Do you HAVE to compromise?

[Guest]

Short answer: No, you do not ever have to have sex if you do not want it. Period. But, a sexual shouldn't be forced to give up sex if they want it, either. You need to find someone who is OK with it and they do exist (even sexuals can and are sometimes celibate).

Longer answer:

If you go into a relationship without informing the person about your unwillingness to have sex, they will rightfully be upset when they find out about it. But, as long as you're honest and up front and THEY AGREE TO IT then that is their decision to make. You can only be honest about what you are willing to do and your feelings, what the other person does is up to them. Many people will find it to be a deal breaker, some will not. If you don't want to have sex, just don't settle and keep trying until you find the person who doesn't mind.

This topic should be brought up WELL BEFORE any serious commitments and well before love becomes a word anyone even thinks about saying. Once a relationship becomes serious, it's too late to really be springing such things on someone. It's like not wanting kids - if you date a person who loves kids and wants a house full of them and only after you agree to be exclusive and say I love you do you bring it up, there is going to be a problem. The majority love sex and want it, so it really is something to just be put on the table to find someone compatible with you on this subject.

My opinion is: If you are doing a date a stranger situation bring it up around the 2nd-3rd date when you know you may want to pursue something further (no need on the first date if you don't even like the person, or they don't like you). If you are dating a friend, mention it before any dates happen.

It's perfectly OK to say I will not have sex. But, it's perfectly OK for them to say "That doesn't work for me" as well. Try not to take rejections personally. It isn't anything wrong with you, or them, if your needs don't match. It just means you are not compatible with each other. That is all. The more deal breakers you have and the more common the actions those deal breakers are, the smaller the dating pool gets, but that shouldn't mean you have to settle for something you don't want either.

Now, compromise actually comes in a lot of forms. Open relationships can be a compromise on sex. Having sex can be a compromise. Not having sex, but being there to stimulate with kissing or stripping while they masturbate can be a compromise. Compromise is just an agreement where neither of you gets exactly what you want as an ideal, but you are both content with the arrangement - if either person is miserable, it is NOT a compromise. What form it takes varies, because people vary. For me, it's having sex. For others, it's letting their partner have sex elsewhere. For others, it's doing BDSM play without a sexual component. It's as unique as every relationship is.

And relationships involve a ton of compromises in many categories. I compromise with my partner on sleeping situations because he can't sleep without the TV on and I can't sleep with it on - so we have it setup so I can use my tablet in bed til he falls asleep then turn the TV off. We compromise on the eating situation by if he wants meat in his dish, I cook the main course and he cooks the meat cause I am a vegetarian and I find it kinda gross, but I don't mind it being in the house if I don't have to touch it.

Compromises happen every day, about many, many things. The key to ANY of them is to not give up something IMPORTANT to you and not to go beyond a line where you are UNHAPPY. If you are making yourself miserable to make someone else happy, that is very unhealthy and not a compromise, but a sacrifice. That's on BOTH sides of the relationship. A sexual shouldn't give up sex if it makes them miserable, an asexual shouldn't have sex if it makes them miserable. A guy shouldn't go watch the movie his girlfriend wants every weekend if it makes him miserable either. You should never, ever give up your own happiness or well being for another person. But, you should try to find a reasonable middle ground where both people can be happy, even if not getting their ideal, when possible. If not possible, it is best to just admit you are incompatible and move on.

[Kitty Spoon Train]

Those people... don't belong in relationships or at the very least shouldn't be together. If your that much on parallel sides and you can't come to an agreement, break up. People are too damn afraid to be "alone" its sickening. Hey lets just stay in this toxic relationship and fight every day just so I can name drop "girlfriend/boyfriend, husband/wife" every once in awhile and so that im not ... "alone". Had to vent a bit there.

I think a lot of it has to do with how society conceives relationships. That whole idea that there is only one true way to do them, or else you just have to be completely and utterly alone. Not that there is anything "wrong" with even being utterly alone - if you really are on the very extreme end of the spectrum in being independent and liking your space - but I think a lot of people fall into some shades of grey in the middle. ie For whatever reason, the "standard" way of doing relationships doesn't quite fit them, but they simply don't have the information to realise that you can do relationships differently.

This is why I actually think that "relationship status" can be a bit of a harmful concept sometimes. All it really is is a label that represents a certain general type of relationship, but if things are toxic behind the scenes, it doesn't really stand for anything any more - but unfortunately it can still carry social and practical capital to maintain that form, even if the underlying substance is dead.

In terms of "compromise", this is what I think often happens - the form becomes more important than the substance. And people latch onto the idea of "staying together" no matter what, even if there are serious irreconcilable differences in play - and there's basically no real relationship there any more to speak of - all that's left is just the meaningless relationship status label.

[ShogunV2]

^ Not that easy.

Patience.

Better to wait for a diamond you might never have than settle for a clump of coal because it's there.

[passionatefriend61]

As a sexual here I have to ask the question why is it viewed that a sexual should be willing to sacrifice sex which is important to sexuals but its not OK for the sexual to ask for sex from the ace. There are several mentions of double standards against asexuals here but several posts directly apply a double standard against sexuals. I want awareness of asexuality and agree our culture is to sex oriented but demonizing what sexuals want doesn't help anyone.

Oh, you can ask for anything you want, but that doesn't mean asexuals should feel obliged to give it to you.

Like I said in my first reply, most sexual people think that asexuals should be the one to "compromise" sexually--and that's one reason I HATE the use of that term in these discussions because we're not talking about real compromise, we're talking about sacrifices and accommodations--and never does it cross their mind that they could be the ones to go against their sexual nature for the sake of making a romantic relationship comfortable for their partner. A lot of asexuals apparently see it the same way, too, though I suspect those who do are predominantly aces who actually LIKE sex or at least feel indifferent enough to it that they can make peace with a sexually active lifestyle as a long-term thing. It is an expression of compulsory sexuality in our society: that everyone should have sex, should like it, and that sex is mandatory in romantic relationships. When asexuals themselves don't even consider a nonsexual romantic relationship an option, that's a huge sign that they've internalized compulsory sexuality.

"Compromise" has become a meaningless buzz word, in both the world at large and in the asexual community, and usually, people who use it are full of shit and don't actually believe in the honoring of an asexual person's boundaries and comfort level or in the possibility and normalization of nonsexual romantic relationships. They pretty much think that sex is a "normal" and mandatory feature of romantic and primary partnerships, and asexuals should either do it or be single, because sexual people are incapable of celibacy and sacrifices. Then, they frame the whole idea of false "compromise" in romantic terms of "doing it for love" and blah blah blah, when it reality, the sexual people would never make similar sacrifices for "love." They would just move on and get a new partner who'll please them effortlessly.

And that's another problem with the whole concept of "compromise" in mixed romantic relationships: true, ethical compromise is not possible in a context of power imbalance, which is exactly the dynamic present between asexuals and allosexuals in romantic relationships. The asexual has less social power than the allosexual by default, because the allosexual is in line with the normative standard of RR's and the asexual is not. The allosexual can more easily find another partner--they have 99% of the species to choose from--and the asexual's got limited options and resources, limited access to the kind of relationships they want most. The allosexual has society's toxic messages about compulsory sexuality backing up their desires and will--including the medical and psych establishments, religion, government, media, etc--and the asexual doesn't. The negotiation process is loaded in the allosexual's favor right out of the gate, and that is already a set-up for unethical, dysfunctional, and damaging sexual situations for the asexual. I've heard enough bullshit about rape, sexual coercion, and abuse in mixed romantic relationships, during my years identifying as ace, that I don't believe for one second that any of us should assume a mixed romantic relationship is safe by default or that the allosexual person an ace wants to date is "too nice" to be an abuser or a rapist for the sake of getting laid. Power dynamics matter in relationships.

There is no double standard being applied to sexual people here. Asexuals have every right to refuse sex. If the sexual person in question can't live with that, they're free to leave and go find someone else who will fuck them. But to pretend that sexual people are somehow less capable of making sexual sacrifices for romantic partners, than asexuals are, is false. Period. If you need sex, then don't get involved with asexuals romantically, unless they're the kind who are 100% willing to do it because they like it. No one forces you to stay in a romantic relationship with someone you're incompatible with. You're responsible for your own choices. If you choose to ignore a fundamental incompatibility between you and someone else, because you think they can change for you, it's your fault for being so delusional or selfish to believe that the other person can become who you want them to be, while you don't change at all. There are billions of people in the world, most of whom are sexual; the idea that you have to make one of the few who aren't change or do something they don't want to do to ensure your personal happiness is ridiculous.

[Lyariage]

In my experience, compromise always leads to difficulties. Like aceofhearts said, compromise usually leads to sacrifice. Sacrifice in any form is not helpful. Or needed. Ever.

I don't use as strong language as aceofhearts, but my personal views are quite similar. Every relationship I had been in prior to finding AVEN and shortly after coming out as ace involved some sort of sacrifice/compromise, and it just didn't work. I felt like I couldn't be myself and honour what I truly wanted. I've since reclassified myself as aromantic (cause it's where I've always been anyway, I just didn't realise it when I was trying to fit in and be what everyone else wanted me to be) and know I will never compromise my boundaries for the sake of 'compromise' again. Let me tell you, it's such a personal relief.

We are who we are for a reason. We can't change who we are, and we certainly aren't broken. If you want to try to overcome any fears/insecurities you have, it's perfectly okay to do so for yourself. You might succeed - I was hella socially awkward when I was younger, and have come a long way. But do not do it for other people. I'm still sex-repulsed and have finally accepted that fact. I've given up trying to 'fix' it. My body/mind doesn't want sex, that's fine. I'm happy to stay far away from it. Though now I'm happily an aro ace, I'm a lot more comfortable talking about sex, go figure ^_^

[CooCoo]

First of all: I have little to tell since I lack personal experience. I don't date. I have no partners.

But I have a questions. I obviously already have assumption but I won't talk about something I know nothing of. So: is anyone here in a mixed relationship where the sexual partner doesn't have sex for the sake of the relationship?

I have heard a lot of stories of people who experience no sexual attraction yet have sex for their partner. But I've never seen who does experience it go without sex because their partner doesn't need/want it.

Is it really always "let's meet in the middle"?

I just want some experiences for the sake of knowing what I talk about. Please don't see this ad judging.

[Guest]

First of all: I have little to tell since I lack personal experience. I don't date. I have no partners.

But I have a questions. I obviously already have assumption but I won't talk about something I know nothing of. So: is anyone here in a mixed relationship where the sexual partner doesn't have sex for the sake of the relationship?

I have heard a lot of stories of people who experience no sexual attraction yet have sex for their partner. But I've never seen who does experience it go without sex because their partner doesn't need/want it.

Is it really always "let's meet in the middle"?

I just want some experiences for the sake of knowing what I talk about. Please don't see this ad judging.

R. and I don't have sex with each other, because we've come to realize that we're simply not compatible in that one area. She's free to get her needs met by other partners, though (and has on occasion done so during our six years, including being with another woman in a serious relationship that lasted over a year).

That's not compromise, though. I simply wouldn't have it any other way than poly/open (monogamy would be the kind of compromise I would never make), and while she's a bit more flexible in that regard (she could go monogamous if she really had to, but strongly prefers being open/poly), so it's been our preferred way to handle it all along.

[Guest]

First of all: I have little to tell since I lack personal experience. I don't date. I have no partners.

But I have a questions. I obviously already have assumption but I won't talk about something I know nothing of. So: is anyone here in a mixed relationship where the sexual partner doesn't have sex for the sake of the relationship?

I have heard a lot of stories of people who experience no sexual attraction yet have sex for their partner. But I've never seen who does experience it go without sex because their partner doesn't need/want it.

Is it really always "let's meet in the middle"?

I just want some experiences for the sake of knowing what I talk about. Please don't see this ad judging.

There are a few sexuals on the boards that do without sex for their ace partner. Having sex is more common, because if the asexual is neutral or can physically enjoy it, it's possible to do without any emotional harm being done and many (not all, but many) sexuals find it very harmful to do without sex. But, yes, there are relationships where the sexual gives up sex for their asexual partner.

One thing people here need to remember is compromise requires NEITHER PARTY BEING UNHAPPY. If you feel you are not being yourself and faking, or doing something you truly do not want to do and it is hurting you, that's not compromise. And that's not healthy. And no one should do that. Either side. Compromise, in whatever form, should make both parties content.

And that's another problem with the whole concept of "compromise" in mixed romantic relationships: true, ethical compromise is not possible in a context of power imbalance, which is exactly the dynamic present between asexuals and allosexuals in romantic relationships.

There is no power imbalance in my relationship when it comes to sex. I am an adult, I can make my own decisions and be responsible for them. That sounds way too close to "asexuals cannot consent so all sex with them is rape or coercion". Society says a lot of stuff, not everyone believes what society says though. If I did, I would drink alcohol, I get told to do that way more than I ever got comments about my disinterest in sex or masturbation. Healthy compromise is perfectly possible within a mixed relationship, but it depends on the people involved.

Some relationships have power imbalances, that is true. Some people will do what they know they should do. I have known girls (and guys that have been pushed around too) that will have sex more often than they want, do oral sex when they don't want to, do anal sex when they really don't want to... but that happens in sexual/sexual relationships too. Because being sexually adventurous is expected and some people have more submissive personalities that a more dominant personality type can bully around, even without realizing it. When an ace feels "broken" it becomes easier to manipulate them into doing things they don't want. I have gone along with things in the past, but, I was a teenager and I didn't know any better. And it can be very toxic and very bad emotionally and mentally. But, it isn't really about orientation as much as, are you willing to stand up for yourself, or will you go along with what people tell you to do just to please them? No matter what your orientation is, if it's the latter, people will take advantage of it if you're not careful (putting them in the wrong). And rape/coercion can happen to anyone, of any orientation. Predators are just nasty people.

My partner could easily push a more docile girl into some stuff she didn't want to do, because his personality is just naturally "alpha" - he lead his group of friends in HS, he leads his siblings, etc. It's just part of who he is. So, sometimes we butt heads. I'm not the personality type that does well being "lead" like that (I inherited my mom's stubborn streak and temper), so he can't treat me like he does some other people. And it drives him nuts, but if I had to guess, I would say it's probably one of the reasons he's been with me longer than anyone else. Cause he's used to being the leader, who knows so much more than anyone else (he usually dates girls way younger, which I am, but to me age is simply a number so he gains no power from that with me) and is looked up to and his temperament makes people back down. I will stand up to him if I feel he's wrong, no matter what he does. If I have to call him a jerk to snap him out of being a jerk, then I will.

[Guest]

One thing people here need to remember is compromise requires NEITHER PARTY BEING UNHAPPY. If you feel you are not being yourself and faking, or doing something you truly do not want to do and it is hurting you, that's not compromise. And that's not healthy. And no one should do that. Either side. Compromise, in whatever form, should make both parties content.

QFT. In some situations, the best and healthiest compromise is breaking up amicably and respectfully. Sometimes that's the only healthy, workable compromise that can be reached between partners that are simply incompatible to the core, and that's perfectly fine.

[Guest]

One thing people here need to remember is compromise requires NEITHER PARTY BEING UNHAPPY. If you feel you are not being yourself and faking, or doing something you truly do not want to do and it is hurting you, that's not compromise. And that's not healthy. And no one should do that. Either side. Compromise, in whatever form, should make both parties content.

QFT. In some situations, the best and healthiest compromise is breaking up amicably and respectfully. Sometimes that's the only healthy, workable compromise that can be reached between partners that are simply incompatible to the core, and that's perfectly fine.

Yep. Wish more people would come to that conclusion earlier sometimes. I can't count the times I have had to comfort a friend because they decided to stay in a totally toxic relationship because they were just too scared to say "Hey, ya know, we care about each other but this is totally not working out romantically. Lets just call it quits before we hate each other." (it always comes to some big huge drama filled break up that everyone knew was coming for years because both have been miserable)

[passionatefriend61]

And that's another problem with the whole concept of "compromise" in mixed romantic relationships: true, ethical compromise is not possible in a context of power imbalance, which is exactly the dynamic present between asexuals and allosexuals in romantic relationships.

There is no power imbalance in my relationship when it comes to sex. I am an adult, I can make my own decisions and be responsible for them. That sounds way too close to "asexuals cannot consent so all sex with them is rape or coercion". Society says a lot of stuff, not everyone believes what society says though. If I did, I would drink alcohol, I get told to do that way more than I ever got comments about my disinterest in sex or masturbation. Healthy compromise is perfectly possible within a mixed relationship, but it depends on the people involved.

Some relationships have power imbalances, that is true. Some people will do what they know they should do. I have known girls (and guys that have been pushed around too) that will have sex more often than they want, do oral sex when they don't want to, do anal sex when they really don't want to... but that happens in sexual/sexual relationships too. Because being sexually adventurous is expected and some people have more submissive personalities that a more dominant personality type can bully around, even without realizing it. When an ace feels "broken" it becomes easier to manipulate them into doing things they don't want. I have gone along with things in the past, but, I was a teenager and I didn't know any better. And it can be very toxic and very bad emotionally and mentally. But, it isn't really about orientation as much as, are you willing to stand up for yourself, or will you go along with what people tell you to do just to please them? No matter what your orientation is, if it's the latter, people will take advantage of it if you're not careful (putting them in the wrong). And rape/coercion can happen to anyone, of any orientation. Predators are just nasty people.

My partner could easily push a more docile girl into some stuff she didn't want to do, because his personality is just naturally "alpha" - he lead his group of friends in HS, he leads his siblings, etc. It's just part of who he is. So, sometimes we butt heads. I'm not the personality type that does well being "lead" like that (I inherited my mom's stubborn streak and temper), so he can't treat me like he does some other people. And it drives him nuts, but if I had to guess, I would say it's probably one of the reasons he's been with me longer than anyone else. Cause he's used to being the leader, who knows so much more than anyone else (he usually dates girls way younger, which I am, but to me age is simply a number so he gains no power from that with me) and is looked up to and his temperament makes people back down. I will stand up to him if I feel he's wrong, no matter what he does. If I have to call him a jerk to snap him out of being a jerk, then I will.

If you don't think there's a power imbalance in your romantic relationship, I won't argue with you, because you know better than I do whether there is or there isn't. But what I'm getting at is that power imbalance exists between asexuals and allosexuals, particularly all the asexuals who are less than enthusiastic about having sex (which is most of us) and allosexuals, because we are a very small minority out of step with the majority population and the social/sexual norms they have created and institutionalized. That doesn't mean every single allosexual will use their power to their advantage in an abusive or criminal way, nor does it mean that every mixed romantic relationship is abusive, unethical, or uneven. That allosexuals have power and social privilege that asexuals don't have doesn't mean asexuals are categorically incapable of consenting to sex in a non-coerced context.

What it means is that romantic relationships and relationships in general are engineered to suit and favor allosexuals, not asexuals, and they never have to defend their desires or their sexual agency or their ownership of their bodies in the context of a mixed relationship, the way asexuals do if they ever object to the allosexual's desires. The allosexual is automatically in the "right," as far as society is concerned. Be aware that there are still more sexual people in the world who believe that not wanting or enjoying sex is an illness, not an orientation, and that includes psychotherapists and medical doctors. Be aware that most sexual people will defend a sexual person's "right" to sex in romantic relationships and subsequently condone unethical behavior like cheating or manipulation or general continued pressuring, nagging, etc. Be aware that a lot of sexual people, totally apart from asexuality and the issue of mixed romantic relationships, have absolutely no grasp of what real, ethical sexual consent practices look like and, for example, would accuse a romantic/sexual partner of being a tease for changing their mind in the middle of what started out as consensual sex, instead of respecting them. Sexual people rape each other in romantic relationships sometimes, and that's when both people generally desire sex for personal pleasure and don't have to do half the amount of negotiation that an allosexual and an asexual often have to do in a sexually active romantic relationship.

If you're one of those aces who honest to God can have sex all the time, for the rest of your life, and not feel bad because of it, that's fine--but you are in the minority of asexuals. Not quite in the minority of aces who love sex, but still--while indifferent aces are a larger group than sex-enthusiastic aces, sex-repulsed and sex-averse aces still outnumber you by a good amount. There are different degrees of repulsion and aversion, but even the ones who are "minimally" repulsed (whatever the hell that means, how do you measure it?) should not feel like they have to do sexual things they're not comfortable with for the sake of keeping a romantic partner. 99.9% of the world is telling them that they should and that they can't expect sexual people to make that same kind of sacrifice. They go into romantic relationships with that conditioning, and they're usually engaging with a partner who has never before questioned the validity of compulsory sexuality and sex normativity. So like I said before, the situation is loaded in the allosexual's favor from the beginning.

I liken the power imbalance and social privilege dynamics of asexual/allosexual relationships to the ones between men and women. Not all men are rapists and abusers, and yes, grown women are perfectly capable of deciding what to do with their bodies and how and when and can, theoretically, say "no" to a man whenever they want. But that doesn't change the fact that men have male privilege and women are a socially oppressed and disadvantaged group of people. Women can want sex more than men, women can choose to be sex workers, women can be the dominant and aggressive partners in heterosexual relationships, women can and do reject men's sexual advances and are not harmed or disrespected for it--but at the end of the day, men have more social and cultural power than they do and on some level, that will always transfer into a heterosexual relationship or any heterosocial relationship a man has with a woman. It's bigger than two individuals having a personal relationship; it's about the power structures in society at large.

The fact is, there are next to no resources or support systems available in the real world for asexuals, including asexuals who are involved in mixed romantic relationships. If an asexual is in a mixed romantic relationship and being sexually abused or raped or coerced or bullied for being ace or simply having sex they don't want to have because they feel like there's no other choice, they can't go to a counselor or some other professional or even friends and family to get help or talk about what they're going through or get reasonable, fair, good advice--unless they lie and take their own asexuality/sex-repulsion out of the picture and seek support as someone who's in a bad/uncomfortable/incompatible sexual relationship. And even then, they would most likely get advice about how to make sex better or how to want sex more, not how to make the relationship nonsexual. We've got kids in their late teens and early twenties who are asexual and sex-repulsed, who are either being pressured by parents and doctors to get treated for their disinterest/repulsion of sex or who have internalized anti-asexual attitudes to a point where they're desperately seeking a cure for themselves. And it's the asexual community, not the sexual world in general, who's offering the only objection to that kind of shit.

In the end, allosexuals care more about getting laid and perpetuating sex normativity for their own benefit, than they do about the well-being and comfort of sex-repulsed/sex-averse asexuals. It almost never occurs to them to try celibacy for the sake of romantic "love" they feel for an asexual partner, but here we are, thousands of asexuals all over the world, of every age and gender and romantic orientation, routinely asking each other "How can we be okay with sex? How do you get over sex-repulsion? Do I really deserve a romantic partner, if I can't please them 24/7? How do I raise my libido?" Most asexuals don't even challenge each other's assumptions that romantic relationships have to sexual, that they have to get involved with sexual people as if each asexual is the only one in the world, that the onus of sacrifice and "making your partner happy" rests solely on the asexual. It's just a silently accepted state of affairs that it's up to the asexual to conform to sexual society's norms, not on sexual society to reconfigure those norms to better support asexuals.

And it's because most asexuals, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, know deep down that 99 times out of 100, an allosexual will leave them or reject them unless they have sex. It's that simple. There is no equality here, in terms of sacrificial expectations. It's too easy for an allosexual to go down the road and find a new partner who will have sex with them, to make a choice that they're going to deny their programming--which is ironically the same one they ask asexuals to make. Meanwhile, an asexual can't just waltz out the front door and bump into someone who feels the way they do about nonsexual love/romance/primary relationships. The asexual knows that. The allosexual knows that. Outright coercion isn't even necessary, when you're an asexual who's got a real problem with being single/alone for the rest of your life, and you're not seeing any other options except for submitting to the desires of an allosexual partner who you like despite the sexual incompatibility. That choice, to have sex you don't want or like or feel comfortable with, rests on the asexual's shoulders, but they made that choice in this context of a relationship landscape saturated with compulsory sexuality, where they're the odd one out.

[Feral_Sophisticate]

And it's because most asexuals, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, know deep down that 99 times out of 100, an allosexual will leave them or reject them unless they have sex. It's that simple. There is no equality here, in terms of sacrificial expectations. It's too easy for an allosexual to go down the road and find a new partner who will have sex with them, to make a choice that they're going to deny their programming--which is ironically the same one they ask asexuals to make. Meanwhile, an asexual can't just waltz out the front door and bump into someone who feels the way they do about nonsexual love/romance/primary relationships. The asexual knows that. The allosexual knows that. Outright coercion isn't even necessary, when you're an asexual who's got a real problem with being single/alone for the rest of your life, and you're not seeing any other options except for submitting to the desires of an allosexual partner who you like despite the sexual incompatibility. That choice, to have sex you don't want or like or feel comfortable with, rests on the asexual's shoulders, but they made that choice in this context of a relationship landscape saturated with compulsory sexuality, where they're the odd one out.

I question your stat here. 99 out of 100? Really? Have you actually asked sexuals for their input on the subject, or are you just pulling that number out of the air?

I ask, as I know I'm not the only sexual who is in a relationship with an asexual, and I also know for a fact that both of us are making compromises - but ones that work for the two of us. I don't choose to stay with her (or anyone else, for that matter) based on whether or not they're going to fuck me, I make my decision based on how the entire relationship works (or doesn't).

Your assertion that sex is the only thing that makes sexuals happy is false. I've been abstinent for nearly a year now, and I'm happier now than I was with every prior sexual relationship I've had.

[Touchofinsight]

The assertion that sexuals don't sacrifice is pretty null too actually. Sex isn't just some mechanical physical action, theres more to it then just thigh thrusting etc. When a sexual person gets together with an asexual person in a romantic relationship and has sex with them they also often lose something... mutual passion. You miss out on mutually desired, passionate sex that can only be created through mutual attraction and desire. If your an asexual and you compromise to please your partner and have sex or participate in sexual activities then I commend you on adapting and putting in the effort to make the relationship work as long as it can but.... you will never please them on the same level that a sexual person can. It will never be as fulfilling as it can be and that is something sexual people have to realize when they get into these mixed relationships. A big part of their sexuality will not be validated, they may have sex but it will be on a limited basis/condition. It will be obligation sex. For some that's enough, for others it doesn't work.

Thats not a knock on asexual people that's just the truth for the majority of sexuals in a mixed relationship. They'd like to do more, and their are plenty of people out there who would give them far more pleasure sexually but its up to them to decide if its worth it to them to pursue other relationships and in most cases end the one they are in.

I only hope that both parties can honestly evaluate themselves and honestly see if they can handle it... before too much time passes. "Compromises" are not set in stone and are subject to change once someone can't fulfill their agreement anymore or will not adapt or change the compromise... its done. So comrpomises are often used more as a band-aid to a bigger issue. In my humble opinion.

Personally I think its better that you don't compromise and you just find someone who is more compatible with you but I am not here to say it can't work.

[TheAceOfSpadesYo]

Finding a sexual who is OK with never having sex in it or outside of relationship sounds like it would be unlikely. Asking them to go without would be the same as asking you to all the time as its directly what you don't want.

I may not understand as I am not repulsed but as a general rule you shouldn't ask for things you are not willing to yourself compromise on.

[TheAceOfSpadesYo]

Aceofhearts your post sounds very angry I am sorry for whatever has happened in your life that causes the hatred toward sexuals but it is not fair to say mixed relationships are bad and can't work. And its a closed minded argument that a sexual doesn't sacrifice for the relationship even on a sexual level they are giving something up. If you need to talk to someone I happy to listen.

[passionatefriend61]

Aceofhearts your post sounds very angry I am sorry for whatever has happened in your life that causes the hatred toward sexuals but it is not fair to say mixed relationships are bad and can't work. And its a closed minded argument that a sexual doesn't sacrifice for the relationship even on a sexual level they are giving something up. If you need to talk to someone I happy to listen.

Mixed romantic relationships can work if the asexual is indifferent to sex enough to have it regularly and be at peace with that, or enthusiastic about sex and enjoys it for their own personal pleasure. I've never suggested anything different. All I'm saying is, those relationships are sexual. That they work hinges on sex being a thing that happens and happens comfortably.

I don't hate sexual people. In fact, I'm much more comfortable being friends with aromantic sexual people who love to be single and maybe even embrace the idea of alternative friendship, than I do with romantic asexuals who have very normative relationship views and see romance as superior to friendship. I'll take a romance-repulsed aromantic allosexual who has casual sex with different people all the time, over an alloromantic asexual who's in the typical primary romantic relationship. I don't take issue with sexual people having sex or loving it or needing it, and I probably have the most liberalized opinions of sexuality of most anyone I've ever met or run into or will meet. What I take issue with is compulsory sexuality, the idea that sex automatically and exclusively validates and elevates a relationship above and beyond all forms of nonsexual relationships, and my own fellow asexuals being routinely abused, raped, bullied, manipulated, coerced, etc by romantic partners who are sexual while generally existing in this socially disempowered position that most of them aren't trying to get out of because they're more concerned with getting sexual society to accept them and date them on sexual people's terms. I have a problem with asexuals (usually the ones who don't mind sex) telling other asexuals (who are sex-repulsed/averse) to have sex, and telling sexual people that asexuality "means we're not attracted to you but we can still have sex and like it!!! Don't worry, we're not that different from you! We'll still fuck you, no problem!"

But obviously, we're talking about romantics in this conversation, not aromantics.

[Guest]

Sexuals who are okay with sexless relationships do exist, though. I happen to be with one, hitting our sixth anniversary next week. ;)

Yes, they're probably pretty damn rare. And that's okay. Nobody is entitled to being in a relationship - being with a partner is a privilege, not a right, so no matter how small your compatible dating pool is, as long as it's above straight zero, you're full-on in the green. If they're so rare that you statistically might not find them in your lifespan, you're still in the green and have no grounds for complaining. Being single is the natural default state of humankind; if and when you get invited to the "bonus level" of a partnership, then accept that gift with humble gratitude, not with a feeling of a reward you were entitled to.

I'll take a romance-repulsed aromantic allosexual who has casual sex with different people all the time, over an alloromantic asexual who's in the typical primary romantic relationship.

*giggles* Quite a bit off from being a perfect description of R., but close enough to make her a just about perfect partner for me. ^_^

And yes, I 100% agree with that entire statement... if "take" is to be read as "accept as a compatible partner". If you meant it as "rate higher in their worth as a human being", then no, of course. Romantic aces who want "classic partnerships" are free to do that, and should be able to do so without my, your, or anyone else's interference. I'll just insist that they leave me the hell out of their lifestyle, and will make it very clear that I'm not ever available as a potential partner for them.

[MadRat]

Aceofhearts your post sounds very angry I am sorry for whatever has happened in your life that causes the hatred toward sexuals but it is not fair to say mixed relationships are bad and can't work. And its a closed minded argument that a sexual doesn't sacrifice for the relationship even on a sexual level they are giving something up. If you need to talk to someone I happy to listen.

No, aceofheart´s posts sound very sophisticated, intelligent and truthful.

I´ll not go into details but I can honestly say I´m afraid of sexual men and I could never be in a relationship with sexual because I would not feel safe.

[Philip027]

Sexuals who are okay with sexless relationships do exist, though. I happen to be with one, hitting our sixth anniversary next week.

It's not as easy as you make it sound because from what I understand, your relationship isn't exclusive.

Make it "exclusive sexless relationships" and I imagine that statistic plummets like a rock.

[passionatefriend61]

Sexuals who are okay with sexless relationships do exist, though. I happen to be with one, hitting our sixth anniversary next week. ;)

Yes, they're probably pretty damn rare. And that's okay. Nobody is entitled to being in a relationship - being with a partner is a privilege, not a right, so no matter how small your compatible dating pool is, as long as it's above straight zero, you're full-on in the green. If they're so rare that you statistically might not find them in your lifespan, you're still in the green and have no grounds for complaining. Being single is the natural default state of humankind; if and when you get invited to the "bonus level" of a partnership, then accept that gift with humble gratitude, not with a feeling of a reward you were entitled to.

I'll take a romance-repulsed aromantic allosexual who has casual sex with different people all the time, over an alloromantic asexual who's in the typical primary romantic relationship.

*giggles* Quite a bit off from being a perfect description of R., but close enough to make her a just about perfect partner for me. ^_^

And yes, I 100% agree with that entire statement... if "take" is to be read as "accept as a compatible partner". If you meant it as "rate higher in their worth as a human being", then no, of course. Romantic aces who want "classic partnerships" are free to do that, and should be able to do so without my, your, or anyone else's interference. I'll just insist that they leave me the hell out of their lifestyle, and will make it very clear that I'm not ever available as a potential partner for them.

Says the person with a partner. :-P

No, no one is entitled to any kind of relationship with anybody. Hell, if we're not entitled to food and a place to live, we're not entitled to love either. Sexual people aren't entitled to sex, in any context, including romantic relationships. Yet more people seem to believe that they are, some asexuals included--even to their own detriment.

Re: aromantic allosexuals -- Actually, I wasn't even talking about partners. I was talking about friends, not that there's any real difference between the two in my life.

Sure, romantic aces can want whatever they want, think whatever they want, do whatever they want--just like everyone else on the planet. When and where did I suggest I want to interfere? All I'm saying is, any person who views romantic love, relationships, and attraction as innately superior to nonromantic love, relationships, and attraction and who conducts their friendships according to the rules of normative relating, is a worthless friend to someone with my value system and arguably to anyone who isn't satisfied with the most superficial sort of socializing. Whether or not they have sex is irrelevant. A romance supremacist who doesn't have sex isn't any better than one who does.

[Amoeba-Proteus]

I feel this way too. It's something I've never wanted and refuse to force myself into no matter how much I love someone.
Which is why I've decided to be honest about it straight from the start. If there's a possibility of a relationship, I'd rather they knew right away that I'm not willing to head that direction, and they can decide for themselves then if the relationship's worth it to them.

When I was in a relationship, they knew I didn't want it, and they never tried to push me into it. I tried to convince myself "maybe just give it a chance...?" but I couldn't do it. The whole thing is completely revolting to me and I don't think I'd feel too great afterwards if I forced myself into it. I never changed, and so we never went that far, but they never complained about it. We broke up for other reasons, and whether or not that ultimately was part of it, I don't know.

I'm at the point where I don't think I'd ever be comfortable doing that for a partner, so I don't try anymore. I'm not willing to do it, and that's all there is to it. Up to the other person to decide if they're cool with that or not. If not, oh well. Better to know right away than try to build something and be disappointed later.

[Sally]

aceofhearts61, on 18 Jul 2014 - 8:28 PM, said:

any person who views romantic love, relationships, and attraction as innately superior to nonromantic love, relationships, and attraction and who conducts their friendships according to the rules of normative relating, is a worthless friend to someone with my value system and arguably to anyone who isn't satisfied with the most superficial sort of socializing.

Wow, judgmental much?

[Guest]

Aceofhearts your post sounds very angry I am sorry for whatever has happened in your life that causes the hatred toward sexuals but it is not fair to say mixed relationships are bad and can't work. And its a closed minded argument that a sexual doesn't sacrifice for the relationship even on a sexual level they are giving something up. If you need to talk to someone I happy to listen.

Mixed romantic relationships can work if the asexual is indifferent to sex enough to have it regularly and be at peace with that, or enthusiastic about sex and enjoys it for their own personal pleasure. I've never suggested anything different. All I'm saying is, those relationships are sexual. That they work hinges on sex being a thing that happens and happens comfortably.

Are we going to just ignore the existence of Padante, Feral and other sexuals who are with their asexual partners and sex is not involved ? A majority of sexuals want to have sex in their lives, but it doesn't mean ones that can do without don't exist. One brush never covers everyone in a group.

And for the record, I have never stated I can be content having sex my entire life. But, I am able to take responsibility for my own choices and feelings and if I ever cannot (which, I have gone through periods of "I cannot do this" about sex, so chances are it'll happen again some day) again, I will simply stop having it and tell my partner. If I could not do that, I would not be with a sexual. He is going to ask for sex and he has to be able to trust that if it ever hurts me, I will say no. It's as much protecting him as it is me, because no one who is a decent human being wants to hurt their partner like that. Having sex when it disgusts you, makes you depressed and the closest thing a person can think of to describe the feeling is rape ... that is going to hurt the sexual too. There are posts in the sexuals section about how awful the person felt after their partners finally were honest with them, because they never wanted to make them feel that way and if they had any clue, they wouldn't have had sex with them. If the person pushes, threatens, forces then they are no longer a normal sexual - they are a jerk and at the worst of it, a predator.

I have watched people give up their own wishes and let people walk over their boundaries in relationships. Sexual/sexual, asexual/sexual, it happens in way too many. Power imbalances exist in any mixture of orientations. I've even seen people agree to have kids cause they were just too scared to say no and lose their partner. I've seen touch averse sexuals tolerate their spouse touching them until it nearly drove the person to deep depression because they were too afraid to lose their spouse. Sexuals in the SF&A section have gone years without sex, letting their asexual partner have a sex-free relationship until they are depressed and considering suicide because they are too scared to take the step of breaking up, or they don't believe in divorce for some reason and they won't force sex because they aren't predators. That power imbalance that causes people to be too scared to say no is not unique to asexual/sexual relationships and it is not always the asexual who is too scared to let their partner know how much they are hurting by giving in.

If EITHER side feels like they would give in and hurt themselves, dating someone with a huge incompatibility is a bad idea. So, in that way, if you feel that way yes a mixed relationship is a horrible idea for some people. However, if both parties can honestly look at themselves, decide where their boundaries are and stand up for them if needed, then a mixed relationship can work. It isn't easy and it isn't for everyone. But, it's certainly not impossible for a sexual and a sex-repulsed (or simply not interested in compromising by having sex) asexual to have a healthy relationship either.

[passionatefriend61]

Aceofhearts your post sounds very angry I am sorry for whatever has happened in your life that causes the hatred toward sexuals but it is not fair to say mixed relationships are bad and can't work. And its a closed minded argument that a sexual doesn't sacrifice for the relationship even on a sexual level they are giving something up. If you need to talk to someone I happy to listen.

Mixed romantic relationships can work if the asexual is indifferent to sex enough to have it regularly and be at peace with that, or enthusiastic about sex and enjoys it for their own personal pleasure. I've never suggested anything different. All I'm saying is, those relationships are sexual. That they work hinges on sex being a thing that happens and happens comfortably.

Are we going to just ignore the existence of Padante, Feral and other sexuals who are with their asexual partners and sex is not involved ? A majority of sexuals want to have sex in their lives, but it doesn't mean ones that can do without don't exist. One brush never covers everyone in a group.

And for the record, I have never stated I can be content having sex my entire life. But, I am able to take responsibility for my own choices and feelings and if I ever cannot (which, I have gone through periods of "I cannot do this" about sex, so chances are it'll happen again some day) again, I will simply stop having it and tell my partner. If I could not do that, I would not be with a sexual. He is going to ask for sex and he has to be able to trust that if it ever hurts me, I will say no. It's as much protecting him as it is me, because no one who is a decent human being wants to hurt their partner like that. Having sex when it disgusts you, makes you depressed and the closest thing a person can think of to describe the feeling is rape ... that is going to hurt the sexual too. There are posts in the sexuals section about how awful the person felt after their partners finally were honest with them, because they never wanted to make them feel that way and if they had any clue, they wouldn't have had sex with them. If the person pushes, threatens, forces then they are no longer a normal sexual - they are a jerk and at the worst of it, a predator.

I have watched people give up their own wishes and let people walk over their boundaries in relationships. Sexual/sexual, asexual/sexual, it happens in way too many. Power imbalances exist in any mixture of orientations. I've even seen people agree to have kids cause they were just too scared to say no and lose their partner. I've seen touch averse sexuals tolerate their spouse touching them until it nearly drove the person to deep depression because they were too afraid to lose their spouse. Sexuals in the SF&A section have gone years without sex, letting their asexual partner have a sex-free relationship until they are depressed and considering suicide because they are too scared to take the step of breaking up, or they don't believe in divorce for some reason and they won't force sex because they aren't predators. That power imbalance that causes people to be too scared to say no is not unique to asexual/sexual relationships and it is not always the asexual who is too scared to let their partner know how much they are hurting by giving in.

If EITHER side feels like they would give in and hurt themselves, dating someone with a huge incompatibility is a bad idea. So, in that way, if you feel that way yes a mixed relationship is a horrible idea for some people. However, if both parties can honestly look at themselves, decide where their boundaries are and stand up for them if needed, then a mixed relationship can work. It isn't easy and it isn't for everyone. But, it's certainly not impossible for a sexual and a sex-repulsed (or simply not interested in compromising by having sex) asexual to have a healthy relationship either.

I acknowledge the existence of people who win the lottery, but I'm not going to sit here and claim that the odds of that happening to every person who needs the money are high enough that they should rely on it. That it's a possibility and a reality for the rare few doesn't mean anything to everyone else who aren't in that lucky group.

No reasonable person can suggest that sexual violence is an exceptional phenomenon. The rate at which heterosexual men sexually violate women alone, not counting all the other gender combinations, is so high that you can't brush it off as the behavior of a small deviant minority. Sexual violence is actually very "normal," if by normal we mean common and frequent. There are enough degrees of it that if we're looking at the whole spectrum of coercive and dubiously consensual sex, there are a hell of a lot people across every sexual orientation and gender who are guilty, whether they ever face criminal charges for it or not. (And most of them don't and won't.) How many people are raped per hour in the United States, on average, given the crappy reporting stats available? Google it. Only "abnormal" sexual people engage in unethical sexual conduct? Really? Guess there are a whole lot of abnormal people in the world.

[Feral_Sophisticate]

No reasonable person can suggest that sexual violence is an exceptional phenomenon. The rate at which heterosexual men sexually violate women alone, not counting all the other gender combinations, is so high that you can't brush it off as the behavior of a small deviant minority. Sexual violence is actually very "normal," if by normal we mean common and frequent. There are enough degrees of it that if we're looking at the whole spectrum of coercive and dubiously consensual sex, there are a hell of a lot people across every sexual orientation and gender who are guilty, whether they ever face criminal charges for it or not. (And most of them don't and won't.) How many people are raped per hour in the United States, on average, given the crappy reporting stats available? Google it. Only "abnormal" sexual people engage in unethical sexual conduct? Really? Guess there are a whole lot of abnormal people in the world.

Who the hell said anything about sexual violence...?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this thread is about compromise, not rape - and the last I checked, those were two very different things.

[Guest]

It's not as easy as you make it sound because from what I understand, your relationship isn't exclusive.

Make it "exclusive sexless relationships" and I imagine that statistic plummets like a rock.

Well, yeah. If someone isn't flexible in terms of mono/poly, that's obviously just another limitation of their dating pool. Monogamous folk immediately get taken off my list of potential partners, anyway. :)

Says the person with a partner. :-P

Yep... a partner whose relationship with me is neither romantic nor sexual nor exclusive, whose attention I am not entitled to or vice versa, and without whom I could live my life just fine and vice versa (even though I'd miss her if and when she'd decide to leave the 'ship, and vice versa).

So, the point of that snark was...? ;)

Yet more people seem to believe that they are, some asexuals included--even to their own detriment.

And they should grow up and get over it, stat. Entitlement culture is one of the biggest social plagues around, currently.

Re: aromantic allosexuals -- Actually, I wasn't even talking about partners. I was talking about friends, not that there's any real difference between the two in my life.

Sure, romantic aces can want whatever they want, think whatever they want, do whatever they want--just like everyone else on the planet. When and where did I suggest I want to interfere? All I'm saying is, any person who views romantic love, relationships, and attraction as innately superior to nonromantic love, relationships, and attraction and who conducts their friendships according to the rules of normative relating, is a worthless friend to someone with my value system and arguably to anyone who isn't satisfied with the most superficial sort of socializing. Whether or not they have sex is irrelevant. A romance supremacist who doesn't have sex isn't any better than one who does.

I'd probably attempt to word that less harshly, but yup, I can agree to the gist of it.

If EITHER side feels like they would give in and hurt themselves, dating someone with a huge incompatibility is a bad idea. So, in that way, if you feel that way yes a mixed relationship is a horrible idea for some people. However, if both parties can honestly look at themselves, decide where their boundaries are and stand up for them if needed, then a mixed relationship can work. It isn't easy and it isn't for everyone. But, it's certainly not impossible for a sexual and a sex-repulsed (or simply not interested in compromising by having sex) asexual to have a healthy relationship either.

QFT yet again.

[lissi]

In the end, allosexuals care more about getting laid and perpetuating sex normativity for their own benefit, than they do about the well-being and comfort of sex-repulsed/sex-averse asexuals.

That is an appalling thing to say. Why don't you keep your ignorant opinions to yourself?

[lissi]

It is very sad that some asexuals form a very negative view of sexuals and seem to spend the rest of their lives confirming that view. If only they realised that the conclusions they have reached about sexuals are based on a limited or unrepresentative sample and should not be used to make blanket statements about a whole group of people. Is it simply ignorance or do these negative stereotypes serve some kind of function - maybe make them feel better about themselves?

[Sally]

lissi, on 20 Jul 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:

It is very sad that some asexuals form a very negative view of sexuals and seem to spend the rest of their lives confirming that view. If only they realised that the conclusions they have reached about sexuals are based on a limited or unrepresentative sample and should not be used to make blanket statements about a whole group of people. Is it simply ignorance or do these negative stereotypes serve some kind of function - maybe make them feel better about themselves?

Is that a comment or a real question? Because it can't be answered except with another stereotype.

[Guest]

Aceofhearts your post sounds very angry I am sorry for whatever has happened in your life that causes the hatred toward sexuals but it is not fair to say mixed relationships are bad and can't work. And its a closed minded argument that a sexual doesn't sacrifice for the relationship even on a sexual level they are giving something up. If you need to talk to someone I happy to listen.

Mixed romantic relationships can work if the asexual is indifferent to sex enough to have it regularly and be at peace with that, or enthusiastic about sex and enjoys it for their own personal pleasure. I've never suggested anything different. All I'm saying is, those relationships are sexual. That they work hinges on sex being a thing that happens and happens comfortably.

Are we going to just ignore the existence of Padante, Feral and other sexuals who are with their asexual partners and sex is not involved ? A majority of sexuals want to have sex in their lives, but it doesn't mean ones that can do without don't exist. One brush never covers everyone in a group.

And for the record, I have never stated I can be content having sex my entire life. But, I am able to take responsibility for my own choices and feelings and if I ever cannot (which, I have gone through periods of "I cannot do this" about sex, so chances are it'll happen again some day) again, I will simply stop having it and tell my partner. If I could not do that, I would not be with a sexual. He is going to ask for sex and he has to be able to trust that if it ever hurts me, I will say no. It's as much protecting him as it is me, because no one who is a decent human being wants to hurt their partner like that. Having sex when it disgusts you, makes you depressed and the closest thing a person can think of to describe the feeling is rape ... that is going to hurt the sexual too. There are posts in the sexuals section about how awful the person felt after their partners finally were honest with them, because they never wanted to make them feel that way and if they had any clue, they wouldn't have had sex with them. If the person pushes, threatens, forces then they are no longer a normal sexual - they are a jerk and at the worst of it, a predator.

I have watched people give up their own wishes and let people walk over their boundaries in relationships. Sexual/sexual, asexual/sexual, it happens in way too many. Power imbalances exist in any mixture of orientations. I've even seen people agree to have kids cause they were just too scared to say no and lose their partner. I've seen touch averse sexuals tolerate their spouse touching them until it nearly drove the person to deep depression because they were too afraid to lose their spouse. Sexuals in the SF&A section have gone years without sex, letting their asexual partner have a sex-free relationship until they are depressed and considering suicide because they are too scared to take the step of breaking up, or they don't believe in divorce for some reason and they won't force sex because they aren't predators. That power imbalance that causes people to be too scared to say no is not unique to asexual/sexual relationships and it is not always the asexual who is too scared to let their partner know how much they are hurting by giving in.

If EITHER side feels like they would give in and hurt themselves, dating someone with a huge incompatibility is a bad idea. So, in that way, if you feel that way yes a mixed relationship is a horrible idea for some people. However, if both parties can honestly look at themselves, decide where their boundaries are and stand up for them if needed, then a mixed relationship can work. It isn't easy and it isn't for everyone. But, it's certainly not impossible for a sexual and a sex-repulsed (or simply not interested in compromising by having sex) asexual to have a healthy relationship either.

I acknowledge the existence of people who win the lottery, but I'm not going to sit here and claim that the odds of that happening to every person who needs the money are high enough that they should rely on it. That it's a possibility and a reality for the rare few doesn't mean anything to everyone else who aren't in that lucky group.

No reasonable person can suggest that sexual violence is an exceptional phenomenon. The rate at which heterosexual men sexually violate women alone, not counting all the other gender combinations, is so high that you can't brush it off as the behavior of a small deviant minority. Sexual violence is actually very "normal," if by normal we mean common and frequent. There are enough degrees of it that if we're looking at the whole spectrum of coercive and dubiously consensual sex, there are a hell of a lot people across every sexual orientation and gender who are guilty, whether they ever face criminal charges for it or not. (And most of them don't and won't.) How many people are raped per hour in the United States, on average, given the crappy reporting stats available? Google it. Only "abnormal" sexual people engage in unethical sexual conduct? Really? Guess there are a whole lot of abnormal people in the world.

No one has said sexual violence is a rare thing. However, it has nothing to do with someone being SEXUAL. There are tons of sexuals who are not rapists. Being in a relationship with a sexual and saying no should simply mean sex doesn't happen. They may not be happy about it, it may lead to a break up, but most of them will accept the no. Sexual spouses who do not believe in divorce come here and have gone years without sex, because their asexual spouse says no to it and they are left with no choices but to not have it. Sexual partners come here asking how to nicely go about bringing up the topic of a possible compromise, without putting pressure on their partner. Others have come here because they feel guilty having had sex, after their asexual partner finally told them sex hurts them and they don't want to inflict that pain on someone. Sexuals who respect their partners sexual wishes are plentiful. Anyone who has a partner that will not respect a no or lack of consent needs to at the very least run away from that person very quickly, or call the police and have them arrested for rape. Sexual predators have very little to nothing to do with compromises in a normal relationship. And, frankly, I doubt a sexual predator can have a healthy relationship with anyone. I've never known of one that could.

I can name at least four people who are in sexless mixed relationships on the boards. And I know someone IRL who isn't that into sex and happily took my no and cuddled in bed with me instead, for 6 months, including naked cuddling and is a sexual.

Can you rely on finding a sexual who is like that and is also completely compatible with you? No (mine wasn't compatible, he wanted to go out drinking and stuff which is not my thing). But, you can't really rely on finding anyone who is totally compatible with you, especially if you only date locally. However, it's not impossible. Explaining to them early in on dating what you feel about sex and letting them decide works just fine. If they say no, then you're incompatible. If they say yes, then you have someone potentially compatible. Just like any other potential incompatibility. Though, of course, if it would make you uncomfortable to date a sexual, then you shouldn't. If you can't stand up for your own boundaries, you shouldn't date someone that may ask if it's OK to push past them, either. But, that doesn't mean all asexuals should mark that off their list, or that it's going to lead to abuse if they date a sexual. Of course no sex makes things harder, but any time you add in a common action as a deal breaker you make it harder to find someone. There are more sexuals who will not push sex than winning lottery tickets though, or maybe I should start playing the lottery.

And I am very well acquainted with having really common deal breakers. I can't date someone who watches porn. I can't date someone who drinks alcohol. I can't date someone who smokes. I can't date someone who wants to go out every weekend and be around people (well, not if they want me to go with them). I can't date someone who has to have anal sex. I can't date someone who is into BDSM. I can't date someone who can't put up with my privacy invading family (first date with my partner, my mom intruded into it, grilled him and my cousin ran a criminal background check). And the list goes on and on against me finding someone. And I got told to just accept everything because everyone does it so settle, it's not that bad, just do it. And I tried, once, I was miserable. So, I stuck with what I knew I could handle and left out what I knew I couldn't. Even with everyone telling me it's impossible.

You seem to just keep dismissing anyone who doesn't fit your idea of how a mixed relationship should go (the very unhealthy, toxic relationship where the asexual is hurt). Those of us that are neutral or able to compromise without harming ourselves? Not a majority, so they don't count. Those sexuals who can have a relationship without sex? Not a majority, so they don't count. Sexuals who are hurt instead of the asexual because of a mixed relationship? Nonsense!

I am well aware some asexuals have had very bad experiences in mixed relationships. And it sucks and some of their partners were really abusive, or at the least jerks and some others were both just got into a really bad situation with lack of communication. I've had some of those experiences in the past and honestly, as someone who has been a victim of sexual violence, I am familiar with it. But, it's not all sexuals. And it's certainly not what anyone means when they say compromise. A healthy compromise can be had if two people can come to a mutually acceptable arrangement. That can be no sex, some sex, some sexual stuff but not actual intercourse, open relationships, partially open relationships, etc etc. And sometimes, a person can be mistaken in what they thought they could handle and the compromise can turn sour even if it started out good. But, then, it's the person who is not OK with it anymore's responsibility to say "this isn't working", the partner can't read minds.