Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Thursday, October 3, 2013

SLLOTD: Maladjusted Shits

Posted by on Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Does asexuality actually exist? My partner's younger brother claims to be asexual, but I think he's just a maladjusted little shit and that he's intimidated by the thought of sex. Your thoughts?

The Sister-In-Law

My response after the jump...

Asexuality must exist, TSIL, seeing as it has its own website—www.asexuality.org—where you can read this:

"Asexual people have the same emotional needs as anyone else, and like [those] in the sexual community we vary widely in how we fulfill those needs. Some asexual people are happier on their own, others are happiest with a group of close friends. Other asexual people have a desire to form more intimate romantic relationships, and will date and seek long-term partnerships. Asexual people are just as likely to date sexual people as we are to date each other."

I'll probably be accused of asexophobia for suggesting that asexuals who date "sexual people" are obligated to disclose their asexuality, preferably on the first date and certainly no later than the third date. Asexuals may have the same emotional needs as anyone else, but most of us sexuals—heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals—expect to have our emotional and sexual needs met in our "intimate romantic relationships," thanks, and we're going to want to know if that's not in the cards before we get involved, not after. Someone who is incapable of meeting a sexual's needs has no business dating a sexual in the first place, if you ask me. At the very least, asexuality must be disclosed. And I'm still trying to wrap my head around this:

"Figuring out how to flirt, to be intimate, or to be monogamous in nonsexual relationships can be challenging..."

Um... since monogamy is understood to mean sexual exclusivity—you don't fuck other people—I'm not sure how you define monogamy in a sexless relationship. Does your asexual partner promise not to not fuck other people?

As for your brother-in-law, TSIL, I don't see what his asexuality and/or hang-ups have to do with you. If you're prying into your BIL's sex life, TSIL, I'd say he's not the only maladjusted little shit in the family.

 

Comments (178) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Zing! Love that last line.
Posted by Wunderfruede on October 3, 2013 at 11:09 AM · Report this
2
Monogamous asexuals are those who do not go looking for non-sexual encounters outside of their relationships, I guess.

Good luck to them.
Posted by Ricardo on October 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 3
Even if his professed asexuality makes him a maladjusted little shit, who cares? Swearing off sex is one of the least bad things a maladjusted little shit can do.
Posted by keshmeshi on October 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM · Report this
Banna 4
Non-monogamous asexuals rent hotel rooms to meet up with other people and talk.
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on October 3, 2013 at 11:41 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 5
Everybody wants to know everybody's business. I've made up completely bogus stories when other people start to pry, just because they think they have the right to know. The minute you tell them MYOB they think it's their cue to dig even deeper.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on October 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM · Report this
rob! 6
(Originally published September 10, 2009.)
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on October 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM · Report this
Helix 7
It would be pretty shitty for an asexual person to date a sexual person and not tell them what was up in the first few weeks.
Posted by Helix on October 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM · Report this
rob! 8
Whoops, meant to tuck in the link to the Slog follow-up.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on October 3, 2013 at 12:07 PM · Report this
9

What is it called if someone is asexual because everyone else is just too fugly to boff?

Posted by Funky Winkerbean on October 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM · Report this
Just Jeff 10
Agreeing with Dan here, and the argument extends to gay people who date straight people and vice versa. It does happen to the confused, to the experimental, or to the just plain narcissistic. Its grossly unfair to the person you're dating not to disclose sexual proclivities, confusions, etc. well at the beginning of the relationship.

As well documented here on SL for years, many of the confused, narcissistic, experimental etc. will carry their nondisclosure on for years, even into marriages. This is incredibly damaging to the other partner, and beyond cruel.

Speaking from experience here as bisexual wife recently disclosed and jumped ship abruptly after a 12 year relationship, 10 of those years married. She did not simply come to this realization over time - she made it clear on her departure that she knew all along.
Posted by Just Jeff on October 3, 2013 at 12:15 PM · Report this
11
Not only prying, but also casting aspersions and refusing to accept her brother-in-law's stated explanation to her prying.

The fellow may be asexual, and/or he may be what some call "love-shy", which is a specific manifestation of Social Anxiety Disorder, and/or he's a closeted bisexual or gay guy, and/or he's just socially awkward.

Regardless, he's a human being who should be treated with more respect and compassion than the letter writer appears to be incapable of mustering.
Posted by Functional Atheist on October 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM · Report this
12
Janeane Garofalo is a supposed "out of the closet" asexual.
Posted by tkc on October 3, 2013 at 12:42 PM · Report this
13
Hey, Dan...

As @6 points out, this is a repeat, originally published in 2009. It's understandable you rerun items from time to time, but you usually tag 'em as such. You should update this to show that.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on October 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM · Report this
14
Capable of mustering.
Posted by Functional Atheist on October 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM · Report this
Absurdist1968 15
Relatively famous asexual: Paula Poundstone.
Posted by Absurdist1968 on October 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM · Report this
16
Tim Gunn also says he's an asexual.
Posted by Pope Buck I on October 3, 2013 at 1:11 PM · Report this
17
Some people claim asexuality because they're maladjusted shits and some people are genuinely asexual. Just as some people claim bisexuality because they're lying cowardly cowards and some people are genuinely bisexual. What's so complicated about "PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT", I'll never know. But it seems like every week there's another idiot who doesn't get it.

Anyway. I think the "monogamy is sexual exclusivity" argument is pretty stupid. It's like "sex is vaginal sex". Sex is different things for different people, though there's some societal consensus about what it's not. Similarly, monogamy means different things to different people, though there's some societal consensus about what it's not. If you start defining monogamy as sexual exclusivity, it loses its meaning for people who don't have sex - just as it doesn't make sense to say gold-star gay men are virgins because they haven't had vaginal sex, sexless marriages are not non-monogamous just because they don't involve sex.

My point: monogamy is what you make it, and in this case it probably involves romantic fidelity. Like not having emotional affairs with other people. Pretty straightforward.
Posted by dchari on October 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM · Report this
Helenka (also a Canuck) 18
Asexual monogamy IMO would probably entail remaining emotionally faithful to one person. Monogamish OTH might mean that one half of the couple had prior approval to stray, either emotionally or sexually, depending on the prefix in front of "sexual".

In any case, the misguided S-I-L certainly has no well of compassion within her. Whatever the kid is - or needs - I hope he finds the support to encourage his understanding of himself and opportunities for future growth.
Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck) on October 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM · Report this
lolorhone 19
@9: Karma.
Posted by lolorhone on October 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM · Report this
20
@6 thx for pointing out this is an untagged rerun.

In 2011 Dan did a love cast on asexuality where he was much kinder, gentler:

http://www.savagelovecast.com/episodes/2…
Posted by delta35 on October 3, 2013 at 2:02 PM · Report this
21
Some people believe that you can have an emotional affair. I've seen accusations of it within sexual couples even though the "affair" contained no sex. If you consider emotional affairs to be a thing that can happen, then it seems an asexual person could have an emotional affair. And defining the boundaries of non-sexual activities and emotional relationships is a challenge.

At least asexuals seem to be discussing it, rather than some sexual couples who seem to just assume that they and their partner must view the boundaries the same even though they haven't discussed it. And then get into big fights about whether or not something was okay. If you have a boundary, and you can more or less describe it, you should. Admittedly, some boundaries should be safe to assume. I don't explicitly tell a partner that I expect people to not smash all the plates in the kitchen, but even so, I'd be upset if somebody in my house did so. And the lines between what should be reasonable to expect and what you need to state aren't always clear - life is a learning experience that way. But props to the asexuals for being aware that that area may be something they do need to discuss with a partner.
Posted by uncreative on October 3, 2013 at 2:21 PM · Report this
sirkowski 22
If I take Tumblr as an example, her asexual brother-in-law is probably an annoying little shit who takes every opportunity to remind everyone how oppress he is.
Posted by sirkowski http://www.missdynamite.com on October 3, 2013 at 2:52 PM · Report this
23
One's sexuality should be shared long before thoughts of dating. The idea that anyone would want to date someone sexually incompatible is crazy.

An asexual friend could be a sexual person's wing man, a confidant, or even a companion to accompany one to the opera when one's significant other isn't interested, but only a platonic friend.

It's one thing for libidos to change years into a marriage, but it's quite another to go into a relationship that one party assumes will include sex, come to love each other, and then tear each other apart from the inside.
Posted by vab251 on October 3, 2013 at 2:59 PM · Report this
24
@23 I disagree. Some people go on first dates easily, as exploratory missions to see if they will get along with the person. You don't owe somebody the details of your sexuality until you have some rapport and trust. I agree with Dan's advice to share it on or before the third date. If you have made a serious commitment to somebody you don't know well enough to know the sexuality of, have only gone on two dates with, and have never had sex with then you have a problem, not the asexual person. But you should inform somebody before things get serious or start progressing for a long length of time. You certainly should inform somebody before the two of you agree to have an exclusive relationship if you are trying to have an exclusive relationship.
Posted by uncreative on October 3, 2013 at 3:20 PM · Report this
25
@24 BS. Asexuality is such a deal breaker for the majority of sexual people and something that isn't often seen in the dating market that not disclosing upfront would be widely considered rude at best. Dates cost time and money. Plus, what if you do become emotionally involved romantically with an asexual after a few dates; now you have to go through the process of ending a relationship you never would have started in the first place.

It's kind of like if I asked a white supremacist out for dinner, dated him for a week before disclosing I'm mixed race, and then got upset when he refused to continue dating me.
Posted by Really Now... on October 3, 2013 at 3:48 PM · Report this
26
Welllll... Letter Writer did say that the little brother "claims" to be asexual, so it isn't necessarily prying, Dan.

However, Letter Writer did ably demonstrate that being asexual and being a maladjusted little shit are entirely orthogonal.
Posted by avast2006 on October 3, 2013 at 4:02 PM · Report this
27
Whatever one may think about asexuals, this LW goes on the short list for a Sartre Award.
Posted by vennominon on October 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM · Report this
28
@25 No, it isn't. The person who asks for the date pays. So, it's either like you asked a White Supremacist out for a date and paid for it and then later, either felt comfortable with him/her and told him/her you're mixed race or decided that you weren't comfortable disclosing your race to a White supremacist and stopped dating him/her. Or it's like a White supremacist asked you out on a date and you felt morally obligated to tell the person that you are mixed race - for no apparent reason.

Disclosing a minority sexual orientation can be dangerous. You don't owe it to people. And you don't owe it to people to turn down a date with them just because you do not yet know if they are safe to be around. That's often what dating is for determining. If you ask people out on dates, you have to expect a lot of them won't work out for all sorts of reasons. But asking someone for a date doesn't entitle you to the full list of major issues they might have. For example, let's say you are medically incapable of having children. That's a deal-breaker for a lot of people. But no you are not morally obligated to disclose your medical background before you date somebody nor to turn down every date with any person who might consider it a deal-breaker until you know them well enough to determine if it is. If you have some major deal-breakers, you can talk to somebody about them before you ask them out on a date. Otherwise you can use a date as a place to discuss what you are and aren't looking for in a relationship. But asking someone on a date doesn't entitle you to their personal info.
Posted by uncreative on October 3, 2013 at 5:02 PM · Report this
seandr 29
I'm a severely closeted asexual. I probably won't come out until in my 70's or 80's.
Posted by seandr on October 3, 2013 at 5:03 PM · Report this
30
Some asexuals want romance and emotional closeness as much as sexuals, they just have no sex drive and find sex meh. 'Meh' is different from 'repulsive.' Of these, some are perfectly happy to have sex, in the same way people who aren't into football or romantic comedies will nonetheless watch those as a way to be close to their partner.

It's something to share fairly early, to be sure, but there are happy couples out there doing 'if you can cuddle on the couch with me, I can do kinky sex of your choosing with you.'

And I agree that it was weird of Dan to define monogamy strictly in terms of sex, when 'socially monogamous' is a closer description of how monogamy is practiced in societies that stress one partner at a time. Agree with 17 on this.
Posted by IPJ on October 3, 2013 at 7:07 PM · Report this
31
@28; Someone who can't have children is reasonably likely to meet someone uninterested in having children. Someone who won't have sex is not reasonably likely to meet someone uninterested in sex. Therefore, it is reasonable for the former to feel someone out before disclosing medical statues, while it is not reasonable for the latter to feel someone out before disclosing asexuality. I don't go on dates with lesbians while I'm dressed in drag in the hopes that when I reveal that I'm really a dude, they'll have changed their minds about the whole being-lesbians thing.
Posted by Marooner on October 3, 2013 at 7:09 PM · Report this
32
@28 People disclose their sexual orientation in various ways, both intentional and unintentional, every single day. And yes, while you don't need someone's life story before you grab dinner and a few drinks there's certain things you don't get to wait to tell them. These include; sexual orientation, relationship status and pregnancy. #31 makes the point better than I do.

As for date paying etiquette, I thought going dutch was standard. It's been awhile though...So input is appreciated.
Posted by Really Now... on October 3, 2013 at 7:37 PM · Report this
33
@5 I do the same, but my family's fucking persistent. I invented a fake first date to hide the fact I drove over an hour to peg one of my ex's over a month ago and they're still looking for my non-existent boyfriend.
Posted by Really Now... on October 3, 2013 at 7:43 PM · Report this
34
Phobia? I don't detect fear directed toward asexuals. I detect hostility. This is typical of Mr. Savage. His open-mindedness is skewed toward sexual activity and away from anything of which Victorian surface ideals might have approved. There's rejection of old-fashioned values, not just acceptance of new ones.

And what is up with these timelines. @7 and @25: "Weeks"? "A few dates"? How emotionally involved can someone get after just a few dates? People barely know each other by then. Talk about "months" and there might be an issue.

Say there's a guy who was in an accident and lacks a penis. Say there's a woman who's had a hysterectomy and definitely can't have children. Those are big things that would need disclosure at some point, but they're also big things that can turn people off to a partner who might be worth the sacrifice. First date is too early.

And let's not write off the idea of asexuals who are willing to indulge their partners, the way a vanilla person indulges a kinkster.
Posted by DRF on October 3, 2013 at 8:56 PM · Report this
35
@32 Then if those things are important to you, make sure you know them about somebody before asking them out on a date - simple enough. If you invite anybody anywhere - romantically or not - you pay. That's basic etiquette. However, you can word things so it isn't an invitation of that form by saying something like, "I'm going to go grab some coffee, would you like to also?" or so forth. And if you want to get to know somebody before asking them out on a date (something I personally prefer, but not everyone likes to do that, and I don't think it's inherently wrong to date strangers if both people want to) then that's also a choice. But people who date strangers need to accept the risk that the person has high odds of being incompatible. But I've certainly had enough people tell me that they like to use dates to get to know somebody (often when I am telling them I will not date them because I don't know them well enough, so maybe they're lying, but I like to assume honesty) to take it as true that some people like to use dates as a way to get to know people. And if I were okay with that, I might accept a date stated as a way to get to know me, and I absolutely would not tell them the details of my sexuality unless I felt comfortable with them, because it's ridiculous to think they have a right to that just because they chose to get to know somebody through dating. If you don't like that - don't do that. But it really sounds like you're unwilling to accept that some people date differently than you do. And it's so stupid, because you can 100% avoid the problem by never asking somebody out on a date until you know whatever you think somebody needs to know before a date happens before you ask them for a date. That's your job. Not theirs. And they don't have to be a mind-reader and guess what you think you need to know in advance. And you are also free to respond to a request for a date with a list of traits about you that might be a deal-breaker for somebody. That's your choice if you choose to do it. I'd personally consider that socially awkward, but you're welcome to do so if you want to.
More...
Posted by uncreative on October 3, 2013 at 9:08 PM · Report this
36
@35 First, thank you for updating me on dating etiquette.

Now for everything else; Firstly I don't think everyone HAS to date like I do. In fact, my personal experience in dating is so limited I had to ask you a general etiquette rule. I'm simply stating that if you have an aspect of your sexuality that would be such an important trait for another person to know to help them decide whether to date you, it's best to disclose early. So let's say you accept a date from someone. Just by that simple act you've shown interest in their gender, thus helping them to determine an aspect of your sexuality.

What I find somewhat silly is your hypothetical position. You're saying that if you accept a date with someone and they ask you a sexual question they don't have a right to know the answer unless you want to tell them. BUT it's up to them and them alone to find out this top secret information. You know, that information that you don't think you have to tell them...

I know that sounds harsh, but the fact that you're implying I'm somehow too rigid for the dating pool is the pot calling the kettle black. I've never dated a stranger personally, but I think you should be able to expect some honest communicate about very basic things like sexual orientation.
Posted by Really Now... on October 4, 2013 at 12:37 AM · Report this
37
@34 I say a few dates or weeks instead of months because people generally start having sex earlier in the relationship. In the case of the man without a penis there's options like a strap-on. A woman with a hysterectomy can adopt or may have eggs frozen for when she settles down and can get a surrogate.

A person in a monogamous marriage with an asexual doesn't get to find options to make their marriage more compatible with their needs. It's a pretty fucking serious thing to dedicate your sex life solely to one person under normal situations, let alone a marriage between two people with that big a libido difference. I'm not saying it couldn't work. I'm just saying there's a lot of work involved for both parties and not a lot of alternatives. Personally I prefer monogamy for a laundry list of reasons, but in situation where I was married to an asexual I don't know if I could make it for the long haul. And sleeping around would make me feel like shit. So where would that hypothetically leave me? And obviously I'm not the only one who would flinch at such a demand.

And no, we NEVER get letters from kinksters lamenting their vanilla partners' attempts at pleasing them. (And yes, I admit some of them are whiny douche bags)

Posted by Really Now... on October 4, 2013 at 1:07 AM · Report this
38
Seriously dan, you're STILL republishing ancient letters? I know you're doing lots of hard work judging people doing things inside soundproof boxes, but can't you just answer a few new letters?

Anyway, call me an ass, but this "asxual" stuff really sounds like BS to me, and I know a lot of people who lay claim to it. Every one of them spends >90% of their free time in front of a computer and 100% of them jack off to things that don't exist in reality (See previous point). They have just spent so much time locking their brain into fantasy ideas that they don't have any way to relate to real people in that way.
Posted by Posting anonymously so I don't get flamed on October 4, 2013 at 5:25 AM · Report this
39
If she's prying into her BIL's sex life, it isn't that he isn't the only maladjusted shit in the family, it's that he's not the maladjusted shit, period.
Posted by treehugger on October 4, 2013 at 8:13 AM · Report this
40
@36 I wouldn't take Uncreative's word about dating etiquette (or anything else): that's just Uncreative's (extremely self-serving) opinion. There are lots of people who do it differently. In particular, among heterosexuals, "the person who asks out pays" is a euphemism given the extremely strong expectation that the man should be the one doing the asking-out. And, in my limited experience, as a guy, of being asked out by women, women who ask men for dates don't expect to pay any more than women who are asked out by men do.

@34 "How emotionally involved can someone get after just a few dates?"

I don't know what your teens and twenties were like, but I was perfectly capable of "falling in love" with people I'd hardly met.

"they're also big things that can turn people off to a partner who might be worth the sacrifice. First date is too early."

Shouldn't that be something the potential partner can make an informed decision on?
Posted by Old Crow on October 4, 2013 at 10:47 AM · Report this
41
@40 Dutch it is then. Though I wouldn't be adverse to treating a guy.
Posted by Really Now... on October 4, 2013 at 12:16 PM · Report this
42
@34

I absolutely would not tell them the details of my sexuality unless I felt comfortable with them

Do you really think that being asexual is a "detail" of one's sexuality? Or being gay or straight for that matter?
Posted by East Coast Douglas on October 4, 2013 at 12:52 PM · Report this
Eudaemonic 43
@ 22: If I take Tumblr as an example, her asexual brother-in-law is probably an annoying little shit who takes every opportunity to remind everyone how oppress he is.

But if we start taking Tumblr as an example, everyone is an annoying little shit who takes every opportunity to remind everyone how oppressed they are. I mean, isn't that what Tumblr's for?

@ 29: I'm a severely closeted asexual. I probably won't come out until in my 70's or 80's.

You're not as closeted as you think; you and I are in a nonsexual relationship right now, right? I mean, we definitely aren't fucking.

...oops, sorry if I just outed you, man! But I guess I'm an extremely promiscuous asexual; there are billions of people I'm not-fucking. I don't know how I'd keep that in the closet; almost everyone in the world knows that they and I aren't fucking.
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 4, 2013 at 1:11 PM · Report this
44
This insistence by asexuals that they don't have a responsibility to disclose, or that the other party has a responsibility to somehow uncover this top-secret information before even asking them out is fucking pathological.

Yes, you do have a responsibility to disclose your asexual status. If a straight person asks a homosexual out for a date or vice versa, the other party should immediately say something like "I'm flattered but I'm gay/straight" - the same applies if one person is married or asexual or whatever the obstacle is. Doing otherwise is deception pure and simple. If you're uncomfortable revealing that information, tough shit - get some therapy and get over it. And if you think it exposes you to rejection, tough shit again. Yes it does - you may not be compatible with very many people at all, because you are NOT. But tricking the other person through lies of omission is not the answer. Try getting comfortable with who you really are instead.

And FTR, uncreative@34's dating advice is bullshit too. In the 21st century everything is Dutch unless one party wants to do the other party a favor (like for their birthday), or there's a known economic disparity (like single parents who need to pay for a baby sitter). Any woman who has a problem with that is welcome to give up their right to vote.
Posted by Chase on October 4, 2013 at 1:28 PM · Report this
45
@44 Actually, dating expenses should alternate. So, a second date is paid for by the other person. This is equality; it just is also hospitality.

And again, if you need to know the details of someone's sexual interests before you date them - then ask them. Your choice, right there.

Also, why do you think asexuals are insisting anything? Reasonable people are insisting. Personally, I'm not asexual, just sane. And yes, I really think asexuality is a detail of someone's sexuality. And I think dates are often used for determining things like compatibility and details of someone's sexuality. And I think you are making a huge fuss over the horrors of a first date not working out. Which makes me really wonder how you live. How much do you think somebody going out on a date with you owes you?

And if you are going dutch - then why on Earth are you making it like some huge deal that a first or second date might not work out? Wow, you might waste as much as three dates on somebody you aren't compatible with, especially if you don't talk to them about what you require for compatibility. Anyhow, now you know this matters. So, start ~talking~ to people rather than assuming.
Posted by uncreative on October 4, 2013 at 2:12 PM · Report this
46
@40 A woman who asks a man out on a date and doesn't pay for it is rude, pure and simple. Personally, I like Judith Martin's etiquette in general. You can also go out with people without formally inviting them out, and then it is dutch. But it's pretty rude to invite somebody to something and then surprise them with a bill - and this has nothing to do with gender or even romance. If you intend it to be dutch, you need to state that upfront so people know what to expect. But the person doing the inviting pays is practical, because the person doing the inviting chooses the cost. You invite someone to something within your means. Dating does not have to be expensive. You can go to a park and bring a lunch you made with stuff from the grocery store. Or you can go to a fancy restaurant. But the person accepting the date shouldn't be on the hook for an unknown level of expense - that's the key point. And if you do that to people, you're treating them very badly. As stated, who pays for the date should alternate, since etiquette also dictates you alternate dates. This is actually historical and not modern, and women did use to regularly treat gentlemen to dates; they just tended to entertain in different ways with more of a tendency toward home-cooked meals than paying to eat out. Now that is thrown out (and rightly so) and either sex entertaining either sex can have a variety of forms of dates of their choosing.

If you're falling in love with people you have just met, then you need to work on that. Yes, it's normal when you're young, and also normal for you to then break up when you realize you aren't compatible. So, if you're falling in love and then breaking up after three dates, you were just treated to a valuable life lesson and maybe you'll be wiser next time. If you're an experienced adult and still acting like a teen or young adult... well, yeah, I can see why this is a problem for you. I hope you get better soon.
More...
Posted by uncreative on October 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM · Report this
47
Being asexual is not the same as being married. Dating a married person or anyone else in a committed relationship violates most people's moral codes. Dating an asexual does not. That's why married people wear rings, to let others know they're out of the dating pool. We should not require asexuals to wear signs.

@42 Well it's not a detail of one's choice in flavors of organic yogurt, so yes. It's up there with an injury that affect's one's sex life. It's the sort of thing that would cause one to be rejected out of hand. It should be disclosed after the potential partner has had the chance to see at least some of the things that might make the relationship worthwhile. A person can't make an informed decision on whether or not a relationship with an asexual is worth it without knowing something about said asexual other than his or her asexuality.

@44 I find that I have little patience for anyone who expects anyone else to be a magical telepathic Betazoid from Star Trek. No, the other party does not have a responsibility to know that he or she is dating an asexual, but neither does the asexual have to shout it out on the first date. This kind of disclosure should come after the pair have had some chance to get to know each other. Almost by definition, the issue's probably going to come up around the time when the non-asexual wants to have sex.
Posted by DRF on October 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM · Report this
48
Agreed, dating expenses -- and invitations -- should alternate. This solves several problems:

-- economic disparity: if one person makes substantially less than the other, he* may find himself expending more than his budget allows, if he consistently splits the tab with the other person who not only has higher pay but more expensive tastes. Instead, they should take turns asking each other out to activities that fit their respective budgets.

-- Telegraphing interest: if one person does all the asking, that makes space in the relationship for things like stalking/being stalked, or being taken advantage of by the proverbial "dinner whore." If the expectation is that you indicate interest by asking, and one person never asks, that should imply that person is not interested. If the requirement is that you alternate asking, and one person never does, the problem is self-correcting because the relationship stalls in the "it's your turn to ask me out" position.

(* Yes, I know the economic disparity is usually the opposite. If I used the stereotypical pronouns someone probably would jump on me for sexist assumptions.)
Posted by avast2006 on October 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM · Report this
John Horstman 49
Um... since monogamy is understood to mean sexual exclusivity—you don't fuck other people—I'm not sure how you define monogamy in a sexless relationship.

Really Dan? Given the degree to which people have been slinging the cringe-inducing (for me) term "emotional affair" around lately, I'd think this would be obvious - it's a promise to not form "intimate romantic relationships" with other people.
Posted by John Horstman on October 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM · Report this
50
@47: I disagree. If the date is implied to be the type that a reasonable observer would expect might lead in a romantic direction, then you have a responsibility to disclose. If I'm thinking this is a romantic date, and you are aware there is no way in hell it will ever go that direction, but you nonetheless allow me to keep thinking it might, you are lying to me and quite possibly using me.

If we were talking not about asexuality but about hetero/homosexuality, good luck getting anybody to agree with you that a lesbian should just let things ride for a while before disclosing to her straight male date, perhaps right up to that moment near the end of the third date where he leans in for a kiss and whispers about going back to his place, that she's actually a lesbian.
Posted by avast2006 on October 4, 2013 at 3:07 PM · Report this
51
@47, continued: " A person can't make an informed decision on whether or not a relationship with an asexual is worth it without knowing something about said asexual other than his or her asexuality."

A person can't make an informed decision about whether to keep dating someone with an obvious potential dealbreaker, either, if that dealbreaker is not disclosed. If you want the informed consent rule to apply, you need to apply it fully, even to the half of the equation that disadvantages you.

It's not your prerogative to require a fully informed decision of them, to force them to get to know you better first. If they want to dump you out of hand, rather than waiting to give you the full due-diligence evaluation, they should be able to do exactly that -- and frankly, wouldn't you prefer to not waste a month of YOUR time and money on the person who will reject you out of hand?

Back to my previous point, however: if I found myself in that situation, I am pretty sure I would react far more negatively to you keeping it dark than to you disclosing right away. Maybe I might decide to go ahead, give you a chance and see how things develop, or maybe not; but if you hid it from me, it is far more likely I would feel manipulated and want nothing further to do with you. What else about you do you intend to keep back from me until the moment you deem most advantageous? Gonna wait until after the proposal to tell me about your credit history?
Posted by avast2006 on October 4, 2013 at 3:27 PM · Report this
52
For Heaven's sake. For here on I'm paying for the first date. And I expect all the men here to write their representatives the next time the equal pay for women bill comes up in congress.
Posted by Really Now... on October 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM · Report this
53
If someone is asexual in the sense of not wanting to form a romantic relationship with anyone, then the dating thing should rapidly take care of itself. A lot of invitations are amorphous as to whether this is a friend-thing or a romance-thing, and jumping to assumptions with "Is that 'get coffee' as in maybe we would eventually get married, or 'get coffee' as in like friends get coffee?" is just going to mark you as weird and over-anxious. Just like someone who has no future romantic interest in a possible coffee-partner for any other reason may not twig that that person views this as a date.

If someone is asexual in the sense of wanting a romantic partner but sex isn't interesting to them, that's reasonable to disclose later on--especially as some asexuals are okay having sex, just not excited by it outside of as a method of making their partner happy.

(This distinction came up with bisexuals, by the way--that preferred gender(s) for romance and for sex may not overlap perfectly. So I can see asexuals also being along a spectrum.)
Posted by IPJ on October 4, 2013 at 7:08 PM · Report this
54
@50/51 Waiting until after they've developed some level of trust isn't "keeping someone in the dark." It's not oversharing.

If a person is on a date (assuming that everyone knows it's a date), that means that he or she is interested in romance. It just doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is also interested in sex. A lesbian is by definition a woman who doesn't want romance with men. Otherwise she's either straight or bisexual. In this context, asexuality is more similar to a hardcore kink than to sexual orientation. If someone's into ball gags and rape fantasies, that person probably wouldn't disclose on the first date, and we probably wouldn't blame him or her. No, we'd say, "Hang in there for a while, kinkster, accept that you'll have to indulge your partner if you wish to be indulged, and let her/him get to know you a little before you drop that bomb."

I see absolutely no problem with not disclosing highly personal details to a person whom one has seen only seen three times. They're strangers. If people want to have sex with partners whom they barely know, that's their business, but then they're hardly in a position to complain that they're having sex with partners whom they barely know.

Why is it that we can be supportive of the most radical sexual peculiarities but not this one? Why are humans are complicated creatures who respond to sex in a variety of ways until we come across an asexual?
Posted by DRF on October 4, 2013 at 9:03 PM · Report this
Eva Hopkins 55
Maybe because asexuality is a hard thing for most people to wrap their heads around/comprehend? Honest thought, not a put-down. Lots of people are highly motivated by sex & their needs/wants for same.

If you really like the person, I don't think a 3rd of 4th date is too early to disclose that kind of information. I don't think 3rd date = automatic sexytimes, either. But usually there's at least been some kissing, therefore, interest raised.

It's not a lack of compassion to say that the majority of people looking for relationships are sexual beings, it's just averages. If that major component of a most romantic relationships was not going to be available for them, it seems like that's the right time to bring it up, fairly early on.

The only exception I personally could roll with, would be if the asexual person had already committed to the idea of letting the sexual person have other relationships that involved sex/affection.

I totally laud the idea of aces (just like anyone) finding their soul mate, if they're romantically inclined. It'd be easier for them/others if they tried to find/date other aces, but until recently it hasn't been an orientation that was represented much in the media. Now there's dating sites & stuff.

IDK. I vote early disclosure but am aware things aren't always the same in practice as in theory. ;) I disclosed I was bi around the 3rd date. Had a date end before the main course even got there once. He was all: "snap snap" "Waiter! Could we get our check please?" *right* after I told him, no lie. Poor guy, he was very straightlaced.

Posted by Eva Hopkins http://www.lunamusestudios.com on October 5, 2013 at 12:41 AM · Report this
Eva Hopkins 56
@6, yeah. Thanks for pointing that out. Hey Dan! Nobody really minds too much when ya run re-runs, but could you at least take the time to tag it with the originally published date? You're a busy famous guy now, we know. Those of us with fuzzy memories who've been reading you for quite some time can get really vexed, wondering if we've "heard this one before".. ;)

Happy HUMP! fest to ya, bubbe.
Posted by Eva Hopkins http://www.lunamusestudios.com on October 5, 2013 at 12:43 AM · Report this
57
Dating an asexual person violates most people's definitions of dating. The number of non-asexuals willing to date an asexual person is about the same as the number of heterosexuals willing to date a homosexual or vice-versa. When someone who is not asexual asks you on a date, they're almost always saying that they're interested in potentially having sex with you. If that's an issue for some reason, they need to know that.

I don't understand the mystery-date thing either. If I ask or am asked on a date, it's clear that it's a date - not a "let's get married" date, but a "let's find out if we want to fuck" date. That's something else that needs to be explicit from the get-go, because otherwise it leads to passive-aggressive pining and stalkers.
Posted by Chase on October 5, 2013 at 12:46 AM · Report this
58
Yes, hardcore kinksters (as in, not interested in vanilla sex) should absolutely pre-disclose - and in my experience they usually do. Why waste time dating vanillas?

Being bisexual doesn't preclude having a satisfying sex life with your partner, so it's not the same - it only matters to people who have hangups about their partner's previous partners.

And sorry DRF, here on planet earth, for the vast vast majority of people, going on a date does indeed mean that they are interested in sex, at some point, with someone, hopefully the person they're dating. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous, self-serving, and cowardly. The mere fact that asexuals are so insistent on dating sexuals rather than each other should tell you how uncommon they are.
Posted by Chase on October 5, 2013 at 1:01 AM · Report this
Registered European 59
@57
If I ask or am asked on a date, it's clear that it's a date - not a "let's get married" date, but a "let's find out if we want to fuck" date.


This whole American "dating" concept is very alien to me. How do you distinguish (from the get-go, even) between "let's get coffee" as "friends" and as "find out if we want to fuck"? Honest question.
Posted by Registered European on October 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM · Report this
60
@59, if you've been flirting, then it's a "find out if we want to fuck" date. Generally people manage not to flirt with people they wouldn't fuck. I don't know what asexuals do about flirting. I suppose the problem is that they do flirt, on the way towards romance, whereas sexuals flirt on the way toward fucking or fucking+romance.
Posted by EricaP on October 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM · Report this
Roofeo 61
@44 and @59 - Hear hear!!

Yes, it's not hard to guess why asexuals have trouble with flirting if it's the modus operandi of sexuals to indicate sexual interest. As @44 said, disengaging from the get go is the sensible option here, otherwise you setting both of you up for heartbreak.

The contexts you probably don't have to disengage at initial date offers are ironically, BDSM and poly communities. In kink it's very normal to play without sex and it is negotiated, not expected. In poly communities, people will likely be getting their sexual needs elsewhere and are at least familiar with emotional only relationships.
Posted by Roofeo on October 5, 2013 at 8:42 PM · Report this
62
editing @60:
"Generally people manage not to flirt with people they already know they wouldn't fuck." (That doesn't mean they're down to fuck when they say yes to a coffee date; it just means they haven't ruled out fucking.)
Posted by EricaP on October 5, 2013 at 9:12 PM · Report this
Still Thinking 63
I've known a couple of people who identified as asexual, so if those people were not figments of my imagination, then they do exist. They were cool people, too.

How can an asexual successfully date a sexual person? From my perspective as a sexual person, it would be difficult for me to date someone I felt was only going along with sex to make me happy - my partner's pleasure is part of what gets me hot, and a lack of pleasure would turn sex into a grinding chore. It would also be difficult for me to have a primary emotional relationship with someone, but go outside that relationship for sex, whether licitly or illicitly. It would probably be impossible for me to have a primary emotional relationship with someone and abstain from sex completely.

Having just started dating again after a 17 year absence from the "scene," I am making up my own etiquette as I go along. In a grand total of 5 dates, I have paid my own way twice, split the bill equally twice (my preference, and a practice I learned in Japan), and paid for a man I went out with once, when he left his wallet in his jacket pocket in his car.

As a single parent with limited time and income, who has to spend $30 in babysitting money just to get coffee for a couple hours, I prefer to go on a date with someone I have a good chance of being compatible with, regardless of whether I'm hoping for a quick roll in the hay or a long-term relationship. So if a prospective date admitted to being asexual, that would be a deal-breaker for me. However, so far I have not disclosed my sexual orientation on any of my five first dates. I don't feel bad about this. I have yet to make it to second date, and none of these fine human beings, for all their fineness, need to know that personal information about me right away. It seems to me that a good time to talk about sexual orientation would be before engaging in any sexual activity - whether that's the 1st date, 3rd date, or 6 months in.

There is a difference here between dating men and women - inviting or accepting an invitation from a woman automatically marks me as a sexual minority - either lesbian or bi, whereas inviting or accepting an invitation from a man allows me to "pass" as straight if I'm so inclined. A site like Lovelab allows me to indicate a preference for multiple genders/presentations, although I don't think asexual is included among them. The only other online site I've checked out so far requires me to choose "man" or "woman" as the object? of my search.

Complex though my sexual orientation and preferences (though not practice, so much) may be, at the end of the day, I have to say I'm glad I'm not asexual. That would be a not hard row not to hoe.
More...
Posted by Still Thinking on October 6, 2013 at 7:24 AM · Report this
64
Ms Erica - I thought Mr Rhone (who seems to have more flirtations going than he can handle) might have offered a rebuttal, but, even without considering Mr Rhone, what do you have to say to Mr Savage and Ms Lucy? I was often tempted to suggest we hold a competition to see who could compose the best merrimac in their honour, but then I may be the only one here who recalls the early seasons of the original ZOOM.
Posted by vennominon on October 6, 2013 at 9:00 AM · Report this
65
@60 Since when is the only purpose of flirting to find someone to have sex with? It's also to find someone with whom to have a relationship. It's legitimate to engage in romantic behavior with someone with whom one wants a romance. Not everyone expects sex within a short period of time. Sex is usually part of that, but it is not the whole thing.

This anger at asexuals is just as close-minded and hypocritical as old-fashioned shaming of people who have sex before marriage. "You had sex and now no 'decent' guy will date you? It's your own fault for being a slut and you don't deserve a relationship. Now stay out of the way and don't disguise yourself as an honest woman. You'll only confuse the men who want nice girls and make them waste their time on you." All this rage against asexuals who don't disclose on day one is coming from the exact same place: "People who don't view love and sex MY way should stay out of my way!"

Hey, here's a thought: People who don't like asexuals should disclose on the first date that they don't want to date an asexual. Or maybe that would just make them sound like jerks, ruin a pleasant outing and generally be a huge distraction from two people getting to know each other.

It seems to me that a good time to talk about sexual orientation would be before engaging in any sexual activity
Posted by DRF on October 6, 2013 at 10:18 AM · Report this
66
DRF, you can't read minds so stop telling other people what their motivations are.

Your whole argument is bullshit. I like being courted by gay men - I just don't want to have sex with them. By your logic, if a gay man mistakes me for gay and asks me out, I'd be entirely within my rights to encourage his mistake right up until the end of the third date or sixth date or whenever he insists on sex, at which point I'd tell him, "Actually, I'm straight, but I do like it when you take me out for dinner." I don't do that because it would be dishonest and manipulative, in exactly the same way that an asexual person representing themselves as sexual (however passively) in order to get romance is being dishonest and manipulative.
Posted by Old Crow on October 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM · Report this
67
Mr. Ven @64, many people flirt without intending it to lead to fucking, but (in my experience) if A&B flirt, and then agree to go out on a coffee date, A isn't shocked if B at some point leans in for a kiss or takes A's hand, or other first steps towards making things physical.

Dan and lolorhone have not, to my knowledge, gone out on one-on-one dates with the people with whom they've engaged in light flirtation.
Posted by EricaP on October 6, 2013 at 3:46 PM · Report this
68
Ms Erica - That's a reasonable clarification.

I suppose "light" is a relative term.
Posted by vennominon on October 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM · Report this
69
@65: This anger at asexuals is just as close-minded and hypocritical as old-fashioned shaming of people who have sex before marriage.

Agreed. We're talking about wasting an entire three--three!!!--dates on someone who turns out not to want the same things in a relationship you do. That's how most dating relationships work out.

It's like kink, like abnormal genitalia (asexuality is sort of abnormal emotional genitalia), like HSV or HIV pos, like having triggers to avoid, like anything that means a sex life with this person won't fall into the category of typical and you need to talk about that some beforehand. For some pairs it's a dealbreaker and for some a mild accommodation they're happy to make to each other.
Posted by IPJ on October 6, 2013 at 6:36 PM · Report this
70
@66 I'm not pretending to read anyone's mind, just their posts. Here's this: Your posts make it sound like you don't like losing money on people who don't want to have sex with you. Fair enough. But there's a difference between someone who refrains from immediately disclosing their asexuality for the express purpose of scamming food, entertainment and gifts off of other people (asexuals seem as likely to be moochers as anyone else) and someone who refrains from immediately disclosing asexuality because they believe that they do have a lot to offer, emotionally, personally and even I'll-do-it-to-make-you-happy sexually, and that both parties would miss out if the non-asexual rejected them out of hand because of the scary word.

So if you honestly believe that you can make a gay man happy despite not being gay yourself and fully intend to give it your best shot, then yes, wait to disclose until the issue of sex or long-term plans for the future comes up. Most gay men would still reject you, but then they'd know what they'd be rejecting, a person and not just a label.

Posted by DRF on October 6, 2013 at 7:44 PM · Report this
71
@54: "If a person is on a date (assuming that everyone knows it's a date), that means that he or she is interested in romance. It just doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is also interested in sex."

Congratulations, you have just successfully identified the problem with asexuals dating sexuals. News flash: sexual people generally want sex with their romance.

"A lesbian is by definition a woman who doesn't want romance with men."

No, but she might be perfectly happy going to dinner once a week and a Broadway show once a month with one.

"No, we'd say, "Hang in there for a while, kinkster, accept that you'll have to indulge your partner if you wish to be indulged, and let her/him get to know you a little before you drop that bomb."

No, actually, an asexual isn't like a kinkster realizing he is going to have to indulge his partner for a while before getting his own need met. An asexual is going to want to be let off the hook for indulging their partner. The bomb that the asexual is going to drop isn't "I will give you vanilla sex if you let me suck your toes every other time." It's more like "I'm not actually sexually attracted to you. At all. And I would prefer not to fuck you. At all."

An asexual who happily and willingly fucks their partner on a schedule that the partner finds satisfying is largely a moot point.

"I see absolutely no problem with not disclosing highly personal details to a person whom one has seen only seen three times."

In that case, don't go on dates with anybody that you have reason to suspect is likely to fall in love with you and want a sexual relationship. That is to say, don't date _anybody_. Since a romantic relationship that includes sex is the default assumption in the overwhelming majority of cases, you have reason to suspect the other person is going to want sex eventually. The only way to not go by that assumption is to disclose.
More...
Posted by avast2006 on October 6, 2013 at 7:54 PM · Report this
72
@53: "Is that 'get coffee' as in maybe we would eventually get married, or 'get coffee' as in like friends get coffee?"

You have a point for "get coffee." Now, what about "dinner in the city at Chez Bourgeois, followed by opening night at the Orpheon?"

The reason you go get coffee is to keep things very light and casual, which itself implies that heavier dates are more significant.
Posted by avast2006 on October 6, 2013 at 8:02 PM · Report this
73
@71 What your post amounts to is, "Asexuals don't deserve companionship and are immoral by nature. Stay away from usnormal people, you freaks!" It should sound very familiar.

"I'm not actually sexually attracted to you. At all. And I would prefer not to fuck you. At all." You forgot to add, "But I realize that you have needs, and I'm willing to do my best." And that statement should come after the other person has had time to see if the rest of what the asexual has to offer is worth it. I don't really see why that would be moot.

It looks like some of this disgust with asexuals comes from fear of inconvenience: Whoever's idea of sex is the "default assumption" is going to be able to find romantic partners more easily. Let's remember that talking about sex on a first date is usually pretty off-putting. A sexual person saying, "I want sex and if you don't then we shouldn't spend any more time together" on a first date and an asexual saying "I don't want sex (but am/and am not willing to have it) and if you do then we shouldn't spend any more time together" on a first date are both going to sound creepily obsessed with sex and they are probably both going to get ditched. It's not fair to require either of them to lead with their genitalia. Of course we always want the other person to do all the work and take all the risk, but we have to accept that that's not fair.

Accepting that asexuals have a right to put themselves out there without leading with the weirdness means that gasp! sometimes non-asexuals are going to have to put up with the inconvenience of dating someone for a while and finding out that this person isn't exactly what they want. That's true of almost every case.
Posted by DRF on October 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM · Report this
Eva Hopkins 74
I think sex is such a large part of the initial attraction for most people, even if it's only once-in-awhile, that hearing that someone you might be into doesn't have that drive at all - IDK, I don't think it's mean of the sexual person if that's a dealbreaker for them. "Gay" is also just a label. I don't think most gay people would want a straight person "try to make them happy". That's not how it goes. & sex just to make the other person happy? That they *know* just..does nothing for their partner? Brrrr.

There's loads of other things that comprise a LTR. Companionship, shared interests, similar goals. But sex - physical affection in general! - is a *huge* part of why humans put up with each other.

I don't think 3 dates in is an unreasonable time to disclose that information. If people were more upfront with each other from the get-go about that kind of thing, that'd save loads of heartache later on. Think about all the people who write to Dan: mismatched libido might be *the top* of the list for complaints in couples.

Personally, completely not "disgusted" by asexuals. But like any life situation that might be a dealbreaker for the other person on a date - separated but not divorced, kids, never want kids, moved back w/ parents, etc - asexuality should be disclosed pretty early, for the same reason I disclose my bisexuality early on: courtesy. It's not *cold* to not want to waste time. Time is the only thing we can't get back. ;) It's considerate to the sexual person to try to work it into conversation pretty early - like, not hi how are you early, but a few dates in? Yes.

I'm not ace, so I admit I DK what that feels like. But if I were trying to date, as an ace, maybe I'd look for other aces &/or be pretty specific in any personal ads I place. Dan writes about enough people with low libido that there's gotta be some crossover potential, no?
More...
Posted by Eva Hopkins http://www.lunamusestudios.com on October 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM · Report this
lolorhone 75
Mr. Ven @ 64: Exactly how many people do you think I'm flirting with? "More than [I] can handle"? Who are these people? I am playful of text but pure of heart, good sir. Ophian has claimed me, and I have claimed him- on the internet, at least. Mon chapeau rose possède mon cœur. Really, who else am I truly flirting with?

P.S.

Don't underestimate what I can handle. (seductive wink, smooth saxophone riff...)
Posted by lolorhone on October 7, 2013 at 5:37 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 76
@ 73: @71 What your post amounts to is, "Asexuals don't deserve companionship and are immoral by nature.

That is the impression of asexuals your posting is giving me, yes.

Up until now, I didn't think there was any sexuality that made people innately inclined toward immorality, but the asexual advocates here seem to be working very hard to establish a right for asexuals to harm other people. Why?

If asexuals aren't immoral by nature, they don't need that right; they can just date each other.
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 7, 2013 at 5:41 AM · Report this
77
@76 Because they don't see being around other people as harming them. They don't see going out on a few dates with a potential partner as harming that potential partner. They don't see giving someone else the best they have to offer as harming that person. Why should anyone think that?
Posted by DRF on October 7, 2013 at 9:59 AM · Report this
78
Registered European @59:

Sometimes I think the only time when Europeans have a chance to experience how American dating works is when they are internet dating. Usually, Europeans don't "date" (unless they have watched too much Sex and the City).

Posted by migrationist on October 7, 2013 at 10:01 AM · Report this
79
I have a question for those saying that asexuals should have a chance to make their case for romance without being weighed down with the baggage of sexuals' bias against asexuality.

Suppose A (self-identified asexual) and S (sexual) go on a first date, which goes well and ends with a short kiss. On date 2, they go dancing, and S goes in for a deeper kiss, and then starts fondling A in the dark parking lot.

Do you agree that A should pull away? Saying: "there's something I should tell you; I don't actually like sex and I'm happy that way. So I love seeing you, but I'd prefer not to have sex very often."

Or do you think it's okay if A endures the unpleasant sexual fondling and goes out on date 3 with S without any explicit conversation about asexuality?
Posted by EricaP on October 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 80
@77: Dating other people under false pretenses is harm. If you have to deceive someone into dating you, you can't date them without harming them.

Additionally, if you harm someone, it doesn't matter whether you personally choose to recognize that it is harming them. If I punch you in the face, it doesn't matter whether or not I say that I believe I have punched you in the face. Your face? Been punched.

This is immediately obvious to anyone who cares about not harming other people. Tellingly, it is (apparently) not obvious to the "defenders" of asexuality.

You liken this to how people felt about gay people, but note that gay rights advocates do not insist that gays should be given a free pass to deceive straights into dating them. I don't know any gay people who feel they need that free pass, nor who even want it. This is one of the ways it is obvious that gay people are not by nature immoral.

For some reason, the advocates of asexuals seem to have a laser-like focus on the supposed right of asexuals to harm other people in this way. If asexuals are not immoral by nature, then they don't need a free pass to harm people. And any moral person wouldn't want that pass in the first place.

Currently, you're portraying asexuals as harmful and immoral by nature, because that's the only reason they could need the free pass you're claiming they need. If you're attempting to give us a more positive attitude toward asexuals, it might be better to consider an approach that does not begin with demanding the right to harm other people.
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 7, 2013 at 10:23 AM · Report this
81
@80, I think it's a little strong to talk about immorality. It's probably more an issue of having a blind spot. Given their own disinterest, asexuals may not be able to appreciate the importance of sex to sexuals. Let's just agree that people shouldn't avoid the issue once their dating partner has starting moving things towards sex; a year into a relationship is not the time to reveal that you never enjoyed the sex.
Posted by EricaP on October 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 82
@81, I don't quite agree. If a blind person thinks it's okay to stab someone in the eye, it's still not okay. If someone says the most important thing for blind people to have is a right to stab people in the eye, that person thinks blind people are destructive monsters. "I can't be me unless I stab random people!" isn't something moral people are able to say.

Everyone has blind spots, but that doesn't mean anyone gets to weaponize their blind spots. Your right to not get nonconsensually harmed is more important than your "right" to nonconsensually harm other people (even if it's in a way the harmer doesn't personally find significant).

If I wanted the right to take medicine away from random cancer patients, that would be immoral. The fact that I don't personally have cancer doesn't make it less immoral.

Call me a cynic, but I trust blind spots more when they aren't providing a convenient excuse to harm other people for one's own benefit.
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM · Report this
83
@79 If the non-asexual partner brings up the issue of sex, then that's time for the asexual partner to disclose about sex. After all, the other party just took the risk of bringing up sex. It's only requiring the asexual to always go first and fast that's wrong. I'd also say that this issue should come up if either party starts to talk about long-term plans for the future.

@81 A year? Heck yes. Most if not all of the cards should be on the table by the year mark.

@80 Going out on a date with someone without immediately spilling out very personal matters is not "harm" or "false pretenses." The purpose of a date is to feel each other out and get to know each other. Look at it this way: If two non-asexuals date each other, it's possible that they're not going to have sex with each other. They might not like each other. One or both of them might be saying, "Well, I'm not attracted to this person now but let's give him/her a chance to impress me." They might remain as unnatracted to that particular person as an asexual.

NOT immediately blabbing out all of one's personal issues isn't deceitful. It's discreet. Let's say someone has something that's usually harmful, like being a recovering alcoholic or a recovering gambling addict. How much harm has the person does by going out on a couple of dates before saying, "I'm in the program"?
Posted by DRF on October 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM · Report this
Eudaemonic 84
@ 83:

One more time.

79 If the non-asexual partner brings up the issue of sex, then that's time for the asexual partner to disclose about sex.

That happened when the two agreed to go out on a date, so your position is self-contradictory. Or are you taking the novel position of pretending not to know what a date is?

Going out on a date with someone without immediately spilling out very personal matters is not "harm" or "false pretenses."

I agree. However, when you're on a date, your sexuality is not merely a "very personal matter;" it's something that deeply affects the other person, and it's information they require in order to make important decisions (which you are requiring them to make). Why are you so hostile to the principle that people should be allowed to make informed decisions about their own lives? The only people who could be harmed by that principle are people who behave immorally.

If asexuals aren't immoral, then your whole position is false. Fortunately for everyone, it is.

The purpose of a date is to feel each other out and get to know each other.

And, yes, (to reference your earlier claim that deceiving someone you're dating about your sexuality not being "false pretenses) going on a date with no intention of permitting them to get to know you is going on a date with false pretenses. By your own admission, that's the point of a date.

So, to sum up: The pretense is that you're going to let them get to know you (since that's what dates are for--you even admit this--and you've agreed to a date). But you do not intend to do so. Therefore, the pretense is false. I do not know how to make it more clear that "false pretenses" are the same thing as "pretenses that are false."

NOT immediately blabbing out all of one's personal issues isn't deceitful.

Straw man. At no point has anyone here--anyone--said that asexuals should immediately blab out all of their personal issues. I know this; you know this; I know you know this. Further, I know what it means that you are resorting to this fallacy; if there were a way to defend your position honestly, you'd be using that instead, wouldn't you?

Instead, you chose the fallacy.

Stop for a moment, and think about what that means. (Not "try to think of a way to deceive me into forgetting what it means;" you can't.) Why is it that there is no truthful way to support your position? Why did you choose to use the untruthful ways, rather than to change your position when it became obvious to you that it is insupportable?

Thinking about those questions is going to be a more productive use of your next few minutes than thinking about how to best mischaracterize the earlier parts of this thread in order to make deceit seem like non-deceit. Sophistry can be fun, but it's not going to achieve any of your goals here.

Barring some self-examination on your part, this will be my last good-faith effort to help you. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so up til now in my interactions with you I've been attempting to provide what you need, rather than what your statements deserve. After this, I'm going to respond with the respect you've earned, so it might be in the form of jokes about your mom.
More...
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM · Report this
85
@82, I'm someone who does think sex is super important, and yet I'm finding your analogies to bring more heat than light to this discussion. Going on a first date with someone without saying you're asexual is like stabbing someone in the eye? Um, no. Actually, it's not like that.
Posted by EricaP on October 7, 2013 at 1:29 PM · Report this
86
@83, conversely, you're not helping by being coy about what it means to "bring up the issue of sex." I was explicit @79: a deep kiss and fondling. To me, it's unconscionable to go along with that if you don't enjoy it, just because you enjoy spending time with someone and think you could put up with sex for them.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think the asexual person should make their asexuality explicit at that point (or by phone/email, before the next date), or do you think it's okay for asexuals to put up with unwanted fondling in hopes of a relationship?
Posted by EricaP on October 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM · Report this
87
Mr Rhone - Maybe I'm rounding up, but I count encouraging the flirtations of others as flirting back.

That is a fair point about your capacities, but you have occasionally made me think of Mr Elton after he has to introduce the new Mrs Elton to Miss Woodhouse and Miss Smith. I could see you having the bad luck of being in company with the person you had married, the person you had wanted to marry, and the person you'd been expected to marry. I don't know why; it's just another of my Psychic Vibrations, like the one that pulled that hip block out of nowhere.
Posted by vennominon on October 7, 2013 at 1:47 PM · Report this
lolorhone 88
Mr. Ven @87: Fair enough. I encourage flirtation because it's fun and invigorating and life-affirming and bond-forming, which is great in general but especially in this forum. There is so much arguing and strife that people lose sight of the fact that these threads are actually designed to bring people together.
Posted by lolorhone on October 7, 2013 at 2:26 PM · Report this
89
@DRF: Asexuality isn't a highly personal top sekrit detail any more than homosexuality is. A coworker telling me that they're asexual isn't giving me TMI any more than a coworker telling me that they're gay is. Neither are analogous to a kinky coworker informing me of the details of their kinks, which probably would be TMI.

Anyway, you're not (as far as I know) asexual yourself, and I don't think they've asked you to speak for them. This whole discussion is much more about DRF than it is about asexuals. So enough.
Posted by Old Crow on October 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM · Report this
90
@73: "What your post amounts to is, "Asexuals don't deserve companionship and are immoral by nature. Stay away from us normal people, you freaks!" It should sound very familiar."

Then you need to read it again. Slower this time.

No, what it amounts to is: If you what you want is companionship, then you need to advertise that's what you want. Don't go out on romantic "date-dates" when what you want is "go-for-coffee" companionship. Don't set someone up who wants sex along with their romance -- which is to say, nearly everybody in your dating pool -- when you know going in that you only want romance and no sex.

It's got nothing to do with "normal" and has everything to do with "common" and "reasonable." The vast majority of people expect sex along with their romance. It is a common and reasonable expectation. If you have no intention of providing sex -- not necessarily immediately, but eventually, willingly, and happily -- along with your romance, you have no business conducting a romance in a way that implies that sex is on the menu the way that it is commonly and reasonably expected. You also have no business expecting only romance from someone who wants both romance and sex, and you have no business insisting that they give you due diligence before breaking up with you on grounds of the fundamental incompatibility that goes with one partner wanting sex and the other not wanting sex. You either disclose immediately (e.g., in your online profile) so as to go directly to dating someone who wants the same thing as you, or you disclose very early on, so as to be able to negotiate for something like an open relationship.

What you don't do is just let it ride and figure that it will eventually work itself out. It won't. What that ends up looking like is a letter to Dan where Letter Writer is wondering what is wrong with them that their partner shows no desire, that they've tried everything, that their self-esteem and sense of being desirable is in the shitter, they they are at the end of their rope, and should they dump this person and go find someone who actually desires them? To which the answer is a resounding, "Yes, yes, yes, DTMFA!"
More...
Posted by avast2006 on October 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM · Report this
91
@86 By "bring up the issue of sex," I was trying to use a scenario more inclusive than the one you described. I was treating your scenario as bringing up sex. The response would be either a discussion of sex or an "I don't know you well enough for us to be doing this" if the fondling itself is a problem. For some, a second date is too soon for second base.

@84 That happened when the two agreed to go out on a date

No it did not. Dating someone is not a promise to have sex with them. Spending money and time on someone is not an engagement of his or her sexual services. Dating is an expression of interest in getting to know a potential partner. For some people, that means sex within a few meetings but for others it does not.

I don't know about yours, but my sexuality is very personal. I don't go around talking to strangers about it, and people on a first date are strangers to each other. If you read what I've actually been posting, you will see that I am in favor of people making informed decisions, but that is fare more likely to happen if potential partners have time to gather information about each other before anyone whips out the scary shutdown words. Maybe it might not always be that way, but right now, "asexual" is likely to get a person rejected early, while the prospective partner is still ignorant.

It is not untruthful to refrain from disclosing a personal matter from people whose business it has not yet become. Someone on a first date might hope for sex but should not expect it.

You seem to think that "getting to know someone" includes sex. I'm using "know" in the general sense, not the Biblical sense. Find out what kind of music someone likes. Find out someone's opinions and general likes and dislikes. Get a sense of the person. In short, find out the things that you wouldn't risk your job or friends or family relationships if your new acquaintance turned out to be careless or vicious and repeated everything on Facebook. People can be incompatible for reasons other than sex.

You are confusing "imply" with "infer." Going out on a date does not imply that one wants sex, though a person may infer it, either correctly or incorrectly.

Yes, you are confusing "common" with "reasonable." Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it is unreasonable. In this column we read about the strangest sexual preferences there are and we do not treat them as unreasonable because they are not. Instead, we tell people to accept themselves for who they are and accept that they must find ways to keep their vanilla partners happy. Not feeling sexual desire might be rare, but it's no less reasonable than having an unusual kink. Like a scary kink, asexuality should be disclosed, but no an asexual does not have to wear it like a sign around his or her neck, warning all the nice normal people to stay away from the dangerous freak.
More...
Posted by DRF on October 7, 2013 at 5:30 PM · Report this
92
@83: "If two non-asexuals date each other, it's possible that they're not going to have sex with each other."

Yes, and it's also possible that they ARE going to have sex with each other, which is not a possibility when one of them is asexual.

It's as if you are arguing that because sometimes roulette players win and sometimes they lose, they should be perfectly willing to play even on a rigged wheel.
Posted by avast2006 on October 7, 2013 at 5:32 PM · Report this
93
@91: "I don't know you well enough for us to be doing this" is quite simply a lie, when the correct answer is, "Actually, no amount of getting to know you better will ever be enough for us to be doing this."

Are you really this fundamentally dishonest?
Posted by avast2006 on October 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM · Report this
94
@93 By "doing this" I was referring to the fondling mentioned in the previous post. And yes, there are people who aren't cool with that on a second date who would be cool with that later.

And yes, even if they are asexual, it is possible that they're going to have sex. One of them will be doing it for the sake of the other rather than for his or her own enjoyment, though.

I think I know what's really going on here. Let's consider a sexual person as described by avast2006 and Eudaemon and an asexual person:

SEXUAL PERSON: I don't want to waste any of my time on someone with whom I'm not going to have sex, not even three dates. I interpret going out on a date with me an expression of interest not only in my non-sexual companionship but also in having sex with me. If an asexual person says "I'm asexual" right away, I can save myself some time, money and emotional investment.

ASEXUAL PERSON: I want to have a romance but I do not want sex. I have a lot to offer a partner that do not involve sex. I am as good as anyone else and as likely to make a partner happy as anyone else. I do not want to limit myself to the small pool of people who are also asexual because it is hard enough for anyone to find someone I like even with a large pool of candidates. If I say "I'm asexual" right away, I will sound creepy and possibly more sexually rigid than I really am. I will be rejected right away, possibly out of ignorance and myths about what asexuality is.

Both these people are selfish, not because they're sexual and asexual but because they're human. Many human interactions involve people whose interests are not aligned. What do we do? We find a way to deal. We split the difference or take turns. We go out on a limb once in the while.
More...
Posted by DRF on October 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM · Report this
95
@94: "ASEXUAL PERSON: I want to have a romance but I do not want sex. I have a lot to offer a partner that do not involve sex. I am as good as anyone else and as likely to make a partner happy as anyone else. "

Sorry, but no. Mostly good, but...that part that I bolded for you? That's where you are going off the rails. If your partner is someone who wants sex with their romance, and you are asexual, then no, you AREN'T going to make them just as happy as anybody else could. To someone for whom sex is an important part of their romantic life, a partner who doesn't want sex is going to be a huge, unhappiness-causing issue. It is soul-crushing to be in a sexual relationship with someone who doesn't desire you. Unless you are so good at faking it that they can't tell you are just going through the motions, you WILL make them unhappy over the long run.

Beyond that, you are either straw-manning my argument or grossly failing to understand it. When you figure out the difference between romantic dates and go-for-coffee companionship, we'll talk.
Posted by avast2006 on October 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM · Report this
96
The crazy thing is that I know some asexuals offline and at least in my limited experience they're if anything abnormally honest and realistic when it comes to these issues. I've never even heard of someone IRL with as few scruples or as little sense as to willfully misconstrue the concept of dating the way DRF does.

If all you'd heard about them was the stuff their apologists put up online you'd think they were some kind of alien parasite, but they're really fairly principled people and don't seem to go in for these weird tactics.

It's almost completely unaccountable to me how this state of affairs came to be.
Posted by Confused Dude on October 7, 2013 at 7:58 PM · Report this
97
@95 We're talking about what the asexual person is thinking. ("As likely" might not be the truth, but "reasonably likely, if I am diligent" is.) It's like how the caricature of the sexual person who doesn't give a darn about what other people need is referring to what this person wants and not necessarily what this person might think is fair or likely to happen.

Frankly, the image of the sexual person that you and Eu are describing adds up to, "I'm entitled to sex with as little effort as possible and anyone who doesn't conform to my needs is a wicked, bad, immoral person! How dare an asexual waste my time by thinking I might have a brain and a heart as well as genitals!" Most people aren't that bad. Most people consider sex part of the relationship, but you guys are painting someone who only cares about sex.
Posted by DRF on October 7, 2013 at 8:02 PM · Report this
98
@96 I'm interested in the specifics. Do your friends tell potential partners that they're asexual on the first date? The third? Four months in? Do they wait for the other person to bring up sex? Do they refrain from dating at all?

No one here has said that asexuals shouldn't be honest with potential partners. The issue we're discussing is when disclosure should take place and whether the asexual is always the one who has to go first.
Posted by DRF on October 7, 2013 at 8:06 PM · Report this
99
-Asexuals exist. I don't know why this is complicated for people.

-It's so awesome that BIL is IDing as ace from such a young age! Lots of folks don't have access to info about asexuality (or don't know to look), which kind of creates sucky situations for everyone.

-Some asexuals have sex with their partners. Some even actively enjoy it.

-Nobody asked about disclosure, so I don't know why Dan's bringing it up.
Posted by noahkins on October 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM · Report this
100
@94 "@93 "And yes, there are [asexuals] who aren't cool with [fondling] on a second date who would be cool with that later."

"Cool," like they'd put up with this annoying desire of their partner to touch them sexually? Or cool like they'd enjoy it? Seems like the moment of fondling is a good time to mention that you're never going to be really into that sort of thing, to differentiate yourself from the sexuals who just want to know someone better before they paw them.

@99 "Some asexuals have sex with their partners [and] actively enjoy it."

I'm confused. If some asexuals enjoy fondling and sex, what makes them different from sexual people who enjoy fondling and sex?
Posted by EricaP on October 7, 2013 at 10:32 PM · Report this
101
@95 “Most people consider sex part of the relationship, but you guys are painting someone who only cares about sex.”

I don’t think it’s that we are talking about someone who only cares about sex, but that for most sexual people having a partner with desire for sex on a similar level as their own is integral to the relationship. I can’t speak for anyone but myself but an enthusiastic sex life with my romantic partner is an extremely important part of our relationship. I couldn’t be in a LTR with someone who did not desire sex, having a partner who is as enthusiastic about wanting to bang me as I am about them is important. Knowing this, I would appreciate it if after a few dates with someone if things were heading toward a romantic place that they let me know that they are asexual. That would factor heavily into my decision to continue dating them, not because asexuals are “creepy” or “rigid”, but because pursuing a relationship with someone whom I know I have an inherent incompatibility with is not a good idea.

@98 “The issue we're discussing is when disclosure should take place and whether the asexual is always the one who has to go first.”

For the question of whether asexuals have to go first, unfortunately I think this boils down to numbers. There are so many more sexuals in society than there are asexuals that, at least until we see a significant cultural shift, two people going on dates each will probably assume the other is a sexual. So if someone knows that they are not sexual they should disclose this before things get too emotionally entangled. If they don’t, I do not think that that is immoral or anything that extreme, just discourteous.
Posted by Square101 on October 7, 2013 at 10:35 PM · Report this
102
Someone said, half jokingly, but it's distinctly true: "When the sex is good, it's about 15 percent of a relationship. When the sex is bad, it's about 85 percent."

If that were not true, Dan would be out of a job.
Posted by avast2006 on October 8, 2013 at 12:26 AM · Report this
103
@97: I've explained it enough times in enough different ways, that you really should have gotten it by now. At this point I'm going with straw man as the explanation for you, rather than misunderstanding, particularly after your rhetoric in 97. It's certainly consistent with the general level of dishonesty you've been displaying the whole time.
Posted by avast2006 on October 8, 2013 at 12:31 AM · Report this
104
Mr Rhone - I have no objection to as many flirtations as anybody likes, and only ask that they be done with sufficient panache so as not to give the onlookers the LMBs.

Ms Erica - Think of it as analogous to playing bridge. "Bridge players" play often, make it a priority, can find it absorbing and rewarding of deep study and exploration, often join clubs, have tales of partnership troubles as multifaceted and polarizing as the letter from the poly woman who was raped and couldn't stand the thought of sex with her husband but sex with her boyfriend made her feel warm and whole and wonderful, and can get out of sorts if they have to go too long without a game. Then there are those who can enjoy a rubber from time to time, particularly if it brings deep pleasure to someone else at the table, but who would never feel driven to suggest the game and could live quite happily without it from one decade's end to the next.

Ms Cute will recall the passage in Mansfield Park in which Sir Thomas Bertram, a whist player himself, advises his wife that she would be better amused by speculation.
Posted by vennominon on October 8, 2013 at 4:27 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 105
@ 96: The crazy thing is that I know some asexuals offline and at least in my limited experience they're if anything abnormally honest and realistic when it comes to these issues. I've never even heard of someone IRL with as few scruples or as little sense as to willfully misconstrue the concept of dating the way DRF does.

Thanks. That's a relief.

If all you'd heard about them was the stuff their apologists put up online you'd think they were some kind of alien parasite, but they're really fairly principled people and don't seem to go in for these weird tactics.

Yeah. "Weird alien parasite" is pretty much the impression I've been getting. It's good to know they aren't actually like their online apologists portray them.

...Wait a minute. What if you're just a more clever apologist, trying to lull us into a false sense of security regarding these alien parasites?!?

(I kid, I kid.)
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 8, 2013 at 5:43 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 106
@ EricaP: I'm someone who does think sex is super important, and yet I'm finding your analogies to bring more heat than light to this discussion. Going on a first date with someone without saying you're asexual is like stabbing someone in the eye? Um, no. Actually, it's not like that.

The analogy wasn't for him, it was about this:

I think it's a little strong to talk about immorality. It's probably more an issue of having a blind spot. Given their own disinterest, asexuals may not be able to appreciate the importance of sex to sexuals.

Failing to fully appreciate the harm inflicted on someone by a certain course of action can't justify harming them. If you were correct, then it would be morally acceptable for someone who's been blind since birth, and thinks blindness isn't so bad, to stab people in the eye. After all, he can't fully appreciate the harm he's inflicting either--does that make it okay? I don't think it does.

We measure harm by how much is inflicted on the victim, not by whether or not the perpetrator claims to believe it's harm.
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 8, 2013 at 5:48 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 107
@103: It's certainly consistent with the general level of dishonesty you've been displaying the whole time.

In fairness to DRF, he's been claiming the right to be dishonest this whole time, so it's a mark of consistency that he's doing so in a dishonest manner, right?

But I'm done attempting to communicate, since we're past the point of attempting to wake someone who only pretends to sleep. As such, that only leaves your-momma jokes. Fortunately I'm fine with that, though I usually only do that with people I like.

@ DRF:

I don't know about yours, but my sexuality is very personal. I don't go around talking to strangers about it, and people on a first date are strangers to each other.

Boy am I glad your mom is more honest about her sexuality than you are, or last night would've been unsatisfying for both of us.

If you read what I've actually been posting, you will see that I am in favor of people making informed decisions, but that is fare more likely to happen if potential partners have time to gather information about each other before anyone whips out the scary shutdown words.

I take it you don't share your mom's opinion on safewords, either? You should ask her to explain it some time. That woman really knows her stuff.

People can be incompatible for reasons other than sex.

I know, right? Your mom and I are incompatible for every reason other than sex, but even so I have no complaints.

It is not untruthful to refrain from disclosing a personal matter from people whose business it has not yet become. Someone on a first date might hope for sex but should not expect it.

Wow, you must've learned this from your dad, since your mom certainly knows what dating is. She might not want to waste a lot of time on it before getting down to the fun stuff, but I'm not going to hold that against her.

Yes, you are confusing "common" with "reasonable." Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it is unreasonable.

I agree! Even if your mom and I only hooked up rarely, it would still be a good idea.

In this column we read about the strangest sexual preferences there are and we do not treat them as unreasonable because they are not.

Not the strangest sexual preferences there are, because we haven't read about your mom's yet. And let me tell you, that woman is a freak.

I'm using "know" in the general sense, not the Biblical sense. Find out what kind of music someone likes. Find out someone's opinions and general likes and dislikes.

Like, say, their sexual preferences? It's a shame you didn't learn more from your mom; she's refreshingly honest about what she wants. And how!

More...
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 8, 2013 at 6:04 AM · Report this
108
One of my best friends is genuinely asexual. He told me he would have sex with someone he really loved, and he believes he would do it better than a sexual person because he has no motive other than wanting to make her happy. I don't know if the claim that he's better in bed than sexual people is true or not, but he really wants to make his girlfriend happy and I certainly wouldn't dissuade any sexual people from dating him or people like him.

I think asexuality exists, but there are a lot of people who claim they are asexual that I'm doubtful about. My asexual friend is disinterested in anything sex related, but there are some who call themselves asexual despite being aroused by sexual things. I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how somebody can look at porn, masturbate, and call themselves asexual. Yet, many do. Shouldn't they call themselves celibate?

There is this idea many have that if you call yourself a thing, you ARE that thing. I don't know if I buy into that. Words should have definitions.
Posted by TheLastComment on October 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM · Report this
109
@vennominon, thanks for the bridge analogy. We might still discuss when someone who enjoys the occasional rubber should disclose their relative disinterest to someone who is looking for a passionate bridge partner...

@106, there’s harm and then there’s harm. Someone who goes on a first date without announcing that they’re asexual may “harm” the other person by wasting their time, but then you just wasted everyone on this thread’s time with your “your momma” jokes (please don’t make me explain the inescapable misogyny in “your momma” humor; I’ll just say up front that if you can’t see it, that’s your own blind spot and not an excuse.)

Most adults don’t track that level of “harm,” they just chalk it up to the hazards of living and dating and reading the internet. They don’t obsess about it and they don’t compare it to stabbing someone in the eye.
Posted by EricaP on October 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM · Report this
lolorhone 110
Mr. Ven @104: My own personal LMBs are only triggered by baby talk and excessive romantic gushing.
Posted by lolorhone on October 8, 2013 at 9:18 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 111
@ 108: I don't know if the claim that he's better in bed than sexual people is true or not

For what it's worth, studies seem to indicate that people rate selfish lovers more highly. Which might just mean that he should pretend to take real pleasure in it, since so many people rate partner-satisfaction so highly. That sounds difficult, but if he can do it, more power to him.

But it seems like it would be better for everyone involved if he dated fellow asexuals...

I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how somebody can look at porn, masturbate, and call themselves asexual. Yet, many do. Shouldn't they call themselves celibate?

Experience so far is that a lot of those people will become normally-sexual once they get over themselves. Ideally, they'd call themselves "people with even more sexual hangups than usual."

@ 109: ...but then you just wasted everyone on this thread’s time with your “your momma” jokes

Nope. I disclosed that that post was going to consist entirely of "your momma" jokes. Ahead of time. And I did it twice. See the difference? If you, knowing what it was going to be, decided to read something you find to be a waste of time, you wasted your time. Unlike people who have the misfortune of dating asexuals who are as dishonest and predatory as DRF seems to think asexuals are by default, you were able to make an informed decision in advance.

But let's ignore that part, since it's not the point.

I’ll just say up front that if you can’t see it, that’s your own blind spot and not an excuse.

So now you agree with me that having a blind spot doesn't excuse causing harm. What if I were a being of infinite patience, and thus did not have personal experience with the discomfort caused by time-wasting? I don't think that would make wasting other people's time any more or less moral.

They don’t obsess about it and they don’t compare it to stabbing someone in the eye.

Once more: The eye-stabbing analogy had nothing in particular to do with the harm caused by bait-and-switch asexuals; it was an example used to illustrate why your earlier-expressed principle of "this isn't immoral behavior, since it's the result of a blind spot" is false. If the principle weren't false, then eye-stabbing would be okay as long as the stabber didn't fully appreciate how important it is to be able to see.

Since you now seem to agree that it is false, is there some way I could have made that clearer at the time? I've now had to explain several times both that the principle is false, and that the example I was using to illustrate that the principle is false is an example I was using to illustrate that the principle is false, and not some other thing being used for some other purpose.

Or was I misreading you initially, and you knew at the time that it was false, and it was a joke, or an attempt to give DRF far more benefit of the doubt than the rest of us were by that point? If so, I didn't get it, and I apologize.

More significantly, where does the "first date" business in 109 come from?
More...
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM · Report this
112
@108 TLC, there was a guy who wrote in to Mr. Savage a few years ago who coined a new expression, "minimally sexual." He said that he'd used to identify as asexual but then realized that he was closer to sexual than his full-asexual friends were.

@100 Erica P, by "people" I meant everyone, asexual or not. By "cool with" I meant anything from the range of "not offended and freaked out by" to "actively pleased by."

@106 Eudemonic, the assertion that going out on a couple of dates with someone harms them has not been supported here. Asexuals don't have nasty, highly contagious diseases, so why should they shout "Unclean, unclean!" whenever they enter the village proper? How are people harmed by going on a few outings with someone who doesn't like sex?

No one has been saying that asexuals or anyone have the right to lie. What I've been saying is that they don't have to tell new acquaintances, such as people they've only gone out with once or twice, about their sexuality until it looks like sex is becoming an issue.

The real difference here is that you seem to think that going out on a date, even a first date, is a promise to have sex, so you feel like you've been lied to if the person doesn't want sex. I don't. Guaranteed sex is not a reasonable expectation of a first date, no matter the persuasion of one's partner.
Posted by DRF on October 8, 2013 at 11:36 AM · Report this
113
@111 “I disclosed that that post was going to consist entirely of "your momma" jokes.”

The very first time you threatened to bring out “your momma” jokes you were already wasting my time with that crap – there’s no difference between a threat to use a “your momma” joke and the stupid joke itself. In both cases, you’re saying that “your momma” jokes may reasonably be used to attack someone. The content of the joke is irrelevant; the point is to irritate someone by referencing their mother.

“So now you agree with me that having a blind spot doesn't excuse causing harm.”

I haven’t changed my stance, which is that people should disclose early if they have very unusual tastes, but failing to do so is discourteous (to use Square101's term), not immoral. If I say that your shirt is ugly, I’m being rude, not immoral, even though I may have “harmed” you by hurting your feelings. If I put my own dating needs first and don’t offer you the chance to reject an asexual out-of-hand, that may be rude of me, but I don’t see it as immoral. Stabbing someone in the eye, now that's immoral.

As for your last question, the term “first date” has come up 24 times on this thread, so you’ll have to explain more why you find it a non-sequitur. Are you saying we all agree that people don’t have to reveal their asexuality on a first date?
Posted by EricaP on October 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM · Report this
114
I'm surprised at how many people think it's a good idea for asexuals to keep their sexuality a secret until the last minute. Imagine if it was the other way around: imagine that you're an asexual dating a sexual person. Everything seems normal and you think you enjoy each other's company. You have sex, because it's expected, but you don't enjoy it because you're asexual. Weeks later, after spending a lot of time with this person, you refer to them as your girlfriend/boyfriend. The sexual person says "oh no, I'm sorry, I'm aromantic. I'm just in this for the sex." Would that seem deceitful at all? Wouldn't it be better if they had made it clear this was a strictly fuckbuddy relationship from the start?

On a slightly different note, if I was dating an asexual and they didn't inform me of their asexuality until I started trying to have sex with them, I would take it as an insult. Maybe it's just me, but I would suspect they were lying and simply found me unattractive. If they brought it up over dinner, I wouldn't be suspicious. I would also be a little insulted that they didn't think it was worth telling me something this important until they are forced to. I really see no reason why an asexual shouldn't disclose on the first date. If you aren't confident enough to risk rejection, just don't date at all.
Posted by TheLastComment on October 8, 2013 at 2:33 PM · Report this
115
@114 Actually, no one's said anything about "the last minute." The issue we've been arguing about is whether the first date or the third date is too early.

Discussions of what sex means to the relationship should come before sex happens.

You do understand how "just don't date at all" isn't a feasible solution for most people, right? Refraining from disclosing until after the potential partner has had a chance to see why dating this person, asexuality and all, might be worth it doesn't eliminate the chance of rejection, but it does make it likelier that it'll be an informed rejection.
Posted by DRF on October 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM · Report this
116
You guys are so busy wanting to be right that you've missed seeing that there is an obvious solution that everyone's actually already arguing for, albeit using different vocabularies.

meet someone
hang out more
go out for coffee
do stuff together
get to know them

before explicitly expressing either romantic or sexual interest. To keep things from being Serious Dates, don't treat the other person to a meal and don't prioritize 1-on-1 activities.

This is the way Europeans claim to do it, and is the way that I (a geeky, not hugely attractive woman who usually has many male friends) have started all my friendships and my relationships.

I called them "pre-dates," hanging out and getting to know someone before it became clear which way the interaction would head. The key to non-jerky behavior is to not string someone along if it's clear that they want more and you're not ready to get serious (which in the case of an asexual would mean to disclose).

I've recently become handicapped in a way that seriously affects my life. I have a boyfriend, but if that ended, I figure that the only way I could have a relationship again would be to get to know someone well and have them start to seriously care for me before expecting them to decide to take on everything that would come with dating me. No more casual dating for me.

This wouldn't be easy to do, but it's not a particularly hard solution to think of.

The same interaction pattern would work for asexuals who want to meet people off-line.
Posted by L604 on October 8, 2013 at 4:23 PM · Report this
117
@112: "No one has been saying that asexuals or anyone have the right to lie."

Actually, YOU have been saying exactly that, all the while fiercely disclaiming your own dishonesty. That is lying by omission, founded in an aggressive assertion of deliberate obtuseness.

"What I've been saying is that they don't have to tell new acquaintances, such as people they've only gone out with once or twice, about their sexuality until it looks like sex is becoming an issue."

For 99.9 percent of the people you date, sex with someone who doesn't want sex is going to become an issue eventually. You know this perfectly damned well: you know that most people want sex along with their romance; you know that you -don't- want sex with your romance, in direct conflict with 99.9% of your partners; you know that that constitutes a fundamental incompatibility that is going to blow up in your face 99 percent of the time. And yet you insist, in essence, "Hey, it could work!" Again, that is aggressively deliberate obtuseness. Knowing all this, knowing what the eventual outcome is overwhelmingly likely to be, and still forging ahead while not laying your cards on the table: what you are doing is keeping the other person in the dark for as long as you can get away with it. That is a perfectly good definition of lying.

You are the crooked croupier standing at the rigged roulette wheel, calling in your customers and justifying your actions by wheedling that hey, sometimes the magnet _might_ not engage.
Posted by avast2006 on October 8, 2013 at 6:17 PM · Report this
118
Or more accurately, you are hoping to find a customer who doesn't mind playing at a rigged roulette wheel, because you the croupier are just so fucking charismatic.
Posted by avast2006 on October 8, 2013 at 6:19 PM · Report this
119
@117 No I haven't. At no point have I said that asexuals should claim to not be asexuals. At no point have I said that they should never disclose. I've said that they are not required to talk about their sexuality with people whom they barely know, even if those people are prospective romantic partners. What my reaction to this letter comes down to is, "Wow! The third date sounds really early to talk about something that personal!"

The difference seems to be is that you assume that the act of accepting or offering a date requires claiming to be a non-asexual. It doesn't.

Like someone with a hardcore kink or sexual disability, an asexual should be allowed wait until some level of trust and interest has been established. Sure, they can disclose on the first date if they want, but they do not have to start with their not-best foot forward. Lots of people go out on dates with people with whom they do not end up having sex, and things work out that way for all sorts of reasons.

@116 L604, that sounds like a good approach to dating, but I don't think people should be required to use it as their only approach to dating. What offends me about this thread is the assertion that asexuals shouldn't be allowed to date the way other people do.
Posted by DRF on October 8, 2013 at 7:02 PM · Report this
120
What I'm saying is that your, my, and avast's suggestion as to how asexuals might date are *all the same,* just using different vocabulary. Do stuff with people and get to know them without implying that sex might be an imminent possibility.

I don't care whether you call it a date, a pre-date, or hanging out, just be sensitive to the other person's expectations.
Posted by L604 on October 8, 2013 at 8:08 PM · Report this
121
I have already said, do not date in a way that gives the impression you are developing or are open to developing a romantic relationship, when you are fully aware that you are not interested in that other big half of romantic relationships that your partner is 99.9% likely to expect. Sure, that takes a little more time than the first date, but even on a first date do not be giving that impression. 116 has the right idea. Letting them go on assumptions until the point where you are forced into the big reveal, is lying.

" What offends me about this thread is the assertion that asexuals shouldn't be allowed to date the way other people do."

That's because you are dating under a radically different set of assumptions than 99 percent of your partners. Letting them think their assumptions apply to you, when you know damned well they don't, is lying.

What would you say if the issue was not that you were asexual, but that you were married? Would you have a responsibility to disclose that to your date right up front? Or would it be fine to keep that dark until they got to know you better, maybe fell in love with you enough to want to date you even though you have a spouse?
Posted by avast2006 on October 8, 2013 at 8:27 PM · Report this
122
@DRF:
I don't think that an asexual hast to blurt out his or her asexuality at the first moment of the first date. But fairly early on.

You ignore the one argument that cannot be ignored: not being sexually desired by one's partner, feels like being rejected on a very elemental level.

Others have said that repeatedly on this thread but you seem to ignore it.
Posted by migrationist on October 8, 2013 at 8:30 PM · Report this
123
@122 I haven't ignored it, but it doesn't have much to do with the issue that we're talking about—the timing of disclosure. Then there's the part where there's nothing the asexual partner can do about it. It doesn't come from lack of caring about a partner's feelings or from selfishness. It's like feeling bad about the fact that a guy who's injured and lacks a penis lacks a penis. Oh well.

@121 Avast, the point of this discussion is that a lot of asexuals do want romantic relationships; that's why they're out there dating. Telling someone that they're not allowed to have relationships because there's one part of the relationship that they're going to have to grin and bear is unrealistic.

Being married is not remotely the same as being asexual. A married person should not be dating. A married person has made a promise not to date. Helping someone cheat on a committed partner is immoral. Many people would feel like they'd been made accessory to a crime without their prior knowledge. That's not the case with dating an asexual. No angry spouses, no divorces. At worst, the person spends a few evenings with someone who's trying to be pleasant.
Posted by DRF on October 8, 2013 at 9:10 PM · Report this
124
Sexual exclusivity is NOT the only definition of monogamy. For example, Dan and his husband are romantically monogamous. They've had threesomes, but only have an emotionally intimate, committed, romantic relationship with each other.
Posted by Brie on October 8, 2013 at 9:13 PM · Report this
125
@DRF:
There is a huge difference between someone asexual and someone with abnormal/ not functioning/ missing genitals.

Personally, I could be in an LTR with someone who is lacking the plumbing but shows clear sexual desire for me.

OTOH, I wouldn't be able to be in an LTR with an asexual. The lack of sexual desire for me would undermine my self-esteem, no matter how much I tell myself that the lack of sexual desire is not my fault. This is so elemental it goes beyond rational reassurances.

Yes, it is not the asexual's fault that s/he is asexual, but it is not shallowness on my part that I don't want to put myself in a situation that will damage me.

The lack of plumbing can be overcome- the lack of sexual desire can't be overcome.

No-one is saying that the married partner is cheating. Maybe the marriage is open. In that case, you'd be fine if they disclosed about their marriage only after a few dates?
Posted by migrationist on October 8, 2013 at 9:27 PM · Report this
126
@123: The married person's promise not to date -- if it in fact exists; see #125 re: open marriages -- is made to the spouse, not to you. So you are worried about helping the other person (potentially) be dishonest with a (potentially) unsuspecting spouse whom you don't even know. Hell, whom you don't even know exists. And it's not like you two have had sex yet, either. From your perspective, all you have done is "spend a few evenings with someone who is trying to be pleasant." But you have no problem being the person who is stringing along the person you are actually dating? Good to know. (And by now, predictable.)

For the sake of argument, let's assume the marriage is open. Would you be perfectly happy waiting three or four dates until you had a definite attraction going and sex seemed to be imminent before finding out that your date is married?
Posted by avast2006 on October 8, 2013 at 10:09 PM · Report this
127
@125 If there were any immorality involved, such as cheating, I would want to know right away so that I could refrain from participating. I would feel betrayed if the person waited until after sex had taken place. As for whether or not a married person dating is cheating, I'd say that even if the married person doesn't think that it counts as cheating, the non-married person still might, and (if this is a matter of opinion rather than one of fact) their take on the matter is just as important.

@126 An asexual who goes out on a date because they're interested in forming a romantic relationship is not stringing anyone along. They are using dating for its intended purpose.

I wouldn't be happy spending even one second on a date that violated my moral code in any way, but waiting until after sex would be much, much worse. Sex is a very big threshold to cross. Cards should be on the table before that happens.

Here's another take: If you were out on a date with an asexual, would you feel as though you had done something wrong? Would you feel like you'd hurt someone or hurt society? Would you feel guilty? Would you be ashamed? Would you be at risk of getting fired from your job or losing friends if people found out that you had gone out with an asexual? Any and all those things come into play when someone dates a married person and not when someone dates a partner who turns out to be available but flawed.
Posted by DRF on October 8, 2013 at 10:30 PM · Report this
128
@123, continued: the point of this discussion is that a lot of asexuals do want romantic relationships; that's why they're out there dating. "

You are allowed to have romantic relationships. Just not under false pretenses, and not with people who don't want the same thing as you. That is what I have been saying all along. If you understood me to say you aren't allowed romantic relationships AT ALL, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

"Telling someone that they're not allowed to have relationships because there's one part of the relationship that they're going to have to grin and bear is unrealistic."

Uh, actually, that's how the real world works. If you think you are going to get a romance-only relationship with someone who wants a sexual relationship as part of their romantic relationship, you are going to get dumped hard and often. If you try to hide the fact that sex doesn't interest you until sex is becoming an imminent event, you are going to pick up a reputation as a manipulative liar. If you try to grin and bear it, unless you are such a skilled liar that you can convincingly fake interest and enthusiasm for sex on a regular basis (i.e., once a week at minimum, for years at a stretch), you are going to fuck up the emotional health of your partner -- who WILL see through your ploys and sense your lack of desire, and take it personally -- which is a pretty damned evil thing to knowingly do to someone that you purport to love. Either that or you will be the one who becomes resentful of the constant demand for this thing that you just can't see the value in. If you honestly believe that isn't going to happen, THAT'S being unrealistic. Maybe you had better go back to the beginning of Dan's archives and work your way forward.
More...
Posted by avast2006 on October 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM · Report this
129
DRF @127:
Sorry, why can't you accept that knowing if a prospective partner is asexual is as important to other people as knowing if a prospective partner is married is to you?

Personally, I wouldn't feel cheated but probably very sad if I was seriously interested in someone and they told me they were either married or asexual on the second or third date when I had gotten hopeful that this might lead to something.

Because I am monogamous and sexual myself.
Posted by migrationist on October 8, 2013 at 10:44 PM · Report this
130
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I don't understand why some asexuals apparently have such a strong need for a relationship. You don't desire sex, you desire companionship. No offense, but I think most people can survive a few years without a romantic partner. I don't understand what would make an asexual so desperate for a relationship that they resort to hiding their asexuality out of fear of rejection.

@115 The reason I brought up "the last minute" is because I saw some comments saying that asexuals shouldn't bring up their (lack of) sexuality until the issue of sex actually comes up. Here is a quote from you: "It seems to me that a good time to talk about sexual orientation would be before engaging in any sexual activity."
Posted by TheLastComment on October 9, 2013 at 12:07 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 131
@ EricaP:
The very first time you threatened to bring out “your momma” jokes you were already wasting my time with that crap – there’s no difference between a threat to use a “your momma” joke and the stupid joke itself.

First, it wasn't a threat. I assume you know that, right, and are just exaggerating to make a point?

Second, saying "we're all done talking here, so screw it, I might as well make 'your momma' jokes instead" is the same as making them is ridiculous. Is a spoiler warning a spoiler?

The content of the joke is irrelevant; the point is to irritate someone by referencing their mother.

Content of anything is never irrelevant, and you don't know what the point was, so telling me what I meant is insulting. The point was that making "your momma" jokes is more fun than trying to communicate with DRF, and just as productive.

I haven’t changed my stance, which is that people should disclose early if they have very unusual tastes, but failing to do so is discourteous (to use Square101's term), not immoral.

Ah. I agree with that, but I don't see asexuals as having unusual tastes, so much as not being interested at all. It's not like a kink. Look at how DRF is dodging the question of when a sexual aromantic should disclose to a non-aromantic asexual, and look at how every asexual apologist seems to dismiss out of hand the idea of asexuals dating each other. The latter seems more significant the more often it's dismissed.

As for your last question, the term “first date” has come up 24 times on this thread, so you’ll have to explain more why you find it a non-sequitur. Are you saying we all agree that people don’t have to reveal their asexuality on a first date?

No, I'm saying that the discussion is not and has not been solely about the first date. People deliberately mischaracterizing the pro-honesty side of the thread have consistently claimed it was, but that shouldn't be surprising behavior, given that their whole effort here is to advocate dating-by-deceit.
More...
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 132
@ 130: I don't understand what would make an asexual so desperate for a relationship that they resort to hiding their asexuality out of fear of rejection.

To be fair, there are a lot of cultural reasons why someone could want to be in a relationship even if they don't any particular feelings for any particular person. I haven't usually found it enough to keep me in a relationship I didn't enjoy, but plenty of people (asexual or not) seem to.

But I think it's significant that asexuals apparently won't consider dating other asexuals. Is it just a function of whining about how much that would shrink their dating pool--the same as any other common dealbreaker--or do they know something we don't?
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM · Report this
133
@129 We're not talking about someone not knowing that a potential partner is asexual. We're talking about not knowing right away. The issue is not whether asexuals should disclose; no on here has said that they should not. The issue is when. I hold than an asexual should have the option of hanging in there for a while and getting a chance to impress a potential partner before dropping that bomb. We say the same thing to hardcore kinksters.

@132 If someone's in a romance, then they do have feelings for the partner. Sexual feelings are not the only kind of feelings.

No one's said that asexuals shouldn't date other asexuals, only that they shouldn't be required to only date other asexuals. Frankly, that whole thing's got a very, "Stick to your own kind and stay away from us normal people, you freaks!" vibe that should be turning people off a lot more than it seems to be.
Posted by DRF on October 9, 2013 at 6:23 AM · Report this
134
DRF:
I think an asexual should disclose at the same time you think a married person in an open relationship should disclose their marriage.
Posted by migrationist on October 9, 2013 at 7:20 AM · Report this
135
@131, It's true that from a humor competition perspective, the content of a "your momma" joke matters (btw, yours were lame).

But warning that "I'm going to bring out my 'your momma' jokes" is just as misogynistic as telling a 'your momma' joke. In fact, lazy people use "Oh, your momma!" as an insult all by itself. Because it doesn't matter whether you're calling your target's mother fat, stupid, ugly, or slutty, and it doesn't matter if your wording is especially clever. What matters (as far as misogyny) is that you're erasing a real woman -- and isn't that so hilarious.

Here's an essay that explains it better than I can. Key quote:
>> Are such insults founded in misogyny, I ask Cameron, author of Language and Sexual Politics and Feminism and Linguistic Theory? "Of course they're misogynistic. Not just overtly. If you think about those 'yo momma' remarks that they use in playing the dozens, they're subtly misogynistic in the way they systematically erase the mother. She isn't even present when the insult takes place. She's not even important enough to be the subject of the insult." But isn't her honour being defended when men leap to the defence of their insulted mother? Some sardonic tittering comes down the phone line from Oxford by way of reply. >>
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2006…
Posted by EricaP on October 9, 2013 at 9:27 AM · Report this
136
@135 correction: Deborah Cameron is the author of Language and Sexual Politics and a different book, Feminism and Linguistic Theory. My poorly placed tags made that look like one long title.
Posted by EricaP on October 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 137
@ EricaP: (btw, yours were lame).

Given that you moved immediately to the talking points about why all yo momma jokes are immoral, (any time someone says "Content doesn't matter," they are telling you a lie) I have to apologize for my inability to take your evaluation seriously, since the objectivity of it seems to be questionable at best. Feel free to provide some examples of non-lame ones for comparison, though, if you feel that I am unfairly dismissing your critique.

(I can promise my real-life mother won't mind, should she hear of it; like most real-life adults, she knows what a yo momma joke is, and what it is not. And unlike many, she's unlikely to pretend otherwise for imaginary rhetorical advantage.)

What matters (as far as misogyny) is that you're erasing a real woman -- and isn't that so hilarious.

Nope; there are no real women involved. My fictional relationship with DRF's fictional mother is fictional, as all adults who can read are aware. Similarly, all reasonable adults are aware that fictional events and people are fictional, and not real.

But warning that "I'm going to bring out my 'your momma' jokes" is just as misogynistic as telling a 'your momma' joke.

I was going to say "Let's step back for a moment, though: Each time someone has claimed to know your motivations better than you... were they ever right? Or were they just inventing self-serving fantasies in which people who disagree with them are immoral?"

But really, we're both doing this because making yo momma jokes and calling people misogynists are both more fun than actually talking about asexuals, and that's why we're both participating, so I'm fine with it if you are. But I think it's best not to have any illusions about what's likely to be accomplished--I hope you had as much fun relating Cameron's fantasies about what happens in other people's heads as I had coming up with yo momma jokes. If not, perhaps it's worth changing tack.

The odds of actually convincing anyone of anything in this thread are nil; I think we've had every possible position described ad nauseam. I mean, even DRF is back to pretending that gay people are oppressed by the expectation that they'll date gay people, rather than deceiving straights into relationships with people who aren't attracted to them.
More...
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 9, 2013 at 11:03 AM · Report this
138
@ 134 Both the married person and the asexual have bomb-level dealbreakers that should be disclosed as some point. They are both bringing the potential partner into the possible inconvenience of dating someone whom they will not end up wanting. However, the married person is also bringing the partner into wrongdoing and the asexual person is not, so they should lead with being married. Or just wear the wedding ring. That's they're for: to let people know that they're married without having to say so all the time.

Posted by DRF on October 9, 2013 at 11:22 AM · Report this
139
@137 all "your momma" jokes are misogynistic, just as all blonde jokes are misogynistic, pretty much by definition of the genre. Do you want to argue that one too?

But some are clever:
Yo mama's teeth are so yellow, traffic slows down when she smiles
Yo mama's so dumb, she puts lipstick on her head so she can make-up her mind.
Yo mama's so black she went to night school and they marked her absent.
Yo mama's so poor that when I saw her kicking a can down the street, I asked her what she was doing, and she said 'moving.'
Yo mama's so fat, she doesn't fit in this joke.

more at http://academictips.org/funny-jokes/funn…
Posted by EricaP on October 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM · Report this
140
@138: Nope. You are still talking about wrongdoing. Did you merely fail to see the phrase "a married person in an open relationship," or are you ignoring it deliberately?

If the marriage is open, the spouse has already given their blessing for the new relationship to happen. There is no wrongdoing. At that point it is solely about your reaction to being with someone who is married to someone else. If you would want to know this about them right away -- in other words, to not waste your time with someone who has a characteristic that you know in advance is a dealbreaker for you -- then you equally owe someone advance notice of your asexuality.

Maybe you need to wear an asexuality ring, so the people for whom that's an absolute dealbreaker know to steer clear of you. I'd say that would be a win for both of you.
Posted by avast2006 on October 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM · Report this
141
@140 I do see the "in an open relationship part." I simply don't feel that having permission to do something wrong makes it not wrong. However, for the sake of argument, let's treat morality as relative in this case (which means that we're ignoring the issue of whether cheating on one's spouse is still bad, wrong or harmful even if one has permission—a discussion for another thread). Let's say that the two people in the marriage don't think that dating others is immoral. The people whom they intend to date still might. In this scenario, we're ignoring who's right and who's wrong and instead assuming that everyone's moral systems are equally important.

The married person and the asexual who date people who turn out to have married/asexuality on their dealbreaker lists have inconvenienced their potential partners, but the married person has both inconvenienced the partner and drawn the partner into sin/crime/wrongdoing. Even if the date-ee doesn't personally believe that dating a married person is wrong, he or she could still face consequences, such as losing a job or friends, that do not come into play when one dates an asexual.

Look at it this way. A person who finds out they dated an asexual might feel sad, but a person who finds out they dated a married person would feel guilty.
Posted by DRF on October 9, 2013 at 2:54 PM · Report this
142
DRF, I don't think asexuals are freaks, and I don't think they should stick to their own kind. I feel like you may be projecting your feelings about yourself onto everyone else. You described asexuality as being more like a hardcore kink, such as rape fetishism, than a sexual orientation. I watch rape porn a lot, and I consider myself kind of freaky for doing so. I imagine if I was asexual I wouldn't consider myself freaky.

I would find your position easier to understand if I understood what advantage an asexual has by not disclosing their asexuality early. What good does that do for an asexual person? If I was asexual, it would hurt my confidence to know that someone was only dating me because they believe I am something I'm not, even if only at first. I would rather date somebody open minded enough to give a chance to an asexual.

The idea seems to be that if a sexual person gets to know an asexual person before discovering their sexuality, they will be less likely to reject them. I have a question: is that really true? Maybe I'm naive but I would by a little surprised if this worked very well for asexuals. Are dealbreakers really this flexible?

One more thing. Your insistence that open marriages are immoral is bizarre. It makes me think you don't value honesty at all. The thing that makes cheating immoral is the lying and hurt it causes, right? If both partners are honest about extra-marital sex, there is no lying or hurt, so what could POSSIBLY be immoral about it?
Posted by TheLastComment on October 9, 2013 at 3:23 PM · Report this
143
@142, If monogamy is difficult but valuable (to people like DRF), then one can want society to dole out harsh punishments for non-monogamy (even if ethical non-monogamy).

About dealbreakers-- here's another kind of dealbreaker... Crossdressing men are also told to reveal it very early, in order to find women who appreciate that in a guy. But there aren't many women who appreciate crossdressing, so most crossdressers hide it early on in a relationship. Some reveal it before marriage, some only when they get caught. After the secret comes out, more women do stay than would have agreed to date a crossdresser on that first date. So, yes, dealbreakers can become less of an automatic reason to walk away, over time.

On the other hand, crossdressers are arguably hiding something that is a private hobby, which arguably doesn't affect their spouse. That's not true for asexuals.
Posted by EricaP on October 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM · Report this
144
@142 Legit question. I've said this earlier, but whoever starts talking about sex, especially on a first date, is at a disadvantage. Whoever meets a new person for the first time and immediately dives into their sexual dos and don'ts is going to sound creepy and obsessed with sex, whether they're a kinkster or asexual or not.

Anyone with a potential dealbreaker, like asexuality, a sex-impairing physical problem, infertility, or a scary kink is going to get rejected out of hand a lot, even by people who might not make the same decision if they knew more about the person's personality, compatibility and other mitigating factors.

In short, it is best for the asexual to wait to disclose because that allows the asexual to make a good impression on a potential partner. It's to find those people in the middle, the ones who'd reject the stranger-asexual but not the not-a-stranger-asexual. "Well, I'd never date a guy who had a DUI ten years ago. Go away now! How dare you date me?" becomes "Oh, I've been dating Harry for a little while. Turns out he got a DUI ten years ago. That's not a big deal." As to whether this really happens when asexuals are out there dating, you'd have to ask some asexuals who've tried it. The question that you and I can address is whether or not they have the right to try. They do.

And by rape fetishism, I was thinking about this guy from the recent "Not Gonna Happen" letter. He does not like non-kinky sex. By asexuals who are willing to go along with sex to please a partner, I was thinking about the guy's wife.

As for whether open marriages are wrong, there's so much to say about that issue that I'd rather save it for another thread. This one's about to age out anyway.
More...
Posted by DRF on October 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM · Report this
145
Monogamy does not have to mean "sexual exclusivity."

"Monogamy is a form of marriage in which an individual has only one spouse during their lifetime or at any one time."

I have a family member, and also a good friend, both of whom are asexual. My friend was in a committed, monogamous relationship with an equally asexual partner for many loving years until that partner's death.

Relationships don't need to be defined entirely by who, or whether, you fuck, Mr. Savage. Asexual people can be monogamous regardless of the fact that they don't have sex.

I agree that it's unfair to not reveal that you are asexual to a person you're dating who is not. I can get that.

But the bit about monogamy being based solely on sex seems to be a little surprising to me.
Posted by CoyoteConscious on October 9, 2013 at 5:32 PM · Report this
146
I think asexuals are fooling themselves if they think that a sexual person just needs a chance to get to know how great the asexual is in other ways, and then the sexual person will totally enjoy a long-term, rewarding, romantic relationship with the asexual.

Seriously, this argument is laughable.

What pretty much everyone wants in a romantic partner at a bare minimum is someone who feels sexual desire for one. Stating over and over again that given time, a person might decide she'd rather be in a relationship with someone who does not sexually desire her but tells awesome jokes or something is just stupid.

Also, someone expressing interest on a first date in eventually having sex isn't "creepily obsessed with sex". That person is maybe somewhat indelicate. But I can see how a normal person might seem creepily obsessed with sex to an asexual. Consider this: we're pretty much all like that. Might be better to stay away.
Posted by tau on October 9, 2013 at 6:19 PM · Report this
147
@146 None of the first dates I've been on have involved discussions about sex.

An asexual might not think that sex will stop being important to a non-asexual, but they might think that it's better to be rejected as a whole person than as a label. And don't forget that layer of people out there who aren't asexual but don't need sex as much as other people do. Someone like that might be open to a relationship with an asexual whom they'd gotten to know a little bit. For most of these subtle distinctions, the only real way through is to get out there and interact in person.
Posted by DRF on October 9, 2013 at 7:36 PM · Report this
148
@147 I'm not sure why you think the lack of discussions about sex on your first dates is even relevant. "This has never happened on a first date involving me, therefore anyone who does it is creepily obsessed with sex."

LOL.

Asexuals can delude themselves that they are being rejected as a whole person rather than because of the sex, but it's a delusion. It doesn't matter if it happens on the first date or on the tenth date or after a year.

Anyways, in my own days of dating, my (very effective) screening tool for asexuals and people with hangups about sex and people who were not very sexually interested in me and people I was not that sexually interested in was that I would not keep seeing a person for more than a few dates if we had not had mutually enthusiastic sex. Problem solved.
Posted by tau on October 10, 2013 at 5:30 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 149
@ 139: lol. "Yo mama so fat she bought a fur coat and the whole species went extinct."

The history major sitting next to me: "Yo mama so fat she went swimming and Amerigo Vespucci tried to claim her for Spain."

My preferred flavor of yo momma joke, though, is the kind that isn't actually saying anything negative.
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 10, 2013 at 5:54 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 150
@ 140: Maybe you need to wear an asexuality ring, so the people for whom that's an absolute dealbreaker know to steer clear of you. I'd say that would be a win for both of you.

Doesn't it seem like DRF has accidentally endorsed that?

@ 142: Your insistence that open marriages are immoral is bizarre. It makes me think you don't value honesty at all.

In his defense, that has been his position from the start. Points for consistency, in that respect. It's sort of how certain kinds of conservatives find discourse on rape to be nonsensical, when they don't really understand that consent is a thing.

@ 143: On the other hand, crossdressers are arguably hiding something that is a private hobby, which arguably doesn't affect their spouse. That's not true for asexuals.

I think this is one of the key points here. Asexual apologists keep having to elide the distinction between traits which don't affect their partner, and traits which do.

@145: "Monogamy is a form of marriage in which an individual has only one spouse during their lifetime or at any one time."

This isn't correct.

But the bit about monogamy being based solely on sex seems to be a little surprising to me.

That is how the word "monogamy" is typically used in this country, and all others with which I am familiar; the definition above is bizarre. If you reread Dan's post reading "monogamy" the way he (and everyone else, as far as I knew) means it, it will make more sense.
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 10, 2013 at 6:28 AM · Report this
151
DRF:
People will lose their jobs for going on dates with married people, even if they don't know that their dates are married? I find that hard to believe, unless their employer is the Catholic church.
But then, the President of my country is a married, but separated Lutheran pastor who takes his domestic partner to official functions.
Posted by migrationist on October 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM · Report this
152
@149, I see that you're trying to thread that needle: "my jokes were about sluttiness, but I'm sex positive, so I wasn't actually insulting DRF's mother."

You can pretend that you were giving DRF's mother a compliment, but that's just your own defensiveness at work. You don't have any reason to think she would appreciate you calling her a slut on the internet, and you insisting that she ought to like it doesn't help your cause.

The structure of the joke requires an insult. Or at least, if there is a "your momma" joke which is funny without being insulting, I've never seen it. Here are some un-funny ones:

Yo mama's so pretty, I had to scrub my dick just to feel worthy
Yo mama’s so sweet that I kissed her cheek and got diabetes.
Yo mama's so good, the Pope confesses to her.
Yo mama’s so nice that if her cell phone rings in a movie theater, someone pauses the movie for her.

Though searching on "yo mama's so nice" also leads to things like:
Yo mama's so nice, she blew me for a nickel when I didn't have $2.00.
Posted by EricaP on October 10, 2013 at 10:08 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 153
@ 152: You can pretend that you were giving DRF's mother a compliment, but that's just your own defensiveness at work.

Again: When people who disliked you self-servingly decided to invent hidden motives for something you did, which not-coincidentally made them feel that they were better people than you, how often were they correct?

Do you understand what a reasonable person extrapolates from those results?

But then there's the really weird sentence:

You don't have any reason to think she would appreciate you calling her a slut on the internet,

Again, you're leaning heavily on the pretense that neither of us knows what a yo momma joke actually is. I do, however, and I suspect that you do as well. Unless you believe that your having posted #139 makes you a fervent misogynist?

But what's more important, I suspect, is that your argument is based on presuming that slut-shaming is and should be accepted. I did not expect either of those to be the case here.

and you insisting that she ought to like it

That never happened, and we both know this. What were you expecting to gain by the falsehood? It seems out of character for you.

...doesn't help your cause.

Any chance you'll explain what you imagine my cause to be?

The structure of the joke requires an insult.

Ah, there's where you went wrong; the structure of the joke causes the reader to expect an insult. But now with this previous sentence, I've explained too much of the punch line, which is never good for jokes. Alas.
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM · Report this
154
I didn't say you were "a fervent misogynist", I just pointed out that you used misogynistic jokes, and, yes, of course I did too, @139. If the topic were racism, I'd point out that the jokes I posted were racist as well, given the association between yo mama jokes and "the dozens."

If I were posting material without realizing that it would be seen by others as misogynistic, homophobic, racist, or whatever, I would appreciate someone letting me know. Mr. Ven often lets me know when I'm erasing gay or bi people by being heterocentric, and I appreciate his admonitions.
Posted by EricaP on October 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM · Report this
155
@151 Even if someone doesn't get fired outright, it can create bad feelings and damage careers and reputations.

How many times have we heard, "But I didn't know! Really!" and gone "Suuuuuure you didn't"?

@148 Of course not. I was merely offering a counterexample to your assertion in comment 146 that talking about sex right away is not unusual. I've never seen it happen.

"Delusion"? That's only true if asexuality is the only possible reason why an asexual might be rejected. Maybe the two people turn out to have different political opinions. Maybe they think different things are funny. Maybe one's a dog person and the other's a cat person. Maybe they have widely different plans for the future. Maybe the sexual person doesn't happen to be attracted to the asexual.
Posted by DRF on October 10, 2013 at 11:42 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 156
Fair enough; it seems I was making the same mistake of judging by format and association rather than by the particulars of content. For that, I'm sorry.
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 10, 2013 at 11:46 AM · Report this
Eudaemonic 157
(156 was intended for EricaP; I failed to include "@154," as I'd assumed nobody else was still reading the thread by now.)
Posted by Eudaemonic on October 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 158
@123: "Avast, the point of this discussion is that a lot of asexuals do want romantic relationships; that's why they're out there dating. Telling someone that they're not allowed to have relationships because there's one part of the relationship that they're going to have to grin and bear is unrealistic."

You appear to be confusing companionship with romance.
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 10, 2013 at 6:56 PM · Report this
159
"one part of the relationship that they're going to have to grin and bear"

It's not enough to "grin and bear" the sex itself. Sexual people don't just want the sex act, they want to be wanted, sexually. And an asexual isn't going to be able to offer them that.
Posted by EricaP on October 10, 2013 at 8:59 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 160
@159: Let me rephrase, they're confusing codependency with romance.
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 10, 2013 at 9:10 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 161
I felt like that post was "mean", then thought about it, and wondered about the inverse of recommending someone "grin and bear" a lifestyle they didn't want to participate in. What if someone told the asexual to "grin and bear" sex and live that lie to its fullest extent? The thought is not as pretty or convenient as put forth.

I don't know what being an asexual is like, and perhaps I'll eventually talk to someone in person who dedicates themselves lifelong. I've had friends self-classify in the past, but eventually they've found partners of a more romantic situation so I can't re-check with them years down the line. Anecdotes, I know, but it leads to a relative lack of perspective.
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 11, 2013 at 7:20 AM · Report this
162
@161 If they don't want to participate in a long-term relationship with an asexual, then they shouldn't have a long-term relationship with an asexual. The issue under discussion here is whether or not the asexual has to disclose right away. That's not "living a lie." That's discretion.

In most relationships, one partner does something that's not to his or her taste to please the other. In these cases, that would be sex.

@159 EricaP, if there are people who don't want sex at all, then perhaps there are people who want sex but don't need exactly what you've described, who would be content with I'm-doing-it-for-you if the partner was to their liking in enough other ways. These people would be even harder to label than fully identified asexuals, so the best way to find them would be to go out on dates and look.
Posted by DRF on October 11, 2013 at 4:26 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 163
@162: This isn't a quirky kink, this is a base sexual preference (aka none, please.)
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 164
"there are people who want sex but don't need exactly what you've described, who would be content with I'm-doing-it-for-you if the partner was to their liking in enough other ways. These people would be even harder to label than fully identified asexuals"

Is that even asexual? Sounds more plain apathetic.
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM · Report this
165
@164 More like a lower drive than most people.

@163 Freudian slip? It's hardly base. It might be basic. The issue is that because it is 1. not something that disqualifies someone from being in a relationship and 2. something that might put the asexual at a disadvantage if disclosed too early that would not be the case if disclosed later, asexuals should not be required to disclose right away.
Posted by DRF on October 12, 2013 at 1:50 PM · Report this
166
The kinkster analogy is not nearly as good as DRF likes to think. There is a fundamental difference between the two:

Kinkster: "There is this essential thing about my sexuality, but if you get to know me well enough first, you may be enthusiastic enough about me as a person to indulge my kink."
Asexual: "There is this essential thing about my sexuality, but if you get to know me well enough, you may be enthusiastic enough about me as a person to be content with starving sexually yourself."

It would take an asexual or near-asexual to equate the two, since it requires completely devaluing sex to think that asking someone to put up with sexual malnutrition is not a big deal.

It would also take an asexual to fail to understand how soul-crushing it is to sexually desire your romantic partner and not be sexually desired in return. No, actually: servicing your partner is not a substitute for desiring your partner, unless you are such a hell of a good liar that they can't tell you are faking.
Posted by avast2006 on October 12, 2013 at 1:51 PM · Report this
167
For what it's worth, I would say the exact same thing about a kinkster whose kink is so deeply ingrained that the only way they can enjoy sex is doing it the kinky way. In that case, they have no business getting involved with a largely vanilla person, because the vanilla person will be stuck always indulging the kinkster while never getting the vanilla sort of sexual affirmation that feeds them.

You have no business looking in the general dating pool and attempting to hook just anybody if you already know this about yourself (e.g., that for you only kink will do). The general dating pool is going in with some pretty common expectations for a relationship that you personally are incapable of fulfilling. It is dishonest of you to give the impression that you are capable of it when you know up front that you aren't.

Frabnkly, I would call that sort of kinkster a selfish, maladjusted shit.
Posted by avast2006 on October 12, 2013 at 2:02 PM · Report this
168
@165: "Freudian slip? It's hardly base. It might be basic."

Your thesaurus is not as comprehensive as you think.
Posted by avast2006 on October 12, 2013 at 2:06 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 169
@165 "More like a lower drive than most people."

Low sex drive is NOT ASEXUAL. Unless you're trying to somehow conflate "low" with "no", in which case your inability to prove your case without deception.

"it is 1. not something that disqualifies someone from being in a relationship and 2. something that might put the asexual at a disadvantage if disclosed too early that would not be the case if disclosed later, asexuals should not be required to disclose right away."

Whether it is something that's a disqualification for a relationship is up to the potential partner.

It should be an acceptable disqualification is the party is specifically looking for romance and sex and the only way that the other can get their foot in the door is through deception.

You're helping nobody. All you're doing is extending both parties' anticipation and crushing dissatisfaction through dishonesty. This isn't "I don't like sex in your particular manner (demanding or not) but we can both find compromise", this is "I will not have sex with you".

Asexuality is a kink how baldness is a hair color.
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 12, 2013 at 2:52 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 170
"Freudian slip?"

Ah Internet, never stop these delightfully smug failures to correct.
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 12, 2013 at 2:57 PM · Report this
171
@169 I was saying that someone with a low sex drive might be more amenable to entering a LTR with an asexual than someone with an ordinary sex drive. Because people with low sex drives are even harder to label than asexuals, they are even harder to find.

Refraining from disclosing absolutely everything right away is not deception. It is discretion. Waiting until after the wedding vows could be construed as underhanded, but waiting until you know this person well enough to tell what they're going to do with the information is just prudent.

base (adjective, archaic) morally low, meanspirited, degenerate or valueless (This word was often applied to sexual desires in a sex-negative way, as in "one's baser needs.")
basic (adjective, modern) fundamental

Kinkster: There is something different about my sexuality. It might even be a deal-breaker, but you're the only one who can tell me so. I figured it was too big of a bomb to drop right away. I wanted you to get to know me well enough to decide whether I was worth the trouble. I promise I will do my best to meet your needs.

Asexual: There is something different about my sexuality. It might even be a deal-breaker, but you're the only one who can tell me so. I figured it was too big of a bomb to drop right away. I wanted you to get to know me well enough to decide whether I was worth the trouble. I promise I will do my best to meet your needs.
Posted by DRF on October 12, 2013 at 6:16 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 172
@171: I'm sorry you don't own a dictionary. They're pretty cheap, but you can even find them online these days.

"Because people with low sex drives are even harder to label than asexuals, they are even harder to find."

I find that doubtful.
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 12, 2013 at 6:36 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 173
"There is something different about my sexuality."

Yes, it is not present. Give me a goddamned break. It's like saying Atheists believe in the God Atheos. Er, no. a lack of sex is not a preference for a type of sex. It's not sex at all.
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 12, 2013 at 6:42 PM · Report this
174
It means that they relate to sex differently. A kinkster hopes that a partner will indulge him or her. An asexual hopes that a partner will be content with being indulged. For either to have a successful relationship, they must be committed to making the (presumably vanilla) partner happy, which may mean different things depending on the partner.

@171 Actually, some of them are free: Dictionary.com. Here's a link to the entry for "base." Hit CTRL-F and type in "value." When you refer to asexuality as "base," one could infer that you think that it is valueless or meanspirited. This is borne out in the rest of your comments, so I'm not sure why you're objecting to the suggestion that that is what you really meant on some level.

Posted by DRF on October 12, 2013 at 7:35 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 175
An asexual doesn't relate to sex by very definition.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference between a noun and an adjective. Try reading more and correcting people less.
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 12, 2013 at 8:09 PM · Report this
176
@175 Actually, asexuals do relate to sex; they just don't enjoy it the way other people do. Anyone in a relationship with a sexual person must develop a relationship with sex too.

This isn't a quirky kink, this is a base sexual preference

Sentence structure indicates that "base" is being used as an adjective. Assuming parallel construction, "base" and "sexual" both match up with "quirky," which is an adjective without a noun form (for that spelling). Even if parallel construction is not being used here, in general, it doesn't make sense to go noun-adjective-noun. The placement of two cumulative adjectives before a noun is much more common in English.

It's your post and you're the final authority on what you meant when you said something, but it is reasonable and legitimate for a reader to think that "base" is being used as an adjective here.

Also, the sentence is run-on.
Posted by DRF on October 12, 2013 at 9:35 PM · Report this
undead ayn rand 177
Are you trolling or seriously this passionately dense about every subject you discuss?
Posted by undead ayn rand on October 12, 2013 at 9:59 PM · Report this
178
177: I think we've identified the base problem, anyway.
Posted by avast2006 on October 13, 2013 at 2:17 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy