Savage Love Letter of the Day


Uh, maybe he's asexual too? And was in the Guys Must Want To Have Sex Closet till he met his asexual soulmate? Isn't there a website for this somewhere?
"and expressed full willingness to find alternative ways of showing our love" = he's getting it elsewhere, Dan. Which you yourself have advocated as a good alternative when someone isn't getting it in the primary relationship.
You've said on multiple occasions that you're not required to be unbiased or objective since you're just giving your opinions, but offering that he must be a "fool or a fag" as the only options is a little short-sighted (and offensive, I would imagine). For someone who demands open-mindedness when it comes to bedroom behavior, sometimes you seem almost bigoted.
Yeah, Dan, you're wrong. Saying that someone who doesn't want sex shouldn't be in a relationship is backwards and kind of mean.

There are plenty of people who want sex and don't want relationships, and you don't see anything wrong with them.

I was a little put off by your feedback, but didn't bother to write, as we all know how little you listen to your detractors.

Love you on everything else. Just think you should maybe not speak about bisexuals. Or asexuals. Or vaginas. Stick to your strengths. Perhaps get a guest, you tend to grab some really good ones.
Every time Dan opens up his mouth about some fringe group, someone inevitably takes it as a personal attack. People need to toughen up.

Also, I fail to see the difference between "you have no interest in sex or romance, or anything", and "you don't experience sexual attraction. Period".
I'm just glad there's a website where these folk can find each other.
i agree with all the people disagreeing here.


What the fuck's happened to Slog anyway?
There are those who enjoy the orgasm so why cannot there be a group who enjoys the lack of one. Can being not orgasmic be orgasmic in itself?

That guy who hates everyone left and then a bunch of pussies came in and there was nobody here to take the trash out because that guy who hates everyone left. He came back and tried to take care of business, but left again because in reality he's just a fat, shit-talking pussy.
If I was dating a girl and found out she was asexual I would laugh and say "good one god"
you know, a quick google search uncovers that 1% of all people are asexual. which is a lot actually...
You are welcome to your opinion, but the gentleman in question may also be asexual. Perhaps, there is more to this correspondence than is presented. If they are both truly happy, then congratulations are in order.

Good to know there is a website that can be of help.
Like @1 said, perhaps he's asexual too. Another possibility is that perhaps they decided to be poly and he gets his physical lovin' with other people outside the primary relationship. Or maybe he checks out awesome porn and has a very strong imagination. No need to be so limited Dan.
I agree with Mr. Savage. The writer in question is misusing the world "asexual" ... "a" being a prefix meaning away from.

The writer may wish to use the term "isosexual" to refer to someone who would like sex, thus is not distancing himself from it, but who cannot find another partner. He may be "autosexual" but he does not want to be such. He is looking, but has not found.

In that sense, he's basically just a loser like everyone else in Seattle, but wants a big word to prove otherwise.
@4 -- "I was a little put off by your feedback, but didn't bother to write, as we all know how little you listen to your detractors."

(emphasis mine)

Which is why you posted on his blog, where you get the attention that comes with bitching him out in public combined with the masturbatory satisfaction of making sure everyone knows that bitching him out isn't worth your time.

And if you've been reading this blog for more than five minutes, you're probably aware that sometimes he does indeed respond to comments -- and on the off-chance that he does so, you get the added thrill of knowing you successfully 'called him out' without losing anything if he doesn't.

Bravo. You, sir/madam/variations thereupon, are an artisan of internet communication.
I want to know how the boyfriend fulfills his sexual needs. I know he's doing it in some way and I'm dying to know what...

Another possibility is that perhaps they decided to be poly and he gets his physical lovin' with other people outside the primary relationship.

My thoughts immediately went there too. She even mentions finding "alternative means" to show their "love." I would hope that she'd love him enough to allow him have sex outside of the relationship.

But I'll also say that I agree with Dan too, that entering into monogamous, committed relationships when you know you're not interested in sex is selfish. The writer said she'd never been interested in sex. She already knew that about herself--whether she had a name for it or not--before she started dating this guy.

I wonder, if he had broken up with her, if she'd have considered him an asshole for doing so.
Of all the letters to Dan I've read over the years, this one is perhaps the strangest. I can handle just about every kind of weird, deviant sex imaginable, but no sex at all? Inconceivable.

Sure, there are frigid women out there. I've even known a couple. And there are an awful lot of women on this world who have a sex drive that's some tiny fraction of what a normal guy has.

But a guy who's content to never have sex? Nope, that's a new one on me.
@12 and 69% of all statistics are made up

I understand not having the desire for sex, but unless you have some kind of chemical deficiency I can't see it being completely undesirable, it's human nature. I can tell you though, if the person I love told me they were asexual I'd try to make it work, period, but come back to me once you've lived more than 20 years and never had sex, that would be truly amazing.
@17: Maybe the boyfriend is asexual, too.

I don't think a relationship has to involve sex to be healthy. There are other forms of intimacy. We're all going to end up there someday, since the biological fact is no one's sex drive lasts forever. Even with Viagra.
Usually asexuality is triggered by the consumption of wedding cake.
What's the difference between the love you feel for a family member and the love you feel for a spouse/significant other? SEXUAL DESIRE. It is the basis of romantic love. Without sexual desire, this woman doesn't have a boyfriend, she has a friend. Of course Stephanie can still love her friend, but it's not romantic love. To paraphrase the fundies, "There is no Romance Without Sex".
@23: It's possible to be attracted to someone without wanting to fuck them. I'm a little disappointed by the dismissive attitude here toward anyone who isn't constantly horny.
@19: I think it's a little risky to dismiss something like this just because you've never personally experienced it. A lot of heterosexuals don't understand how anyone can be attracted to the same sex, either, but that doesn't mean homosexuality doesn't exist.
I'm guessing that her definition of romance is different from mine. Mine involves sex. Perhaps, holding hands, eskimo kisses, and foot rubs do it for her. The letter doesn't say how he defines romance, it just says that they have made it work for three years. I can't fathom three years without sex, three days is too long in my opinion, and that's post the wedding cake and two kids. I guess this is just another example of the beauty of individual difference.
The boyfriend will crack. Maybe he sees the girl's asexuality as a code to crack... or maybe he's boning other chicks on the side. If he were asexual too, he'd have told her when she confessed that he was, in fact, an asexual. And the author of that letter would have made clear that he was a fellow asexual. That he didn't and she didn't indicates he's either in denial or finding release elsewhere. So no, he's not asexual.
... excuse me, boning other chicks OR guys. Got to keep an open mind here ;P
Gay? Maybe. Or he could be using her for money while getting it elsewhere. I knew a guy who did that once. In that particular instance, girl should have known better -- she was quite homely. A picture of the girl in question (and the guy, come to think of it) and some more about themselves would fill in some more blanks.
I agree with the writer, Stephanie, that romance and sex have nothing to do with each other. They're often paired together, but seriously, they're more opposite than similar.

Anyway, I haven't gone to the "asexual" website, but I would guess almost every asexual is female. I have nothing against women, but it just seems extremely likely.
My first thought was that he's getting it elsewhere. If Stephanie knows that and is OK with it, good for her. It's not a soap opera I would choose to be in, but if it works for everyone involved I'm certainly not going to judge.
@30: Nope. Some of them are men.
Perhaps their relationship includes lots and lots of cuddling and touching. I can imagine a relationship with intimacy but no (or almost no) sex -- though I would seriously go nuts and start gnawing on my wrist or something -- simply because some people seem to value the cuddling more than the sex.
Stephanie is in denial, while all the red flag signals are going off around her. I don't envy where she's at right now. She can express her disapproval of Mr Savage's assessment of the situation all she wants but if the man she's with is not experiencing any sexual attraction when he's with her then Savage nailed it, he's a fag and a flaming one at that. The whole asexual bs is a cop-out to keep her at bay. If she's willing to live with something like that then at least she wont have to worry about any sexual transmitted diseases being passed on to her, cause trust me Stephanie, he might not be getting it on with you but he's getting it on (for lack of a better term) with someone else.
good lord...I just went to the website. Asexuality now seems to be a sexual orientation. All these people have done is create a new label for themselves so they too can be victimized and have a sense of purpose.

So you don't want to fuck. Do your really have to join a club and publish a newsletter?

Perez Hilton is caught on tape calling Will I Am a "faggot", why dont you post that?
There may come a could be years away...when Stephanie finds that she actually does want to have sex with someone.

Chances are, when that happens, she won't be wanting that sex with the guy who thought he was being strong enough to love her no matter what. (Perhaps he'd convinced himself that he could wait for her to come around...)

That "noble sacrifice" he'd convinced himself he was making for years then quickly reveals itself to actually be a level of foolishness that can seriously boggle one's mind.

Better he should have just helped that friend he was attracted to move a few times.
@ 34, Pssst...

It's Stephanie that has no desire to sleep with her boyfriend, not the other way around. We don't know if he expresses sexual desire around her or not, we just know she said they don't have sex. He could be gay, he could be sleeping with other women, he could be asexual, we don't know. Other than that your advice isn't half bad.
38 Maybe she's also? Someone there is taking advantage of the situation to do some coverup for whatever strange thing they have going in their life. It couldn't be that they're both that confused or have lived that sheltered of a life that they don't know what to do when a man and a women become intimate. If it's her problem then his reaction is still weird. No real man would accept something like that because as Savage says men are pigs, pigs till their grave I might add. But at least they're not harming each other by engaging in risky behavior.

I would like to ask you somethin, let me know if you can answer it.
Affection without sexual desire /= "romance". Romance by its very nature requires sexual desire as a component; if that integral factor isn't part of the process, then what we're talking about is more akin to filial love.

The outward manifestations may be similar (he takes her out to dinner, bakes her cookies; she writes gushy notes, buys him flowers), but if these expressions don't incorporate at some level a desire for physical intimacy on the part of at least one of the people involved, then it's simply no different than buying your sister a birthday present, or picking a bouquet of daisies for your dad.

And I challenge anyone to characterize either of those as "romantic".
How many? Two? Three? Out of a thousand?
Sex and Romance are opposites.

Romance is candles and passion and heat and seeing the partner as the ideal, especially when they're NOT the ideal.

Sex is fucking. It's sweaty. It's awkward. It's putting a condom on at an extremely inarticulate time. It's animal.

Sex and Romance are not the same thing. They are opposite. They kill the other. Sex kills what might have otherwise been romantic. Romance kills might what have otherwise been sex.
Helen Boyd conducts workshops on low libidos: she states that lots of the attendees with very low libidos are men. She also says her husband/partner has a much lower libido than she does ..... see for her blog . Her book "She's Not the Man I Married " contains the statement on low libido. Her site and book(s) are about trans issues: she is an awesome writer and thinker.
# 39 LC I'm really curious - what was your question? (If you intended it only for Kim please ignore me.)
*cough* hypocritical closet bigot *cough*
I'm an asexual 34 year old guy. Or rather, I "identify" as asexual, as they say. "Asexual" is just a label like "gay" or "straight" -- it's a useful generalization of a section of the sexuality spectrum. My personal version of asexuality is that I'm not sexually attracted to the physical appearance of either men or women. I am sexually attracted to the other non-physical characteristics like personality or body language.

So right away you can dismiss me as not a true asexual if you want. Feel free to do so.

I haven't had sex for a couple of years, and don't miss it. When I am in a relationship with a man or woman, I'm almost never into the sex. Which, yeah, sucks for them. But it doesn't mean there's no sex in the relationship. Imagine someone who doesn't enjoy oral or anal, but do it anyway for their partner. That doesn't seem so crazy. That's me except for all of it. I mean, I don't hate it, but, crucially, I'm not super into it. So you're right to think that this isn't the ideal for my partner, but you're wrong to think that it's a sexless relationship. With her "alternative ways of showing our love" remark, Stephanie does seem to suggest that there isn't a whole lot of hardcore sex going on, but don't assume that there is none.

As for @20 saying "unless you have some kind of chemical deficiency I can't see it being completely undesirable, it's human nature", well that's exactly what people thought about gay people. It's a sickness. Attraction to the opposite sex is human nature. Since asexuals are supposedly about 1% of the population, and, more importantly, because no one can tell by looking at them and no one is denying their civil rights, people are just not informed about asexuality. Just like they weren't informed in earlier decades about homosexuality.

As for @23 saying "There is no Romance Without Sex", well take a minute to do a thought experiment. Imagine that you've fallen for the love of your life. Can you really not imagine that without sex? No? You can't possibly imagine that? Okay, maybe now you've lost your job and are so stressed out about money that you completely lose your sex drive for a month. Does that mean you fell out of love? When the sex is gone, did the crazy-in-love die too? If so, I don't know what to say. For me, the crazy-in-love still happens without the sex. If you can't imagine that, then I guess I have to go with @25's: "it's a little risky to dismiss something like this just because you've never personally experienced it."
I'm wondering: How different are some of the above comments about people who identify as asexuals--and who certainly aren't hurting anyone doing so--from comments made about homosexuals? Remember when there weren't any gay papers, when gay columnists couldn't publish, when gay people couldn't be newpaper editors or be on TV or radio or have blogs? Remember how they were told they were unnatural, that they were just fooling themselves, and not assuming their responsibility to spawn like the rest of us? Some of that stuff still happens.

So why is a gay man dissing asexuals? "Fag or fool?" What a crappy thing to say.

I used to consider myself asexual. I never felt any...pull either way, no lust. I thought there was something very wrong with me. And there still might be, I don't know. I later had a moment of mind blowing lust directed at the world's most amazing abs, but I still find it very hard to work up those feelings, and most true asexuals never do. It's not even that I have a low libido; hormone fluctuations leave me incredibly horny, I just take care of it and move on. It's like being hungry for nothing in particular.

Crater's description sounds pretty accurate too, especially the attraction to personality over physicality.
@42: I haven't known any women who would agree with you. Especially if you equate romance and love. (not sure if you are doing that) The women I have known do not view sex as emotionally unattached from the sexual partner. Men frequently view sex as an independent activity as you describe --sweaty, animal, physical. But the women for whom fidelity and monogamy are so centrally important see sex and love as aspects of the same thing, not opposites. So love without the sexual component is perfectly conceivable. You've got the first part but not the second.

Asexuality now seems to be a sexual orientation. All these people have done is create a new label for themselves so they too can be victimized and have a sense of purpose.

I agree that asexuality is not an orientation. In the context of sexuality, orientation points to what we're attracted to. So a straight man can be asexual. A gay woman can be asexual. I don't know how I'd compartmentalize asexuality, but "sexual orientation" doesn't seem to fit.

Someone above said that we can be attracted to people without wanting to have sex with them, and that is--in my opinion--one of the best statements made so far. I have a friend who I've come to think of as asexual, though he'd not define himself that way. There was a time I thought he just played chastity games with his boyfriends, but that doesn't seem to be the case. He literally doesn't want to fuck them, just date them.

Those like my friend: they want all the trappings of relationships without deep physical affection. They choose people they find physically appealing and they flirt and hug and play and shop and watch moves and go to festivals and fight and live together and blah, blah, blah. And they don't think of this as hanging with a best friend, and this is because they do have romance. And love. And they'll give some physical affection (hugging, caressing, kissing), but not anything intense. Which I think makes them cruel cock/clit teases, to be honest.

My friend? He loves looking at cute guys. He loves his Logo and his gay literature and looking at cute boys on YouTube. He has attractions, and he wants love. But he wants a relationship (a monogamous one) in which he doesn't have to participate in that gross, sweaty, messy thing called sex. Which I completely respect (though I don't understand). My issue with him is that he doesn't tell the guys upfront. He gets involved with them, puts up with it in the beginning, and then commences to cruelly spurn their advances once they've become invested. That's fucked up bullshit hateful, and I don't care that "it's his orientation; he can't help it."

What annoys me about some asexuals is not their unique situation regarding sex, but rather those who try to tack on A to LGBTQ, and those who think that they're on some kind of "elevated plane" because they "don't require sex" in order to love and commit to someone else. What angers me about many asexuals is that they're not upfront about their lack of sexual desire before they get involved with someone else.

I like that there are sites on the Net where these folks can find each other and leave the rest of us fallen, horny animals to our gloriously filthy rutting.
Way to be a total jerk, Dan. You sound like Loveschild! Perhaps we should start suggesting your relationship with Terry doesn't qualify as validly "romantic" either, since you invite other partners into the mix? Or are you in love with them too? A dear (male) friend of mine is totally asexual, a fact his girlfriend of five years knew before they began dating. They don't have sex, but they share their lives in every other way and have an intimacy that can only be described as "romantic". His girlfriend does not have a particularly high sex drive, but they have an understanding that allows her to scratch the itch when she needs to. Your judgmental, obnoxious and bigoted take on this situation really makes your fifty thousand posts on equal rights and not judging etc ring more than a bit hollow.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume temporary insanity due to Obama's continued prickishness. I know to assume makes an ass out of u and me, but since this post already makes an ass out of you, I'm willing to risk it...
Jade @ 50: Thanks for sharing, you brought up some very good points.

I know that I need to listen to the podcast and hear what Dan's original responses were, in addition to what was posted as a reply to this letter, but I don't think that Dan's remarks are that unreasonable.

People seem to be taking issue with "either your boyfriend is a fool or a fag" statement. Notice that 'fool' proceeds 'fag'.

Sure the relationship that Stephanie describes (and let's not forget that Dan usually sees more details in the letters than he passes along to the readers) may work for now (three years), but if there is no agreement for how her partner will deal with or meet his needs, then there is great potential for resentment that can disrupt or destroy the relationship.

If her boyfriend truly knew what he was getting into before he was too invested in the relationship, and Stephanie made a full disclosure - that's one thing.

And if there is some level of intimacy in the relationship and that can be sustained - then that's fine too. But what happens if/when she decides that what she has given before is 'too much' and draws back? Then you see situations not unlike the ones that Jade @ 50 describe.
People getting all upset about other people who don't like to fuck is sort of like omnivores who consider the existence of vegetarianism to be a personal affront. It doesn't affect you, why do you care?
I dunno what Stephanie's done that's so heinous. A few commentators are condemning her for not being totally honest with her boyfriend, but where do you see that? Once she figured it out (and it's possible not to know asexuality "exists" ... some women can easily think they'll get over the lack of interest, that it's a phase or hormonal condition, whatever), she told her boyfriend and waited to be dumped. What more do you want from her?

Maybe she left it out, but there's no need to assume she threatened or emotionally blackmailed him, or that he's unhappy, or that he's gay or sleeping around without her knowledge.

Big brownie point for Stephanie: She didn't MARRY HIM FIRST. Anyway, good luck to them. If it doesn't work out, whatever. Relationships implode for all kinds of reasons other sexuality incompatibility.
Just for you folks who can't image being asexual - try taking Prozac for a while. It "dampens your libido", as they so delicately put it. I used to have a strong -every-day-if-not-twice sexual drive - now I feel like a goddamn eunuch! Damn, I miss my sex drive! Nothing turns me on, not my favorite kinks, porn, nothing. Right now I would say I am asexual - and the rest of the asexual community doesn't know what they are missing.
@ 39,

Sure, you can ask me a question. I'll do my best to answer it.
@53: Most people are fine with the existence of asexuals, but they sure as hell don't want to date 'em.
44 56 Something around here just didn't seem right, it doesn't matter anymore. Thanks for asking Theo.
# 58 LC Are you OK? Or were you worried aobut something re SLOG?

You might wanna consider Welbutrin. It's a different class of anti-depressant (works on dopamine/norepi more than serotonin) and has no sexual side effects.

As far as the letter, I think we have to take people at their word regarding their sexuality. I do wonder, though, how many closeted/religiously-indoctrinated gays claim to be -- and TRY to be -- asexual in order to avoid the reality of their preferences. Reason #9875801 to be out: closet cases destroy the credibility of the groups that they are pretending to belong to.
58: You're okay then?
59 61 Thanks you guys. I'm fine, it was just somethin on Slog.

@10: you sound bitter.
62: I'm glad to here it.

It doesn't affect you, why do you care?

It affects those in the relationship. And any of us could end up in one if the person we're dating isn't honest upfront. That's all I think any of us are saying here.
Ha Ha! NO one can be asexual. Humans are sexual beings by nature You can only be asexual if you don't have any wobbly bits. If you choose not to use those bits, then you are celibate. No one has "asexual relationships". They are either sexual, platonic or filial. Romance by definition has to have at least sexual tension if not sex. A palpable longing cannot exist in an asexual sphere. Are people here are getting celibate and asexual confused? Perhaps the problem is related to the squeemishness that some people have around this topic. The word "gender" is a case in point. It, for most of its life, was a linguistic term as in "words have gender, people have sex". Now it means just about anything. One is asked on forms "What is your gender" as if that's a nicer way to ask what is your sex. (Hint: It isn't.) The correct answer would be masculine or feminine, not male or female. And "Gender Studies" - What is that? It's certainly not a language course. It isn't about gender either, or even about men and women, but invariably only about women. Why can't it be called what it is - Women's studies? "Gender" has nothing to do with it. I bring all this up because the other part of the problem is the sloppy use of language and the appropriation of terms that do not mean what people are using them for. It confuses everyone. Sorry, perhaps a bit OTT in the last bit, but it's all related.
Hell, I don't care if your post is off-topic, DCXopher, it still kicks ass. Wow, but you're fucking awesome. You make damn good points.

For what it's worth, I think those courses were called Women's Studies in the 90s. They changed to Gender Studies because no dept. was about to fully fund Gay and Lesbian Studies (or LDBT Studies), so the Women's Studies professors agreed to incorporate them, thus making a name change necessary. Which kind of speaks well of the Women's Studies people. At least this is what I saw happen at my universities.
@67: My college had a LGBT Studies program (though I will grant that the profs, offices, etc were also part of Women's Studies). I graduated in 2006, so maybe this is true of other schools now too?
I agree completely with Dan's perspective here.

@50's friend is displaying exactly the kind of behavior that Dan was objecting to in asexuals.

Bottom line for me is: Sex comes standard in romantic relationships. If you want to order a model without it, then you have to do it upfront. Hiding the fact that you don't want to fuck someone that you otherwise want to be your boyfriend/girlfriend is dishonest, hurtful and selfish.

To all of you who are saying "it's fine to have relationships without sex" -- of course it is. So long as it's what everyone in the relationship signed up for.
I'm with the people saying you were being harsh and offensive... It sounded more like an insult than an honest opinion, concerning the guy. Not to mention your condescending attitude.

It was a bad response.
'Nother asexual here. I also don't have a problem forming intimate relationships with sexual people. This shouldn't be all THAT surprising. Think of the 5 most emotionally powerful moments you've had with other people. In how many of them were you having sex? It's a great way to connect, but it's not an essential ingredient. If some people here feel the need to slap a different label on the love that I feel for people then I won't get in your way.
Alright, I have to reply to some of the outrageous things being said in these comments:

Sex and romance are not the same thing. I would consider myself 'asexual'. I have no desire to have sex with anyone, never have, never will as far as I can tell. I am physically normal, I'm sure I could have sex if I had any desire to do so. Asexuals do exist...don't think just because you can't imagine it that it must not be true.

It's a strange idea to think that love can't exist without sex. Perhaps there is some 'true love' that I just can't experience because I'm not having sex with anyone, but please give us the benefit of the doubt. I know a straight couple who can't have sex for physical reasons, they have never had sex (not for lack of trying) yet they have been together for a long time and seem happy to me. I know a gay couple who rarely have sex because they both prefer to be dominant during sex. According to the guidelines of some people on here-these relationships are dysfunctional and there can't possibly be love. To me, both relationships seem serious and loving. Sex isn't everything even in relationships of people who aren't asexual.

As for the person who said asexuality is a new excuse for gay men to stay closeted longer; why the hell would someone who is trying to not be 'abnormal' and to conceal his true sexuality claim to be a part of some bizarrely small sexual minority? That just draws attention to the fact, much easier to say "I haven't found the right person."

'Asexuality' is real. I'm surprised at the number of people in the queer community who claim it's not legitimate, by using the same arguments that I'm sure a lot of you have heard yourselves. "You'll grow out of it." "You just haven't found the right person yet."

And why have a group? So people know they are not alone. I grew up the way I am and I had no idea that any other people felt this way. I felt like I was the only person in the world like this, everyone around me telling me that I was confused, sick, or unnatural. Imagine being gay and not being aware that anyone else in the world is gay, not even knowing that there is something like that. That's what I felt like until I met another person like me, and eventually I found out about AVEN, and realized that I was not alone and that there was nothing wrong with me. So PLEASE, consider the matter well before you tell me that I am confused, can't feel love, or am masochistically depriving myself of sex for no reason.
@ 71

Two of them involved sex, including the lead up, actual, and post moments. One was with my current girlfriend and was an extreme positive. The other was an incredibly sad moment where, foolishly, I had sex one last time with my girlfriend of two years whol I had just dumped; the hurt in her face remains an image burned into my mind for the rest of my life. Opposite sides of the spectrum and both very significant in my emotional development.

I'm a 26 year old males if that makes a difference, and a big believer in monogamy (at least for the first few formulative years).

I'm sure there are manipulative jerks of every orientation, but the two situations we are dealing with (Stephanie's and that of the caller from episode 137) seem to be about people who discover their asexuality when already in a relationship.

Sure, some of you say they were aware that they were never really interested in sex and thus should have said so, but, just like the people here that deny that they can truly be uninterested, people tend to assume that the minds of others work like their own. Many asexual people do not realize they are different and just think that others have and talk about sex so much for the same reasons many people take up smoking - it is encouraged by the current culture. I know I never really realized my feelings were unusual until university.

A reason that having a visible community is important, in addition to making asexuals feel less alone, is that it can prevent situations like this, where sexual and asexual people unwittingly end up together. Because, while it seems to have worked out in this case, it often doesn't, and a person cannot be "honest up front" about how they feel without knowing that how they feel is different from the norm and that there are words to describe it.
I'm with the people saying you were being harsh and offensive... It sounded more like an insult than an honest opinion, concerning the guy. Not to mention your condescending attitude.

Um... how long have you been reading this paper and this man's column? This is how Dan rolls, and everyone's been fairly happy with it for a couple decades.
No one is questioning an asexuals right to be asexual ... but I still think they take offense when people suggest that they stick to well ... other asexuals.

Maybe you will grow out if it, maybe you won't. I've known many self identifying lesbians who have flopped back and forth.

Still ... some asexuals in these posts subscibe to sexual activity out of obligation vs. desire. VERY dangerous. That might get you through years 1-3 ... but it's most likely sustainable for 20 years. That is probably ok ... but just don't delude yourself.

But why take offense when people suggest you outing yourself? Why take offense when people can't relate to you ... because lets face it ... most of us are sexual beings. From the Kate and Jon debale to our Sanford gov. who ran to Argentina to be with his mistress. People put logic and reason aside to get laid in some of the most desperate depraved ways.

And yet asexuals, often conveniently overlook and deny other peoples needs. With the simple cop out that ... since not everything is about sex, so why can't nothing be about sex?

Look I do the best I can. I have a transient career that doesn't exactly lend itself to long term monogamy. It looks like I'll be leaving Seattle sooner than I want to be. Am I upfront about the girls I date and my expectations? I say, sure I believe in monogomy, but I'm gone in a few years ... and I'm in no rush to create a life with someone unless it's damn well worth it. Some people are weirded out by this ... but I can live with myself because I skim away those partners that would be needlessly devistated.

Same fricken thing.
"I appreciate the feedback, Stephanie, and I'm sorry I offended you. But... um... I couldn't help but think, as I read your letter, that your boyfriend is either a fool or a fag."

I hate to greet bigotry with bigotry, but this is the sort of comment I have come to associate with the mindset in Seattle, furthering it's already appalling reputation as being provincial and passive-aggressive (an American term I failed to comprehend until I came to Seattle).

It is possible to enjoy sensuality without desiring sex. Couples engaging in sensuality in cafes are romantic. Couples who proceed to have sex in that cafe are usually arrested,because free flowing bodily fluids put one off one's strudel and traumatise small children.

We have, in common with our relatives in the primate community, a need for tactile contact, without it we are isolated and disconnected from our fellow humans. This doesn't mean that a desire to be touched means a desire for intercourse. Rugby is a very tactile sport and most of the men are happily married and comfortably separate tactile contact from procreation. Comments such as yours are frequently to be heard from people who watch Rugby or Wrestling and then assume the unmarried ones must be gay. This is stupidity, not reasoned analysis.

I could understand your bafflement if you believe that all humans should behave like poodles and shag everything from lamp posts to raccoons. However, this is a narrow minded view of what humans should aspire to being that you might want to re-evaluate in accepting that some people prefer the emotional and sensual bonding that a relationship can bring and don't need Cialis, Viagra or any other stimulant to enjoy the rewards of companionship.

I'm writing this in anger because I get constant rejection from gays who have demands ranging from ethnicity to whether you are cut or uncut and all the other things that make life so cheap, shallow and sleazy. Clubs like Neighbours are particularly bad in this part of the world, due to the tendency that people have to greet each other by pressing their penis against someone's vagina or anus in a particularly grotesque version of the Lambada, which at least has elan. It offers little to no opportunity to meet people, who haven't come out looking to wiggle their arse and return home with a pretty hooker.

Lack of sexuality is a perfectly acceptable human condition and when you can convince me that people who don't shag ruminants are missing out and just haven't met the right goat, then you shall convince me that being asexual is so monstrously wrong that it needs to be corrected to meet sex-obsessed standards in this overindulgent, narrow minded and backward country (sorry non-Seattleites, I know there are decent Americans, I just wish they lived here and didn't think like Bush ;).

Cheers mate and happy 4th,
Dr Russ Childs.
As a sexual STRAIGHT male in a relationship with an asexual female and a fellow university student (hopefully, different universities), I find your statements highly offensive, and I'm usually the one arguing for less PC.

Let's start with this: my partner is the most loving person on the planet. I honestly believe that. She would do anything for me, without question. She loves me in ways I don't think anyone who touts "sex is required for love" could ever understand. She loves me in ways I'm only beginning to understand (through her).

She recently (within the last 6 months) figured out she was asexual. We've been together for almost 2 years. However, she has been asexual all of her life. For you to completely disregard her feelings and the feelings of others like her is contemptable. I believe you are a bigot. For you to regard anyone in love and with an asexual while they are themselves sexual as a "fool or fag" tells me a whole lot more about you:

First on the list is that you're a bigot. Using words like "fag" (incorrectly) tells me that much. Not to mention all of the things you've posted about asexuals.

I do wonder how being in a relationship with an asexual could make someone homosexual (assuming you don't mean cigarettes... which I am also not). You do understand big words like homosexual, right? In case you don't: it means you are attracted to, specifically and exclusively, persons of the same sex. Therefore, as a male, for me to be homosexual, I would need to exclusively want to be with other males. I am neither homosexual nor homoromantic, so I'm quite sure that disproves your statement.

I won't even get into the "fool" part as you have no real backing for either statement and it seems like you just picked the two most controversial nouns you could muster up.

Next, you're probably one of those ignorant types who likes to jump to conclusions and assume that your first conclusion HAS to be correct. If you believe it, then you have every right to do so. However, where you stray is that you seem to think that if you believe, everyone else has to conform to your beliefs lest you damn them and their views. I believe "holier than thou" has a place here.

I'll also assume you're one of the flock of university students who believe they have an inalienable right to have sex after a certain period of dating. You and your lot are entirely wrong. Nobody has to have sex with you after three dates. Nobody has to tell you their orientation. Nobody has to do anything just because they go on a couple of dates with you. In what way is going on a date a contract for sex or anything else?

No matter what you are and what you think, I am a sexual male truly in love (not lust) with an asexual female and I'm very happy. If you want to think of me as a "fool or a fag", go right ahead. I'll go along thinking you're a moron with the emotional capabilities of a toddler.
Wow... I don't know what to think about these comments... Firstly, I think Stephanie's letter was great and it was brave of her to put herself and her relationship out there like that. Secondly, you all have mentioned the possibility that her boyfriend of 3 years was either gay, asexual, or getting sex from someone else. Why has no one thought of the possibility that he simply really, truly loves her regardless of her desire for sex? I mean, I may be asexual, or I may not be, but I know that regardless of that, I don't want to have sex with anyone until I am in a married, monogamous relationship with someone I know very well, which might end up taking 3 years. And if the guy that I potentially might marry doesn't love me enough to wait, then he doesn't deserve to have sex with me at all!

Granted, I am upfront about this with my partner, so he knows what he is getting into, and wasn't upset at all. (If we're talking about biological needs, he has no trouble um... getting it on with himself, which isn't a problem at all...) But really, I think what Stephanie has is sweet. Do you know if your partner loves YOU more than they love SEX? Stephanie does. :)
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the concept that a man whose life doesn't revolve around sticking his dick in things is a 'fool'. I would imagine that anyone who wanders to this part of the internet knows that sexuality is a complicated thing and partners can find a way to make an adult relationship work without actual, penetrative sex. There is also a lot more to a relationship than just sex? If the relationship has lasted this long, there is obviously something more than what a bunch of screaming idiots on the internet and an opinionated journalist can see.
And for fucks sake asexuality does not mean fucking abstinent it means there is no sexual attraction. There can still be arousal, and in many cases with asexuals, it is natural, physically stimulated thing. Human beings are mammals and made to breed after all. We are built to make babies. However, for most asexuals, this does not go beyond the physical, and thus no attraction to any particular human is formed. Asexuality is just as complicated as any other sexuality and you should never take anything at face value. That is bad journalism.