Columns Feb 3, 2011 at 4:00 am

Raw Dog

Comments

1
That first one isn't going to end well.
2
No, the second one.
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.
4
"Raw dogging some randoms" is a line from the movie "She's Out of My League."
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.
6
I'd guess "don't raw dog a random" could apply to straight OR gay men OR women.
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.
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...
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
21
#2 is a case of norousal! Last word defined in the following image.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages…
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...*
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
50
Also, totally in agreement with 45.
51
Snow day = sex day
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
59
Ah, 52? Number 49's partner is not a "he."

Jesus, people, READ more carefully!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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..
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
76
@9 ew, bread and butter poo
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
85
Does anyone else think #48 & #53 might be a match made in heaven?
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?
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."
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 >.>
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).
90
Don't Raw Dog at Random should be the new tee shirt catch phrase.
91
Professor #23 seems like she'd turn a lot of men and women into asexuals. God, what a tool she is.
92
"Don't Raw Dog at Random" sounds like a great tee shirt slogan.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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!"
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.
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"???
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...

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.