Go to hell, Dan Savage!

[ThePieMaker]

I still enjoy most of Dan Savage's stuff. I think he's hilarious, but it just isn't so funny when it's incredibly misinformed and aimed at something you identify as. I guess I just don't enjoy being told I have no right to seek out a relationship.

[that_american_kid]

Dan who? Is that that kid from the Wonder years? :lol:

No, I think that was Fred.

As to his reply to that letter, it wasn't amazing but I think we've all heard worse. He isn't really positive about it, but he also ends with the observation that who is he to argue with their success, which is a good point. And if he makes a living being kind of a jackass, then I'm sure his first thought was how to be funny, not whether asexuals would mind what he was saying.

[Guest EGDingCale'sTeapot]

I guess I think we all know someone can be on the air and be misinformed.. and not care that they are spreading misinformation.

*accepts this*

I guess what is hard for me, is if I had heard this... heard this before finding this site, it might on a certain day have really crushed me.

I know that some people found this site when they were younger, and maybe they can't imagine what it's like to be 30 and not know. Or 40 or 50 or 60 and not know that there are others like you... and that there is actually a viable way like this (points at site) to find people and get to interact with them...

I used to think the things Savage said to the caller were true--that if you weren't interested in sex then don't expect any sympathy (like how he thought they guy's disinterest "cruel" to his partner)... and that a person like that wasn't really entitled to have love/romance then.

It kind of was a painful reminder of how negative my head had gotten before finding this site.

[/awkward ramble]

[-V-]

In today's podcast someone calls up and explains to him that there are romantic and aromantic asexuals, I doubt many avenites will like what he has to say but many us are very sensitive. He does at least thank the caller for educating him about it.

[Guest EGDingCale'sTeapot]

In today's podcast someone calls up and explains to him that there are romantic and aromantic asexuals, I doubt many avenites will like what he has to say but many us are very sensitive. He does at least thank the caller for educating him about it.

Aww, awesome to hear that, V!

I hope whoever called in kept their cool.

_________________________________

edit: okay I just listened. (for anyone else who goes to listen it is the last call on episode 140).

Um, I think Dan thinks people would know that they are "asexual" before they enters the dating world (for why he gets so judgy/critical about asexuals/asexuality)... Or just that we would maybe figure it out pretty soon. (for me, I figured I would be a late bloomer... *laughs*)

That or maybe he dated someone who wasn't that interested in sex/or that interested in him sexually because he did refer to the asexual community as the asexual asshole community. *laughs but also :nono's: him*

Oh well, ratings ratings.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Dan who? Is that that kid from the Wonder years? :lol:

Boy am I gonna lose sleep tonight because Dan thinks asexuality is bogus.

Great post!

People, people - If you don't want to see slugs don't go looking under rocks.

Well, it was in one of Seattle's major weekly newspaper blogs. A fairly evident rock.

I don't give a fat flying you-know-what what Dan Savage thinks; I care that he's spreading misinformation about an orientation (my orientation) that already has many misconceptions and/or is just plain unknown.

[Olivier]

I only rarely read Dan Savage, but basically he seems to to have two main lines to his schtick:

1) Give frank to the point of non-PC advice. Don't spare people's feelings if it means papering over the truth - especially when it comes to the advice that someone's partner may be worth dumping. I've read him being abrasive to people of all orientations. It's what he does for a living.

2) His personal crusade to get every last closeted gay man out.

So here we have an error (all asexuals are aromantic) which it's worth correcting and someone has, which is good. And then we have him saying that a sexual may be "a fool or a fag" for accepting a sexless relationship. As far as "a fool" goes, see (1) above. As far as "a fag" goes, see (2).

I think the advice that pursuing a sexless a/s relationship may be foolish for a sexual is fair advice. It may be, and that's worth considering, even if he decides that's not the case for his relationship.

Many years ago, a friend of ours announced his engagement to a spectacularly unsuitable partner. My wife and I took him aside and said "We'll only say this once, then drop it, but are you fucking insane?". When they were divorced within two years (for all the reasons we'd warned him about) he said "I really appreciate that you just said what you meant back then - if only more people had, it might have been harder to stay in denial about our problems". Dan Savage performs a similar role, I think.

[Siggy]

I don't really see what's so wrong about his response. So he's snarky. Hey, so am I sometimes. So he doesn't think that asexual-sexual relationships are likely to work. Well, geez, that's something that even people here might argue about. And if you missed it, he did acknowledge that romantic relationships without sex can work for some people.

[ThePieMaker]

Hhahahahaha, I loved his response on EP 140. It made me die of laughter... because he totally has a point there.

[Kiki Asexual Superstar]

I am concerned about someone who has a column like that talking about asexuals in a dismissive way. You would think that someone who is in a sexual minority would be a little more sympathetic. it's not that long ago that someone who was gay was told that they were defective and broken, even that their very orientation was a mental illness. With visibility came the breakdown of stereotypes. I really hope we get to the point where people like him will be embarrassed that he perpetuated stereotypes of asexuals the way previous generations are now embarrassed about commonly-held racial and sexual stereotypes.

However, that being said, there are many people who express political and social opinions that I find personally offensive. Knowledge brings light to uninformed opinions. I think we have to be more visible in a positive light. Positive Information and visibility will counter those types of opinions. Our time is coming and I happy to be part of the revolution. :)

[ThePieMaker]

Hhahahahaha, I loved his response on EP 140. It made me die of laughter... because he totally has a point there.

Because I've always thought it was a dick move to go into a relationship without telling the person... if you know. If you don't know yet, however, no need to get pissy at the person. I'm sure they were shocked as well. Hell, I've been on one date in my life and I even told the person, because I feel it's the polite and neccessary thing to do. Anyways, I have no problem with his response, I'm glad he was open to the new knowledge. Points have been restored.

[Siggy]

Yeah, I thought the response on Episode 140 was hilarious too. I especially liked the joke about asexuals "splintering" up into groups. And of course, he also has a good point about being honest with any potential partners.

[Kin]

I don't know about the rest of you, but the comments are more depressing to me than his reply. xD

[Sally]

I don't know about the rest of you, but the comments are more depressing to me than his reply. xD

I couldn't stand to read all of them. But comments on these blogs related to sex are usually awful.

[bitterforsweet]

I don't see any making fun, though. The writer didn't say her boyfriend was asexual, she said she was asexual and her sexual boyfriend was okay with being in an asexual relationship with her. Like it or not, that sort of does call into question his orientation. You have to realize that for most sexual people, that would be a total deal-breaker. I know that we're all used to thinking of that outcome as a sort of fairytale happy ending, but I don't think Dan's really at fault for having a different take on it.

So now calling someone a 'fag' for being accepting of their partner's orientation is considered having a different take on things? Because I always thought that was called ignorance.

This guy is a prick. How insecure do you have to be to pick on people because they don't want to have sex?

[Ace Amoeba]

Whoever this dude is, he's just being controversial for the sake of being controversial, like a shock jock thing. Controversy creates cash people. Too bad for him that newspapers are failing all over the country, so I could see how something so huge on the internet, the thing that will ultimately cost him his livelihood, would make him angry. Advertising just aren't willing to pay what they used to for space, and with good reason as readership is WAY DOWN. Since Asexuality is so huge on the internet, this guy must see it as some threat to his source of income, which is already meager at best judging by newspapers in general.

Doing a little research, this man had David Jay of AVEN guest write his column years back, so it would seem he's being willfully ignorant about Asexuality. He knows exactly what it is, but he simply doesn't like it and his rage towards Asexuality is clouding his mind.

As far as the notion of disclosing one's Asexuality at the beginning of a relationship, I would feel it to be just as important to disclose one's sexual nature as well. It seems like this particular relationship was going on for awhile without sex, so it was more like an asexual relationship than a sexual one at that point. So why all of a sudden did this girlfriend want sex where it wasn't a problem before?

[Flour Confessor]

So now calling someone a 'fag' for being accepting of their partner's orientation is considered having a different take on things? Because I always thought that was called ignorance.

This guy is a prick. How insecure do you have to be to pick on people because they don't want to have sex?

I thought about giving a great big "NUH UH!" reply but your Tegan and Sara avatar has melted my heart. :lol:

Anyway, unless you're really familiar with Dan Savage, I agree, it would appear that he pulled a major dick move suggesting that a sexual might be a fag for remaining relationship-ed with an asexual. But as someone already eloquently explained above, Dan's MO is politically incorrect, tough love, jolt-you-out-of-your-funk kind of advice giving, and he's been "taking back" the word fag for as long as I can remember. Believe it or not, when Dan Savage calls you a fag (or a pussy, or a scrotum, or a motherfucker), it's a term of endearment. I'm willing to accept that this wouldn't appeal to some people and as such they wouldn't be Savage fans, but that really is just the way the man writes his column. (And records his podcast.)

[zoidberger]

I've been reading some of these posts and I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents... I used to read the Savage Love section on the back of our school paper every week religiously. No matter who was right or wrong, to Dan Savage, someone is always a "fag"...etc. etc.

As Flourchild has said, this is just who he is. His column is not really for love advice but more for the humour in his response to a huge spectrum of problems or thoughts on the matter of sex (of course it may not be your sense or style of humour). He is openly close-minded, in your face and rude. That's just his thing, and everyone gets insulted!

Anyway, I just wanted to say that knowing Dan Savage's normal responses to ANY letter, that response is SO incredibly mild. I basically took it to mean that he was was astounded that someone would give up their sexual nature for someone... and coming from a sex-addict, it's probably a reasonable reaction in his point of view. He didn't say anything about not believing in asexiness, just that it simply wouldn't work for him.

(Note: I haven't listened to the podcasts, so this only my opinion in reference to the letter posted.)

[Zippelia]

If anyone wants to see a more thoughtful side of Dan Savage, check out This American Life Episode 379 (third act). It's a pretty moving account of his mother dying and him trying to come to terms with his feelings about the Catholic church.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Epis...aspx?sched=1294

Also, w/ respect to the use of "fag" in his column, for several years, one of his column's trademarks was that every letter written to him began with the salutation "Hey Faggot." It was sort of a way of claiming that term, I suppose, but he eventually tired of it and dropped it IIRC.

He's definitely snarky. I think he believes that all humans are at root sexual beings, and his advice certainly was a bit callous in this case. But he's not a "shock jock", a moron, or a person who in general takes delight in being a dick. You may not like him, but he's more complex than some of the comments here would have it.

[mindlife]

"attracted to me" is not the same as "attracted to sexual activity."

The girl should be asking an asexual, not Dan Savage.

There are many asexuals who are romantic.

Fucking is not part of the deal.

[mindlife]

The indication is that she is a non-believer who needs the validation of another non-believer. And I'm sure Savage satisfied her.

I don't think the asexual label is being misused. This is just a cop-out from a gay man to us, to cover his powerful incredulity.

And yes, I really think he doesn't believe we exist.

[mindlife]

Yeah, I thought the response on Episode 140 was hilarious too. I especially liked the joke about asexuals "splintering" up into groups. And of course, he also has a good point about being honest with any potential partners.

Splintering?

No. I think the overall characteristic, the lack of attraction to sexual activity and contact, remains an essential feature of asexuals and exists across the board.

[Siggy]

mindlife, did you listen to the episode? The splintering thing was a joke. He said he was happy to know that it's not just the gays who split themselves up into subgroups. I laughed, anyways.

Also, it is not clear which girl you are talking about in post #51 and 52.

[Bluecow]

Before tonight I had never heard of Mr. Savage. Now, I have nothing nice to say about him. I'm glad I'm making his life miserable because his comments made me miserable.

[Shaded]

I sent him an email as well! When I read that I was really offended *searches around for the email*

I can't find it :/

It basically said that it was offensive and that maybe he didn't know or care what he was talking about. I gave him some references, but I made clear how terrible what he was saying sounded.

I'm still waiting for a response.

It wasn't that was Dan said bothered me all that much. Of course i was offended and could tell he didn't care about who he could be offending and that he was obviously ignorant to the subject. I sent the email even when I've never done it before, because there are people who look up to him and take his opinion seriously. For him to fuel the fire and speak like this to all these people was almost insulting and no doubt terrible

*sigh*

[Shaded]

I'd also like to add that I Hate hate hate the word fag. But more than that I hate when gay people say it, and than get ofended when someone calls them a fag. They make it alright and I think it's terrible. It's like when African Americans call each other the 'n' word. UGH, I hate it. I fight everyday at my catholic high school to get a GSA to stop the homophobia, and people do things like this. Sheesh.

Rant over :D

[Sally]

Oh hell. Here he is again, not being quite as nasty as he has been, but still patronizing.

I gave one of my one-line definitions of asexuality after someone decided that the woman writing should investigate taking testosterone. Which of course didn't/won't do any good. I wish the letter to Dan hadn't been as wishy-washy and confusing. But anyway.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/10/6706371-sl-letter-of-the-day-pull-up-a-chair




2015 Edit - For future reference:

SL Letter of the Day: Pull Up a Chair...
by Dan Savage • Feb 10, 2011 at 4:27 pm

I have been a long time admirer of your work but your February 3, 2011 column disappointed me. I recognize that asexuality is a rather new concept and that the asexual experience is not one that is widely understood so I hope that it is misinformation and lack of understanding that led to your response to NSNA.

Terming individuals who are not asexual and who experience a sex drive that is on par with the majority of individuals as “normally sexual” individuals and those who fall in the asexual or gray-a (in-between asexual and sexual, similar to NSNA’s description of their experience) spectrum as “abnormally sexual” is unhelpful and pathologizes those individuals. As a member of the LGBT community yourself, I am sure that you have had the experience of your sexual identity being labeled as “abnormal” and you realize how this feels and recognize the effect that this sort of labeling can have on a sexual minority when done on a large scale.

I'm going to break in here for a second.

I didn't describe anyone as "abnormally sexual" in my response to NSNA, and it was NSNA who, after describing himself as "minimally sexual," used the phrase "normally sexual" to describe folks with an average/normative interest in sexual activity. I did use "normally sexual" in my response, echoing NSNA, but I never "termed" anyone "abnormally sexual." So, like, what's with the quotation marks?

As for my own sexuality, I'm willing concede that my thing for tall, shaggy-haired guys is non-normative, because, like, my desire to make out with TSHGs is hardly the norm for members of my sex. (It's hardly the norm for my fellow homos.) But I wouldn't describe my own sexuality as "abnormal"—nor would I describe yours as abnormal, dear reader, because the dictionary defines "abnormal" as "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable." For the record: I don't believe there's anything undesirable about either my sex drive or your lack of same—so long, of course, as you're upfront about it and don't enter into a relationship with a normally averagely sexual person without disclosing the fuck out of your lack-o-interest in fucking. Just as I shouldn't marry a woman without first letting her know I wasn't that into her, an asexual shouldn't marry a sexual without telling him she isn't that into it.

Back to your letter...

On a related note, when reading the column I could not help but think of the questioning, asexual, gray-a, or differently sexual youths who might read your column and will believe your statement that being in a relationship with someone whose sexual identity is not 100% compatible would be harmful, vindictive, selfish, or destructive of them. When you look at the history of the LGBT community and the guilt and self hatred that marked many of its members’ existence when they believed that their identity was abnormal, deleterious, and that being in a relationship with someone (whether they were compatible in terms of orientation and sex drive or not) would be a hardship or harmful to the other person involved, you can see that asexuals are already set up for a similar, though certainly smaller scale, path of self-hatred and shame. This is particularly true if someone were to take to heart your suggestion that any asexual/gray-a would “take a perverse pleasure in depriving someone else of sex, constantly rejecting that person’s advances, and ultimately destroying their [partner’s] confidence.”

Perfect compatibility is not required—I've never suggested that. No one ever finds a perfect match, no one gets anywhere near 100% of what they want. I have no beef with asexuals having relationships, or having relationships with sexuals—so long as the sexual was informed in advance of making any serious commitment. An asexual who discloses has nothing to be ashamed of, just as a gay man who enters into a companionate marriage with a woman who 1. knows he's gay and 2. wants to marry him anyway has nothing to be ashamed of.

Anyone involved in the asexual community is aware of the difficulty of asexual/gray-a individuals finding asexual/gray-a boyfriends/girlfriends/partners. A quick glance at Acebook (the asexual dating website) tells you that most asexual individuals prefer asexual partners but simply can not find them. According to a recent British survey, 1% of the population is asexual. Factor in the lack of asexual visibility and education (which leads to people not discovering their asexual identity until later in life, if at all), the percentage of that percentage of individuals who fall under an individual’s gender/age preference, geographic location, religious/political compatibility, let alone the questions of attraction to their personality, and you have a very small amount of people, if any at all, who are potential, compatible partners. Finding an asexual partner is possible, but rather difficult. Also, people tend to fall in love with people whether they are compatible or not. And if their incompatible partner decides to pursue a relationship with them, both recognize that compromise must be negotiated.

Thankfully we live at a time of rising awareness of asexuality. There may not be that many asexuals out there to choose from, dear reader, and asexuals who crave intimacy and companionship may have to look to sexuals for potential partners. Asexuals who are aware that they're asexual should, again, disclose before making a commitment and, when possible, hammer out a compromise that works. Asexuals who discover their asexuality later in life should come out as asexual and allow their sexual partners to decide whether they wish to stay in the relationship at all.

The seemingly high rate (from your perspective) of asexual/gray-a individuals entering relationships with people in the sexual spectrum is completely understandable when you look at asexuality in context. The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (asexuality.org) was founded by David Jay in 2001. You receive letters from individuals who most likely came of age before 2001, before there was anything resembling an asexual community or before even a vocabulary with which to relate the asexual experience was even constructed. Even today, asexual visibility is low and asexual individuals are often discovering their identity late in life, if at all, and the public at large has very little awareness of it. Very frequently it is the case that asexual or gray-a individuals are unaware of their identity, orientation, and lack of sexual desire until they were put in a situation where it becomes apparent, such as a romantic relationship with a sexual individual. This means that often in the later stages of an established relationship the sexual incompatible becomes marked and recognizable as something that will not change. The suggestion that any asexual or gray-a individual would willing pursue an incompatible relationship with the intent of making their sexual partner feel bad or ashamed is unfair.

Perhaps it is. But I'm constantly hearing from the sexual partners of just-realized-it asexuals—those who only became aware of their asexual "identity, orientation, and lack of sexual desire" after, say, getting married and having kids—and many of these sexuals, rightly or wrongly, feel angry, sad, and, yes, duped. My sample is skewed, of course, because those sexual/JRI-asexual couples who've come to terms and/or hashed out a workable compromise about the sexual seeking it elsewhere (or going without) don't write in asking for my advice. Still, dear reader, you have to concede that it would suck to have your partner—your presumptive sex partner—wake up one day and realize he's asexual, just as I'm willing to concede that it must suck to have your opposite-sex partner wake up one day and realize he's a homo.

Sites such as Queer Secrets (queersecrets.tumblr.com) are full of asexual teens (male, female, trans, and gender-variant) who identify as homo-affectional, bi-affectional, pan-affectional, hetero-affectional, etc, who are depressed, suicidal, and discouraged because they believe that no one will love them, they do not deserve to be loved, etc, and that they only frustrate their partners, their partners will not believe they love them, or they were never find a compatible partner. Just recently, in the September 2010 issue of People magazine, Tim Gunn discussed his depression, suicidal history, and immense difficulties as homo-affectional man who falls within the asexual spectrum. I would like to believe that it will “get better” for these individuals. These individuals need to know that they are not abnormal, they will not necessarily destroy the lives and confidences of their current and future partners, and that it is possible to have a successful sexual/asexual relationship (as evidenced by successful relationships of members of the AVEN community), it is possible to find an asexual partner, and that they deserve to be recognized and accepted by the society in which they live. You have a great opportunity and platform from which to do this.

I certainly don't want to make anyone feel suicidal on account of their sexual orientation, dear reader, and I would hope all those asexual teens out there crowding onto Queer Secrets are smart enough to realize that they're not alone. I mean, they only have to look around at all the other asexual teens out there crowding onto Queer Secrets to realize that, right? (If they don't realize it, perhaps you could jump in there and point it out?) And if these teens want to dip into the sexual community in search of a partner, they are more than welcome to do that—so long as they disclose. No duping, no dupes.

I know that asexuality is still a very foreign concept and one that is difficult for those who are outside of the asexual/gray-a spectrum to understand but I ask you for the sake of the individuals who do live in that minority and deal with existing in a society that largely refuses to recognize or validate their existence, to please ask questions and attempt to understand this orientation and identity. I, as a member of the community, would gladly volunteer to answer any questions you may have or direct you to helpful resources that would lead to a fuller understanding of the orientation and community. I am certain that other members of the asexual community would be more than happy to do the same. The Asexual Visibility and Education Network at asexuality.org is a good starting place.

I also would like to thank you for the work you have done for the LGBT community. Growing up as a questioning youth before I figured out my asexual identity, your books and work were, and still are, an enormous source of encouragement to me and helped me in some very difficult times and I recommend them frequently. I think you have an opportunity to be that encouragement to an even larger section of youths and individuals who fall outside of the hetero-normative spectrum.

Yours,
H.C.
Undergraduate in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
University of Kansas

Thanks for sharing, H.C.

The column linked in the letter is this, for future reference:

Savage Love
Raw Dog
by Dan Savage

I read your column every week, mostly out of abstract interest. My thoughts reading your advice are usually some variation on "Wow, that's a lot of work to do, just to have a sex life." So reading you, I came to the conclusion that I was asexual. I liked this conclusion, as it was a sexual identity that made sense for me.

Then I joined an asexual community. I soon realized that I was unlike those people, too. It turns out that they have no sexual attractions either way, whereas I comfortably identify as a straight male. I look when a pretty girl walks past (much to the chagrin of an asexual I dated for a short time), I like to kiss, and I enjoy some genital contact—but I'm in the mood for penetration very rarely. Asexuals seemed to be turned off by physical intimacy.

I soon realized that asexual was the wrong label for me. In reality, what I am is minimally sexual.

Here's the question: How do normally sexual persons feel about being with someone who can perform but doesn't particularly want to? I know that being in a relationship means making compromises, but will a normally sexual person accept a partner who is able to have sex but does not wish to for certain reasons, e.g., a lack of confidence or stamina? Can a person please a partner without pleasing said partner in the euphemistic sense?

Not Sexual, Not Asexual

It should come as no shock to someone who reads my column every week—or any other advice column—that there are lots of people out there who want to be in relationships but don't particularly want to have sex. We don't usually hear directly from these "minimally sexual" types. Instead, we hear from their maximally unhappy partners, i.e., the "normally sexual persons" who find themselves unhappily married to and/or otherwise stuck with minimally sexual persons.

With all the minimally sexuals out there making normally sexuals miserable, NSNA, it should be obvious to all regular readers that there's not exactly a shortage of people who aren't interested in sex. With that being the case, why would you even contemplate inflicting yourself on a normally sexual person? Why not go find another minimally sexual person? You'll be doing your minimally sexual self a favor, you'll be doing your future minimally sexual partner a favor, and you'll be doing all normally sexual persons everywhere a favor by removing two minimals—you and your future partner—from the dating pool.

Unless you're more interested in sex than you let on, NSNA, and you find the idea of a normally sexual partner appealing because a normal might be able to help you build your confidence and learn to enjoy sex. I certainly hope you're not another asexual/minimally sexual person who wants a normally sexual partner because you take a perverse pleasure in depriving someone else of sex, constantly rejecting that person's advances, and ultimately destroying their confidence.

[Shaded]

Ugh, I feel like he almost refuses to listen to what clearly more than one person said.

some people.

[cosmicbimbo]

UGH! the comments. 3 people who can't tell the difference between sex drive and sexual attraction.

[zoidberger]

If I'm honest here... that was possibly the nicest I've ever seen Dan Savage. That's his thing, to blow something out of the water that's handed to him. I'm surprised at how well conducted a response that was. Some of the comments are a bit special though.

On the prior message/response, I think it was the fault of the letter writer that basically knew nothing of AVEN/asexuality in that they misinterpreted the essential definition.