A Bond Only Asexuals Can Feel

[Georgetown]

I recently went on an amazing date with another asexual, and I'm thoroughly convinced there exists a kind of bond only Asexuals can feel, an emotion and sense desire only psychologically possible when you do not have directed sexual feelings.

It's this very pure ethereal sense of connection, a kind of loving soul-meld, but not romantic love. It's a love somewhere between "romantic" love and the love you feel for a parent or sibling. There is no sense of lust or desire to masturbate or anything too carnal. It's just this immense sense of warmth, warmth on its own merits, warmth so powerful that it would no doubt be sexual if you had the capacity for such things. Because you don't have the capacity for directed sexual feelings, your other emotions of human connection are able to develop more depth and complexity and raw power than they ever could otherwise, like a blind person who can hear amazingly.

This experience reaffirms why I argue against mixed relationships. When asexuals date, a uniquely awesome fulfilling spiritual bond awaits us, something we can't share with a sexual. They could never understand it, just as we can't truly understand them.

Just found out too I probably have abnormally high estrogen. Even if I am a "hormonal" asexual, it's a gift from God regardless.

[CranberryTea]

Well, this may be true for you right now, but every relationship is different, therefore every connection is different. I also think, that it is possible for this kind of connection, no matter wether you are sexual or asexual. Not all sexuals build their relationships around sex. Every relationship, is unique. Every connection, is formed through a bond. I think a person's values, beliefs, and expectations impact significantly on the kind of connections they have with other people. I don't think it is fair to say sexuals can't experience a seep, spiritual, soul connection with someone. Because, I think they can. Isn't that the whole idea of a 'soul mate'?

Edit: Also, happy to hear you had such an amazing date. That's great news!

[StoneMoon]

I get the depth of feeling and bond you're talking about.

However, I wouldn't go as far as claim this kind of feelings can only exist between asexuals, that's a little too isolating for me. Also, I wouldn't extend on others what I percieve as fullfilment for myself.

It's really great that you have so fullfiling experience with another ace though! I still think that a relationship with such depth can be experienced with individuals of any sexual (etc.) orientation. It sounds like you've found a uniquelly deep relatonship for yourself but other people can find it in different ways.

[The Great WTF]

I... I'm not awake enough for this. Stuff like this is why I don't check my forums first thing in the morning.

No. Just no.

"Uniquely awesome spiritual bond"? Really? And what evidence do you have of this? Or that only asexuals can feel it? Personal experience is not grounds for broad generalizations.

As has already been stated, every relationship is unique. Every connection is unique. You cannot possibly know what others are going to feel and expeirence based on one date. It's presumptuous at best, downright insulting if I'm feeling less charitable.

It's wonderful that you had such a good time and experienced this connection, but please don't use it as any kind of evidence for anything other than your personal self-analysis.

[Tarfeather]

Agree with WTF here. But I guess I can sorta kinda relate a bit to what you're saying? I've had situations before where I just wanted to be romantic, and then the libido comes through like that guy next to you eating loudly in the cinema. It's like "ugh will you shut up". However, I think I can still enjoy the movie even with a guy sitting right next to me eating loudly. :> Distracting, maybe, but doesn't completely invalidate the experience.

[Rising Sun]

Another "asexuals are so much better and so much more spiritual and noble than those sexual beasts all around us" post...

[Scottthespy]

I think that connection is probably a connection all people who are both in love and compatible (romantically, emotionally, politically, ect) can have. They just ALSO have other connections along with it. Lust can sometimes be some ones priority, so that they stick with some one who's sexually amazingly compatible, but doesn't click quite as well emotionally or in other ways. But you can also have relationships where there is no lust where the people are mearly comfortable and content, and have no desire to seek a 'better' fit because they're happy with the level of compatibility they have.

You're sense of warmth seems very like what I feel for my mother. She and I have a deeper connection than most mother-daughter relationships share. I'm the only one that can talk her down from an anger, and she's the only one who can usually get me out of the house to a party or some other social activity. I'm always looking out for her, despite her being the parent. We're best friends. We're soul mates, and if reincarnation is something that exists, we've been through every relationship in the book, from lovers to siblings to a boy and his dog. We resonate on a level others don't seem to understand. One knows when the other is feeling intense emotion, and when we're together we feed off eachothers energy. One will drink, we'll both get a buzz, and often both get a hang over. Its more than comfortable. Its deeply, profoundly right when Im spending time with her. Nothing seems too ambitious, its like all my self imposed limitations flee in face of ths person with whom I can do everything. And for my part, I bring her back to reality, keep her temper from flaring with just a touch on the arm, translate when people's emotions or mind games are confusing to her very straight forward, no riddles way of thinking.

We match and harmonize on a level most people never know to strive for, but I'm sure they could find it if they knew and were motivated to do so. It IS a very special feeling, and I'm glad you found it, but it is not reserved for any one group or even any one type of relationship. Sexual people can feel this way. Siblings can feel this way. Open relationships can feel this way among one or more of the 'pairs' within the relationship.

[dissolved]

I'm pretty sure you don't need to be asexual to experience a bond with someone like that. Not everything is about sex. Not every relationship people establish in this world revolves around sex...

[Guest]

Me dumb sexual. Me love sex. You me sex? Me love you.

(that's about right, right?)

[Null_and_Void]

Your constant spiritual babble and thinly veiled insults made me actually, physically gag. Everyone else has pretty much already covered it all. In short, you have an asexual elitist view, and this is why I hate AVEN sometimes. Never before have I seen a minority with such a high percentage of elitism. The Great WTF and Skullery Maid, people like you are why I mostly love AVEN. Thank you.

[Guest]

I completely disagree. Asexuals and sexuals can both feel the same emotions, they just have different desires on how to express said emotions.

[Hobbes!]

I think you've drawn the wrong conclusions here, but it's nice that you're happy right now

[Chardog]

There is something about sex not being on the table... My SO is gay, I'm AFAB but genderqueer. There really is an intense emotional bond there. Not saying that sexuals don't have that too, but it's much harder to find when you don't connect with sex. And even of you're both ace, there's still no guarantee you'll click...

[Georgetown]

I haven't met a single asexual elitist on Aven. It seems like everyone is very moderate here, surprisingly moderate actually.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with sexual relationships, just that I believe the different psychological makeup of asexuals affords them certain amazing kinds of connections not available to sexuals. It's a matter of how you define an asexual mind I guess.

I will say that there is a lot of legitimacy to the hippy spiritual asexuality-is-better camp. For one thing, it's a lot of fun. Nothing quite like hippy spiritual asexual get-togetherness and conversations! It also has a lot of Biblical standing.

[Guest]

just that I believe the different psychological makeup of asexuals affords them certain amazing kinds of connections not available to sexuals.

And this "different psychological makeup"... please cite your sources.

As an aside, i feel my feelings stronger than most everyone I've ever met, so I highly, highly doubt that all asexuals are out there feeling connections my dumb sexual brain can't fathom. If anything it's the reverse, but not because of my sexuality, but rather because of my craziness.

[CNGB]

You might just think I'm wrong, but I have this bond with someone else who is certainly not asexual (he's homo). I know for certain he feels that way with me.

I don't think it's an asexual thing as much as I do it's something you're just lucky as fuck to have if you ever get it. So, congratulations on feeling that bond! :D

[butterflydreams]

just that I believe the different psychological makeup of asexuals affords them certain amazing kinds of connections not available to sexuals.

And this "different psychological makeup"... please cite your sources.

As an aside, i feel my feelings stronger than most everyone I've ever met, so I highly, highly doubt that all asexuals are out there feeling connections my dumb sexual brain can't fathom. If anything it's the reverse, but not because of my sexuality, but rather because of my craziness.

Based on accounts of people I've read, and many of your comments elsewhere, I personally feel like I'm absolutely lacking. There's no "special asexual bond" awaiting me, and I likely won't ever get to feel that intense, beautiful sexual bond either. I don't suppose I can ever truly "miss" it, given that I can only fantasize about what it must feel like, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't the least bit envious.

[Xavy]

Two people being asexual doesn't seem to be a good basis to build a relationship, however, to each his own. Good luck.

[passionatefriend61]

I love how every and any time asexuals suggest that they experience something positive because of their asexuality, that sexual people don't experience, or whenever aromantics suggest that they experience something positive because of their aromanticism that romantics can't experience, the respective group of sexual people or romantic people get their panties all in a twist and cry "elitism" because God forbid that aces or aros have ANYTHING positive that is unique to them. That might actually come into conflict with the image of sexual people and romantic people are the only "normal," whole, perfect default types of human beings. It's funny, they don't seem to have any problem with going around spouting shit like, "Oooooo, you're missing out on the BEST thing(s) in life! Sex! Romance! The most SPECIAL form of human connection possible in the universe." I wonder why that sounds so familiar here..... Hmm.....

But I'll level with you, Georgetown. I've believed for a long, long time--since I was a child--that the highest and most spiritual from of love is basically perfect, nonsexual, passionate friendship. Of course, this isn't just defined as nonsexual but also as nonromantic, so it's not even exclusive to asexuals so much as it's exclusive to aromantics regardless of sexual orientation. I find it interesting that you specifically described this feeling as: "ethereal sense of connection, a kind of loving soul-meld, but not romantic love." Now, maybe you're confused here and you mean that it's a nonsexual-but-romantic love or maybe, despite the fact that you called this a "date," you did deliberately characterize the connection as NOT romantic, in addition to nonsexual, because it indeed was nonromantic in addition to nonsexual for you and/or the other ace.

I think what you're describing, honestly, is accurate but specific to the person type. Meaning that this kind of profound and even spiritual love or connection or intimacy automatically gets filtered through and limited to a person's respective primary mode of emotional connection. So for sexual people, this only happens through sex if it happens at all. For romantic people, it only happens in romance, if at all. For asexuals, it only happens in a nonsexual love context--so that in fact, having sex is actually preventative of this feeling/connection you describe. And for aros, it only happens in the most intimate, loving friendship where they are accepted for themselves and loved/connected with, without any romantic motive whatsoever. Does that make sense? It's like, if you're romantic/sexual most if not all of your capacity for love, emotion, affection, etc is channeled into sex and romance by default. But if you're ace and/or aro, that same love, emotion, affection is redirected into nonsexual and/or nonromantic connection, if and when you can get it. If a switch flipped in your brain and you became romantic/sexual overnight, then you'd lose the ability to feel that kind of connection, love, etc in nonsexual and/or nonromantic relationships because you'd gain it in romance/sex. And the reverse is also true: someone romantic and/or sexual who overnight becomes ace/aro would suddenly experience nonsexual and/or nonromantic relationships as exponentially more loving, emotional, intimate, and even spiritual than they could before. (That's if this change in nature were possible; obviously it's not, so I'm being hypothetical.)

I can't even tell you how common it is for sexual people to classify sex and/or romance as the ultimate spiritual experience. EXACTLY the way you talk about this nonsexual connection in your original post. Like, for real, in actual spiritual belief systems and even religions, or people who just have a spiritual bent to them, it's often said that having sex or falling in love is like "becoming one with God" or "experiencing the divine" or whatever. Again, I hear no outcry about sexual people or romantic people blowing sex and romance out of proportion to the degree of dehumanizing or diminishing aces and aros, to mirror the objections you're getting from people here about how saying there is something uniquely special/spiritual in nonsexual love is somehow insulting to sexual people. Double standard much?

If you want to look at your experience in spiritual terms, that's your choice. I really think it's a matter of perspective, because plenty of people are not spiritual or religious at all and wouldn't think of anything in those terms. I think that being able to connect with someone else in a meaningful way, with the emotional and psychological freedom and comfort of knowing they will never want sex from you and that your relationship will actually be BETTER for this instead of worse, contributes a lot to the way an ace forms and experiences said connection. Same goes for aros and nonromantic/queerplatonic/passionate friendship. Maybe it's not so much "spiritual" as it is psycho-emotional interpretation that you're making that feels like the best and highest feeling you could ever have because in comparison to everything else, your other alternatives, it IS the best and the highest. The freest, the most comfortable, the easiest, etc.

[Lady Girl]

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with sexual relationships, just that I believe the different psychological makeup of asexuals affords them certain amazing kinds of connections not available to sexuals. It's a matter of how you define an asexual mind I guess.

I think amazing connections are available to anybody (I'm guessing it has more to do with endorphins, dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin than sexual orientation...).

I, like Skullery, am sexual, and capable of strong feelings (with or without sex), including those of amazing connection. I honestly have a hard time imagining feeling any more connected to my husband (who is ace) than I do.

[Guest]

I love how every and any time asexuals suggest that they experience something positive because of their asexuality, that sexual people don't experience, or whenever aromantics suggest that they experience something positive because of their aromanticism that romantics can't experience, the respective group of sexual people or romantic people get their panties all in a twist and cry "elitism" because God forbid that aces or aros have ANYTHING positive that is unique to them. That might actually come into conflict with the image of sexual people and romantic people are the only "normal," whole, perfect default types of human beings. It's funny, they don't seem to have any problem with going around spouting shit like, "Oooooo, you're missing out on the BEST thing(s) in life! Sex! Romance! The most SPECIAL form of human connection possible in the universe." I wonder why that sounds so familiar here..... Hmm.....

No, that's not what's going on. What's going on is that EVERYONE is able to feel this kind of connection. I feel it with my partner and it's amazing as hell and it has NOTHING to do with our sexual orientations.

[SithLord]

I have to agree with most of the above posts.

Georgetown, you might not mean anything by it, but you sound pretty elitist in your post, and from reading a few of your other posts I get the same feeling.

I think you should try to avoid blanket statements that are likely to offend people, especially ones that put down another group of people.

[passionatefriend61]

I love how every and any time asexuals suggest that they experience something positive because of their asexuality, that sexual people don't experience, or whenever aromantics suggest that they experience something positive because of their aromanticism that romantics can't experience, the respective group of sexual people or romantic people get their panties all in a twist and cry "elitism" because God forbid that aces or aros have ANYTHING positive that is unique to them. That might actually come into conflict with the image of sexual people and romantic people are the only "normal," whole, perfect default types of human beings. It's funny, they don't seem to have any problem with going around spouting shit like, "Oooooo, you're missing out on the BEST thing(s) in life! Sex! Romance! The most SPECIAL form of human connection possible in the universe." I wonder why that sounds so familiar here..... Hmm.....

No, that's not what's going on. What's going on is that EVERYONE is able to feel this kind of connection. I feel it with my partner and it's amazing as hell and it has NOTHING to do with our sexual orientations.

You're generalizing, and Georgetown is talking about something specific. Something that is specifically nonsexual (and possibly nonromantic?) and very powerful/special/spiritual/etc because it is happening between two asexuals who neither want nor need for it to go in a sexual direction. Notice he did not say anywhere that he thinks this is the ONLY kind of significant or spiritual or emotional connection that exists in humans. Notice he did not say anything about sexual people lacking an equivalent kind of experience. All he's saying is that there is possibly something entirely unique to asexuals, that sexual people don't feel, when they get together with each other and form a nonsexual bond. If you're arguing that you feel the kind of connection he's talking about with your sexual partner or whatever, you're agreeing with him and with me, not disagreeing--because you don't feel that in the context of a nonsexual bond, as someone sexual, or in a nonromantic bond as someone romantic. Just like he doesn't feel this connection with sexual people in sexual or would-be-sexual relationships, historically.

It's like, he said, "Wow, I can taste this flavor in food that is amazing, because I can't taste this other flavor everyone else does taste!"

And you and his other critics shout, "NO, EVERYBODY CAN TASTE ALL FLAVORS THAT EXIST, YOU DON'T EXPERIENCE ANYTHING THAT THE REST OF US CAN'T."

Well, clearly, sexual people do experience something that asexuals don't, and I don't see aces getting offended over that fact. Why is it so outrageous for an asexual or an aromantic to suggest that they in turn feel something that sexual people and romantic people don't experience? Why so sour over the idea that people who are fundamentally different from you might have feelings or experiences that you don't, because those feelings and experiences spring from their nature the same way yours springs from your nature? You all make it seem like the only way your own sexuality, your own relationships, etc get to have merit is if they're the ONLY ones of value in existence, and if there's something else out there that's valuable that you don't have, what you do have becomes inferior. But that's all in your own head, not something that aces or aros who make these suggestions are intentionally implying. I honestly don't care if sexual people or romantic people have some kind of earth-shattering, soul-moving bond through sex and romance that I can never feel. Why should I? Am I supposed to feel inferior to them? Am I supposed to feel like my own relationships and love and bonds are inferior to theirs? Maybe they think so, however privately, but it doesn't matter. I'm happy with what I do have access to, and I wouldn't trade one passionate friendship for all the sex and romance in the history of mankind. I really wouldn't.

[Guest]

I love how every and any time asexuals suggest that they experience something positive because of their asexuality, that sexual people don't experience, or whenever aromantics suggest that they experience something positive because of their aromanticism that romantics can't experience, the respective group of sexual people or romantic people get their panties all in a twist and cry "elitism" because God forbid that aces or aros have ANYTHING positive that is unique to them. That might actually come into conflict with the image of sexual people and romantic people are the only "normal," whole, perfect default types of human beings. It's funny, they don't seem to have any problem with going around spouting shit like, "Oooooo, you're missing out on the BEST thing(s) in life! Sex! Romance! The most SPECIAL form of human connection possible in the universe." I wonder why that sounds so familiar here..... Hmm.....

No, that's not what's going on. What's going on is that EVERYONE is able to feel this kind of connection. I feel it with my partner and it's amazing as hell and it has NOTHING to do with our sexual orientations.

You're generalizing, and Georgetown is talking about something specific.

Actually, I would argue that you are the one that is generalizing that romantics and sexuals cannot feel these things.

[CranberryTea]

I love how every and any time asexuals suggest that they experience something positive because of their asexuality, that sexual people don't experience, or whenever aromantics suggest that they experience something positive because of their aromanticism that romantics can't experience, the respective group of sexual people or romantic people get their panties all in a twist and cry "elitism" because God forbid that aces or aros have ANYTHING positive that is unique to them. That might actually come into conflict with the image of sexual people and romantic people are the only "normal," whole, perfect default types of human beings. It's funny, they don't seem to have any problem with going around spouting shit like, "Oooooo, you're missing out on the BEST thing(s) in life! Sex! Romance! The most SPECIAL form of human connection possible in the universe." I wonder why that sounds so familiar here..... Hmm.....

No, that's not what's going on. What's going on is that EVERYONE is able to feel this kind of connection. I feel it with my partner and it's amazing as hell and it has NOTHING to do with our sexual orientations.

You're generalizing, and Georgetown is talking about something specific. Something that is specifically nonsexual (and possibly nonromantic?) and very powerful/special/spiritual/etc because it is happening between two asexuals who neither want nor need for it to go in a sexual direction. Notice he did not say anywhere that he thinks this is the ONLY kind of significant or spiritual or emotional connection that exists in humans. Notice he did not say anything about sexual people lacking an equivalent kind of experience. All he's saying is that there is possibly something entirely unique to asexuals, that sexual people don't feel, when they get together with each other and form a nonsexual bond. If you're arguing that you feel the kind of connection he's talking about with your sexual partner or whatever, you're agreeing with him and with me, not disagreeing--because you don't feel that in the context of a nonsexual bond, as someone sexual, or in a nonromantic bond as someone romantic. Just like he doesn't feel this connection with sexual people in sexual or would-be-sexual relationships, historically.

It's like, he said, "Wow, I can taste this flavor in food that is amazing, because I can't taste this other flavor everyone else does taste!"

And you and his other critics shout, "NO, EVERYBODY CAN TASTE ALL FLAVORS THAT EXIST, YOU DON'T EXPERIENCE ANYTHING THAT THE REST OF US CAN'T."

Well, clearly, sexual people do experience something that asexuals don't, and I don't see aces getting offended over that fact. Why is it so outrageous for an asexual or an aromantic to suggest that they in turn feel something that sexual people and romantic people don't experience? Why so sour over the idea that people who are fundamentally different from you might have feelings or experiences that you don't, because those feelings and experiences spring from their nature the same way yours springs from your nature?

Can I just say.... Masterbation? Some asexuals masterbate, just like sexuals. Some asexuals do have sex, just because they don't desire it, doesn't mean they don't enjoy it. Of course, not all asexuals enjoy sex, or desire it (obviously). Many sexuals say masterbation is some unearthly, amazing experience, so why couldn't asexuals who masterbate have that same experience? I don't think you can generalise this, I know sexuals in relationships, who have sexual desires, but don't have sex, and have a deep connection that is unique. The thing is, every connection is unique, and trying to put labels on 'this experience can only be experienced in this way, by this orientation' is stupid.

The connection you feel, is not about whether you are asexual or sexual, or demisexual. It's not to do with whether you are romantic, or aromantic (or whatever orientation I am missing out). It's about you, the other person(s), and the chemistry, and bond between them. Whatever it is, whatever things affect it, be it sex, no sex. Or maybe your bond is about the way you support each other, or the interests you share. Or maybe it's becuase you both just love chocolate so damn much that you have this crazy bond as a result (I know exageration but what ever). IT DOES NOT MATTER! Who is anyone to say, whether or not someones relationship is/is not unique just because of whether or not a specific thing is experienced, or not? No one. I feel like you were on the right track kind of, but I feel like this conversation has turned into a conversation more about the experience of sex. I just think, we shouldn't be saying 'everyone can experience everything' but at the same time we shouldn't say 'this group can't experience what this group does'.

I think we are forgetting that one thing sexual people experience, that asexuals don't, is a desire to have sex. I feel like this is being over complicated. I just don't see how desire is even important in whether or not sexuals can experience a connection at an emotional level that might be assositated with more emotional, and romantic connection. Same for the other way round, how is it important or not as to whether an asexual enjoying sex, in whether their relationship can't be an amazing bond on an amazing level?

[passionatefriend61]

I love how every and any time asexuals suggest that they experience something positive because of their asexuality, that sexual people don't experience, or whenever aromantics suggest that they experience something positive because of their aromanticism that romantics can't experience, the respective group of sexual people or romantic people get their panties all in a twist and cry "elitism" because God forbid that aces or aros have ANYTHING positive that is unique to them. That might actually come into conflict with the image of sexual people and romantic people are the only "normal," whole, perfect default types of human beings. It's funny, they don't seem to have any problem with going around spouting shit like, "Oooooo, you're missing out on the BEST thing(s) in life! Sex! Romance! The most SPECIAL form of human connection possible in the universe." I wonder why that sounds so familiar here..... Hmm.....

No, that's not what's going on. What's going on is that EVERYONE is able to feel this kind of connection. I feel it with my partner and it's amazing as hell and it has NOTHING to do with our sexual orientations.

You're generalizing, and Georgetown is talking about something specific. Something that is specifically nonsexual (and possibly nonromantic?) and very powerful/special/spiritual/etc because it is happening between two asexuals who neither want nor need for it to go in a sexual direction. Notice he did not say anywhere that he thinks this is the ONLY kind of significant or spiritual or emotional connection that exists in humans. Notice he did not say anything about sexual people lacking an equivalent kind of experience. All he's saying is that there is possibly something entirely unique to asexuals, that sexual people don't feel, when they get together with each other and form a nonsexual bond. If you're arguing that you feel the kind of connection he's talking about with your sexual partner or whatever, you're agreeing with him and with me, not disagreeing--because you don't feel that in the context of a nonsexual bond, as someone sexual, or in a nonromantic bond as someone romantic. Just like he doesn't feel this connection with sexual people in sexual or would-be-sexual relationships, historically.

It's like, he said, "Wow, I can taste this flavor in food that is amazing, because I can't taste this other flavor everyone else does taste!"

And you and his other critics shout, "NO, EVERYBODY CAN TASTE ALL FLAVORS THAT EXIST, YOU DON'T EXPERIENCE ANYTHING THAT THE REST OF US CAN'T."

Well, clearly, sexual people do experience something that asexuals don't, and I don't see aces getting offended over that fact. Why is it so outrageous for an asexual or an aromantic to suggest that they in turn feel something that sexual people and romantic people don't experience? Why so sour over the idea that people who are fundamentally different from you might have feelings or experiences that you don't, because those feelings and experiences spring from their nature the same way yours springs from your nature?

Can I just say.... Masterbation? Some asexuals masterbate, just like sexuals. Some asexuals do have sex, just because they don't desire it, doesn't mean they don't enjoy it. Of course, not all asexuals enjoy sex, or desire it (obviously). Many sexuals say masterbation is some unearthly, amazing experience, so why couldn't asexuals who masterbate have that same experience? I don't think you can generalise this, I know sexuals in relationships, who have sexual desires, but don't have sex, and have a deep connection that is unique. The thing is, every connection is unique, and trying to put labels on 'this experience can only be experienced in this way, by this orientation' is stupid.

The connection you feel, is not about whether you are asexual or sexual, or demisexual. It's not to do with whether you are romantic, or aromantic (or whatever orientation I am missing out). It's about you, the other person(s), and the chemistry, and bond between them. Whatever it is, whatever things affect it, be it sex, no sex. Or maybe your bond is about the way you support each other, or the interests you share. Or maybe it's becuase you both just love chocolate so damn much that you have this crazy bond as a result (I know exageration but what ever). IT DOES NOT MATTER! Who is anyone to say, whether or not someones relationship is/is not unique just because of whether or not a specific thing is experienced, or not? No one. I feel like you were on the right track kind of, but I feel like this conversation has turned into a conversation more about the experience of sex. I just think, we shouldn't be saying 'everyone can experience everything' but at the same time we shouldn't say 'this group can't experience what this group does'.

I think we are forgetting that one thing sexual people experience, that asexuals don't, is a desire to have sex. I feel like this is being over complicated. I just don't see how desire is even important in whether or not sexuals can experience a connection at an emotional level that might be assositated with more emotional, and romantic connection. Same for the other way round, how is it important or not as to whether an asexual enjoying sex, in whether their relationship can't be an amazing bond on an amazing level?

I have no idea why you brought up masturbation. We're not talking about sex. We're actually talking specifically about nonsexual connection between two asexuals. And you can't compare someone's ability or inability to experience physical pleasure from masturbation or partnered sex, with experiencing a specific type of emotional bond or chemistry with someone else that is aligned with their social/sexual/emotional nature. Like, I don't get what parallel you're trying to draw here. And at no point did I make this about sex. This is about love and emotion.

And actually, yeah, it does matter what your sexual and romantic orientations are because they DO determine what kind of feelings, relationships, and bonds you WANT and naturally HAVE. You can choose to act contrary to your own nature, feelings, etc, but if you do, it will not feel the same as it does when you're following your natural impulses, feelings, desires. And there is obviously difference in capabilities as far as who can have what type of relationship or bond. All you have to do is actually look at the patterns of relationships in each category of sexual, asexual, romantic, aromantic to see that.

If out of 100 million romantic-sexual people, 99,999,990 only experience significant love and connection in romantic-sexual contexts and their "friendships" are the blase shallow normative kind and they have no notion of queerplatonic or passionate friendship and they aren't capable of experiencing a romantic bond without sex being a part of it for them--even if only in desire/thought/feeling--there is no way in hell you can say to me that those romantic-sexual people as a category can be drawn as identical to a group of 10 million aromantic asexuals, let's say, 9 million of whom either wants or has a queerplatonic or passionate friendship and the other 1 million who don't but still feel all of their love and bonding sensations in their network of friend and family relationships. Or even a group of 10 million romantic asexuals, 9,999,900 of whom ideally want a totally nonsexual romantic relationship and would die happy if they never had sex again from this day forward, and who are therefore at their most complete, at peace, comfortable, etc when in love with other aces who are pleased to give them exactly what they want. Yeah, each category has their version of the special, loving, powerful bond--which is what I said and something that the OP didn't explicitly deny--but those bonds are DIFFERENT. Romantic-sexual people don't feel the passionate nonromantic nonsexual love that belongs to aro aces, and aro aces don't feel the romantic nonsexual love of romantic aces, and romantic aces don't feel the romantic-sexual love/desire/chemistry that belongs to romantic-sexual people. If they all felt the same thing, they'd all BE the same thing. It isn't about behavior, it's about the feeling experience. That's what we're talking about.

[CranberryTea]

I brought it up, because, we're talking about any kind of feeling, physical, or emotional, that play a role in someones bond with another person. It's not always a solitary act, and for some people, it is just as important in their connection with their partner, as is any of the emotional feelings itself. It's just something people have told me anyway. I personally wouldn't have any idea.

I think that is true to a certain extent, but I don't think that it's the deciding factor. I guess if your sexual orientation plays an important role in your personal identity, and influences what values you hold, sure. But it's not a big factor for everyone, and I don't think it determines what you want from a relationship that is based purely on emotion. People often ask 'what do you want in a relationship?' and many people will say things like, I want a partner who understands me, who cares about me, who loves me for who I am. They might say they want honesty, trust, kindess. It's usually these kinds of things that influence how you connect with someone. Not whether or not you are sexual, or asexual. Or aromantic, or romantic. They can be a factor for some, but not for everyone. So yes, I was wrong by saying, they don't matter, but, I still think, they don't matter as much as other things. If I'm the odd one out for that, fine.

My whole point is that I'm not saying they are identical. I am saying that everyone is different, every connection is different. I just don't see the point in putting people into catagories and generalising the kind of emotional connection someone has, based on their sexual orientation. Everyone is different, and just because someone might have the same romantic/sexual orientation, as someone else, doesn't mean that they both have the same kind of emotional bond as well. I just don't see how there is any 'template' so to speak, of emotional bond kind of experience that belongs to any sexual orientation.

[Chikane-Chan]

Im gonna throw in my 5 cents here its all good and well that your date went well and you felt the way you do, but the OP does phrase it in an elitist way.

Each person is unique and how and what they feel isn't some template that is predetermined by your orientation and romantic/aromantic mentality.

So saying that what you felt in only available to asexuals is rather rude and there is no empirical proof of it, so basically your stating that the bond i have with my wife(who is sexual) isnt deep or amazing just because its a mixed relationship, or that my best friend who i value closer than a brother is only a very shallow friendship because its not passionate as you say. I dont mean to be rude but when you use blanket statements like that you do come off as being rude and elitist.

Do those deep spiritual connections exist? yes they do, are they limited to just asexual, NO they are not.

[Literary X]

I love how every and any time asexuals suggest that they experience something positive because of their asexuality, that sexual people don't experience, or whenever aromantics suggest that they experience something positive because of their aromanticism that romantics can't experience, the respective group of sexual people or romantic people get their panties all in a twist and cry "elitism" because God forbid that aces or aros have ANYTHING positive that is unique to them. That might actually come into conflict with the image of sexual people and romantic people are the only "normal," whole, perfect default types of human beings. It's funny, they don't seem to have any problem with going around spouting shit like, "Oooooo, you're missing out on the BEST thing(s) in life! Sex! Romance! The most SPECIAL form of human connection possible in the universe." I wonder why that sounds so familiar here..... Hmm.....

Thank you. That is exactly what I wanted to say!

[Null_and_Void]

I haven't met a single asexual elitist on Aven. It seems like everyone is very moderate here, surprisingly moderate actually.

That's probably because you are one, so it's tough for you to notice there's anything amiss...

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with sexual relationships, just that I believe the different psychological makeup of asexuals affords them certain amazing kinds of connections not available to sexuals. It's a matter of how you define an asexual mind I guess.

You are saying that my sex drive somehow inhibits me from forming as close of a bond with somebody as an asexual. Essentially, you're saying my (asexual) girlfriend loves me more than I love her, just because I happen to also be sexually attracted to her. Never mind the fact that I've already promised to never do anything sexual with her and that I would die for her, no no, I'm still incapable of that special brand of ace love.

I will say that there is a lot of legitimacy to the hippy spiritual asexuality-is-better camp. For one thing, it's a lot of fun.

You claim you're not elitist, then say that "it's a lot of fun" to claim you're better.

It also has a lot of Biblical standing.

That means absolutely nothing to me. I have no reason to doubt you felt a strong connection, but I do highly doubt that it was caused by magic. I'm not going to derail this into a religious debate, I'll just point out that I'm not the only atheist out there capable of love, and attributing it to your religion is, yet again, quite offensive.

EDIT :

I love how every and any time asexuals suggest that they experience something positive because of their asexuality, that sexual people don't experience, or whenever aromantics suggest that they experience something positive because of their aromanticism that romantics can't experience, the respective group of sexual people or romantic people get their panties all in a twist and cry "elitism" because God forbid that aces or aros have ANYTHING positive that is unique to them. That might actually come into conflict with the image of sexual people and romantic people are the only "normal," whole, perfect default types of human beings. It's funny, they don't seem to have any problem with going around spouting shit like, "Oooooo, you're missing out on the BEST thing(s) in life! Sex! Romance! The most SPECIAL form of human connection possible in the universe." I wonder why that sounds so familiar here..... Hmm.....

First, that wouldn't be quite that hypocritical since asexuals and aromantics are by definition not experiencing something that other people are, whereas romantics and sexuals are, by definition, experiencing something that other people are not. However, I would never state that these things are inherently the "best" things in life. They very well can be, yes, but if you have no desire for them, they very clearly aren't going to be. I love anchovies, but I don't feel like I'm experiencing some higher flavor that people who don't enjoy them will never experience. It's all subjective. They can very well perform the same act (eat anchovies, enter a relationship, have sex), but the experience will be entirely subjective.