Comments
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.
More In Savage Love
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
I want to know if MARRIED picked his own acronym (Mutual Attraction Rarely Results In Erotic Dalliances).
"Rarely" isn't "never."
Erica @3: Yes, but "manried" isn't a word.
Griz @4: I think most of us can physically adapt to "no sex" as the new normal after a period of no sex. I think a true asexual never experiences sexual desire; it's just not a feeling they have. In your case, I think you were put off relationships rather than sex itself, and as you were older and your desire was waning anyway, you found "no sex" easy to adapt to, as your life was so much better without a man in it. A demisexual is only interested in sex when they find someone they are attracted to in non-physical ways, is my understanding, and since you're not seeking that out, perhaps "demisexual" is a more accurate term for you, if you were sexual at one point in your life. However, if you are committedly single (unlike ACE's friend), then the "if" condition for demisexuality will never be met, so I don't see a reason you can't continue to call yourself asexual. That's my two cents :)
Okay. Asexuality it is for me officially, then, and I'm jiggy with that.
Then again, I wasn't there and I don't know, but I've seen this happen.
I had never heard of the word demi-sexual until I saw it in this comment thread and had to look it up. It is synonymous with the gray-A. I think every human is grayish and I think every human is demi more or less.
It is a commitment (in the case of a monogamous couple) to remain faithful to one another.
"I'm plenty happy with emotional intimacy from others and masturbation for my sexual needs"...
It seems she is interested in sexual gratification, just not interested in finding it with other people.
Doubtless there is already a real name for people so inclined, but I am ignorant of it.
In general, I suppose I approve of the idea that it is now only acceptable for OS encounters of the hit-on variety to be initiated by women. Just make any laws that come out of it OS-specific.
I grew up in rural North Midwest. Of my closest 4 classmates and my brother, (all married) I am the only one who wears my wedding ring. I have always thought that their behavior was an oddity, but now I read of these guys who are apparently happily married but do not wish to advertise the fact. Here is my experience:
In my 40+ years of wedded bliss I have had women flirt with me, and the very first time that I responded to the invite I learned something Important. The women doing the flirting were NOT interested in sex;... they wanted to start some drama.
I will never forget this exchange on our 3rd meeting:.."I know your wife, and I know that sex is important to you. I just want you to know that I am non-orgasmic".
I'd probably bail on any friend who constantly talked about the labels they use to describe themselves. How self-centered is that?
Dan, is there a Pulitzer Prize for Sex Ed.? There should be. You'd win hands down.
Thankfully, I was right about him seeming like a nice guy and everything went smoothly after the misunderstanding. We kept working on the same project together for months after that. Really glad he worked off-site though! Wouldn't have wanted to see him on a daily basis.
However, I wouldn't have asked him to drinks if he hadn't seemed so overeager to chat me up. When I asked him out, I was on my best behaviour given the circumstances, would not want it to come across as pressure aka sexual harassment. After he said no once, I kept it professional. Probably most guys would take it as a compliment, but still, you never know! Also, I would need to have a drink or coffee first to get to know him. Have to find out if I trust him enough to discreetly to dip the pen into the office ink. Not trying to get in trouble! Lol.
I'm thinking guys like MARRIED and my contractor know what they're doing though. Wedding ring or not, they enjoy the attention and might get more work that way.
(You're totally right, he should just wear his ring if he wants to avoid this situation.)
@10 "I'm flattered, but" is indeed standard gets the point across, although I think it can come off as a bit cold and condescending. I actually like the letter writer's "I would be interested but...", for the reasons he states: he knows it takes courage to hit on someone, and wants to reassure the person that they're attractive and there's nothing wrong with them, it's just that he happens not to be available. It's a noble gesture. I think that, so long as you're not dealing with a weirdo who won't take no for an answer, "I would be interested but I'm married" is pretty unambiguous in the same way as "thanks for offering wine but I don't drink" is unambiguous.
Personally, my utopian ideal is a culture where one person can say "I think you're attractive and I'm interested" and the other person can either go "yay!" or "no thanks" and the first person respects the second person's wishes, and nobody walks away feeling guilty or (too) embarrassed. I think giving a bit of validation to the nice, well-meaning person who hits on you not knowing that you're unavailable is a step in that direction.
"I would be interested, but..." means "I'm not interested."
"I am interested, but... " means "I AM interested."
They are actually semantically opposite.
As far as 'would be' or 'I'm flattered'... whatever. Most dudes don't have women come on to them very often at all. The dynamic usually goes the other direction. And decent married dudes aren't coming on to women. As a result, you end up not getting much sexual validation outside of your marriage at all. Often for years at a time. When someone does come on to you, it's fucking nice. You want the woman to feel good for having done so. You are flattered and you want to flatter her back a bit and let her know you find her attractive too (assuming you do), while simultaneously shutting it down. Quite frankly, it's the polite thing to do. After all, she just took an uncommon social risk that made you feel good. Don't leave her feeling bad.
SB53 @23: Am I misreading or did you stick your dick in crazy? These sounds like the women I was surprised to learn exist, the ones who would prefer to have a secret affair with a married man than openly date a married poly man. People are weird.
Roseanne @24: More evidence to support my rule of never shitting where you eat -- ie getting involved with, or attempting to get involved with, work colleagues.
EricaP @27: Agreed. I dated a non-orgasmic (at least with other people) woman for a while. She was nevertheless very enthusiastic and really enjoyed herself, and made sure that I did too.
Griz @28: Then Debug wasn't talking about you, as you don't "constantly" bang on about it. Don't take something that doesn't apply to you personally!
Hunter @35: Glad to dispel yet another of your "impressions." While certainly there does seem to be a subset of women who prey on married men, the majority of women do not want a man they have to sneak around with. The former presence of a wedding band, sure; this shows that he is the marrying kind, even if that marriage didn't work out and he is now a free man once again.
Avast @40: I have to agree with Sporty and Dadddy. To someone hopeful, "I would be interested" can easily imply "if certain conditions were met," and therefore encourage them to stick around and stay on the person's radar in the event that the marriage or his commitment to monogamy isn't as strong. "I would be interested" is less leading than "I am interested," but why signal interest when there isn't any? "I'm flattered but" or "Thanks but" is a much clearer no.
If I was getting hit on in the gym to the point where it was an issue (as someone above said, not typically an issue for straight guys,) I'd buy one of the sturdy rubber wedding bands made for people who do lots of handsy stuff like rock climbing and whatnot, advertised in Outside magazine.
And yeah, saying 'I'm interested (+ anything)' is definitely leaving the door open. Would you, as a straight man, say this to a gay guy who offered to hook up with you in the shower? Nope.
Our entire conversation (this was early 80's) contained a gradual workup to the memorable quote I related here.
Fast forward 6 months and lots of marriage counselling for me and my wife.
My Miss N. and I were discussing the "other womans" marriage and miss N. told me that she spoke to the other woman's husband and he told Miss N that several years after getting married she announced to her hubby that "sex was not real important to her anymore".
I married young, and I was surprised early in our marriage when my wife would notice other married men who did not wear their rings. I still do not routinely look at people's left hands, but she does this automatically. Just Monday night she asked me;.."Why doesn't your brother wear his wedding ring?" I just never look for that.
Nice to see you CatB, and good point. Bet this man would find a clear unambiguous response if a gay man hit on him.
@49 sb53: I agree with LavaGirl @51. You and your Divine Miss N sound like a wonderful match. Bless you both.
@ 42 - BiDanFan - Sigh. But how else am I supposed to meet someone? (Love your comments by the way, always enjoy reading them :) )
On the other hand, if you simply adjust your attitude and focus more on your own sexual identity and needs rather than your BFF's, your issues with her so-called asexuality may magically disappear.
There is a potential element here of Not In My Name, much more common among tiny populations. If LW is quietly asexual and BFF is noisily giving LW's friend circle a distorted view of what (inferred-All) Aces Are Like, it could create difficulties should LW want to become a bit more open. I can provide an example from last weekend.
I'm not sure who among the assembled company is familiar with Riley Dennis, the non-binary trans lesbian generally taken to be the main pusher of the "If You Wouldn't Date[/Boink/Marry] A Trans Person, You're A Bigot". Ms Dennis takes Mr Savage's line of being able to unlearn some societally-imposed dislike for certain physical attriubtes such as race or fat and extends it way too far into the realm of conversion therapy. Some straight people who buy into the straightriarchy-upholding idea that the Alphabet Soup is One Big Happy Same-Thinking Family presume that Ms Dennis' attitude constitutes consensus among the entire soup bowl.
I had a conversation last weekend with someone who made the Freudian slip of first misquoting the line as, "...someone gay," before correcting "gay" to "trans". He'd thought that everyone in the Alphabet Soup considered that straights who wouldn't date anyone trans were bigoted. It was a bit of a revelation when I pointed out that, proportionally, that argument is directed much more towards gays and lesbians, as we cannot play the D/B/M-to-Procreate Card, there being only one or two SJWs who won't accept that as a "valid" reason.
Also, since I self-identify as neither, both, and beyond Ms and Mr, I'd appreciate it if you could address me as either M? or Mx in the future. Thanks very much.
I'd call your approach generally sound in cases of less than such egregious behaviour. I have no strong sense of liking or disliking LW; if I liked LW, I'd say this friend is probably so annoying and potentially harm-causing that the friend should be dumped (and possibly friends LW wants to keep set right).
titanium rings are inexpensive, inflexible, uncrushable, un-scratchable, and readily available at a variety of 'price points' from any number of vendors, from ebay & amazon to your friendly neighborhood jeweler / piercer/ alternative store.
Erys @69: Thanks for the ring tips and congrats on the lucky number!
> We could fuck if I wasn't married, but I am so we can't.
would be so much nicer as
> We could fuck if I weren't married, but I am so we can't.
I also want to second MizM @23 and others: I have a good friend who is missing his ring finger because it got caught in some machinery and ripped off. My husband and I don't wear ours much anymore for that reason. I don't always remember to put it back on when I'm going out to a restaurant or bar or something, and anymore I find it almost uncomfortable. I spent a short while deciding if I should try harder to wear it when I can and came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth my time. Anyone who is interested in me will find out through conversation what my status is.
It's definitely bucking a social norm, but I don't do it to deceive.
Weirdly, within the last week or so, Sam Seder said "the plains have been lain" instead of "laid". This Savagerian error the other way around sounds... loftier, doesn't it? I could see it coming out of the mouth of Mr Obama or perhaps Mr Clinton (not Mrs C, who, as Mr Sullivan once noted, makes me think of Ohio).
Maybe the usage of "lain" was meant to avoid the possible sexual connotations of "laid"? (Which doesn't make it okay, of course, but I'm trying to see where it could have come from...)
Please, go with the first half of your mind, and send pictures.