Good advice for AAA if s/he is looking around at the dating pool. Not such good advice if AAA is already married or otherwise partnered and loves her/his partner. AAA asks if having sex is "the only way I could find happiness in a relationship," and I guess it's that "could" that led Dan to assume that AAA isn't already in a relationship. But I read AAA's letter as being from someone who is asexual and already in a relationship with someone who wants to have sex.

In that case I think the options are either to break up, citing "sexual incompatibility" or open the marriage way up.

Is it just me or are Dan's answers to asexual people way more consistently excellent than his answers to sexual people? Dan's clearly not asexual, but he sure does seem to have a lot of compassion for them and to have given plenty of thought to the issues they face.

Good on you, Dan.

@3 I noticed this too. I think it's because the answer is pretty much the same for the asexual question's Dan's been getting latey: If you want a relationship and you're asexual, date another asexual!

And if you're asexual and aromantic, cool! Embrace not having any romantic partners. And if you're romantic but asexual, be open about that / let a companionate sexual partner have sex elsewhere if they want.

Note: actually doing all this & being asexual might not be easy, but the "what to do" seems pretty straightforward. Plus it seems like the asexuals who've been writing in to Dan aren't assholes. A lot of the sexuals who write in are entitled D-bags.

Dan's best line thus far of 2017: "By that standard, I haven't been gay for hours." Hah! I am so stealing this.

LW1: I'm not asexual, but I'm androgenous which comes with its own set of societal challenges. I want to second, third, and fourth Dan's advice that you should never feel bad about who you are and what you want.. The terms and conditions of any current or future relationship are entirely yours to create with your partner(s), regardless of what you hear or read about. No need for you to "take one for the team"! It's none of anybody else's business - and if anybody pries too much, I have always found that a quick, light "Ouch, getting a little personal there!...Say, what is this magic ingredient in your hummus recipe? It's FABULOUS..." will either redirect their attention back to themselves, or clue them in to the fact that their question was rude or out-of-bounds. All good.

LW2: My condolences for being forced to live - temporarily - with your super-religious parents. Compounding the tragedy, as I'm sure you know since you say you still love and care for them, is that they don't even realize they are being mean and disrespectful to you. They think they are protecting you from sinful ways, and they may also feel like they have to take special care of you because of your autism. All of which they were fully entitled (if wrong-headed) to do when you were 13, but not when you are 22. I like Dan's idea of joining the campus LGBT group and finding a closeted gay "boyfriend," then the two of you can cover for each other and each date the people you want to date until you graduate. Don't worry about the lying - think of it as withholding information that your parents really don't want to know about. They are over-protecting you, so it's only right for you to over-protect them. Hang in there, you can do this!

@5 +1. LW2 - Have you thought of moving to a lower-cost-of-living mid-size city in a state with easy in-state residency requirements and low cost in-state tuition, if you can get admitted to a state university? Financial aid (loans) can cover living expenses and you won't have to work full time, and can go to school full time and live by yourself (dorm).

A tall order to find all of the above but a 2nd city in a middle size state with fair in-state tuition might fit the bill for you without taking on bankrupting debt! If the 'rents are giving you a fully free ride, that's a big headstart in life and maybe worth the suffering, but if you're borrowing for school anyway... maybe borrow a tiny bit more and live in a dorm and eat ramen? Good luck!

Nocute @2, I see a third possibility. LW's spouse or lover, understanding that LW does not want sex now and likely will never want sex again, may still choose to stay in a companionate and celibate relationship. Sex is often the first attracting factor, but it is rarely the primary reason that couples choose to stay together over the long term.

I think Dan’s answers to asexuals are usually more elaborate and thoughtful because this is a relatively new demography to appear on SL and elsewhere.
Most other situations have been discussed over the years and entail more readily available resources.

As for LW2’s time line, does she need seven years to get her college degree?

CMD @8, LW2 may have found that she does better at college-level work by focusing on just a few subjects at a time. So instead of a four-course load each semester, LW2 may be taking just two or three courses. Also, depending on where her birthday falls during the year, "next fall" means she will finish in six years, not seven. Depending on her major, a minimum of five years is becoming the new norm for a baccalaureate degree for all students, not just those with an autism spectrum diagnosis.

PS from another thread - Happy Valentine's Day! Hope you are wearing and enjoying one of those sexy lingerie items right now.

@3/nocute: I also read AAA's letter to imply that they were in a relationship currently, and wondering if they "needed to take one for the team" to maintain this relationship. Perhaps Dan edited out some additional details that would have made it clear.

In any event, AAA should either date another asexual person, or be upfront about their asexuality with a sexual person at the start of the relationship.

LW2 might also consider applying for scholarships and financial aid, as well as borrowing money in order to move out and attend college. In addition, LW could consider moving and attending a lower cost community for four semesters, before attending a more expensive university. But the reality is that graduating at 29 without student debt may be better than graduating at 26 with $150,000 in debt.

LW2, if your parents are Mormons (and given what you've said it's a very good bet), you should contact the Underground Handcart Company.
https://www.facebook.com/undergroundhand…
They help kids in Mormon families who need to escape or are being kicked out. The r/exmormon subreddit also has lots of resources for people leaving Mormonism.

I'm sorry for what you're going through. I was raised in the heart of Utah Valley and I've seen this story many, many times. I joined the Army to escape Utah, but I'm back living here again (good tech jobs, low cost of living, I've been fortunate enough to stay on good terms with my family). I've gotten to know the exmormon community here and they have some wonderful people.

You're not alone. Never forget that.

Gawd those parents are not just mean and shitty,
they are ingrates as well.
Who wouldn't count themselves lucky at the prospect of supporting their adult kid for seven more years, with the added bonus of sleeping around and drinking? Throw in the swearing movies and, well; they obviously need to have their heads examined.
Lay your cards on the table and tell them they better shape up or you'll ship out.
It might seem mean but you need to snap them to their senses.

@12 Truer Than Blue, as in True-Blue Mormon, right? Fuck off, Joseph F. Smith. When the suicide and homelessness rates among QUILTBAG kids in Utah finally falls somewhere short of appalling, maybe then you can run your mouth. I've seen behind the smiley happy facade; Hell, I've lived there. Take your whited sepulchre and shove it up your Pharisaical ass.

When going to university in Canada, I had two friends who were a couple who used to 'house sit' for other, wealthier people who would go away on vacations for a few months at a time. It invloved living out of a couple suitcases for 4 years and moving every few weeks/months, and taking care of pets, but they saved a lot of money (I don't think they ever paid rent - but they too were super Christian, that's probably why they got the gigs). Would that option be open for you? You could play off on your Christian background, even if you do not consider yourself Christian now.

Thanks, Dan, and AAA. There's asexual hope for me yet.

My heart goes out to UTAH and anyone in her situation.

Although Griz is a little "comfortably numb" after V-day, and may likely feel a red wine buzz tomorrow morning, my feelings are truly heartfelt on comments @15 & @16.
Good grief, Charlie Brown!--no typos? Maybe Griz should drink more often?

Things that may seem well within the bounds of acceptable - work part time while going to school, live with strangers, take on some debt, move far away - to the neurotypical, could very well be beyond what is possible to someone on the spectrum.

It's worthwhile to suggest them, to encourage UTAH to think outside the box, but she probably has a pretty good idea of where her limitations are, and has learned to respect them.

Cap @7: Are you suggesting that AAA's hypothetical spouse should consent to lifelong celibacy? If they themselves are not asexual, that hardly seems a good solution. Wouldn't that be requiring them to "take one for the team"?

I read AAA's "Is that the only way I could find happiness in a relationship?" as implying they were not currently in one.

CMD @8: That struck me as a bit odd too. Most people on the spectrum -- and UTAH describes herself as "high-functioning" -- tend to do extremely well academically. But perhaps she has some other issues that make it difficult to focus on schoolwork. I reckon if she were capable of doing it in four years, that's what her plan would be.

Norwegian @14: Really? UTAH is delicate enough that she needs to take twice as long as most people in finishing her degree, and you think uprooting herself every few weeks or months is a viable plan? People on the autism spectrum desperately need routine. Living out of suitcases and constantly adapting to new environments would be hell for UTAH.

One thing UTAH should do is take lying lessons from someone neurotypical. People with autism can be honest to a fault. They don't understand things like tactful white lies or having a filter. UTAH's first instinct may be to share everything about her life with her parents. She needs to stop doing that. So she can't drink or have sex at their house; presumably she gets to go out? If I managed to (mostly) get away with drinking, sex and smoking weed when I was 17 and living with conservative parents, UTAH should be able to manage some secret freedom at 22. I wish her luck, she will need it.

BDF @19 - No, I'm not suggesting that anyone do anything they don't want to do. I was just adding to Nocute's list of possible options, if AAA is already involved in a committed relationship. I guess in a sense the more sexual partner would indeed be "taking it for the team" by remaining celibate, but a person might choose to make that sacrifice for someone who rings their bells in all other ways. It's quite possible for a sexual person to be happily and monogamously partnered to someone with low or no libido; it happens all the time. YMMV, of course. But I agree with Dan that we sexuals should not regard committed-but-sexless relationships as defective. As long as no one's forcing me to live that way, it's really none of my business - which is what I told AAA to keep in mind.

I, like you, inferred that AAA was speaking more abstractly about how to find a future partner, when most dating involves sexual escapades they would rather not engage in.

You made some excellent points about how people on the autism spectrum face challenges that do not even occur to "neurotypical" people. (I like that word, never heard it before.) I completely missed the possibility that UTAH may not be able to lie convincingly to her parents! But if "Ken" starts picking her up and dropping her off at the house on date night, maybe she could practice staying on script and omit the actual details of the evening's festivities. Plus, her parents would probably be so relieved to see her involved with a boy that they would become co-dependents in helping her lie about it.

Cap @20: I have to disagree. Technically, forcing one's partner into celibacy is an option, but it's a terrible one. A sexual person may in fact choose to live in a companionate relationship, but shouldn't they be allowed the freedom to pursue sex with others? From the endless stream of sexless-relationship letters to Dan, I find it hard to believe that many, if any, sexual people happily commit to partners who don't want (them) to ever have sex.

Thanks! I'm happy I've learned a few things in three years of dating someone with autism. :) I agree that Dan's suggestion of getting a "beard" was an excellent one.

It seems like for both LW's getting a good support group is the best place to start. Even if AAA can't find a suitable partner nearby, she may be able to find some friends if she can find an asexual group to communicate with. Hell, she could start one in her area and create her own dating pool to swim in. As for UTAH, Dan's advice to find support on campus is great. The odds that someone on campus is in a similar situation seem high given the location.

@20/21 Reading your conversation, it does strike me as a recipe for disaster to ask a sexual person to forgo sexuality. My personal experiences with the Catholic church come to mind. At the same time, I've taken one for the team before - repeatedly for a year before finally quitting the team, and it started to feel like a slow death. If AAA is going to find a partner that is not also asexual, then only working arrangement I can imagine is one where she gives them the green light to fuck other people. In fact, if I was single and saw that in someone's profile online I would contact them in a heartbeat - it's not everyday someone is so honest, self aware, and secure

@14 I was trying to think of similar solutions. Most of them (all that I could think of, actually) were predicated on some level of interpersonal skills that AAA is going to have a hard time with. The parents are really taking advantage of her situation. It's heartbreaking. I ended up taking out student loans so that I could be independent of my family when going to school. Still paying for it, don't regret it one bit. Tuition costs are a lot higher these days, but UTAH might want to talk to a financial aid counselor and do the math.

BDF @21 AND Lib @22 - You are both still missing my main point, so I'll try to say it more clearly. I totally agree with both of you that no sexual being should be FORCED to be monogamous and celibate in order to love an asexual or low-libido partner. But what if the more sexually driven partner is allowed the freedom to pursue others outside the relationship, and CHOOSES (for reasons known only to them) to forego that opportunity? Is that somehow not conceivable, that a sexual person can still live a happy life without enjoying partnered sex? I'll repeat what Dan said - a committed-but-sexless relationship is not defective, as long as it meets the needs of BOTH partners. And everyone gets to define their own needs, within the context of their own relationship. What works or doesn't work for other people is totally irrelevant.

As an example, remember the SLLOTD from the young man whose fiancee had offered him a "hall pass" to enjoy a sexual fling with another woman prior to their marriage, since he had been a virgin when the two of them got together? He appreciated her generosity, but he was dithering about whether or not to actually follow through with it. He said his fiancee was the only woman he wanted, and it made no sense to have random sex with a stranger just so he could say he'd had multiple lovers in his life. That's what I'm talking about.

@23 I see - ok so it's conceivable and it sounds like we're on the same page - she would need to provide that option if she partnered with someone sexual and didn't want to be "taking one for the team" constantly. I have to say though, I would put the odds that she ends up in the type of pairing you describe as essentially 0. Why would said person be choosing to not enjoy sex for the rest of their lives if sex outside the relationship is legitimately (no 'I'll allow it and resent you if you take me up on it nonsense) on the table? In your example, the guy wasn't giving up sex for the rest of his life, I don't think it's really the same thing at all. Forgoing a one off sexual novelty is not at all the same as forgoing sex. I would guess that someone who would choose to be in that relationship would be considerably harder to find than another asexual.

Lib @25 I agree that the odds for a successful love match between people with wildly mismatched libidos are very low - especially if they are younger (say, under 50 give-or-take), and especially if it is a brand new relationship. But it's certainly still within the realm of possibility, if the less sexual partner's other positive attributes are sufficient to fulfill the needs of the more sexual partner. It's one more example of settling for less than our ideal mate because there is no such thing, and we all get to decide for ourselves whether a non-sexual relationship is a dealbreaker. Or not. And what about a couple that's been happily married and monogamous/-ish for many years, but then one of them either partially or entirely loses their desire for sex? Post-menopausal dryness or pain, less reliable erections, paralysis, numerous illnesses and the medications one takes for them, and stressful life or work situations can all cause a diminishing or outright elimination of the sex drive in some people. The more sexual of the two partners may indeed want to open up the relationship at that point, if they feel they cannot live without partnered sexual satisfaction. Or, alternatively (and especially if they are monogamous by nature), they may CHOOSE to become celibate or nearly celibate while remaining committed to the less sexual partner, and take their sexual satisfaction through masturbation and porn.

PS ...Just like millions of happy single people, an equal number of unhappy single people, all of the Catholic priests, nuns and friars who take their vows of celibacy seriously, and all of the folks who are actively seeking but who have not yet found their love match. Masturbation and porn do the trick for a lot of celibate people in the world, some of whom happen to be married. (Well, I'm not actually sure about the Catholics. Masturbation and "unclean thoughts" used to be sins, don't know if that standard has changed as I haven't attended a Mass in many, many, years.)

Cap @23: I understand now.

But that wouldn't be different to nocute's suggestion of an "open relationship." That relationship would still be open. And that isn't a solution which AAA could implement. So advising AAA that it's an option for her is misleading at best. That situation would be totally unlike the guy with a hall pass he didn't want to cash in, because that guy is getting sex, with his fiancée. AAA's partner would not be getting any sex at all. Apple and orange.

I can see a situation where the sexual partner would rarely or selectively choose to find other partners. (I know a number of poly couples who haven't had other partners in years, through attrition and pickiness.) But if the "sexual" partner in your hypothetical were okay with going without sex indefinitely, I would question that person's self-identification as "sexual."

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's so unlikely it's best to not get AAA's hopes up.

BDF @28, why do you say that AAA couldn't implement an open-relationship policy with a more sexual partner, assuming they are both OK with the idea? Seems pretty easy and straightforward to me. "I'm asexual, and honestly it's likely I'll NEVER engage in sex with you or anyone else, for the rest of my life - even though I love everything else about you. I hope we will spend our entire lives together. But you still need something I just can't give you, so I'm OK with you seeing other people for sex. Just ..." (Whatever conditions AAA wants to put on partner's outside sexual relationships, which of course partner would be able to negotiate until they reached a mutually satisfactory agreement. Or perhaps the discussion would lead them to conclude that the relationship simply wasn't going to work out, and they should part as friends. Or - the option I suggested - AAA's partner might say "When and if I find myself needing partnered sex again, we can revisit this conversation" but then, for reasons of their own, never go there.)

UTAH needs to empower herself. I don't mean to be crass, but she could have parents who refuse to provide room & board to their beer-swilling, dyke-fucking, movie-with-swears watching daughter. I am kind of personally not accepting the "high functioning autistic" argument here - if you're high enough functioning to live on your own eventually, you're high enough functioning now. Plenty of us went to university with no help from our parents, and at 17 or 18, were probably less emotionally prepared to be on our own that you are at 22 or 23. Furthermore, at 23, you no longer need to report your parents income on your FAFSA, so if you have an intolerable home life and can't afford another option (SLC ain't expensive - 1 Br < $500/mo), do like the rest of us and Student Loan It Up. Even 100k in debt is well worth it if your alternative is never making enough money to leave home (and remains a net positive financial decision even if the rest of your life is already perfect)

@19 - jeez -- it was just s suggestion. Sorry for not understanding everything.

@22 - thanks for giving me much needed info. I will try to use it to make me a better person.

I feel like this week is a basket full of have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too questions.

"I don't want to have sex, but I want a romantic relationship with someone in the 95% of the population that does. What do I do?"

"I want to live for free with my parents as an adult, but don't want to follow the unreasonable stipulations my parents require in lieu of rent. What do I do?"

I feel for both LWs, but I think they're both being childish and entitled. The obvious answer with about thirty seconds of thought to the first LW is date other asexuals (of which there are few) or date nonmonogamous people (of which there are plenty). And if that is unacceptable to them, they are asking how to have a monogamous relationship with a sexual person without having to have sex, and the answer is you don't except by making them miserable and being an asshole.

The second LW, your parents are assholes and you probably should have cut them out of your life if they treat you like that. You're an adult and responsible for yourself, and expecting your asshole parents to pay for your living expenses and telling them they should be nicer to you about it is ridiculous. Regardless how unreasonable their price is, that's what it is and you have all the freedom in the world to reject it. And you should! Because agreeing to it and then lying, doing all the things they forbid, is scummy. Either accept not dating and not boozing as your cost of living (without complaint, as many would take that offer happily!), or pay for your own cost of living and be glad you ever had the choice.

Delta35 @4, Good point. The asexual questions have seemed sincere and not asshole-y. Maybe we sexual folk are more prone to assholedom because there is something we want from other people beyond someone to be nice to us.

LW2, leave. You will only lose your relationship with your parents, self respect, and freedom for several years in exchange for a degree.

Nothing is free, and they've told you the price you must pay in exchange for room and board. You're unwilling to pay it, so look for other options, including putting off school for a bit. It's hard being young and on your own, but it's way better than being young and under the thumb of controlling homophobic parents well into your adulthood.

"Kink apps"? Which ones? If Dan is referring to Fetlife, it's neither an app nor particularly useful for dating. I assume there must be other options I'm not aware of? (AFF, also not an app but also seems more for swingers than kinksters).

@19: it would be "taking—or rather, not taking—many for the team". And yeah, agreed agreed agreed.

@Ricardo: How did yesterday go for you?
@35 Spot on, camilla!

Cap @29: "why do you say that AAA couldn't implement an open-relationship policy with a more sexual partner, assuming they are both OK with the idea? Seems pretty easy and straightforward to me."

That IS what I'm saying. That's exactly what I'm saying. What you seemed to be saying was that AAA could find a sexual partner, give them the freedom to have sex with other people, but expect that a likely outcome would be for that partner to never use that freedom. I'm saying that's unrealistic. Expecting to find a sexual partner who loves AAA so much they're willing to give up sex for life is as foolish as advising her to keep "taking one for the team" and eventually she'll meet someone who's so good at sex that they "cure" her asexuality. What AAA should expect is that said sexual partner will liberally use their hall passes to have sex with others.

Norwegian @32: I recommend "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time" for a pretty accurate portrayal (according to my autistic partner) of how an autistic person's mind works.

I like Dan's answer to UTAH. Dan's standard advice to a closeted high school or college student dependent on homophobic parents who would kick the kid out if they knew is to stay closeted until they can make a break for freedom. At that point, there's switch. Where before the parents were saying in effect "choose between being gay/lesbian and getting any of the advantages of having a relationship with us," now the child can say "choose between accepting me the way I am and having any sort of relationship with me." It's a pretty heady feeling.

The twist in this letter is that UTAH has more than the usual impediments to her making her break for freedom. She doesn't have the financial resources to make the break at 22. She's taking longer to get through school. She's shy and socially nervous. She can't see living with roommates who are strangers. But despite the twist, it comes down to the same thing, and just knowing that might be a help when living with her parents.

With that in mind, I'll add a few things that Dan didn't mention. First, some therapy to help UTAH with what's bound to become full blown depression shortly. Also therapy to help her with the social skills she says she lacks. (Autism doesn't mean she can't learn social skills, only that they don't come as naturally to her as they might for someone who doesn't have autism.) Also therapy to help her tease out what's hurting her parents and what's saving her own life.

Also, a secret emergency bank account of money in her own name. Just knowing she has it can bring her some peace of mind. As it is, if she works a little, her parents probably know it and count on her using her earnings for her spending money. Nothing wrong with squirreling away some of her own money.

I also recommend some amount of playing with definitions in her own head. Her parents have forbidden dating, so don't date. Just hang out with friends, sometimes one-on-one, doing fun things that you both enjoy like having coffee, seeing a movie, and eating out. See how I did that? And when it comes to thinking about living with roommates who are strangers, make sure you meet them first, know their names, and have vetted them enough to know that they're fiscally responsible and reasonably neat. Bingo. They're not strangers.

@31 Sportlandia There's a lot that you don't understand. Educate yourself.

Sincerely,

A high-functioning autistic diagnosed at 39

Griz @ 38 - Just spent the whole day working. I never even realized it was Valentine's day!

@43 Ricardo: Nonetheless, it sounds like it was a good day for you. I'm still laughing about how there were no misprints in my comments @15 @16, & @17 after a few glasses of red wine and movies. By the way, I just discovered, through re-reading past comment threads via a comment made by Hunter as to why there's at least one reason I'll never piss you off (you're into water sports!). Cheeky is good.

@CMDwannabe, LavaGirl, sb53, Dan et. al: When visiting my website, be aware that I am in need of an updated photo graph soon after my recent weight loss and health improvements. I'll have to see if my tech friends can help me add a more recent photo. I guess I was reminded as to how unattractive I was back in public school: nothing like old friends posting their comely school pix on Facebook. Oh, well. At least it isn't 1977.

Maybe it's a good thing that I have neither read nor ever seen the film version of Fifty Shades of Grey?

Another thing that UTAH might consider is exploring other options for financing college. A stint in the military might do the trick, now that DADT is no longer on the books. Bonus: it would probably get her uber Republican parents off her back (What Mom and Dad? Why wouldn't you want me to serve my country? Do you hate servicemembers and veterans?). It's a time-honored means of escape from these situations.

The GI Bill was an awesome deal in my day and, from what I understand, has only gotten better. The downside: UTAH would have to adapt to military life (for many people, this is a very good thing, but given her other problems it could be a issue) and would probably have to delay college by a bit (although not necessarily as much as she might fear; the military strongly encourages post-secondary education among enlistees).

If not the military, there are other kinds of opportunities that can help finance college that might be worth checking into. Is Americorps still a thing?

UTAH: this may be a long shot, but check if autism spectrum conditions count for accommodations at your school or in your area. You may be entitled to educational support, including therapy and academic accommodations. If not, your school and neighborhood will likely still have student peer support groups for LGBT, autism, and religious family issues.

If you can't afford to study full-time, most places charge lower fees for part-time students. It would still take longer to get the degree, but it would be cheaper and way easier to combine with any options you have for paid work. All of that should help with not depending on your parents.

@48, I know Dan already mentioned checking on support services. Just seconding to say a lot of the services and supports that are on offer can end up under-used because people don't know about them or get discouraged when the front offices have long line ups at the beginning of term. Stick to it, and they can turn out to have surprising resources.

@45: Gawddammit----if I have to relive 1977 and the disco era, goddess forbid, it's through Slapshot, starring the great Paul Newman. Old time hockey, and Eddie Shore. Kill him! Kill him! Bring on the Hansens!
Yes, I have had some red wine already today.

Seriously--why do I actually type better after consuming alcohol?

@40. I want to plug the curious incident of the dog at nighttime as well. Amazingly good book. Written as I recall by a teacher with long experience with autism. Excellent.

@51. Reduces inhibitions. Hic!

Griz @ 44 - Funny. Cheeky IS good.

@ 50 - Slapshot and punk are probably the only things worthwhile about 1977.

@ 51 - And why do I translate better after smoking weed? I suppose the brain does work differently and the mind is expanded (as they used to say) in some way (along with DHR's answer).

@54

No. Fleetwood Mac and George Lucas gave us some great stuff.

@53 DarkHorseRising: I actually haven't been hiccuping, but your mention of alcohol reducing inhibitions is interesting. Any reason that my typing skills should improve from additional wine consumption, though? I probably would be hiccuping if I was hitting harder booze.
@54 Ricardo: I have been in a classic movie phase lately, loving among my favorite veteran actors: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Susan Sarandon, & Geena Davis (not to mention a hot contemporary, Brad Pitt!). So weed works for you like wine works for me. Cheeky is good, indeed.
@55 twi_hr: Two classic Fleetwood Mac hits are featured in the Slapshot soundtrack, if you want to see it: Rhiannon and Say That You Love Me. That's right about George Lucas, too---the original Star Wars film came out in 1977. Rest in peace, Carrie Fisher, a.k.a. Princess Leia Organa.

@56: More on the Slapshot soundtrack for those interested: Sorry Always Seems to be the Hardest Word, from Elton John; and Dance the Night Away by the BeeGees (in the same year as You Should Be Dancing, and How Deep is Your Love, featured in Saturday Night Fever, starring John Travolta), among other 70s disco-era hits.
I know I'm dating myself here, but I figured it would make for interesting nostalgic FYI.
Word of warning, though: watch out for sports radio announcer Jim Carr's baaaaad combover (as awful as Trumpzilla's)! Braeden was right: "Jim---why do you wear that rug??"

> But if the "sexual" partner in your hypothetical were okay with going without sex indefinitely, I would question that person's self-identification as "sexual."

How about "sexuflexible"? "situationally sexual"?

I don't know just how common this is, but I think it happens and can go invisible like bi invisibility: that somebody is more or less fine with sex, and also more or less fine without. Not having it might be neutral, or might be in their reasonable range of "settling".

You see some people go crazy not having any sex partner, other people don't. Some people continue that lack-of-need into a relationship. They wouldn't identify as asexual, possibly they're what the kids these days call demisexual or graysexual.

Mtn. Beaver @58: Aha, if Capricornius had said "her dating pool might potentially also include greysexuals and demisexuals" then that would have made sense! Thanks.

@griz.... just teasing!

@42 the only pertinent question is if you (as a substitute for some other high-functioning autistic person) experiences a meaningful change in their ability to live independently between ages 23 and, say, 40.

UTAH; you are enrolling in college and you've been holding down a job, for a non autistic person, these would be good signs of competence.
Staying in such a repressive situation offered by your parents is going to sap your strength and self worth and in the long run will be very counterproductive. By the time you are finished, they will have reduced you to rumble and a college degree won't save you.
My suggestion is to live one ( maybe two) years under this regime, and in that time engage, as Dan and posters above have said, in any social groups/ clubs that grab your attention. Book, chess, basketball.. whatever.
People on the autism spectrum are all around us as well as being us. You'll find your tribe, if you trust and join in.
During this time, concentrate on your studies and get a firm grasp of the intellectual direction you wish to go in.
After that year, you start to do part time college and get some work, and move out.
Trust in your abilities.

@60 DarkHorseRising: No sweat. I agree with Ricardo: cheeky is good.

*rubble. The brain is going!

UTAH; maybe when you get to college, seek out the counselling services. Your parents are controlling, and having someone to help you get some distance from their ways, may assist you in your social skills.

MtnB @58, BDF @59 - I've never heard either of those terms before ("graysexual" and "demisexual"), but MtnB has done a much better job of explaining the third option for LW1's relationship than I did. Thanks, MtnB!

BDF, I was originally responding to Nocute @2's speculation that LW1 was already in a committed (and sexual) relationship and wanted to keep the relationship but lose the sex, whereas I think you are focused on LW1's likely dating pool for a new, future relationship. IMO the sexual partner in an existing relationship would be far more likely to be "sexuflexible" as MtnB put it, assuming they strongly love and respect each other in important (to them) non-sexual ways. But it's all hypothetical anyway, since like you, I thought LW1 was asking about how to find lasting love without sex in a future relationship.

Cap @66
I was indeed thinking more about future relationships, basically taking Nocute's Option 1 ("break up") and extending that to "and when seeking future partners, only look for other asexuals." Your Option 3 didn't seem to present anything not covered by Nocute's Option 2 -- open the relationship. Your Option 3 ("cut off the sex, open the relationship, but be pleasantly surprised to discover your partner is also fine with no sex") depends entirely on the partner's reaction and therefore couldn't really be considered a viable course of action for AAA. So there are really still just two options: 1. Break up (and look for a fellow asexual or demisexual), or 2. Open the relationship (and hope that either your partner isn't too fussed about other partners or manages to find low-drama partners).

Apologies for switching to the pronoun "she" when there is no evidence of AAA's gender. I blame Liberal @22, and my own mind conflating the two LWs.

Ava @68: Thank you for sharing. I'm sorry you've had to go through so much crap. Sadly, you're not alone -- vegans and child-free people, to name just two groups, are far too familiar with judgmental jerks telling us "you'll change your mind." I wish people could just accept that not everyone is the same, and that's ok! *hugs*

Thank you, Ava Z (@68) for that comment. I don't think a lot of those who make those "are you sure" or "you just haven't met the right person" comments have no idea how insulting they are, and hopefully this educates them. More important, and poignant, was reading about how difficult even having ordinary platonic friendships are when you're asexual.

You say you are 39 have been reading Dan since you were 14. That means you've been reading him since you were 25. Ironically, I don't think the 1992 version of Dan would have given quite the same advice to someone who said s/he was asexual as it did in this column. I guess we're all learning and growing, Dan included, and not only is his column a place where that happens, but sometimes I think some of the most growth-making learning takes place in the comments section.

It's heartening to see that at 39, you are honoring who you are rather than forcing yourself to be someone you're not, and I hope that you can come out of your hermitage at some point and interact socially again.

@68 Ava Z: Like BiDanFan, I am asexual, too, and, like BiDanDan(@69), equally sorry that you have had to endure so much undeserved crap in your life. I can relate and empathize with your traumatic ordeal of sex being forced upon. Nobody should have to go through that. Thank you for sharing--you are truly not alone in saying no to sex. Sending big hugs your way, positrons, and VW beeps. I would add more, but BiDanFan and nocutename (@70) already beautifully summarized what I was going to say.
@69 BiDanFan: Congrats again on scoring the lucky number!
@70 nocutename: SO beautifully said! I heartily agree. Savage Love over the past 25 years really has grown, addressing many diversifying social issues. I know I sure have gained a lot of insight and increased social awareness upon reading Dan's column. This is among the many benefits of Savage Love and its comment thread. Although forming friendships and socializing remains a difficult challenge for me, I know so much more than I did 25 years ago as an active military service member.

@Dan the Man: Thank you, as well as Ava Z (@68) too---for opening my own courage to stand up to society and no longer force myself to have a sexual relationship ever again. No relationship can be healthy, loving, or mutually GGG if it's considered obligatory from either party.

@71 Correction: Ooops---sorry BiDanFan! I meant, like your comment to Ava Z (@68). I didn't mean that you were asexual as she and I both identify.

Griz @71: Thanks! Hah, didn't even notice that my comment was hitting the magic number this week :)
As Dan might say, I've been asexual for days now ;)
Asexuals should definitely be respected. We all say "it's not my bag, baby" to various things other people enjoy. People who are massive sports fans probably don't understand how I can have zero interest. (Yes, over the years quite a few have tried, with no luck, to convince me.) Why should sex be any different?

Hunter @75: You've really known enough asexuals in your life to draw generalised conclusions?

There are 7 billion people on this planet. It's okay if some of them have no interest in sex.

I claimed it was as difficult for people who love sports to understand someone having no interest in sports as it is for people who love sex to understand someone having no interest in sex.

And if you've got no interest in it, then no, it shouldn't matter whether it's sports or sex or skydiving. You just don't want to do it and it's unfair for people to keep pushing you to try.

@74, @76, @78, and especially @79 BiDanFan: Amen!
@77 Hunter: I have been asexual for DAYS, now, and have decided that being cheeky is infinitely more fun than time wasted on my pursuing a sexual relationship. XO

Cheekiness is my new favorite sport.

I don't know enough asexuals (or know which of the people I know are asexual) enough to be able to generalize. I would imagine that people's asexuality exists on a spectrum, much like a Kinsey scale or like libido strength. Surely there must be some people who have had horrific experiences in which their abuse was carried out sexually and they have turned off to sex. Just as probable, there must be tens of thousands of people who just aren't that into sex or who aren't really attracted to anyone. I don't think it is a useful exercise to generalize about the why of anyone's sexuality. Why is George straight, and John gay, and Herman bi, and Joaquin pansexual? Why does Martha like to be tied up and Lupe likes to smash pies in her girlfriend's face, and Lesley doesn't like anything but soft, gentle, missionary-position sex with lots of soulful eye-gazing? Why does Hortensia adore anal, and Arthur knows that Monique will not tolerate it? Why does Florence like strawberry ice cream, and Desi likes cookies and cream, and Maribel doesn't like ice cream at all, and Josiah is lactose intolerant and still eats it, anyway?

Why ask why?

Why theorize why someone else is the way he or she is. If you want to do a bout of self-examination and identity-searching, that's one thing, but if someone tells me that s/he is asexual, it's not my place or my job to try to figure out why. It's my job to respect them and to make sure they are treated equally.

@BiDanFan, I understand the point you're making, but I have to say that sexual orientation and sex drive are profoundly different from sports or skydiving. A love of sports is in many ways culturally conditioned, and a keen interest in skydiving is an expensive pastime that doesn't control the lives of billions of people. Sex is a driving force in many people's lives, that exists beyond rational thought or social conditioning. I think the sheer power it has over those of us who are sexual makes it difficult for us to understand how it can be a "take it or leave it" or even "no way" thing for asexual people.

@82 nocutename: O-o-o-kay. But I have to agree with BiDanFan: sex is definitely NOT a driving force in my daily life. You offer a good reason as to why I don't pursue it, given my life experiences and background.

I'm all set for a cheeky SL Week in Review.

@85 Hunter: I don't know about your end, but I'll take two letters and no sex any day.

Nocute @82: Funny how the sexual people insist that lack of interest in sports is different to lack of interest in sex, but the asexuals see my point. (Aargh, Hunter SUCCEEDED in creating an argument out of thin air. Why did you let him do that, Nocute?)
I think my point is being misconstrued as interest in sex being similar to interest in sports. I am not comparing the two interests. I am comparing the two absences of interest and the way others react to those absences.
Thanks for backing me up, Griz.

Hunter @85: There is no evidence to presume AAA is female.
Are you as interested in sport as you are in sex, Hunter? I'd presume the answer is no. If you were, then you might be just as puzzled to learn someone had no interest in sport.

@Hunter: I don't think it is "politically incorrect" to be interested in a thumbnail of some famous person's sexuality or sex life. I just think that that trying to ascertain why someone is the way she or he is, is a waste of time and energy and ultimately, sets up a "this is normal and we don't need to wonder why it occurred" vs. "this is not normal/this is an aberration and why did it occur?" mindset which I think stands in the way of equality and promotes discrimination, hate, and fear.
By all means, be as salaciously interested in sex as you want.

@BiDanFan: I think we must be misunderstanding each other. I am not interested in sport, and even the most rabid sports fans accept easily that I am just one of those people who doesn't have an interest in sport. We are legion, and those who are passionately interested in sports are quite familiar with the non-sports-fans in their lives. I have an interest that borders on a passion for antique Georgian jewelry. I completely understand and actually expect that virtually no one I have ever met or will ever meet shares that interest.

Asexual invisibility means that most of us know very few people who are asexual (or know that we know them), and we have not only our own sex drives informing us of its importance in our own lives, but we look around and see all the people who are seemingly at the mercy of theirs, and I think it is harder for us to understand that lack of drive. That's why I am grateful for those who are eloquent about their own experiences and feelings and why I think that it is helpful for more asexuals to be open about their asexuality.

@auntie grizelda: I think you misunderstood me: I completely get that sex is not a driving force in your life.

@bidanfan, on your comment on #69, I get what you are driving at, but saying that childfree and vegan people also experience people trying to talk them out of being that way is a perfect example of the silly sounding things asexual individuals are told when they are finally brave enough to open up about it, and why people like me make a point to never talk about asexuality offline. Allow me to break down why, please? I promise I am not trying to be harsh on you. I do appreciate the heart behind your sentiment.

Asexuality is NOT a choice, any more than my hetero or gay peers chose liking dick or pussy. Dan's been doing a great job bringing attention to this since he is running out of sexy things to write about. (Kidding Dan, I love you, just not enough to rub genitals with, ha ha)

Celibacy, however, is a choice, like veganism or being childfree. Your analogy would work great when someone is discussing their celibacy and lamenting the dumb things people tell them.

Asexuality not being a choice is probably why LGBTQ has had "A" added to it in recent years and we have been adopted as queer. Our lack of sexual desire is considered outside of hetero norms therefore considered "queer".

I appreciate the heart behind my LGBTQ peers trying to be all inclusive by adding in asexuals, but I am one of the asexuals who doesn't even want to consider it a sexual identity because duh, asexuals generally don't want to think about sex. Lumping us in with LGBTQ by default makes us have to think about sex when we are trying to live our lives without thinking about it at all. To me it just smacks of self important social warrior justice that advocates for a group that doesn't want the help and didn't ask for it. Maybe my other asexual peers like being added to LGBTQ but I am not one of them.

That said, I recognize not all asexuals are quite as non sexual as me. Asexuality does have a scale like Kinsey, for those who are curious. Taken from r/asexual on Reddit:

The Basics
Asexual Person- A person who experiences a lack of sexual attraction toward anyone of any gender. Ace is slang for asexual.

Allosexual/Sexual Person- A person who experiences sexual attraction toward one or more genders, depending on their sexual preference. Essentially the opposite of an Asexual.

With this in mind, know that asexuality is an umbrella term for people who are not only asexual but fall in between asexual and allosexual.

Demisexual Person- A person who feels sexual attraction only after a strong emotional bond. (Resource Center:http://demisexuality.org/)

Gray/Greysexual Person- A person who feels sexual attraction infrequently. The term "gray/greysexual" applies to someone who falls anywhere on the spectrum between asexual and allosexual. Some also experience a low sex drive accompanied with sexual attraction.

Here is a lit of sub-asexual identities that are more specific than just asexual or on the spectrum:

Akio/Lithsexual Person- A person who experiences sexual attraction but does not wish for it to be reciprocated.

Autochorissexual Person- A person who feels a disconnection between them and the sexual target of arousal.

Cupiosexual Person- A person who has a lack of sexual attraction but still desires a sexual relationship.

Fraysexual Person- Any sexual attraction fades for this person after meeting the target of their attraction.

Placiosexual Person- A person who has little to no desire to receive a sexual act, but enjoys preforming sexual acts on others.

Reciprosexual Person- A person who feels sexual attraction only after discovering someone is attracted to them.

@93: What utter bullshit. A man would use the phrase "give one for the team?" Really? And the phrase refers to "female (or gay bottom)?"

Give me a break. It comes from sports. It refers to a sacrifice made by the individual for the sake of the group.
I honestly can't believe that you don't know this expression. But like so many folks who feel they have to double down when they're called out on a stupid interpretation, you just end up looking stupider when you spout crap like this.

Here are some definitions for you:

From Oxford Living Dictionaries:
Willingly undertake an unpleasant task or make a personal sacrifice for the collective benefit of one's friends or colleagues.
‘I took one for the team by naming myself the designated driver’
'Someday soon I hope we won't have to make that kind of choice, but for now, in the interest of improving visibility for women overall, we should be more than willing to take this one for the team.’
‘It's all about working together and personal sacrifice, taking one for the team.’
‘If public workers are willing to take one for the team, so to speak, they'll garner considerably more goodwill.’
‘You've got to take one for the team sometimes.’

From Wikitionary:
Etymology[edit]
By analogy with sports teams when a player makes a sacrifice for the benefit of the team
Verb[edit]
take one for the team
(idiomatic, informal) To accept some chore, hardship or punishment for the sake of one's friends or colleagues.

From Urban Dictionary:
The act of someone willingly making a sacrifice for the benefit of others.
There wasn't enough room in the car, so Jerry decided to take one for the team and stayed behind while the reast of us went to the big concert.

"Man, Jerry warned us that movie would suck, so he went to go see it before the rest of us just to make sure, and man was he right."
"Yeah man, he can really take one for the team.
#wingman #team player #sacrificial lamb #good sport #buddy

@95: Except that the phrase "take one for the team" was used to refer to having sex in order to be in a couple, not about the specific sex act and who does what to whom.

Look, I read AAA as being female, too, mostly because I think more often than not, it is women to take one for the "team" of the couple--to preserve male ego, to keep the peace, to not be beaten, to not be left alone in a society that mostly sends the message that an unattached woman is a failure.

But BiDanFan called you on your default assumption that AAA was a woman and rather than say that the letter just gave off a "frigid 50s female" vibe to you (which wording is itself insensitive and insulting, but what more should we expect from a sexist troll like you?), you had to pretend that AAA's use of a well-known idiom had a sexually descriptive aspect to it. Then for good measure, since it's not enough for you to demean women, you had to throw in a little homophobia-lite with your "gay bottom" reference, implying that gay men who bottom are somehow feminized.

God you're a bore hunter.

Hunter: IT'S A FUCKING IDIOM: "Taking one for the team." In this case, having sex.
That is all. It doesn't tell you the specifics of the sex act, the genders of the participants, or anything else. For all you know, AAA is a man who doesn't want to have to have sex with a woman. There is nothing inherently sexual about the phrase. AAA is sacrificing for the sake of having a relationship, and the sacrifice is having sex. Period. That's all that can be known or gleaned from the letter.

@87 BiDanFan: No sweat--I think you nailed the asexual issue, and nominate you and AvaZ winners of the Ace thread.
@91 nocutename [re Hunter @93, @95, and @97] and @98 LavaGirl: I'm guessing that arguing, if not trolling, is Hunter's favorite sport. I find it amusing how often Hunter ignores my comments, and agree with Ricardo: cheeky is good!
@92 AvaZatanas: Thanks, Ava. I don't mind being identified as an ace. Actually, I think the slang term is pretty cool!

WA-HOOO--!! Griz hit 100 again!

@100, you are too kind, thank you. I am terrible with the commenting mechanisms since I rarely post, and my name posted as Ava Z as well as AvaZatanas today and I was like, meh, whatever, got bigger things to take care of today! :o)

I would like to add for nostalgia's sake that as a kid flying to and from Washington and South Carolina, I would haul back stacks of The Stranger to leave in churches and doctors' offices in the South circa 1992-1996. Like some kind of subversive Johnny Appleseed, ha ha. This paper was mind blowing to me and my Southern friends pre internet!

AZ @92

Akio/Lithsexual Person- A person who experiences sexual attraction but does not wish for it to be reciprocated.

What does this mean, exactly? A person who experiences sexual attraction but does not actually want to have sex, or a person who has sex but does not want their partners to feel attracted to them?

Nocute @91: Thanks for clarifying. Our experiences are different. I HAVE had sports fans aghast at my lack of interest, unable to comprehend why I can't see the attraction. Perhaps I should have used a different example -- it was just the first example that popped into my head of something that I have no interest in, and which I've gotten stick about. Though certainly nowhere on the level as asexuals must experience.

Ava @92: I should have foreseen that you would have said "it's not EXACTLY the same." I never claimed it was EXACTLY the same; I only claimed that other groups of people have experienced similar reactions to what you described.
And honestly, I don't think being child-free, for me, is a choice. When I think about breeding, every cell in my body, every thought in my head rejects that idea. Not once have I even considered going through with a birth if I were to become accidentally pregnant. Impossible. I have known vegans who claim that once they thought about what is done to animals in the food industry, they had no choice but to follow their consciences in the matter. These may not be 100% analogous comparisons, but they are valid ones.

I do understand (and recently called someone out on) the difference between asexual and celibate -- the latter being someone who does want sex but chooses to forgo it. Thank you for your list of definitions. The variety within human sexuality -- and asexuality -- is fascinating.

Hunter @95: Nocute is right. "Take one for the team" is a well-known idiom that has nothing to do with gender, or with sex acts generally or specifically. All it means is to make a sacrifice in order to make someone else happy. A man could just as easily do this as a woman.
And yes, males can indeed lie back and "take" sex. Ever heard of cowgirl position? Your lack of creativity is astounding.

104 amended: Please amend my second paragraph to "I should have foreseen that someone would have said 'it's not EXACTLY the same.'" Singling you, Ava, out comes across as more confrontational than I intended, apologies.

And what does one. like asexual griz, here, do when confronted by someone who treats sex like a favorite sport?

Griz @106: Well, sex is certainly my favourite sport. The only sport where everyone wins!

Not sure what you mean by "confronted." You mean hoping to add you to their list of conquests? I'd say do what I do when someone invites me to watch a football game, and firmly but politely decline. ("Politely" can be scrapped if they persist.)

@107 BiDanFan: I'm sincerely happy for you, Bi, but that's a sport I have yet to win, so I don't pursue it. Have you ever been viewed as a prime cut of meat at a football game? When dining out alone, I eat and drink in the dining room. When I have sat in bars, I have been hit on and made uncomfortable by unwanted attention. I have sensitive ears, bars are usually too loud for me, and usually nobody other than the wait staff approaches me in a restaurant dining room.

Griz @108: "Have you ever been viewed as a prime cut of meat at a football game?"

I've never been to a football game. But I'm female, so I have absolutely been viewed as a prime cut of meat.

Trust me, unwanted attention is just as unpleasant for a sexual person who is not attracted to the attention-giver as it is for an asexual. I am very selectively sexual. With the 95% of the people-who-like-women on this planet I am not attracted to, being hit on is as uncomfortable as you describe.
But yes, if I didn't want to see football, I would avoid going to football games, just as you avoid propositions by not going to bars.

I think this week's lesson is that I should refrain from analogies. Who knew how badly that would backfire!? :p

@109 amended: Sorry, I misspoke, in high school I was forced to attend football games as part of the marching band. The things we tolerate for the sake of music -- you can relate to that, Griz, I'm sure! :)

@109 BiDanFan: Bless you for responding. Actually, I think you did make a much better analogy here:
"But yes, if I didn't want to see football, I would avoid going to football games, just as you [grizelda] avoid propositions by not going to bars."
and @110: I was never in a marching band (how cool is THAT?), but high school pep band at the football and basketball games was the only way I could have fun with sports. I am NOT athletic at all and grew up cursed with not one, but two small, cute, and frequently dated, much older cheerleader sisters (who luckily were enrolled in a different school in another town--but I still got unfairly compared to them being taller, gawky, and big boned). I instead went to a small high school with a whopping student body of 150, and being a band geek was the only way I could fit in, if only marginally, to a small town of jocks. Bullying was not only socially acceptable (parents and the school administration ran on a 'kids will be kids--what are you going to do?' initiative), but graded way back when. This ugly part of my upbringing (especially junior high and high school) is one of many reasons I decided not to have children of my own---ever. I didn't want any would-be future daughter or son I might have had going through what I did.