Can asexual a love people

[Ratpick]

This is a serious question!  I love my wife so much I want to f her brains out and couldnt care less about any other woman, even the one said to look sexy. I love my child so much I want to hug him until he pops. I'm so excited to see them I can't articulate it. It just has to be physical, there are no words. However, my distant wife is different and I imagine all asexuals are the same. If an asexual has loved another, do they work up to a chuck on the shoulder or just a vigorous wave hello?  Do they work the fury of their love to a fire in their prose or do they just never attain that magnitude in the first place. I often read an asexual's inquiry about whether sexuals need to practice that silly act of sex. It's an obvious question if you don't equate sex with love. It's a silly question if you do.

 

Also, if there is no component of love in sex, wouldn't we be extinct as a species, because its way easier to self love than to play the numbers game at the bar. 

 

I read somewhere that Kelly clarkson thought she was asexual until she met her husband. Does anyone know of other asexuals similarly converted?  I don't want to be disrespectful, I just don't know any better.  I don't mean to imply that maybe we're just dealing with a bunch of agoraphobic misanthropes that rather curl around Emily Dickinson by the fire. It's just fascinating that so many are free from the inconvenient and consuming hunger for sexual pleasure.  It's such a big hassle. If it wasn't, the only comedian left with a job would be seinfeld.  

 

Finally, if you're an asexual, what's the difference between gay and straight?  Why don't you just marry gay and avoid all the compromises of the opposite sex, such as the sock policy. Missing when the toilet seat is down. Whether popcorn is an acceptable meal for dinner. 

[Galactic Turtle]

Wow... uh... where to start. XD

 

51 minutes ago, Ratpick said:

However, my distant wife is different and I imagine all asexuals are the same.

Just like sexual people, not all asexual people are the same. By your standards your wife might seem distant, but it's likely she just has a different way of conveying love.

 

51 minutes ago, Ratpick said:

If an asexual has loved another, do they work up to a chuck on the shoulder or just a vigorous wave hello?  Do they work the fury of their love to a fire in their prose or do they just never attain that magnitude in the first place. I often read an asexual's inquiry about whether sexuals need to practice that silly act of sex. It's an obvious question if you don't equate sex with love. It's a silly question if you do.

Just like non-asexual people, everyone has their different comfort zones. For example I'm repulsed by touch. I don't like it when anyone touches me regardless of how close we are or how long we've known each other. It would feel to me like someone randomly shoving their fingers in your mouth whenever you say hello. It's violating and uncomfortable. Other asexual people are basically koalas. They love touch, love hugging, some even love kissing. Lots of asexual people are very tactile in general. And asexual people who are married or in relationships with non-asexual people even have sex to please their partner if they are not repulsed by the act. 

 

51 minutes ago, Ratpick said:

Also, if there is no component of love in sex, wouldn't we be extinct as a species, because its way easier to self love than to play the numbers game at the bar. 

You seem to be equating love with sex or even more so: love = marriage = sex. It's a cultural ideal that all of these things are linked together but in reality these are all separate things. Historically at least for societies based upon Christianity, if anything marriage has had more to do with sex than love because it is only within marriage that it was seen as acceptable to have sex. Love really only came into the picture relatively recently. Is there a general base desire to mate? Yes. But I'd say it has a lot more to do with hormonal inclinations than any particular deep connection with another person... historically speaking. Also, as nature tends to be, there's variations in this base instinct or desire which means in humans and other species there are those in any given population that just don't care for any procreation-related activities. These days many married folks have sex everyday and have no plans to have kids ever.

 

51 minutes ago, Ratpick said:

I read somewhere that Kelly clarkson thought she was asexual until she met her husband. Does anyone know of other asexuals similarly converted?

I don't think converted is the right word. Some people just naturally don't feel desire for other people until they establish a deep emotional bond with them. Others only feel desire for maybe one or two people in their lives just by chance. These would fall into the gray area identities of gray-a or demisexual. At the same time, many sexual people have desires to have sex but aren't comfortable doing it with someone they're not established with and trust.

 

51 minutes ago, Ratpick said:

Finally, if you're an asexual, what's the difference between gay and straight?  Why don't you just marry gay and avoid all the compromises of the opposite sex, such as the sock policy. Missing when the toilet seat is down. Whether popcorn is an acceptable meal for dinner. 

I am a woman. Entering a relationship with a heterosexual man or a homosexual woman would be the same because they are both sexual and I am asexual. Homosexual people desire sex just as much as heterosexual people do, they just desire it with someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. It's not about toilet seats or... socks? Or popcorn? It's about sex and me not wanting to have it. It's about touch and me not wanting to engage in it.

 

[Ahras]

i had hard time reading this. but wwho am i to judge i'm also not good at english so....

 

as long as i can understand what u r saying, u can be asexual and feel intimate love. not all asexuals are the same. not all heterosexuals are the same. not all human beings are the same...

 

do not concern yourself with labels this much most of the time for weird folks like me labels has not enough clerification about what is what...

 

just go out there love whoever u want to, and fuck whoever(mutual approval needed) u want to. dont care about others or labels... as long as u r okay living in your own skin it is fine.

[Guest]

yes

[danvers]

It is definitely possible for asexual people to feel love!

 

There are different kinds of attraction, and you can feel multiple kinds of attraction at once. Aesthetic attraction is thinking someone is good-looking but not necessarily wanting to do anything with them. Straight people can still feel aesthetic attraction to people of their same gender, for example. Platonic attraction is wanting to be friends with someone and spend time with them, but not in a romantic or sexual way. Romantic attraction is wanting to date someone, but not necessarily have sex with them. Sexual attraction is wanting to have sex with someone. Many people feel romantic and sexual attraction at the same time, but this isn't always the case. Since romantic and sexual attraction are different, it is possible to have different romantic and sexual orientations. For example, I am asexual (don't experience sexual attraction at all) and biromantic (experience romantic attraction to men and women). I love going on dates, cuddling, and kissing my boyfriend, but I have no interest in anything sexual. However, there also aromantic people, who don't experience romantic attraction (but may or may not experience sexual attraction).

1 hour ago, Ratpick said:

Finally, if you're an asexual, what's the difference between gay and straight?  Why don't you just marry gay and avoid all the compromises of the opposite sex, such as the sock policy. Missing when the toilet seat is down. Whether popcorn is an acceptable meal for dinner. 

Asexuals don't "just marry gay" because

a) They may not want to get married. (For example, if they're aromantic)

b) Marriage is generally seen as a romantic thing, so people don't want to marry someone they aren't at least romantically attracted to. A heteroromantic asexual woman would probably not want to marry a woman.

 

Hope this helps!

[Guest]

Wanting to fuck someone's brains out doesn't = love. Squirrels have sex, and it isn't because they love eachother. Of course you can both love someone and want to have sex with them, but sex and love are completely separate things. I don't know how people confuse them.

[Ahras]

2 minutes ago, Wish Bear 🌠 said:

Wanting to fuck someone's brains out doesn't = love.

i hoped that this and 'wanting to hug someone until they pop'' was just a figurative speech.

[Guest]

Just now, Ahras said:

i hoped this and 'wanting to hug someone until they pop'' was just a figurative speech.

For real.

[Mermaidy]

some people would argue yes there are more types of love than just sexual http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/~dmoore/psych199/1986_sternberg_trianglelove.pdf

 

I'm an asexual woman married to an asexual man for start.  to me if I hadn't married an asexual there would be no particular difference between marrying a gay woman or straight man besides what kinds of sex I'd look to be more comfortable with having and also which with type of relationship I would want to pass.  My husband and I are likely seen by anyone who doesn't know us as straight which is pretty lucky considering that if I had been married to a homosexual woman or an asexual woman most would assume us gay and we could likely face prejudice for it that could even be dangerous considering violence against LGBT still happens.  There are still compromises in same sex couples I'm sure also

[Guest]

.

 

[MrDane]

Dear @Ratpick

Asexuals are very much not the same. Neither are sexuals. Wanting to f her brain out migth actually be quite stressful to her, because she will probably never 'want' to f your brain out. And you would probably really like her to want that.  And she could easily be aware of this. She migth do it and like it. Some asexuals consider 'sexy' to not be a positive word and my own experience is that if I want sex to much then it will be hard for my wife to ease into it.  My hands on her body can easily be understood/misunderstood as an attempt to initiate sex. 

[adam1978]

59 minutes ago, Wish Bear 🌠 said:

Wanting to fuck someone's brains out doesn't = love. Squirrels have sex, and it isn't because they love eachother.

What if you want to fuck squirrels' brains out?

[Guest]

.

[Ratpick]

I don't want to pass judgement on people with a predilection toward squirrels, I thought a forum such as this would be more supportive than this and I for one would encourage anyone with a passion for squirrels to pursue it, with consent, of course.

 

Further, as a mammal, I take offense at the suggestion that animals can't love because they are not humans, and thinking like that has lead to cruelty toward animals by equating them to things or silicon valley contractors rather than living species with the same capacity to love and emote that I, and presumably you have. 

 

I never considered separating romantic and sexual desire, frankly because I didn't spend the time to analyze it. It wouldn't have served much of a purpose. However now that you bring it up, I can see it. 

 

Finally, I originally came to ask if asexuals can love. They can. It's the aromatics that are condemned to a less good life (in the sentiment of Love actually, not because it is actually less valid). However, interesting that the two asexuals that answered both coincidentally said it wouldn't make a difference if they were with a male or female as they wouldn't want to have sex with either of them. I'm sure that was a coincidence and not a sign that this sex/romance duality is wrong. 

[Ratpick]

On November 5, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Galactic Turtle said:

 

 

I don't think converted is the right word. Some people just naturally don't feel desire for other people until they establish a deep emotional bond with them. Others only feel desire for maybe one or two people in their lives just by chance. These would fall into the gray area identities of gray-a or demisexual. At the same time, many sexual people have desires to have sex but aren't comfortable doing it with someone they're not established with and trust.

 

Oh, my god!  Im demisexual!  I never noticed.  Or I'm gray a. Hard to tell. I've only had sexual desires for one person all my life. My problem was she's only had sexual desires for one less. What a depressing thing. Here I thought I was "the norm", if there ever was one. Turns out I'm demisexual. That's my problem. If I was normal I could just cheat on her and we'd both be happy. That what I have to work on. I knew this forum could help me. Thanks!

[Galactic Turtle]

34 minutes ago, Ratpick said:

That's my problem. If I was normal I could just cheat on her and we'd both be happy.

Um.... cheating on someone isn't "normal" and just because she might be asexual doesn't mean she'd be happy if you cheated on her. While yes in TV shows cheating is usually about sex, in reality cheating can also be an emotional thing. You could talk to her about having a non-monogamous relationship though.

[Kai99]

On 11/5/2017 at 10:08 AM, Ahras said:

i hoped that this and 'wanting to hug someone until they pop'' was just a figurative speech.

 

Quote

Wanting to fuck someone's brains out doesn't = love. Squirrels have sex, and it isn't because they love eachother. Of course you can both love someone and want to have sex with them, but sex and love are completely separate things. I don't know how people confuse them.

 

Actually, there are a lot of people who would feel flattered if their loved one said they wanted to "f" their brains out. That intense sexual passion is desired in MOST relationships and is viewed as an act of love. For most people, sex and love is intertwined.

[Ratpick]

I know, right?  Everywhere else in the world. That singular passionate focus on one woman would be laudable. Here?  The magnitude of that sex enhanced passion of another is the same as bestiality. 

[Rhaenys]

 

 

I am asexual and yes I have loved before. Rather than sex I wanted to show my love in other ways mostly in the emotional support category and go out of the way to make them happy in a non sexual manner. I don't want to have sex with you but I'd kill someone for you (figuratively speaking.). Your wife probably does love you but she has other ways of showing it. Love to us feels the same way as it does for sexuals if you remove the "fk your brains out" part. As ppl said before me sex doesn't equal and love doesn't equal sex. For sexuals it seems hard to pick apart the difference so it's understandable.

 

The difference between gay and straight.

Heterosexual = sexually attracted to the opposite sex, man wants woman, woman wants man.

 

Homosexual = sexually attracted to the same sex, wants man x man, woman x woman sex.

 

The difference here to an asexual is that we are not sexually attracted and in many cases do not want to have sex to either the opposite sex nor the same sex. We cannot really marry gay because regardless they'd still expect sex.

 

 

[Guest]

.

 

[a minor triad]

19 hours ago, Ratpick said:

Finally, I originally came to ask if asexuals can love. They can. It's the aromatics that are condemned to a less good life (in the sentiment of Love actually, not because it is actually less valid). However, interesting that the two asexuals that answered both coincidentally said it wouldn't make a difference if they were with a male or female as they wouldn't want to have sex with either of them. I'm sure that was a coincidence and not a sign that this sex/romance duality is wrong. 

That's assuming that romantic love is a universal ideal. It's not. In fact, in a majority of cultures around the world romantic love is seen as selfish. The bolded statement and the one that follows it also assumes that the only type of love that exists is romantic love, which again is not true at all. There are many types of love, like companionate love, familial love, etc. each of which have their own values. We cannot rank certain loves as superior to others. Additionally, your phrasing implies that aromantics have a lower quality of life simply because they do not experience romantic attraction. That notion is absurd. Quality of life is not based on how much romantic love a person experiences. Quality of life is purely subjective. 

 

Regarding your second point. What do you mean by the sex/romance duality? Do you mean that they are separate or that they are inseparable? Either way, I don't think that is a great way to look at sex and romance. For some people, the two are interdependent and for others, the two are completely independent, and of course, there will be people who fall somewhere in between. When discussing the human experience, there are hardly any (if any) absolutes. We exist in shades of grey.

 

1 hour ago, Ratpick said:

I know, right?  Everywhere else in the world. That singular passionate focus on one woman would be laudable. Here?  The magnitude of that sex enhanced passion of another is the same as bestiality. 

Actually, sex for pleasure or an expression of love is not valued everywhere else in the world. It is certainly a common value, but again not universal. I know of at least one culture that values sex only for reproduction. I wouldn't say that on AVEN "sex enhanced passion" is equivalent to bestiality. Asexuals simply don't understand sex as an expression of love or wanting sex in general because we don't experience sexual attraction/sexual desire. Honestly, the way you phrased your sexual love for your wife was probably just a little too vulgar for some people here. The point one user was making about squirrel sex is that sex does not always equal love, not that a sexual's need for sex is bestial. 

[Ratpick]

I specifically qualified my statement "less good" and if you watch love actually, you'll understand it. But here, I'll give you a clinical explaination. There may be 100 ways and aro can love someone. They might be able to love them with the same passion as me. But, then I have 101. 

 

Sex/ romance is not my concept. Keep reading. 

 

I did not know our departure from other cultures with the changes society goes through with the progress of time, which I'll call evolution, for lack of a better word, though I don't mean to say its better, does not invalidate them for certain qualifications. I tried to / oh never mind. I can never make this not politically correct. 

 

Let me just say this. You are just as good as me. Your loves, your views, your life. Don't let some anonymous weirdo on a forum put you down and don't justify yourself with the world. It doesn't matter that 99% of the world is different than you and that they're seen as normal and you're not. Normal never move the world. Your own orientation is just as valid by virtue of the fact that its yours.  So you don't need to marginalized convention just to feel better. You ARE on the margin, and so was every innovation and progress of man before it was well accepted.

 You said no one love is more important than another. It's right, but it's wrong. There is one love that's a prerequisite to frame them all. It's self love. If you love yourself, nothing else on this forum even matters. 

[a minor triad]

12 hours ago, Ratpick said:

I specifically qualified my statement "less good" and if you watch love actually, you'll understand it. But here, I'll give you a clinical explaination. There may be 100 ways and aro can love someone. They might be able to love them with the same passion as me. But, then I have 101. 

I see what you are saying, but to say that someone has a lower quality of life simply because they do not experience something that most people do is problematic. It would be like saying blind people or even colorblind people have a "less good" life simply because they do not experience the world in the same way most people so. The statement troubles me. I am assuming Love Actually is a movie, but I don't think it is justifiable to say that aromantics have a "less good" life because they don't love romantically. If I am misunderstanding you, you are probably just going to have to explain how this relates to this film and give me some context. Besides, just because you have one more way to love people doesn't mean you are going to love more people than any one aromantic. I don't know. Implying certain types of people have better lives than others by default just doesn't sit well with me.

 

Quote

Sex/ romance is not my concept. Keep reading. 

 

I did not know our departure from other cultures with the changes society goes through with the progress of time, which I'll call evolution, for lack of a better word, though I don't mean to say its better, does not invalidate them for certain qualifications. I tried to / oh never mind. I can never make this not politically correct. 

It's more like cultures are products of constant interactions between people and their environment. I don't quite understand your point here, but yes, it is good that you realize that we cannot rank some cultures as better than others. That is incredibly problematic, as you might imagine.

 

Quote

Let me just say this. You are just as good as me. Your loves, your views, your life. Don't let some anonymous weirdo on a forum put you down and don't justify yourself with the world. It doesn't matter that 99% of the world is different than you and that they're seen as normal and you're not. Normal never move the world. Your own orientation is just as valid by virtue of the fact that its yours.  So you don't need to marginalized convention just to feel better. You ARE on the margin, and so was every innovation and progress of man before it was well accepted.

 

I assure you that internet strangers will not be invalidating my identities, though I cannot say that is true for everyone. I am wondering, however what you mean by the bolded statement? I'm at a complete loss. Are you arguing that I am claiming that what is considered normal in our society (sex and romance) is actually not that normal universally? Because the romance aspect is true (I didn't make any definite statements on sex, however, because I don't know a lot about cross-cultural sexual practices.) Furthermore, are you claiming that I am "marginalizing convention" (i.e., your views on sex/romance) simply to make asexuls/aromantics feel better/more normal? Because that is false. I was simply trying to make you aware that Euro-American (Western society, general) cultural values of sex and romantic love are not universal, and there is nothing that determines that sex must always equal romance and vice versa. 

 

Quote

You said no one love is more important than another. It's right, but it's wrong. There is one love that's a prerequisite to frame them all. It's self love. If you love yourself, nothing else on this forum even matters. 

Incidentally, even the belief that self-love is the most important/a prerequisite love is culturally contingent. Individualistic cultures put a much higher value on self-love than collectivistic cultures. (generalizing here)

[Ratpick]

Here is what I am claiming. 

1. My views on romance as an ideal is the normal view

2. It does not matter that it is the normal view, normal doesn't mean right. It means generally accepted

3. It does not matter that other cultures around the world don't view it that way. We are not bound by the socioeconomic restrictions of third world societies or European games of thrones that necessitates arranged marriages etc. 

4. Your attempt to invalidate my views by relating them with their acceptance by other cultures must be because you care what other people think. Don't. Only what you think is important. People can go overboard with philautia. But probably not you.

 

also, I recognize the humbleness in your aversion to ethnocentricity and absolute judgements. It's laudable. You've had a challenging life. But, less good is a relative measure, it's not absolute. A blind Man can have a better life than me. but he'd lead an even better life if he could see. You could be happy with 4 cars in the garage, but you won't be less happy with five. Finally, if it wasn't less good, we wouldn't need this forum. 

[GreenTune]

On 5.11.2017 at 3:12 PM, Ratpick said:

Finally, if you're an asexual, what's the difference between gay and straight?  Why don't you just marry gay and avoid all the compromises of the opposite sex, such as the sock policy. Missing when the toilet seat is down. Whether popcorn is an acceptable meal for dinner. 

We are asexuals but we have different romantic orientations. Some are heteroromantic, some are homoromantic, bi, pan and so on. Some are also aromantic and they don't want a romantic relationship at all.

So of course a heteroromantic asexual doesn't want to marry a gay person, they don't feel romantic attraction towards them.

[a minor triad]

5 hours ago, Ratpick said:

Here is what I am claiming. 

1. My views on romance as an ideal is the normal view

2. It does not matter that it is the normal view, normal doesn't mean right. It means generally accepted

3. It does not matter that other cultures around the world don't view it that way. We are not bound by the socioeconomic restrictions of third world societies or European games of thrones that necessitates arranged marriages etc. 

4. Your attempt to invalidate my views by relating them with their acceptance by other cultures must be because you care what other people think. Don't. Only what you think is important. People can go overboard with philautia. But probably not you.

 

also, I recognize the humbleness in your aversion to ethnocentricity and absolute judgements. It's laudable. You've had a challenging life. But, less good is a relative measure, it's not absolute. A blind Man can have a better life than me. but he'd lead an even better life if he could see. You could be happy with 4 cars in the garage, but you won't be less happy with five. Finally, if it wasn't less good, we wouldn't need this forum. 

1. Certainly, in our society romance is seen as a ideal. I will not deny that, but it is a cultural norm, not a universal one.

 

3. It might not personally affect you that other cultures value different things, however that doesn't mean that cultural differences do not matter. Your second sentence implies that you have a very ethnocentric view of the world, however, so I don't think I will be able to convince you of this point. 

 

4. I was not trying to invalidate any of your views, I was just giving you an alternate perspective. I really don't understand why you consider my interest in cross-cultural perspectives as proof that I care about what other people think about my identity. I do, however, care about the fact that a lot of people in individualistic societies don't realize that their way of thinking isn't the only way. When I first responded to you, I was not claiming that your views on sex/romance are wrong, only that they are not universal as you seemed to be claiming. Additionally, I am not the only person in this world, so it actually does matter what people besides me think. We are not all independent people, completely separate from others. We interact with people, so what other people think can and does affect other people.

 

Clearly, we have very different world views. As you have stated, I prefer using cultural context when I think about issues, however, you seem to be viewing things from an individualistic, materialistic lens. At this point, I doubt I can reword my points in a way for you to understand my perspective. 

[Zyden]

The thread is confusing me.

 

'Can asexuals a love people.'

 

Typo? Do you mean, can asexuals love people? 

 

Yes very much. I have different love for different people. Im demisexual, so I have platonic love between myself and a friend before I start to find them attractive, but it has to be a special longterm friendship to go that far. 

 

I wouldnt marry a gay person because Im not gay. And why would a gay person want to marry me?