I’m currently in a… spirited discussion with a self-declared asexual on a college paper she’s writing on the subject. More or less, it’s about how the rest of the world – and more notably the third wave feminist movement – gave asexuals short shrift. She asked me to critique it.
I asked why women self-declared as asexuals more than men, and if their numbers weren’t being over-reported due to a general aversion and social conditioning. She said she just knew, and in her case it wasn’t aversion so much as indifference: That she still wanted to get involved with emotional relationships – and, indeed, has a husband who isn’t himself asexual – but experienced no sexual attraction nor desire to do more than masturbate.
I want to say but haven’t yet said – beyond an observation as to her humorously ironic attempt at normative behavior in that she chose a guy to marry, since the sex didn’t matter – that I feel that’s doing him a disservice. One of the biggest destroyers of marriages is sexual incompatibility. So maybe she’s giving him short shrift.
The thing is, noted columnist Dan Savage made this argument before, in several columns, but each time he did he got pilloried by bloggers who identify as part of the asexual community. Now, I’m entirely on his side – after all, if we’re going by hyphenated-sexual disclosure, I’d kinda wanna know if you were, say, gay at least by the third date – but I’m wondering if the very asexuality of his detractors renders them least capable of understanding the importance of sexual compatibility.