Where do these people think all the minerals and various nutrients plants need come from? Dead animals. If you're grossed out by sleeping with a meat-eater because all you see is dead animals, the same image should pop up next time you hold up a stick of celery.

Oh and by the way, plants are living things that do not want to be eaten. Many have evolved complex systems of spines, toxins, and camouflage to ensure that.

It's one thing to argue about veganism based on economics, unnecessary animal cruelty and so forth, but face it - if you want to live, something else has to die somewhere up the chain.

Which would seem less ethical to a vegansexual: sex with a meat eater, or sex with a large, consenting herbivore?

Like, say, an elephant?

Or a buffalo?

Bur seriously...I thank my lucky stars that I live here in the good old US of A where people can proudly express sexual preferences that strike other people as totally goofy.

Let freedom ring!

The vegan movement, or community, or whatever you want to call it, is as diverse as any other grouping of people. That means that you'll find vegans who take it to silly extremes, as the so-called "vegansexuals" do. But, there are probably only a handful of vegans like that, and this whole "vegansexual" label seems to be nothing more than a way to grab headlines for a day. Same time next year, and there will be no such thing as "vegansexuals."

Anyway, before you suggest that vegans need a better PR spokesperson, take a step back. Every group has its nutters, but it is unfair to define every group by said nuts. It would be better if the media didn't find seek out these nuts and slap an exploitative label on them for the sake of selling more bars of soap.

How is this different from not wanting to have sex with someone who some habit that you find a bit oogy? Some people won't date smokers, some people won't date meat eaters. Catherine, is there no personal habit that would put even a good-looking person on your "no sex" list?

I've heard this kind of talk from militant vegan acquaintances for years. Either they don't like how omnivores smell or they don't want to sleep with someone who they believe is unethical and/or immoral.

To each his or her own.

Being vegan takes a ton of effort, as far as I can tell from my carnivorous perspective, and usually the people willing to go to the trouble have very strong feelings about animal rights, health or the environment. Makes sense that they would have trouble developing a relationship with people who don't share their values.

Plus, sharing food is a big part of the bonding process. That's one of the reasons cultures have food taboos - it separates you from neighboring groups who don't share those taboos. Even without a silly label like "vegansexual", I'd expect like to gravitate towards like.

The stuff about people whose bodies are made up up animal protein is a little silly, though, especially since I'm guessing most vegans consumed animal products in childhood and are the children of non-vegans.

Christians who wouldn't marry Non-Christians or Conservatives who wouldn't marry liberals. Unless the said vegan above was otherwise planning to have sex with everone they ever talked to, this decision will affect .01% of their human interactions.

Speaking as a vegan, I can tell you that yes, vegans tend to have more vegan friends than the average person, but (as you point out), that is a result of shared mutual interests. However, not a one of my vegan friends has trouble bonding with non-vegans, or even non-vegetarians. Unless a person is out and out hostile to us because we're vegans, we can all get along just fine.

Also, I know from your perspective being vegan seems like a lot of work, but for me it's a piece of cake (egg-free cake, that is). It's like anything else that's new: a little difficult at first, but easy once you've done it long enough.

Anyway, I look forward to the next media manufactured group. Let's see: we've had metrosexuals, and now vegansexuals. How about RedState-O-Sexuals? People who only boink fellow liberals?

I find myself agreeing. When I was on the atkins diet, I smelled different. The Japanese always used to tell Americans they smelled like meat compared to their fish eating Japanese brethren.

Women are supposedly more sensitive to smell than men, so I can see this being not so unusual-- especailly since women seem to like to always find more excuses to reject men.

On the other hand, if these women are this choosy and this is the prime directive in their lives, they are probably a few steps away from being repulsive cat ladies themselves anyway.

What are we talking? 1% of 1% of 1% of society?

You are of course correct; bacon does not actually adhere to your thighs. As I understand it, bacon tends to wrap itself around the abdomen, and sometimes the area underneath the jaw bone. Cheese cake and cream sauces adhere directly to the thighs.

I think Catherine Price's point isn't that vegansexuals are silly for not sleeping with nonvegans. I think she is amused by their reason for abstaining: according to vegansexuals, omnivores are "made up" of the bodies of the animals that became their meals. I have no problem with the former philosophy. I find the latter worthy of ridicule.

I am the sort of vegetarian who feels that other people's food choices are not mine to make, so this strikes me as initially hilarious - especially since even vegans have to be eating veggies that "ate" animal products in order to become what they are, unless they are growing everything themselves, hydroponically - but even then there's no guarantee. Still, I don't think it's my business to argue with them about what they want to eat or not eat, as long as they don't try to keep me from eating what I choose.

I do feel compelled to quibble with the statement that humans are "meat products," however. We are animals, yes, but a "product" is something processed, marketed and sold by a company in order to make money. Until we start seeing Soylent Green on the supermarket shelf, I think it's safe to say that humans are not "meat products."