Recent Savage Love Letters of the Day: An inquiry regarding my balls, a letter writer reaches out to the Imaginary Gay Accreditation Agency, a girl tries to get her girl to get down with going down, and being open with a partner about doing sex work. And, as always, last week's column and Savage Lovecast.

Regarding the mysterious number of dog questions we've suddenly started getting on the Lovecast:

Dan!! I love love love you! But PLEASE!!! Do not take any more dog questions. They are absurd! Dogs cannot be “sex negative” and I could care less about people wondering if it’s ok to let their dog in the room while the fuck! Even my dog loving friends are annoyed! From one NON-dog fan to another, not to mention one PRO-sex advice fan to another... please only play and answer human questions! Thank you!!!

A little hate mail for the confused who wanted to kick me in the balls:

Not a single "I'm sorry" from Edward for his idiotic mistake? This particular person who wants to kick others in the balls richly deserves the same to be done to him assuming he doesn't want it done. Edward, it you're reading this please reply with your contact info, I'd like to indulge my fetish for screaming at assholes long after I learn you have no zero interest in being thus subjected.

FWIW: I wasn't offended by Edward's request. On asexuality:

As an asexual scholar in both senses of the term (an asexual who is a scholar, and a scholar who studies asexuality) I was beyond excited to find your column in last week's The Coast—it's a big deal to me to find asexuality represented in the paper, since it's a hugely underrepresented part of the LGBTQ+ community and doesn't tend to get much airtime. While I enjoyed reading your well-researched response, I also felt that it could have been more nuanced.

I know that Savage Love is deliberately tongue-in-cheek sometimes, but the way you concluded your column still sat wrong with me. By finishing your article the way you did, you seemed to be saying fairly pointedly that because this friend still seeks out sex, she is probably only grey-ace or is confused about her asexuality, a "closet sexual," rather than a "real" asexual who engages in sex for other reasons (and, yes, you did acknowledge that those "other reasons" exist, but it the way you phrased it made it seem like you're not particularly convinced by them).

As Anthony Bogaert says in his essay Toward a Conceptual Understanding of Asexuality: "Asexuality concerns a lack of sexual attraction to either sex and not necessarily a lack of sexual behavior with either sex". As an asexual myself, and someone studying the social theory surrounding asexuality, I know that there are lots of reasons why an asexual person might engage in sex, even if they're baffled by the actual idea of sexual attraction. A single asexual might seek out sex because they're looking for intimacy, or because they have a high libido, or simply because it feels good. It's important to note that sex drive, or libido, and sexual attraction are not the same thing. It's possible for someone to have a high physical sex drive, but not experience specific sexual attraction to other people. I've always thought of it as being like the difference between hunger and cravings: for me, if and when I do feel like having sex, it's always in a non-specific, general way. If sexual attraction is a craving for a particular gender or person, then asexuality (for me) is like occasionally being hungry, but opening the metaphorical fridge and thinking, "nah, I don't really feel like eating any of this". Still, though, I might eat something, even if I don't really care what, because I want to stop feeling hungry.

The truth is that in the society we live in, it's incredibly hard to find love and intimacy outside of the dyadic, mostly monogamous world of sex and dating. Even with the realization of one's own asexuality, it can be hard to get away from other people's sexual expectations. I think this is doubly true for asexual women; we spend so much of our lives being told that our worth is tied up in our sexual desirability and availability, and that real adulthood is being partnered with a passionate, loving sexual partner and creating a family with them. It's really hard to move away from that idea that sex and romance has this important place in our lives, even if you don't experience those kinds of attraction. I think it's completely possible that ACE's friend is genuinely asexual, but has other, equally valid reasons for seeking out sex, even if she's talking about her asexuality in a way that isn't necessarily accurate or don't line up with the way ACE experiences asexuality.

Asexuality is a wide spectrum, and not everyone on it is going to experience it the same way. Asexuals necessarily have to interact with a sexual world, and we do it in a lot of different ways, for a lot of different reasons- please don't erase us by implying that that makes some of us "closeted sexuals".

Thank you for the long, thoughtful, and insightful letter! The chance that ACE's friend is a closeted sexual was just one of the possibilities I entertained—along with grey ace and having-sex-for-reasons ace. BVut sex shame is real and sometimes crippling and, as a result, you can find all sorts of people in the closet, not just gays and lesbians. Kinky people, non-monogamous people, asexual people, and others who feel conflicted about their sexuality or gender identity. Many people who are uncomfortable with—or to put a slightly more hopeful gloss on it, people who are not yet comfortable with—their desires or identities claim to be something/someone they're not. While it's true that asexuality is often stigmatized (and misunderstood) and, consequently, many asexuals are closeted, it's also true that being too sexual is stigmatized (slut shaming is real). So it stands to reason that there could be closeted sexuals out there. That said, I do think it's likelier that ACE's friend is grey ace or asexual and having sex—a whole lot of sex—for "reasons." Thanks again for writing!

On platinum gays:

Can we also acknowledge that the idea of a Platinum Gay is weirdly misogynist? Given that the term refers specifically to birth via C-section. It's not about having never touched a vagina in a sexual manner, or even with conscious thought and choice. It's literally equating a natural human process (BIRTH FFS!) with some aspect of one's sexual orientation. If you ask a completely sexually inexperienced cis straight dude born vaginally if he's ever touched a vagina, odds are high he's going to say "no." Because most people are going to interpret that sexually, and there's nothing sexual for a baby about coming out of a vagina. To have any sexual associations with birth to me just reeks of a basic sense of "vagina ewwww!" And (because I'm not THAT familiar with how this actually plays in gay male culture), does anyone actually take pride in being a "platinum gay?" Because that's like saying, "I have a colostomy bag and don't have to wipe my own ass," and drawing some sense of self specifically from your lack of ass wiping.

TL;DR: vaginas are a normal part of many human bodies and are not inherently gross. The gender of who you've fucked in the past should have no bearing on your credibility or worthiness regarding who you want to fuck now and how YOU identify yourself. Want a term for someone who consciously fought hard to stay true to themselves in the face of crazy pressure (maybe even conversion therapy)? That sounds like a Platinum Spine.

Lesbians also talk about being Gold Star—never having slept with a man and/or touched a penis—which could be seen misandrist, I guess. Or, like I said in my response, maybe it's a joke and we shouldn't take it too seriously? And there's a difference between never having touched a vagina because you're gay and never having touched a vagina because they're gross. (Vaginas aren't gross; penises aren't gross.) At bottom I think all those Gold/Platinum business is sly, sardonic reference to the cultural pressures that lead many young gays and lesbians to experiment with heterosexual sex under duress before coming out. (That pressure may explain why young gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are at higher risk of unplanned pregnancy than their straight peers.) I was one of those gay kids who had sex with girls to "prove" I was straight. Which is a shame because I totally could've gone Platinum—I was a C-section!—and my jerk husband, who is also a C-section but never slept with a woman, is always waving his Platinum Gay card in my face.

On straight people and monogamy:

Hey Dan! Your recent article on how gay culture can teach straight culture about how to have sex outside of monogamy inspired me to send you a note. Material backstory: I was super poly in my 20s as an alternative boy in Seattle. This gave me quite a bit of experience learning the relevant skills (communication, honesty, dealing with jealousy, etc). Recently I just got out of a 6 year relationship that was monogamous. I went monogamous to be with the woman, and do not regret that decision, in spite of it recently ending.

As I date these days, now in my late 30s, I feel deeply uninterested in being "truly" poly because the time investment in maintaining equal relationships is so high. I actually tend to lean monogamish, because I want one primary life partner. This leaves me in a boat where I feel pretty flexible about whether relationships are monogamous or not. Being monogamous doesn't feel like an enormous sacrifice (although it is one), and being poly doesn't bother me (as long as my primary partner is interested in being as focused on me as I am on her).

The struggle is that I have all these skills, experiences and perspectives built up over all of that time. Some of my first dates are with fairly normal women who would, of course, want monogamy. While I am open to that, I find I am not open to their perspectives on the matter. I find myself being deeply sad that while, certainly, poly is not for everyone, experiences that teach you so much really should be.

Here's to a day when people can truly explore, experience, and enjoy what they want, rather than just accepting the cultural perspective on it.

For GIG and getting her partner to get down with quickies:

To GIG, I'd say this calls for a substantive conversation with your clothes on, where you ask whether—leaving aside your reciprocal gratification—your girlfriend enjoys "an oral quickie" or a quick fuck with a strap-on. Does she seem comfortable being honest with you? Are you sure she likes those quickies herself, rather than them leaving her over-stimulated and frustrated when you leave? If you can get confirmation that she does enjoy the quickies, then it's time to start discussing loosening up the timeframe for reciprocation, as Dan says. Also... get a Liberator sex blanket to minimize mess from your squirting! And think about other ways she can give you physical pleasure that don't lead to orgasm! More options on the table keeps sex more exciting.