 used and misinterpreted it to mean "dishonest."
A "slick customer" MIGHT be a dishonest person, but the word "slick" doesn't refer to their dishonesty, it refers to their being sly, clever and shrewd.
Posted by dragonfly10305 on February 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM · Report this
179
Oh, and it really is very confusing when you use a word to (seemingly) mean something pejorative when it is more usually used as a compliment (see defs #2, #4 & #7, especially.)
Posted by dragonfly10305 on February 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM · Report this
180
@23

This post enrages me so much that it’s lucky this individual is not standing in front of me or I’d have to physically restrain myself from PUNCHING THEM IN THE FACE!

So, basically, I should just camp out inside my house and resign myself to a life of loneliness to avoid upsetting the delicate feelings of all the poor, deprived sexuals who don’t get to fuck their brains out all day long?

"How can an asexual date", you ask? Oh, I don’t know, maybe because we’re fucking HUMAN and we deserve to find love just as much as sexuals do!
Posted by Stranded on February 8, 2011 at 1:21 PM · Report this
181
Dan --
As always thanks for your excellent work. I would like to add some comments regarding NSNA's predicament. It's generally (but not always) the case that men have a higher sex drive than women. This is a generalization, just an observation of the data, not a judgment. Having said that, NSNA's situation may have serious consequences. Any man who truly has little to no interest in sexual activity should be medically evaluated. It is highly likely that he has abnormally low testosterone levels, which can be caused by an underlying disease. And regardless of cause, clinically low testosterone in men is associated with increased mortality. That is, research shows these guys die sooner. The fact that NSNA doesn't perceive he has a problem is consistent with the condition. I'm not saying he's inferior or wrong for having a low sex drive. I'm saying he probably has a medical problem that deserves a careful evaluation. I wish him luck.
Posted by mofitz http://www.sheppardpratt.org on February 8, 2011 at 1:39 PM · Report this
182
dragonfly@178: "3. sly; shrewdly adroit" is not the definition of sincere, nor any of its synonyms. Thank you for helping me confirm the validity of what I say.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 8, 2011 at 1:52 PM · Report this
183
Agreed, 180.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Apparently number 2fucking3 thinks asexuals do not deserve human love and compassion. What a jackass.
Posted by Tala on February 8, 2011 at 2:50 PM · Report this
184
@33 - "Is lack of stamina or confidence typically an underlying driver of asexuality? Because those two factors don't seem to me to constitute a whole sexual identity. I mean, gay men aren't gay because it's too much trouble to date women (a reason an evangelical I know once suggested)."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.... I just spat my soft drink across my laptop. So, you met some evangelical who was actually giving you HIS reasons for being gay. Brilliant! That is pure comedy and I'll bet the guy didn't even realise it.

Onward... letter #2 - Folks who come out with the "I'm not looking for a relationship" can go fuck themselves!
I remember in my younger days my "friends" would criticise me because if a guy was interested, I'd tell him straight up: "I don't find you attractive, not now and I never will so there's no point in you pursuing this."
If you ask me, those weak-arse individuals who can't see how illogical it is to tell someone "I'm not looking for a relationship" just to get rid of you, I say, "good riddance!"
The finest example of this I remember is a guy who told me, he "wasn't looking for anything" and then lo and behold, about 3 months later, was engaged to be married to someone he met about a week after he told me THAT! I told him, "good luck with that" and then of course, laughed in his face.
People are a trip!
For crying out loud, the sky isn't going to fall, the world won't end if you're HONEST with others. I exclude people who can't be honest from my life and folks, my life is richer for it.

To letter writer #2, I hope you've learned your lesson little girl and I hope your friend grows a back bone and tells you to go fuck yourself too.
To all those whoever called ME harsh? How are those loveless marriages working out?
Ha!

More...
Posted by Frederica Bimble on February 8, 2011 at 3:27 PM · Report this
185
@45 - WRONG! Whose "feelings" are you trying to "save?" All the gibberish will lead to: "Right, if I'm so "great" then why don't you want to be with me?"
What in the hell is wrong with people? I think more people just like to stir up drama than they care to admit.
So, being honest AND NEVER HAVING TO HAVE THE DREARY CONVERSATION AGAIN is too much for you?
There's nothing wrong with telling folks the truth. Sure, it MAY hurt that ONE TIME but then the person gets to move on and maybe grow from it but the usual exercise from people like you is to patronise others and try to save them from themselves. No one told you that it is up to you to decide what others can or can't handle in their lives!
Honey, take your arse to church where guilt won't cost you a cent. Leave reality to those who can "handle" it. Then, you can do all the sparing of the feelings of others and feel just peachy keen about it.
Geesh!
Posted by Frederica Bimble on February 8, 2011 at 3:45 PM · Report this
186
@ 70 - Yes! Well said.
Posted by Frederica Bimble on February 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM · Report this
187
@ 140 - Mike Lueng - Yep, we "get it."
TROLL!!!!!
Now, go play in the road.
Posted by Frederica Bimble on February 8, 2011 at 4:45 PM · Report this
188
@ 142 - snap! Me too! I completely understand the notion of projecting one's intelligence onto others. I always assumed when I was a child that others were as smart as me and it took many years of frustration to understand that there are people who can't think as logically.
So far, I have yet to lose out by telling the truth to others. I've managed to alienate folks who weren't worth my time (which I learned later on) but those who are comfortable and easy to be around are attracted to me so in my older years, I find my relationships are much more enriched. Also, by the time you get to be my age (I'm older than you) being mildly autistic is less of a hassle. Older people tend to be more mellow so they're more accepting of "oddities."
Also, I don't think Dan was directly saying people who take people at their word aren't smart but he was speaking in a more lazy "regular speak" (that's what I call it) instead of going into a long drawn out explanation of the nuances and minutae of what degree of intelligence or the type of intelligence it would take to understand someone else was lying.
My brain is so logical that as soon as someone comes out with a lie, it immediately follows a trail of moment spoken to possible outcomes.
I've been described as "hard work" or "intense" and subsequently, I have one friend where I live in London, UK and about 5 people who I see about once every 6 months and about 4-6 others who I tolerate in small doses.
I like being around other HFAs or Aspies.... it is just easier.
I've been asked if I was a robot too. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha....
I was just telling my friend that it would be great if when you met someone you found attractive that you could just push a button on their arms or behind their ears that would spit out a reading to tell you ALL about them and then you could just know instantly whether or not the match was workable instead of wading through trying to figure out what others are saying, especially when they are "speaking in code."
Just a piece of old person advice, when listening to "regular" people, just take everything they say and scramble it by approximately 1/3 and you can create a valuable tool in communication. Most people don't say what they mean nor do they mean what they say.
More...
Posted by Frederica Bimble on February 8, 2011 at 5:01 PM · Report this
189
I'm flattered Frederica took a break from her precious time hazing freshmen football players to acknowledge me.
Posted by Mike Leung on February 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM · Report this
190
Trust me, Frederica, I've learned most of that the hard way already.
Posted by CoffeeandCigs on February 8, 2011 at 6:50 PM · Report this
191
When talking with NT's who talk about the inabilities of autistic people to empathise, I ask them if they can tell me what it's like to be autistic. Then I point them to things like "Autreat" and ask them why autistic people would willingly set up a convention where they choose to hang out with other people with autism and those who understand the condition (ie. socialise and empathise).
Posted by CoffeeandCigs on February 8, 2011 at 6:54 PM · Report this
192
And to those "low drive" people who want to whine about how wonderful it is to live in a sexless marriage, where you just share your love and lives and whatever pathetic worthless bullshit it is that you do I have two words: FUCK YOU."

No, fuck YOU. So you're suggesting that a relationship is somehow less valid when the people involved are having less sex then you? And when exactly did looking for your identity, sexual or otherwise, become a "moronic" thing?

It looks to me like this guy is seeking advice so he DOESN'T HURT SOMEONE. How exactly is that moronic and/or pathetic?

It looks like NSNA isn't the only one with issues here >.>

@88: It is worse than pathetic and moronic from the perspective of any normally sexual partners of this person. You did not quote me accurately. Very deceptive of you. Let me just go out on a limb and guess you are a woman? I said a relationship is not as valid when one partner wants to have sex and the other is 'minimally sexual.' I stand by the claim and further state that such a relationship is not just invalid, it is ABUSIVE.

I also admitted being harsh on the writer and explained I do indeed have an issue- I am married to one of those minimally sexual women and am pretty pissed off about it.

My apologies to all the women here who commented about THEIR minimally sexual husbands so I have been educated to understand that it works both ways. For the record, the same rule applies (and for same sex couples etc) although it sure seems to me the language defending this behavior is primarily straight from the feminsts.

My point is that the low drive partner has a duty to satisfy the higher drive partner. Period. This feminist claptrap bullshit about 'I get to decide what to do with my genitals' is nothing more than a form of torture and I think it gives them some sinister pleasure in exercising that power of denial.

If my wife is sore I will rub her back for an hour to make it feel better. I would do it every night. If she was horny and I wasn't (as if THAT would ever happen) I would be delighted to eat her out for an hour (OK maybe only 1/2 hour) every night. If a man doesn't want to fuck his woman he should be willing to eat her out and keep her satisfied.

AND if a woman doesn't want to fuck her man SHE should be willing to spend the 5-10 minutes it takes to get him off. Yep, that is every night. A loving assist is the least she can do! The point is that SEX is not that big of a deal. Get over this power trip already. It takes 5-10 minutes. Doing anything less is just a deliberate way to exercise your power to deny your partner. It is deliberate, calculated, emotional torture.

So I send the fuck you back at ya....
More...
Posted by Professor on February 8, 2011 at 10:34 PM · Report this
193
@180: Understand that the idea of asexuals dating is confusing at first to sexuals, because for sexuals, dating is all about sex, and without sex it's just a friendship.

Of course asexuals can and should date if they're looking for a romantic relationship, but they also need to make it clear upfront that they're ace and not looking for a sexual relationship. That doesn't mean resigning themselves to loneliness.

@192: Please end your relationship, or at least start dating other people. No excuses. It's obviously causing you a lot of pain and making you bitter. You deserve someone who is compatible with you.

While I agree that it doesn't make sense for the low-drive partner not to just give a "loving assist" every night, I don't think it's always a calculated power trip. I don't really understand it, though.
Posted by BlackRose on February 9, 2011 at 1:28 AM · Report this
194
And actually, #192, I think that your choice of the word "duty" indicates that you have a power trip. I don't believe that the people I'm in a relationship have any duties to me. Aside from, mayhap, being honest about what they expect from the relationship. Boundaries are negotiable. Expectations are negotiable. Roles and places are negotiable. It seems to me that you have less a problem with what your SO brings to the relationship than you do with what you choose to do with that. IF you don't like what you get from the relationship, then change the relationship (I'm not advocating changing how your partner is. I'm advocating changing who your partner is.) You don't get to change other people. You get to change who you interact with.
Posted by CoffeeandCigs on February 9, 2011 at 2:56 AM · Report this
195
#192

Seriously, man, I honestly feel for your situation, and that you're really angry and bitter about it, and you have a right to it.

But...

No one has right to access of anyone's genitals. No matter if they're married or not, asexual, minimally sexual, highly sexual, man or woman...NO ONE. That's why most people consider marital rape rape (not that I'm implying that you would even go that route).

Let me repeat that for anyone skimming or just not paying attention - I'M NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING IN THAT LAST EXAMPLE.

Would you honestly be satisfied with substandard sex from an uninterested partner? Because that's what "loving assists" every night will end up before long, that plus an extra heaping helping of resentment on both sides. I've been there, and there's nothing like nearly hating your partner once they're done using your body like a living masturbation sleeve 3-4 times a week to really sour your feelings for them (overly dramatic? Yes, but that's how I felt). Add extra resentment if you're expected to feign enthusiasm for the act. Is that you really want?

To use your back rub analogy, if your wife wanted hour long back rubs every single day, you'd get bored. We all would. Hands would get sore. You'd wonder what is wrong with her back if it's sore so often. You'd probably encourage her to seek a doctor's advice.

And that's what I'm gonna suggest for you both. Get thee to a marriage counselor to see if her lack of interest in sex is either due to low libido or something deeper in your pairing. Yes, some women (and men) can use access to sex as a power trip, but until you know if that's her cause for sure, assuming so is just going to add to your pissed off-ness.

Otherwise, if a happy sex life is that much of a priority to you, there's nothing you can do but get a new partner.

More...
Posted by Acegal on February 9, 2011 at 5:41 AM · Report this
196
Hmmmm. What about Roller Derby language? Cunt, twat, and slut aren't only terms of endearment, but alter egos. I love being called slut when I'm packing it up!
Posted by slut on February 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM · Report this
197
# 193 BlackRose

I just wanted to thank you for your post and to add that for the record I am very upfront about my asexuality and would never dream of misleading anyone into a relationship.

The things said in the #23 post were some of the most hateful and ignorant things I’ve ever read and it hit me in the gut and so my reaction was to respond from a place of hurt when I should have just hit the back button as soon as I came across it.

Posted by Stranded on February 9, 2011 at 3:02 PM · Report this
198
Why is anyone writing in to Dan Savage for advice? It's obvious he knows extremely little about healthy romantic relationships.
Posted by Katter on February 10, 2011 at 9:17 AM · Report this
199
@ Stranded

"Professor" is not hateful or ignorant, he is just expressing the frustration that so many sexual people experience from dating often less-than-honest asexual people.

This is extremely common and life would be a lot easier if people were honest with themselves and eachother, like you are.
Posted by bay13 on February 10, 2011 at 9:32 AM · Report this
200 Comment Pulled (Duplicate) Comment Policy
201
I agree that sex is a responsibility in a relationship.

However, there are ways around that:
the less-sexual partner can be honest and suggest it may be better to just move on;
the less-sexual partner can suggest an open-relationship;
the less-sexual partner can be okay with affairs or escorts;
etc...
Posted by bay13 on February 10, 2011 at 9:48 AM · Report this
202
Hey Katter, got any evidence to back up your claim, or are you just drive by trolling?

Cause we've got both tons of happy people through the years who followed his advice and his own multi-year happy relationship...just saying.
Posted by Acegal on February 10, 2011 at 10:17 AM · Report this
203
Re item 2:

"Let's Just Be Friends" = The Kiss of Death...

Not the Friend Zone! NOOOO!!!
Posted by Ishmael on February 14, 2011 at 3:08 AM · Report this
204
@181: Lies, damn lies and statistics. Men have a higher sex drive than women? Oh, really? If you read the comments, you will find that men have an easier time getting off than women and no problem delivering a non-mutually fulfilling quickie. That is way more common than finding a man who is willing to take the time that I need more than once in a while. If he can't be bothered, I can't be bothered, but if he can, then every day is fine.
Posted by femmeavecchien on February 16, 2011 at 4:07 PM · Report this
205
I'm asexual, and I really don't like the use of 'normally' sexual in that first question. I also don't like the assumption made about being 'another' one of those asexuals who get into relationships with sexuals because they take pleasure in depriving someone of sex. In my (admittedly limited) personal experience, sexuals play a lot more mind games then asexuals, and asexuals get accused fairly often by sexuals who DON'T take proclamations of asexuality seriously, because, "well, you get aroused." or "you let me ______ and it seemed like you like it." There's a scope of asexuality just like there is of a 'normal' sexual person. I would like to tell NSNA that some of us DO identify as 'hetero asexuals.' I personally find men appealing in terms of their being more asthetically pleasing to me, and more likely to be considered as romantic partners, it just doesn't translate to, "we should maybe get naked and see where that goes."
Posted by Allyoops on February 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM · Report this
206
I went to the University of Texas for grad school. It may be known as one of the great party schools, but the University of Maryland, where I was an undergrad, must be one of the meccas of bathroom graffiti. I remember back in 1969 using the urinal in one of what were optimistically termed "temporary classrooms" (they had been around since WWII; I wonder if they've actually been torn down yet), and saw some graffiti that was actually a two-parter. The first part read, "Men, remember that you hold the future of America in your hands. Love, Cindy." Under it was written, "Dear Cindy, How would you like to hold the future of America in your mouth?" Okay, so it's not as classy as "Don't raw dog a random," but it has stayed with me (even the Cindy part) long after most of the academic knowledge I got there has long disappeared.
Posted by goodbuddy on February 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM · Report this
207
Something I have learned is that when you communicate that you are minimally sexual, if you really do just have a low sex drive, you may run into the following sorts of people.

People who say "me too!" because they only want sex four or five times a week.

People who say "me too," with the idea that they'll tell you what you want to hear, then "fix" you after you are in a relationship.

People who say "me too," when they actually do not ever want to have any sex.

Make sure you get clarification, and be completely honest with yourself.

It is, by the way, possible for a minimally sexual person and a person with normal or above-average sex drive to have a wonderful, loving, long-term relationship. I'm in one. But then, in ours, we can openly and safely go to other friends with whom we have sexual relationships, and we communicate a lot. When "the moment" is right, and I can actually get horny, we make it a special occasion of sorts, and it's great.

That's probably not the only coping method.

And I've seen _several_ relationships go down in flames because the partners were monogamous (sometimes downright jealous!) and had wildly different levels of sexual appetite.

If one of you wants sex, but only very rarely, and the other wants it five times a day, then either both of you have the wrong amount of sex, one of you gets the right amount and the other gets the wrong amount - and if the more sexually active person can't get it from elsewhere or from you - things get ugly. Sometimes good-old self-love might bridge the gap.

I've watched a few friends fall "madly in love" with "their soul-mate" and these folks, all well-meaning, tried to convince themselves that "sex isn't that important," or "but the rest of the relationship is so good," or "I suppose I can try to have sex more," and they ended up making one another really miserable.

While it can be made to work, perhaps, sometimes, I strongly recommend trying to find someone with close to your level of sexual appetite or lack thereof. And be clear about it early on.

This is purely anecdotal, but I've actually seen more problems happen in relationships where there's a different level of sexual appetite than in ones where one person is monogamous and the other is poly.
More...
Posted by Sungmanitu on March 8, 2011 at 10:31 PM · Report this
Sunnybunny1269 208
This situation is even more complicated than it seems. Don't most peoples sexual appetites vary and change over time and according to the situation and even as a reaction to life changes?

Like for example, a couple could be hot and heavy in the beginning and then a year or two later when the new wears off, one of them slows way down with what they think is the appropriate level of affection for people who are "comfortable" together. While the other reacts by feeling like they want more as they feel more and more positive about the relationship and want to express that and really has trouble coping with the guy who was wanting to do it 4 or 5 times a day and now can go a week or two and not care.
Posted by Sunnybunny1269 on June 14, 2011 at 8:31 AM · Report this
209
Oh my god. You've GOT to be kidding me. Your ideas on sex are so warped. Sex does not dictate who you fall in love with and have a relationship with, you dipshit. Why the fuck would you suggest people just go out with people who match their "normal sexuality" or "minimal sexuality" identity. That is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER HEARD. You can't help who you fall in love with or want a relationship with, and "normal sexuality" people, if they give even one fuck for their partner, would never guilt them into sex with the "poor me I have no self-esteem because you won't have sex with me". You just sound really bitter and pathetic to me. Did you go out with some asexual woman and she wouldn't fuck you so now you're inflicting your hate-tinged bullshit on the rest of the world? Pathetic.
Posted by ShagFrankie on March 7, 2013 at 5:23 AM · Report this
210
This is why we need asexual representation. Reading the article and the early comments makes me want to kill myself. But of course, since I'm asexual, that's not really a problem, is it? It's just going to make everything better for all the "normal" people. Since I'm asexual, I'm useless. If I was gone, there would just be one less weirdo in the dating pool, right? Heaven forbid that I would want to date someone who wasn't asexual. I can only imagine how torturous that would be to my poor partner! Not having sex! The horror, the horror! Surely, the best thing to do would be to have sex with him (because who cares if I'm uncomfortable with it? I'm ace. I'm nothing.) or to not have a relationship at all. What I want dosen't matter, right? I'm ace: therefore, I have no useage as a woman.
This is why we need asexual representation. So people don't feel useless because of their sexuality. So there are less people that want to kill themselves.
So no one else feels broken.
Posted by Ace of Hearts on March 17, 2014 at 6:36 AM · Report this

Add a comment