43 replies to this topic

[kiramekuchan]

Ok, so this is mostly musings. It just hit me reading some of the other forums that there are asexual romantics and asexual aromantics. since there is that devision on this side of the fence would it apply to sexuals as well? Meaning just someone interesting in the sex and not the romantic relationship? So a sexual aromantic?
Just something odd I've been pondering.

Opinions? Ideas?

[Lady Heartilly]

Yes, but I find most of them rather horrifying, and I think many people here would agree with me on that count. Sexual aromantics are often the people who make a game out of seeing how many different people they could sleep with over any given period of time because the emotional aspects mean absolutely nothing to them. They are often good at tricking people to get them into bed and then never call them back or talk to them again. These are the sorts of people who have "one night stands" and never think twice about it.

There may be sexual aromantics who do not come off as sleazebags, but I'm not entirely sure how that would work . . .

[kiramekuchan]

I agree. I think a sexual aromantic would be horrifying, or disturbing in the very least. Although I can't say all of them would bad just because they're different. I mean, a sexual aromantic would be absolute opposite of a asexual romantic and thats just disturbing in and of itself, but can't really say either opinion would be wrong.

[Sciatrix]

Uh, can we please not cast aromantic people as not caring about other people's emotions? LadyHeartilly, I'm sure you did not mean to imply that aromantic people as a class do not care about the emotions of others or connecting with others, but it is implicit in your post. Also, please to not be implying that everyone who has one-night stands is trying to trick their partner or something. It is actually possible to have sex outside of the context of a romantic relationship and not hurt anyone involved, you know.

Regarding the OP: Yes, aromantic sexuals probably exist. I think we've actually had one or two coming through AVEN, actually. I would submit, however, that they are probably much less likely to identify as such because if you form emotional bonds to other people as a matter of course and you experience sexual attraction, and you do this in a culture which continually conflates romantic and sexual attraction, you're likely to simply think your romantic orientation matches up with your sexual one even if this is not the case.

[Ziel]

I don't see why they can't exist. Not desiring a romantic relationship doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with not being interested in sex.

I'm not really sure how to explain it, other than that it makes sense in my mind.

[Lord Dandylion]

Actually, before I came to the conclusion that I was ace (and before finding AVEN), I wondered, for the shortest amount of time, how I would actually like having sex. I came to the conclusion that it may be possible to not be romantic but to have sex simply for yourself. I find the idea much more free. Not that I am sexual, so I wouldn't seek it out, but it would be so much simpler, if you wanted to satisfy sexual desires, not to be so focused on the other person. Sex for the sake of pleasure rather than the intimacy and focus of love and whatnot. Of course, this is the opposite of how I've usually viewed these sorts of things, so it's really not me at all, but the idea did occur, and it makes perfect sense.

[trisarahtops]

Yes, but I find most of them rather horrifying, and I think many people here would agree with me on that count. Sexual aromantics are often the people who make a game out of seeing how many different people they could sleep with over any given period of time because the emotional aspects mean absolutely nothing to them. They are often good at tricking people to get them into bed and then never call them back or talk to them again. These are the sorts of people who have "one night stands" and never think twice about it.

There may be sexual aromantics who do not come off as sleazebags, but I'm not entirely sure how that would work . . .

Wow, that's a little harsh. Aromantics have feelings, and feel emotions towards other people, just not romantic type feelings. It's also unfair to basically stereotype all sexual aromantics as evil people who don't care about other people's feelings and just want to get laid.

I definitely think it's possible to be a sexual aromantic. I have to agree with Sciatrix, I don't think many sexual aromantics would identify as such because they would still be able to feel other kinds of connections towards other people, and since they experience sexual attraction, they would probably assume that it was the same thing. Since sex seems to define a romantic relationship, and they may feel friendship-type feelings for that person, I would think they might assume that they feel the same things that other people feel. I think they might have a harder time showing romantic gestures towards their SO, since they don't have that connection with them.

[Electric Barbarella]

After reading the OP I immediately though of the "friends with benefit" relationship. Doesn't it seem to fit? Takes care of the sexual side and leaves the romantic one well alone.

Though, to be fair, I suppose this kind of relationship works better when it involves people who think alike, i.e. two (or more) aromantic sexuals, no?

[trisarahtops]

After reading the OP I immediately though of the "friends with benefit" relationship. Doesn't it seem to fit? Takes care of the sexual side and leaves the romantic one well alone.

Though, to be fair, I suppose this kind of relationship works better when it involves people who think alike, i.e. two (or more) aromantic sexuals, no?

I didn't think about it that way, but I guess that makes some sense...

[lindi]

I (sort of) know one guy like that from one chat room. He's not an asshole or anything, 'cause he's honest about it. The girls he has sex with also just want sex.

[ily]

Maybe there's the idea that aromantic sexuals are all obsessed with sex, or they're all players, but I don't think that's the case at all. One of my best friends in college was, I'm pretty sure, an aromantic sexual. I think that's one reason we were such good friends. Anyway, she was a very kind person. But there's a lot of shame for aromantic sexual women in particular, because women are supposed to desire romance in our culture.

[Sally]

I've known aromantic sexuals, although they certainly wouldn't term themselves that.

It's the other side of the coin: some of us are romantic sexuals; they are aromantic sexuals. We want romance without sex; they want sex without romance. It doesn't make them sleazeballs.

[Kamtoad]

I've got a good friend who I'm pretty sure is a sexual aromantic, at least from a lot of the stuff she's said. I don't think she'd call herself that, but it does describe her.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

I have a good friend who calls herself an aromantic bisexual (when she's drunk). I think she's right, though, and I don't think any less of her for it.

[Dargon]

As has been said above, sexual aromantics do exist. and also has been said above, they vary in type. On one end, you have the sex-as-a-conquest type, and on the other, you have the types who frequent swingers clubs or have friends-with-benefits situations, situations where both parties are quite aware it is "just sex," and want it that way. I've known quite a few awesome people who are into no-strings-attached sex.

And offering a counter to the "sexual aromantics are sleezeballs" notion, just as sleezeball sexual aromantics exist, sleezeball romantics (sexual and asexual) exist as well, the types who are very manipulative and dishonest in order to get into and keep their relationships.

[Isaac]

Aromantic sexuals do exist; a friend from college is. I didn't had a name for what with had in common, but now I know it's that we both are aromantics. We agreed that (romantic) relationships are a chain. Another of our buddies would fit also as aromantic sexual, though we haven't talked about it in depth. So I know two aromantic heterosexuals, guy and girl, and both thought of them as heterosexual, as they actually are, and never thought of romantic orientation, which was developed by the asexual community. Aromantic sexuals prefer friend with benefits, fuckbuddies or one-night stands, but the preferred format depends on the personality and the closeness they want with their sexual partners.

[Fanshawe]

This puzzles me. Most sexuals experience 'sexual aromance' for a lot of the people they see. An actual romance is like the exception to the sexual aromance of everyday life. Someone who identifies as sexual aromantic simply does not ever run into those exceptions.

Sexual aromance is probably the most commonly experienced feeling, no?

[Pamcakes]

A really good example of an aromantic sexual on a popular television show is Barney Stinson, from How I Met Your Mother (aka The Barney Show among my group of friends ). On the one occasion he did try to have a romantic relationship, with one of his friends, it made a physical and social mess of both of them. It just did not work. The rest of the time, Barney has no interest in forming a relationship, but rather bedding an unending string of one night stands. Now, he's not the nicest example (one of my friends suggest Barney's actually a sociopath, but his character does experience guilt on a few occasions - just not over his sexual politics), but he's a very good one.

P.

[CreepyCrawler]

Boo!

I know I outed myself on one of these threads already, but yes I consider myself a sexual aromantic. I do experience sexual attraction and desire, but relationships are something I've never really desired. Unlike the aforementioned Barney Stinson, I've decided to try to avoid sex altogether because of its tendency to so complicate everything between people. And it's really not that great of a thing to begin with. And the whole sex without romance thing never sat well with me.

Fanshawe, for me I would say that what's more important is whether or not you ever desire a relationship. I'm currently...involved with this girl who I really care for as a friend. I'm also very attracted to her physically. When my inhibitions are down, I want to be with her physically. But when I think about it I don't want any kind of romance between us. I don't want any kind of romance period. Not now not ever.

I've always been able to say with certainty that I will end up single, that I want to stay alone. That I will always be happier single than in a relationship.

And further...I know that she most certainly does want a relationship. I've been forward about my feelings on the subject, but whether or not she believes me is another matter. It's really confusing, because sex and romance are so entwined culturally, but really the same actions mean different things for both of us. When we passionately kiss (yes, it's definitely gotten complicated T_T), for me it's more about having fun together. With her...I'm worried she sees it developing some closer bond, even though I've previously stated that I have no interest in that. In the moment we both want the same thing, but for different reasons.

Ramble ramble.

[Haunted Trolley]

Here is my general take on Aromantic Sexuals. I am not trying to be discriminatory in any way, but this is just the way I think of it.

To me, aromantic sexuals just find sexual activity to be overly pleasing by itself, and they only find people appealing on the basis of their bodies, and not by their personalities. Otherwise, the only thing they see to be the advantage of marrying is because, "kids are good to have around to take care of you when you're old. The woman isn't really worth the time and the trouble."

I quoted this phrase, because these are the exact same words my dad used once in a one-on-one convo with me, although he fully supports the inevitability of the fact that I'll never marry. He himself hardly paid my mom any attention; he would regularly party with his friends, play his sports, any sort of excuse to never come home in time for dinner.... and now he regularly does the same thing with my stepmother.

So, could my dad possibly be an aromantic sexual? Because I think the only reason he ever had kids (of which I am the first) was so he could have people to take care of him when he's old!

[Sciatrix]

Yeah, Trolley Boy, you're committing the thing about thinking aromantic people don't care about others again. Stop that. (Yes, even if they happen to be aromantic AND sexual.)

[Haunted Trolley]

Yeah, Trolley Boy, you're committing the thing about thinking aromantic people don't care about others again. Stop that. (Yes, even if they happen to be aromantic AND sexual.)

Well, the first thing I can say to disprove you is that I never said that aromantic people like myself don't have the ability to care about others. I'm as aromantic as it is possible to be, and yet I care very much about others, particularly my REAL family and my good friends.

Also, I am merely pointing out that there is a good chance that a marriage can't last long at all if one of the members of a married couple is an aromantic sexual. Some aromantics care, and some DON'T care, just as much as some romantics care and some don't.

The only way in which an aromantic can be said to not care about others in such the way that you say I am is if they dig themselves into a situation, such as marrying solely to have kids around them to care for them when they're old or just for the sake of continuing their family names (in the case of male aromantics) that puts them in dangerous territory as a result of being aromantic.

For example the romantic member of such a married couple could finally say, "You never loved me! You only married me so you could have kids, just so you'd have your own personal servants when you're old!"

This is basically the whole point I'm trying to get across.

[AFlyingPiglet]

The only way in which an aromantic can be said to not care about others in such the way that you say I am is if they dig themselves into a situation, such as marrying solely to have kids around them to care for them when they're old or just for the sake of continuing their family names (in the case of male aromantics) that puts them in dangerous territory as a result of being aromantic.

But people marry for all sorts of reasons. For example, I have a friend who married someone of the opposite sex and had a child by them, to try to convince themselves that they weren't a Lesbian. It didn't work, needless to say and they are now very happy with a female partner.

Many people marry soley to have kids or because they don't want to be alone. I think we fool ourselves if we think that every single person marries for love - Aromantic, Romantic or otherwise.

[Haunted Trolley]

But people marry for all sorts of reasons. For example, I have a friend who married someone of the opposite sex and had a child by them, to try to convince themselves that they weren't a Lesbian. It didn't work, needless to say and they are now very happy with a female partner.

Many people marry soley to have kids or because they don't want to be alone. I think we fool ourselves if we think that every single person marries for love - Aromantic, Romantic or otherwise.

I have to say, I agree with you on alot of these points. It is certainly mind-boggling to know that there are gays and lesbians out there who will go out of their way to cover up their identities, or try and convince themselves that they aren't what they (think) they are.

[Sciatrix]

Well, and what's wrong with getting married specifically because you do want kids? (Well, as long as honesty's involved, which it sounds like your father might not have been.) Or getting married because like it or not, a kid's on the way? I know several married couples who got married for that latter reason, not so much because their love for one another was overwhelming, and while my experiences allow me to infer that it's not the best reason for marriage I've ever seen, it's also not exactly uncommon. In the same way that people have sex for all kinds of reasons (not all of them to do with actual attraction), people get married for all kinds of reasons.

As AFlyingPiglet mentions, aromantic people also definitely don't corner the market on getting married for bad reasons or on using people in relationships--and I'm curious, given the very low currency of the concept of affectional orientation outside AVEN, how many aromantic sexual people are supposed to realize they're aromantic sexual? Mostly when people are talking about orientation, they're talking only about the sexual bits. If your sexual orientation seems easy to figure out but you don't quite get the romance thing--maybe you don't get crushes on people, maybe you connect to them in other ways, maybe you've never really wanted much beyond a fuckbuddies relationship--well, how are you going to figure out what's off? It's not like an Aromantics Visibility And Education Network exists!

What bugged me about your initial post was that it implied that a married aromantic sexual would be in that situation as a conscious choice to manipulate hir partner for hir own wishes, and I think that doesn't make any sense at all, given the low level of knowledge about mismatched sexual and romantic relationships. As I said earlier in the thread, I think it's quite possible that most aromantic sexuals don't realize they're aromantic. They might end up in bad relationships due to not knowing, but how is that any more intentionally manipulative than an asexual who ends up in a relationship with a sexual person due to not realizing?

[Haunted Trolley]

What bugged me about your initial post was that it implied that a married aromantic sexual would be in that situation as a conscious choice to manipulate hir partner for hir own wishes, and I think that doesn't make any sense at all, given the low level of knowledge about mismatched sexual and romantic relationships. As I said earlier in the thread, I think it's quite possible that most aromantic sexuals don't realize they're aromantic. They might end up in bad relationships due to not knowing, but how is that any more intentionally manipulative than an asexual who ends up in a relationship with a sexual person due to not realizing?

Like I said in chat: I am merely giving a possible example of how an aromantic sexual can get himself/herself into a particularly nasty situation.

Also, I should have mentioned this in the first place: Just prior to my parents divorce, my mom often yelled at my dad, "You never loved me, you asshole! You didn't marry me for my love or partnership, you just wanted to use it as an excuse to have kids and continue your line."

Don't get me wrong, my mom is absolutely great with me and my bro, but it is a witnessing as such which has given me my perception. I was NOT trying to bug anyone in any way, I was merely expressing my valid and WELCOME perception, which is what this site is for in the first place. I am not attacking anyone else here in this thread, I am merely expressing and now validating my perception. If someone else has a different perception, then fine by me, but what really gets me is if someone goes so far as to tell me how much they disagree, tell me I'm universally wrong, and that my perception is in no way valid.

Besides, if you find people in a thread with whom you strongly disagree, just don't pay any attention to it. I've been told that before. If you even have just the slight inkling of thought that replying to a post will start an arguement, then just keep your thoughts to yourself. Plain and simple.

[CreepyCrawler]

Besides, if you find people in a thread with whom you strongly disagree, just don't pay any attention to it. I've been told that before. If you even have just the slight inkling of thought that replying to a post will start an arguement, then just keep your thoughts to yourself. Plain and simple.

Yea but where's the fun in that? And plus argument can be productive. And I understand that you're not attacking anyone intentionally. But I do think pointing out potentially offensive statements is productive.

To me, aromantic sexuals just find sexual activity to be overly pleasing by itself, and they only find people appealing on the basis of their bodies, and not by their personalities. Otherwise, the only thing they see to be the advantage of marrying is because, "kids are good to have around to take care of you when you're old. The woman isn't really worth the time and the trouble."

This is the main point I have contention with. From personal experience, though I do experience sexual attraction, I don't find sex "overly pleasing" (can be fun, mostly just tolerable), and it's definitely NOT the only reason I like someone.

It seems like for some reason, though you would say that aromantic asexuals are able to connect and marry for perfectly valid reasons, somehow throwing sexual attraction into the mix makes EVERYTHING about sex. It's just a factor I can't control. I can control the actions, but not the feelings. It doesn't run my life.

I do admit though, marriage isn't something I've ever wanted. If I were to find myself suddenly married, I would try to make do, but be unhappy. If the person was like a best friend, I think it could work. But maybe that's just me. I try to protect people's feelings, even at the expense of my own...but that can only go on so long. Maybe two or three years. But marriage is supposed to be til death, and eventually I wouldn't be able to keep it up.

I think that there's a lot of harm in marriage as a social convention...and not just for aromantic sexuals. Assuming that marriage is good for everyone, expecting everyone to get married eventually and then imposing social stigma against being unmarried...just isn't good.

[Haunted Trolley]

Yea but where's the fun in that? And plus argument can be productive. And I understand that you're not attacking anyone intentionally. But I do think pointing out potentially offensive statements is productive.

Yo, I only felt I was being s**t upon, merely because someone else didn't agree with me, and that they were trying to shove it down my throat, after I was genuinely expressing my honest perception. Honestly, I hate it when people aren't accepting of my perceptions, especially since I am accepting of theirs.

This is the main point I have contention with. From personal experience, though I do experience sexual attraction, I don't find sex "overly pleasing" (can be fun, mostly just tolerable), and it's definitely NOT the only reason I like someone.

It seems like for some reason, though you would say that aromantic asexuals are able to connect and marry for perfectly valid reasons, somehow throwing sexual attraction into the mix makes EVERYTHING about sex. It's just a factor I can't control. I can control the actions, but not the feelings. It doesn't run my life.

I do admit though, marriage isn't something I've ever wanted. If I were to find myself suddenly married, I would try to make do, but be unhappy. If the person was like a best friend, I think it could work. But maybe that's just me. I try to protect people's feelings, even at the expense of my own...but that can only go on so long. Maybe two or three years. But marriage is supposed to be til death, and eventually I wouldn't be able to keep it up.

I think that there's a lot of harm in marriage as a social convention...and not just for aromantic sexuals. Assuming that marriage is good for everyone, expecting everyone to get married eventually and then imposing social stigma against being unmarried...just isn't good.

I can agree with most of this completely, especially the last paragraph. Marriage is WAY over-rated, as I see it, but I never go and s**t on anyone who feels content enough to be able to go through with it.

[sonofzeal]

Dum dee dum..... *casually saunters through, peeks around, and casually saunters out* .....dee dum dee......



(You guys seem to be doing a pretty good job on handling a potentially awkward conversation. Keep up the good posting, y'all.)

[Serenity Marie]

well sure, but they don't have to be that bad.
"aromantic" doesn't translate to "liar" or "evil."

I've met tons upon tons of people who are only interested in having sex with people, with no romantic relationship. They aren't bad people. If someone's honest, and both people know exactly that sex is all that's going to happen, I don't see a problem with it.