"I don't want you for sex"

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Which occupies the higher moral ground-- the irresistible force or the immovable object?

I have to wonder if most intimate triangles involving one asexual and two sexuals could ever be anything but an isosceles triangle. I'd bet on a three-way emotional Mexican standoff in the making, knowing how innately territorial humans are. But hey, it's not often wise to bet against human diversity or plain old eccentricity, either.

[SeekFirst2Understand]

The thing I see as a problem for someone like myself is that the guy is giving priority to his girlfriend. He's only having sex with me (hypothetically) because his girlfriend allows it. Now what if she changes her mind? I'm not interested in letting another woman dictate when I can play with her partner. If he wants to play with me, he has to do so because he chooses, not because his girlfriend allows it, and definitely not behind her back. In other words, he gives me his full attention, or nothing at all. I won't settle for less--which is why I'm single :D

The women that consent to being sexual thirds to otherwise committed, monogamous relationships likely do not share those concerns. I imagine they've performed enough introspection to know that they truly desire nothing more than physical pleasure from their arrangements. Likewise, you are possessed of enough self-awareness to know that you are incompatible with casual sex relationships, and you would act accordingly by not entering them in the first. You never have to worry about compromising yourself in that way nor do you have to feel insulted by proxy for the women that make these choices. They are probably operating with a different worldview.

[Pamcakes]

Upon getting in this relationship I also told him "if it ever comes down to it, I don't care if you sleep with other girls, long as you don't date them on the side."

I hear this solution offered a lot on AVEN, always by women, and I have to wonder what your feelings are regarding the women he is allowed to fuck but not date? Is it okay for them to be used as prostitutes? What if they want to call him the next day to meet again? Is she allowed to text him, or is he supposed to have no contact till he calls her up for another horizontal session? It makes me angry to hear women say it's okay to treat other women like meat, unless you expect your boyfriends or husbands to pay for it at a professional establishment.

And this is why you should never become involved with an open relationship as the third party. It's a perfectly valid choice to make.

P.

Hey, AA, as long as both he and the women in question are fully aware of and consenting to the casual nature of the relationship they will have, I don't see anything worth getting angry over. Certainly, if he leads them on in order to sleep with them, then yes, that shouldn't be condoned, but provided there is full disclosure at the beginning - "I actually have a girlfriend, I'm just looking for a physical playmate, which my girlfriend has given me permission to do," - then I see nothing reprehensible about it. Provided they are appraised of the state of the play at the very beginning, I don't see why we can't trust these other women to make their own choices, as adults, regarding whether or not they're up for a casual sexual interaction.

It seems some of this attitude stems from the age-old "men trade emotional intimacy for sex, women trade sex for emotional intimacy" myth, though feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your meaning.

P.

It's a solution I hear offered by asexuals who want emotional intimacy, and given most of us assume people are like ourselves, it comes across as a bit insensitive to me.

On the other hand, I just find casual fucking disgusting, so my personal feelings are doing most of the talking here. I can't play with someone without getting attached that particular game with that particular person, and the desire for the game to get bigger and more serious with more at stake is what keeps me playing. To be told I have to stay in my box and be content with somebody's cast offs would severely piss me off.

But hey, we're all different aren't we?

As an aromantic sexual, I'd actually really like an arrangement of that kind. Having a steady guy who was not in danger of wanting more than sex from me? Sounds perfect.

In theory. In practice, there might be a whole host of jealousy problems from the gf, or the guy might fall in love with you anyway, or... who knows. But I'd definitely be up for trying.

The thing I see as a problem for someone like myself is that the guy is giving priority to his girlfriend. He's only having sex with me (hypothetically) because his girlfriend allows it. Now what if she changes her mind? I'm not interested in letting another woman dictate when I can play with her partner. If he wants to play with me, he has to do so because he chooses, not because his girlfriend allows it, and definitely not behind her back. In other words, he gives me his full attention, or nothing at all. I won't settle for less--which is why I'm single :D

Hmmmn, for some reason, my comment didn't post the first time.

It was: "And this is why you should never become involved with an open relationship as the third party. It's a perfectly valid choice."

P.

[test account]

The thing I see as a problem for someone like myself is that the guy is giving priority to his girlfriend. He's only having sex with me (hypothetically) because his girlfriend allows it. Now what if she changes her mind? I'm not interested in letting another woman dictate when I can play with her partner. If he wants to play with me, he has to do so because he chooses, not because his girlfriend allows it, and definitely not behind her back. In other words, he gives me his full attention, or nothing at all. I won't settle for less--which is why I'm single :D

The women that consent to being sexual thirds to otherwise committed, monogamous relationships likely do not share those concerns. I imagine they've performed enough introspection to know that they truly desire nothing more than physical pleasure from their arrangements. Likewise, you are possessed of enough self-awareness to know that you are incompatible with casual sex relationships, and you would act accordingly by not entering them in the first. You never have to worry about compromising yourself in that way nor do you have to feel insulted by proxy for the women that make these choices. They are probably operating with a different worldview.

Granted, and truly I can see the appeal of a physical arrangement. But when there's another person in the mix, its not just the two of you deciding what you want from eachother. There's this third person who gets a say. I know some people are into polyamorous situations but I for one am not interested in sharing. And I get annoyed by people who speak as though other people should be fine with it, not because they enjoy sharing, but because they want someone else to deal with the bits of the relationship they don't want. It's like, here you, I don't want this bit of my partner, so you can have that bit, but you can't have the bits I want. If you're going to share, I think it's selfish to only share the bits you don't want.

[maven]

The thing I see as a problem for someone like myself is that the guy is giving priority to his girlfriend. He's only having sex with me (hypothetically) because his girlfriend allows it. Now what if she changes her mind? I'm not interested in letting another woman dictate when I can play with her partner. If he wants to play with me, he has to do so because he chooses, not because his girlfriend allows it, and definitely not behind her back. In other words, he gives me his full attention, or nothing at all. I won't settle for less--which is why I'm single :D

The women that consent to being sexual thirds to otherwise committed, monogamous relationships likely do not share those concerns. I imagine they've performed enough introspection to know that they truly desire nothing more than physical pleasure from their arrangements. Likewise, you are possessed of enough self-awareness to know that you are incompatible with casual sex relationships, and you would act accordingly by not entering them in the first. You never have to worry about compromising yourself in that way nor do you have to feel insulted by proxy for the women that make these choices. They are probably operating with a different worldview.

Granted, and truly I can see the appeal of a physical arrangement. But when there's another person in the mix, its not just the two of you deciding what you want from eachother. There's this third person who gets a say. I know some people are into polyamorous situations but I for one am not interested in sharing. And I get annoyed by people who speak as though other people should be fine with it, not because they enjoy sharing, but because they want someone else to deal with the bits of the relationship they don't want. It's like, here you, I don't want this bit of my partner, so you can have that bit, but you can't have the bits I want. If you're going to share, I think it's selfish to only share the bits you don't want.

I think it's perfectly fine that you're not into a polyamorous situation. For you, it sounds like this sort of triangle would not work well. And that's fine.

For me, I'm looking more at the "there are parts of you that I don't want." Just like an asexual would prefer not to have sex with their partner, I'd prefer not to be in a romantic relationship with a partner. If there was someone who was able to fulfill their desire for a romantic relationship with someone else, while having a sexual relationship with me, that opens up the possibility of a steady partner for me. It's something I've never thought about before, and the possibility is intriguing.

Also, I believe in polyamory, the idea is that you're sharing all of you with all of your partners, not dividing it up between them. (someone correct me if I'm wrong!) I'm guessing the interactions between a polyamorous couple/group will be different because each person brings something else to the relationship, but that doesn't mean that some of them get some bit of you and the others get whatever's left.

[test account]

I think it's perfectly fine that you're not into a polyamorous situation. For you, it sounds like this sort of triangle would not work well. And that's fine.

For me, I'm looking more at the "there are parts of you that I don't want." Just like an asexual would prefer not to have sex with their partner, I'd prefer not to be in a romantic relationship with a partner. If there was someone who was able to fulfill their desire for a romantic relationship with someone else, while having a sexual relationship with me, that opens up the possibility of a steady partner for me. It's something I've never thought about before, and the possibility is intriguing.

Also, I believe in polyamory, the idea is that you're sharing all of you with all of your partners, not dividing it up between them. (someone correct me if I'm wrong!) I'm guessing the interactions between a polyamorous couple/group will be different because each person brings something else to the relationship, but that doesn't mean that some of them get some bit of you and the others get whatever's left.

I can respect polyamory, as I understand it, since it's people sharing all of themselves and all of their partners. I can understand too not wanting certain aspects of a relationship. What I have a personal objection to is people saying "I only want these bits of the relationship AND you must reserve them exclusively to me." I mean, why should they? Why should someone give exclusive rights to one part of themselves, to somebody who doesn't want the whole package? Sure, they might let that person access them in the way they want, but to promise exclusive access is, I think, innappropriate. There may be people who say they're okay with reserving affection for one person, and sex for another, but I have to wonder how long they can keep it up before they decide it's bullshit.

[SeekFirst2Understand]

Granted, and truly I can see the appeal of a physical arrangement. But when there's another person in the mix, its not just the two of you deciding what you want from eachother. There's this third person who gets a say. I know some people are into polyamorous situations but I for one am not interested in sharing. And I get annoyed by people who speak as though other people should be fine with it, not because they enjoy sharing, but because they want someone else to deal with the bits of the relationship they don't want. It's like, here you, I don't want this bit of my partner, so you can have that bit, but you can't have the bits I want. If you're going to share, I think it's selfish to only share the bits you don't want.

This comes down to personal agency, though, doesn't it? There is very little, short of overt coercion, that an individual can be made to do against her will. The sexual third is presumably well informed of and agreeable to what is expected of her in interactions with the sexual half of a mixed relationship, and, should she find herself no longer content with the arrangement, nothing prevents her from leaving. It's this freedom to disengage in combination with a clear awareness of the "rules" that keeps open relationships fair to all involved.

I don't think that people who suggest open relationships as remedies to mixed relationship issues expect all others to be perfectly comfortable with their "scraps," so to speak. There's just an implied (and often verbalized) confidence that any who are willing to attach themselves to the sexual half are not bothered by the fact that the nature of their bond is a limited one. Also, who is to say that the sexual third wants the other bits? She may be focused on her career and uninterested in a full relationship, sexual perks notwithstanding. She may be the sexual half of her own mixed relationship and in search of nothing more than her own third. She may just flat out be uninterested in creating a full relationship indefinitely. In those cases, the scraps rapidly become ideal do they not?

[Adriannu]

I've been in a similar situation: when I told my third boyfriend (a manipulator) that I believe that I'm asexual and what that meant, he actual told me that he's an asexual, too! I didn't say this, but I knew that couldn't be true (or it was very unlikely at least) because he normally tried to (very gently and subtly) convince me to have sex with him before I decided to try dating him.

[test account]

Granted, and truly I can see the appeal of a physical arrangement. But when there's another person in the mix, its not just the two of you deciding what you want from eachother. There's this third person who gets a say. I know some people are into polyamorous situations but I for one am not interested in sharing. And I get annoyed by people who speak as though other people should be fine with it, not because they enjoy sharing, but because they want someone else to deal with the bits of the relationship they don't want. It's like, here you, I don't want this bit of my partner, so you can have that bit, but you can't have the bits I want. If you're going to share, I think it's selfish to only share the bits you don't want.

This comes down to personal agency, though, doesn't it? There is very little, short of overt coercion, that an individual can be made to do against her will. The sexual third is presumably well informed of and agreeable to what is expected of her in interactions with the sexual half of a mixed relationship, and, should she find herself no longer content with the arrangement, nothing prevents her from leaving. It's this freedom to disengage in combination with a clear awareness of the "rules" that keeps open relationships fair to all involved.

I don't think that people who suggest open relationships as remedies to mixed relationship issues expect all others to be perfectly comfortable with their "scraps," so to speak. There's just an implied (and often verbalized) confidence that any who are willing to attach themselves to the sexual half are not bothered by the fact that the nature of their bond is a limited one. Also, who is to say that the sexual third wants the other bits? She may be focused on her career and uninterested in a full relationship, sexual perks notwithstanding. She may be the sexual half of her own mixed relationship and in search of nothing more than her own third. She may just flat out be uninterested in creating a full relationship indefinitely. In those cases, the scraps rapidly become ideal do they not?

So what you're saying about personal agency is, if the sexual third doesn't like it, they can leave (male or female). Sure they can! But why would they? Because they've been hurt. Not a nice picture, is it?

On the other hand, they might leave because they are just bored with the sex, and have found somebody else they like better. Without solid ties, people move on. Then what does the sexual in partnership with an asexual do? Look for another gigolo/escort? Establish the trust bonds again? What a drag! And how good are they feeling about their sexuality now, when their asexual partner doesn't want it, and their sexual contact person has decided it's not interesting any more?

I know, nothing is perfect! Life is messy. And that's kind of a good point, isn't it? It's not a neat little solution to say "I don't want this bit of the relationship so you can get that bit elsewhere." Somebody gonna get hurt--which is fine if you're prepared for that, I guess.

[maven]

So what you're saying about personal agency is, if the sexual third doesn't like it, they can leave (male or female). Sure they can! But why would they? Because they've been hurt. Not a nice picture, is it?

On the other hand, they might leave because they are just bored with the sex, and have found somebody else they like better. Without solid ties, people move on. Then what does the sexual in partnership with an asexual do? Look for another gigolo/escort? Establish the trust bonds again? What a drag! And how good are they feeling about their sexuality now, when their asexual partner doesn't want it, and their sexual contact person has decided it's not interesting any more?

I know, nothing is perfect! Life is messy. And that's kind of a good point, isn't it? It's not a neat little solution to say "I don't want this bit of the relationship so you can get that bit elsewhere." Somebody gonna get hurt--which is fine if you're prepared for that, I guess.

I've spent the past hour and a half trying to convince myself that I misread your post, or that you didn't mean to insult me, but I can't. I'm not a prostitute (or a gigolo/escort). Just because I don't want or need the romantic "bit" of a relationship does not make me someone who is paid for sex.

[Kitty89]

I think the polyamory or allowing the sexual partner to have a f*ckbuddy would only work if everyone involved was incredibly open about communication.

Also, I agree that a sexual partner may say that they're okay with not having sex with you, but they really do expect to have sex with you at some point. I'm in a relationship with a sexual person now, and he says he's okay with not having sex, but a few times he's put pressure on me to have sex with him. Generally it ends with him jerking off while I'm just there. I don't think this solution will work for long, and eventually he will want actual sex. Because of this, I'm pretty sure the relationship will, in the long run, fail.

[Pamcakes]

Just a semantic point; can we please draw a line between polyamoury and open relationships? Because these are actually different situations: polyamoury means, literally, "multiple loves". It's an emotional investment in all partners, though not necessarily an equal one. An open* relationship means a primary couple that are open to and may engage in, either individually or together, casual sex with outsiders. A monoamourous relationship where one partner (as is the scenario discussed) is allowed to seek sexual but not romantic experience external to the primary coupling would fall under this category, and not polyamoury.

I mention it, because there are poly people who might take offense at the inaccuracy.

*The degree of "openness" varies from one to the other; for one relationship, it might be "we can both sleep with other people whenever we like, but neither of us want the details from the other", or "one partner can sleep around while the other is happily monogamous with no jealousy issues", or "one partner or both is allowed to seek one regular casual sexual partner, but can't just sleep with anyone they fancy whenever they feel like, and needs to appraise their primary partner first" to just about any other variety of one committed romantic partnership, with external non-emotional sexual engagements as you can imagine.

P.

[test account]

So what you're saying about personal agency is, if the sexual third doesn't like it, they can leave (male or female). Sure they can! But why would they? Because they've been hurt. Not a nice picture, is it?

On the other hand, they might leave because they are just bored with the sex, and have found somebody else they like better. Without solid ties, people move on. Then what does the sexual in partnership with an asexual do? Look for another gigolo/escort? Establish the trust bonds again? What a drag! And how good are they feeling about their sexuality now, when their asexual partner doesn't want it, and their sexual contact person has decided it's not interesting any more?

I know, nothing is perfect! Life is messy. And that's kind of a good point, isn't it? It's not a neat little solution to say "I don't want this bit of the relationship so you can get that bit elsewhere." Somebody gonna get hurt--which is fine if you're prepared for that, I guess.

I've spent the past hour and a half trying to convince myself that I misread your post, or that you didn't mean to insult me, but I can't. I'm not a prostitute (or a gigolo/escort). Just because I don't want or need the romantic "bit" of a relationship does not make me someone who is paid for sex.

I'm sorry you spent so long pondering over my post. I certainly didn't mean to imply that an escort (which is a much politer term than prostitute) is necessarily a bad thing to be. I was being realistic, as I see it. If the relationship is purely sexual, how does it differ, except that it is unpaid in money? It's paid in services rendered instead. I personally wouldn't want to conduct myself that way, but other people clearly have no problem with it, because brothels and pick up joints exist. And if a person is really okay with casual sexual arrangements, I don't see why they should feel it's an insult to have the practice named for what it is. Double-standards maybe? It's okay to sleep with someone you don't care about as long as no money changes hands?

I know my opinions sound outrageous to some people, and I'm sorry for that. But if what I say is genuinely offensive to the wider community, the mods will have to caution me (which has never happened to me yet). I also think if a person is not okay with the practice of being an escort, they need to evaluate whether they are really okay with a casual sexual relationship. Because it is supposed to be as clinical and professional as that, otherwise it is not a casual arrangement. It is an affair.

[Lucinda]

I would think that maven would have much more say so than your average gigolo/escort.

Lucinda

[maven]

So what you're saying about personal agency is, if the sexual third doesn't like it, they can leave (male or female). Sure they can! But why would they? Because they've been hurt. Not a nice picture, is it?

On the other hand, they might leave because they are just bored with the sex, and have found somebody else they like better. Without solid ties, people move on. Then what does the sexual in partnership with an asexual do? Look for another gigolo/escort? Establish the trust bonds again? What a drag! And how good are they feeling about their sexuality now, when their asexual partner doesn't want it, and their sexual contact person has decided it's not interesting any more?

I know, nothing is perfect! Life is messy. And that's kind of a good point, isn't it? It's not a neat little solution to say "I don't want this bit of the relationship so you can get that bit elsewhere." Somebody gonna get hurt--which is fine if you're prepared for that, I guess.

I've spent the past hour and a half trying to convince myself that I misread your post, or that you didn't mean to insult me, but I can't. I'm not a prostitute (or a gigolo/escort). Just because I don't want or need the romantic "bit" of a relationship does not make me someone who is paid for sex.

I'm sorry you spent so long pondering over my post. I certainly didn't mean to imply that an escort (which is a much politer term than prostitute) is necessarily a bad thing to be. I was being realistic, as I see it. If the relationship is purely sexual, how does it differ, except that it is unpaid in money? It's paid in services rendered instead. I personally wouldn't want to conduct myself that way, but other people clearly have no problem with it, because brothels and pick up joints exist. And if a person is really okay with casual sexual arrangements, I don't see why they should feel it's an insult to have the practice named for what it is. Double-standards maybe? It's okay to sleep with someone you don't care about as long as no money changes hands?

I know my opinions sound outrageous to some people, and I'm sorry for that. But if what I say is genuinely offensive to the wider community, the mods will have to caution me (which has never happened to me yet). I also think if a person is not okay with the practice of being an escort, they need to evaluate whether they are really okay with a casual sexual relationship. Because it is supposed to be as clinical and professional as that, otherwise it is not a casual arrangement. It is an affair.

There's nothing wrong with being a prostitute. But there's a reason I don't call myself one, and it's not just because no money exchanges hands when I have sex.

A prostitute's job is to have sex. Sex is work for them, an task (one that they enjoy or not). He/she doesn't get to decide who to have sex with, when to have sex, or anything else, except for maybe how much money is charged for the interaction. Some high class prostitutes can afford to be picky, but that's not the same as being able to pick the person you have sex with. For a prostitute, sex is a means to make money, nothing else.

Are my relationships more casual than yours? Yes. But that doesn't make them cold or clinical. When my libido acts up, I don't look around for the first male in the area and proposition them just so I can appease it. There is sexual attraction between myself and the men I choose - otherwise, why would I bother having sex? - there is affection, there is pleasure. A prostitute cannot choose clients based on attraction, and I assume his/her feelings towards sex with a client is not the same as mine towards my partners.

As for it being an affair - the definition of a love affair/liaison is "an adulterous relationship." I'm not committing adultery. I'm not in relationship with anyone else. And I do my best to make sure my partner is not in a relationship either. Why? Not because I want to have all of them to myself. Because I believe adultery is morally wrong and can't stand the thought of ruining someone else's relationship/marriage.

So. For the record. I am not a prostitute, nor am I a home-wreaking, boyfriend-stealing, adulteress. What you are saying is not genuinely offensive to the greater community, in fact, the majority of them agree with you. That doesn't make it true, or less offensive to me as an individual.

[Guest]

I actually read Executioner's post quite differently. The way i read it was more like:

If the primary couple decided that the sexual can have sex, but not an emotional connection, with another person, that's fine. however, that other person will eventually leave once they 1) get fed up or hurt by the arrangement, or 2) meet someone else who can fulfill all their needs. That leaves the sexual with no outlet for sex again. At that point, the sexual is faced with the choices of finding a new "other", establishing a relationship and trust only to see it fall apart, or start seeing escorts/prostitutes.

I really don't think, Maven, that she was calling you a whore.

In any case, I don't see a problem with open relationships if that's what everyone wants. My problem is specifically on AVEN, with so many asexuals just not comprehending the role sex plays in a sexual's life, and the role emotion plays in sex... that if an asexual says "ew, you go have that disgusting, emotionless activity with someone else and keep it away from me!", they are severely underestimating how hurtful that could be to their sexual partner, as well as not understanding that, when sleeping with someone else, they very well may get emotionally attached to that someone else.

Open relationships are great with communication. When one party fails to fully understand what they're advocating for (which I think is the case with some asexuals), then I'm not so sure the open relationship is a great idea.

[test account]

As for it being an affair - the definition of a love affair/liaison is "an adulterous relationship." I'm not committing adultery. I'm not in relationship with anyone else. And I do my best to make sure my partner is not in a relationship either. Why? Not because I want to have all of them to myself. Because I believe adultery is morally wrong and can't stand the thought of ruining someone else's relationship/marriage.

So. For the record. I am not a prostitute, nor am I a home-wreaking, boyfriend-stealing, adulteress. What you are saying is not genuinely offensive to the greater community, in fact, the majority of them agree with you. That doesn't make it true, or less offensive to me as an individual.

Then you're not talking about the same situation as me then, which is having casual sex with somebody who is in a romantic relationship with someone else, for a start.

And it's immaterial whether people agree with me or not. I'll have my opinions regardless of what anyone else thinks. You're correct that majority opinion doesn't make a thing true--that's why I don't care who disagrees with me.

I know a guy who pays for escorts, and he prefers arrangements with people he doesn't pay. I can only imagine this is because he imagines they enjoy it more. At the end of the day though, they mean no more to him than an escort, and he forms no emotional attachment to them at all. Isn't that what casual sex is supposed to be about? If there's emotion in it, it's not casual. It's an affair--an affair of the heart--your heart cheating on you.

[maven]

I actually read Executioner's post quite differently. The way i read it was more like:

If the primary couple decided that the sexual can have sex, but not an emotional connection, with another person, that's fine. however, that other person will eventually leave once they 1) get fed up or hurt by the arrangement, or 2) meet someone else who can fulfill all their needs. That leaves the sexual with no outlet for sex again. At that point, the sexual is faced with the choices of finding a new "other", establishing a relationship and trust only to see it fall apart, or start seeing escorts/prostitutes.

I really don't think, Maven, that she was calling you a whore.

I definitely see how the potential problems that you mentioned could arise. I'm not saying it would all be happy happy joy joy, just something that could work with effort. Whenever people in relationship threads bring up the idea of the sexual having sex with someone else, I usually immediately reject it in my head because most people don't want an open/poly relationship. But if they did, I can see how an aromantic sexual would fit in.

And I fully admit to being sensitive to the whore/prostitute thing - it's a bit of a sore spot. Right behind being called a robot/cold and unfeeling. Hence the long period of staring at the post before responding.

As for it being an affair - the definition of a love affair/liaison is "an adulterous relationship." I'm not committing adultery. I'm not in relationship with anyone else. And I do my best to make sure my partner is not in a relationship either. Why? Not because I want to have all of them to myself. Because I believe adultery is morally wrong and can't stand the thought of ruining someone else's relationship/marriage.

So. For the record. I am not a prostitute, nor am I a home-wreaking, boyfriend-stealing, adulteress. What you are saying is not genuinely offensive to the greater community, in fact, the majority of them agree with you. That doesn't make it true, or less offensive to me as an individual.

Then you're not talking about the same situation as me then, which is having casual sex with somebody who is in a romantic relationship with someone else, for a start.

And it's immaterial whether people agree with me or not. I'll have my opinions regardless of what anyone else thinks. You're correct that majority opinion doesn't make a thing true--that's why I don't care who disagrees with me.

I know a guy who pays for escorts, and he prefers arrangements with people he doesn't pay. I can only imagine this is because he imagines they enjoy it more. At the end of the day though, they mean no more to him than an escort, and he forms no emotional attachment to them at all. Isn't that what casual sex is supposed to be about? If there's emotion in it, it's not casual. It's an affair--an affair of the heart--your heart cheating on you.

Would you consider someone in an open relationship to be having an affair? Or those in a polygamous relationship as having affairs? I think I missed something here.

As for whether casual sex has emotion, of course it does. There is happiness and joy and excitement and all the other things you'd normally feel in sex (good sex, that is). Sometimes worry and frustration and a whole host of negative things as well. But you are correct in that I don't form an emotional attachment to the person I'm having sex with.

The reason I refrain from doing so is because I know I don't want a romantic relationship. I couldn't provide them with that if they decided that's what they wanted. In the open relationship or polygamous situation we started the discussion off with, the constant worry of whether they would eventually want to change the relationship would hopefully not exist.

[Pamcakes]

Can we keep from making moral judgements about perfectly legal activities occurring between consenting adults who are capable of making their own decisions, please?

It got old before it was ever new.

P.

[Sally]

I actually read Executioner's post quite differently. The way i read it was more like:

If the primary couple decided that the sexual can have sex, but not an emotional connection, with another person, that's fine. however, that other person will eventually leave once they 1) get fed up or hurt by the arrangement, or 2) meet someone else who can fulfill all their needs. That leaves the sexual with no outlet for sex again. At that point, the sexual is faced with the choices of finding a new "other", establishing a relationship and trust only to see it fall apart, or start seeing escorts/prostitutes.

I really don't think, Maven, that she was calling you a whore.

In any case, I don't see a problem with open relationships if that's what everyone wants. My problem is specifically on AVEN, with so many asexuals just not comprehending the role sex plays in a sexual's life, and the role emotion plays in sex... that if an asexual says "ew, you go have that disgusting, emotionless activity with someone else and keep it away from me!", they are severely underestimating how hurtful that could be to their sexual partner, as well as not understanding that, when sleeping with someone else, they very well may get emotionally attached to that someone else.

Open relationships are great with communication. When one party fails to fully understand what they're advocating for (which I think is the case with some asexuals), then I'm not so sure the open relationship is a great idea.

Definitely agree. I'm beginning to think that it's really hard for an asexual to know what sex means to a sexual unless that asexual has been in a sexual relationship and seen the sexual's emotions up close. That will pretty much cure you of the "ew go do it with someone else" attitude.

[maven]

oof, double post. sorry!

[test account]

Would you consider someone in an open relationship to be having an affair? Or those in a polygamous relationship as having affairs? I think I missed something here.

As for whether casual sex has emotion, of course it does. There is happiness and joy and excitement and all the other things you'd normally feel in sex (good sex, that is). Sometimes worry and frustration and a whole host of negative things as well. But you are correct in that I don't form an emotional attachment to the person I'm having sex with.

The reason I refrain from doing so is because I know I don't want a romantic relationship. I couldn't provide them with that if they decided that's what they wanted. In the open relationship or polygamous situation we started the discussion off with, the constant worry of whether they would eventually want to change the relationship would hopefully not exist.

I expect we have very different internal makeup. If you're sleeping with someone and really enjoying it, how can you not form an emotional dependency on that person remaining in your life? And if you do, how can you not try to secure it? Unless you're confident that there will be plenty of others, who will provide equally good sex? What if one of them falls in love with you? What will you do then?

And I would ask exactly the same questions if you were male. I make no distinctions between the genders when it comes to this. But you don't have to answer them. I probably wouldn't understand anyway because I'm not wired the same way. Sexual yes, but possibly more affected by my feelings when interacting with people, in the sense that they impact on me physically to a large degree.

[maven]

I expect we have very different internal makeup. If you're sleeping with someone and really enjoying it, how can you not form an emotional dependency on that person remaining in your life?

I see two parts to this question. One part is the idea of associating all the good emotions of sex with the person you are having sex with, and the other is needing to feel that way for the rest of your life.

When I'm having sex, I don't associate the happiness/contentment or any other feeling with the person I'm having sex with - all those feelings are wrapped up in the act itself, not the person. And that's not to say I would be happy having sex with anyone, because I wouldn't - just that I don't place much of the cause behind my feelings on that person. As for the second part, forming an emotional dependency has never occurred to me (I'm not being sarcastic here). Emotionally, I've always leaned much more on family and friends than I have anyone I've had sex with, so thinking about spending the rest of my life with someone just because he and I have great sex has never come up.

How about an analogy: think of something you do that you love (a hobby, perhaps?), that brings you great joy, and that you would be upset if you ever had to give it up, but at the same time, your life does not revolve around it. You do not make your decisions around this hobby, whether you move across the country is not based on this hobby, and yet you spend considerable amounts of time purchasing things to support your hobby as well as actually devoting time to the hobby. Do you enjoy the hobby? Yes. Do you have an emotional dependency towards it? Possibly, but probably not to the extreme degree people use to describe romantic relationships.

And if you do, how can you not try to secure it? Unless you're confident that there will be plenty of others, who will provide equally good sex? What if one of them falls in love with you? What will you do then?

Biggest fear right there. One of the top five reasons I don't sleep with someone without vetting them first (STDs and hidden gf/fiancee/wife are some of the others). It hasn't happened yet, possibly because I'm very careful and cut ties if I detect any romantic emotions/gestures, or possibly because I've been lucky so far.

If it happens? I don't know what I would do. Probably panic and feel miserable about causing unrequited love even though I obviously don't have control over someone else's emotions. I might possibly fall back into my old ways of faking it and be in a romantic relationship until he falls out of love with me. I wish I could say "Oops, sorry, your loss, I told you I didn't want a romantic relationship," and run, but chances are the guilt might outweigh my practical side in this area. Which is why I try extremely hard to prevent it from happening in the first place.

And I would ask exactly the same questions if you were male. I make no distinctions between the genders when it comes to this. But you don't have to answer them. I probably wouldn't understand anyway because I'm not wired the same way. Sexual yes, but possibly more affected by my feelings when interacting with people, in the sense that they impact on me physically to a large degree.

I've tried, to the best of my ability, to answer them... maybe someone who's more articulate on the topic could also weigh in. As for understanding, well, it's my belief that you can understand someone else's perspective without ascribing to the same philosophy. Feel free to ask more questions.

(oh, and thank you for not stereotyping according to gender - makes my explanation a bit easier :) )

[test account]

I expect we have very different internal makeup. If you're sleeping with someone and really enjoying it, how can you not form an emotional dependency on that person remaining in your life?

I see two parts to this question. One part is the idea of associating all the good emotions of sex with the person you are having sex with, and the other is needing to feel that way for the rest of your life.

When I'm having sex, I don't associate the happiness/contentment or any other feeling with the person I'm having sex with - all those feelings are wrapped up in the act itself, not the person. And that's not to say I would be happy having sex with anyone, because I wouldn't - just that I don't place much of the cause behind my feelings on that person. As for the second part, forming an emotional dependency has never occurred to me (I'm not being sarcastic here). Emotionally, I've always leaned much more on family and friends than I have anyone I've had sex with, so thinking about spending the rest of my life with someone just because he and I have great sex has never come up.

How about an analogy: think of something you do that you love (a hobby, perhaps?), that brings you great joy, and that you would be upset if you ever had to give it up, but at the same time, your life does not revolve around it. You do not make your decisions around this hobby, whether you move across the country is not based on this hobby, and yet you spend considerable amounts of time purchasing things to support your hobby as well as actually devoting time to the hobby. Do you enjoy the hobby? Yes. Do you have an emotional dependency towards it? Possibly, but probably not to the extreme degree people use to describe romantic relationships.

And if you do, how can you not try to secure it? Unless you're confident that there will be plenty of others, who will provide equally good sex? What if one of them falls in love with you? What will you do then?

Biggest fear right there. One of the top five reasons I don't sleep with someone without vetting them first (STDs and hidden gf/fiancee/wife are some of the others). It hasn't happened yet, possibly because I'm very careful and cut ties if I detect any romantic emotions/gestures, or possibly because I've been lucky so far.

If it happens? I don't know what I would do. Probably panic and feel miserable about causing unrequited love even though I obviously don't have control over someone else's emotions. I might possibly fall back into my old ways of faking it and be in a romantic relationship until he falls out of love with me. I wish I could say "Oops, sorry, your loss, I told you I didn't want a romantic relationship," and run, but chances are the guilt might outweigh my practical side in this area. Which is why I try extremely hard to prevent it from happening in the first place.

And I would ask exactly the same questions if you were male. I make no distinctions between the genders when it comes to this. But you don't have to answer them. I probably wouldn't understand anyway because I'm not wired the same way. Sexual yes, but possibly more affected by my feelings when interacting with people, in the sense that they impact on me physically to a large degree.

I've tried, to the best of my ability, to answer them... maybe someone who's more articulate on the topic could also weigh in. As for understanding, well, it's my belief that you can understand someone else's perspective without ascribing to the same philosophy. Feel free to ask more questions.

(oh, and thank you for not stereotyping according to gender - makes my explanation a bit easier :) )

Thanks for trying to explain Maven, and I'm genuinely sorry that I upset you earlier.

I might be able to grasp your perspective, but it's difficult for me to do so without feeling shocked. You liken sex to a hobby, but to me it's more like a religion. It's not easy for me to accept that other people can attach so much less significance to an activity which, to me, is like a deeply personal act of worship. It frightens me to be honest, because it means I'm surrounded by people who would, metaphorically, maybe not exactly piss on the altar, but certainly see nothing wrong with organizing fund-raisers on Sunday. And so who will be left to sing hymns with me and pray? Makes me very sad.

And then I have people telling me that there's nothing wrong with treating my religion like a hobby, and I should understand their point of view--but how can I, without bringing into question my whole concept of sexuality? I'm not ready to do that, and I don't think I need to do that. In fact, I don't think I even can do that. So, if that's means I'm limited, then I'll just have to accept that. Maybe other people can't comprehend my way of thinking either? That's okay. The world is a big place.

[maven]

Apology accepted, and I can see why you did not think you were insulting me.

The religion-hobby analogy is working wonders on my own understanding of how people view sex. I knew people considered sex a sacred act (or at least, with more significance than I place on it), but to think of it as highly as something like faith is more than I would have expected. From what I know, most people do not feel as casually as I do about sex, so I don't think you have to worry about being left without other followers.

I also don't think you need to bring in to question your concept of sexuality to understand someone else's point of view. Keeping with the analogy, you can understand that someone else has a religion different from yours without converting to that religion, right? It's simply that they believe in something different from you, not that you have to believe in that too.

[NorthernRose]

Okay, so this is mainly rant, but also I'm hoping for some good insight/opinions...

I'm asexual, obviously. Biromantic. I've only recently been open to people that I potentially "date" about this. I used to just try and do (physical) things with people because I thought they would leave, or because I thought I loved them enough to get through it for them. But, I've been a lot happier now that I'm just up front about it, and so that the person (in all cases being sexuals, as I've never met an asexual) doesn't waste their time.

BUT, the issue is that now I have someone who says "I don't want you for sex; I just want to be with you; its not important" and while I trust and mostly believe this person, I don't know what to do. Mind you, this was an ex whom I've unfortunately done the unspeakable with for once, and was disgusted after, despite "loving" them. And a part of me wants to say, "hey, this person is obviously not selfish and is sticking around despite the no sex thing", but on the other hand I feel like after time for them, it will lead to them cheating on me, or else eventually pressuring and trying to get me to have sex. Maybe its one of those, never know till you try things? Just wondering if anyone has been in this situation, or has any advice on the matter. I appreciate it...

You are asexual; you are biromantic but more than anything else, remember, you are human and you need to be humane.

Hope I don't get you confused.

[test account]

Apology accepted, and I can see why you did not think you were insulting me.

The religion-hobby analogy is working wonders on my own understanding of how people view sex. I knew people considered sex a sacred act (or at least, with more significance than I place on it), but to think of it as highly as something like faith is more than I would have expected. From what I know, most people do not feel as casually as I do about sex, so I don't think you have to worry about being left without other followers.

I also don't think you need to bring in to question your concept of sexuality to understand someone else's point of view. Keeping with the analogy, you can understand that someone else has a religion different from yours without converting to that religion, right? It's simply that they believe in something different from you, not that you have to believe in that too.

True, it's easy for me to concieve of a different religion, because the feelings are the same, though the beliefs are different. So like, I can understand homosexuality that's practiced like a 'religion' even though I'm hetero, and would never have a same-sex encounter. The stage is different, but the feelings are the same.

When it comes to trying to understand a casual approach though, the feelings are different. And sure, I can comprehend it to a degree, as far as realising people like yourself don't feel religious about it, but it's difficult for me not to get frustrated when I see this. Its like seeing the icons of my religion being used in commonplace settings. Very difficult for me to not get angry about it.

And from what I've seen, I don't think you're in any danger of being alone in your feelings either. And you probably have more fun than me. :)

[littleathena]

Last year I was casually dating a guy I met on pof. I told him when we first met I wasn't that interested in sex but I would do it if I was in a relationship he said he was fine with this and he'd never finish with a girl for sexual reasons as theres other things more important in a relationship etc. Anyway after dating a few weeks (he kept saying that we weren't in a relationship) he told me out of the blue to either sleep with him the following night or I'll never see him again, so I made a decision to stop dating him and told him no.

What the Hell...? After a few weeks I would still regard him rather as a stranger than someone whom I know. And surely I would not want to have sex with him so soon, even if I were sexual.

In my experience that sort of time frame isn't so unusual among sexuals. Now, I think the guy must be an ass for making an ultimatum like that, but when I still believed I was sexual I have had sex with guys (ok so only one guy) within that time frame. Of course I would never even consider remaining with a person if they basically told me to have sex with them or leave. I'd be leaving in a heart beat.

In my recent experience, sexuals expect to get sex by the third date. Over the last year I've tried dating again, and this is what I've experienced. If you haven't put out by the end of date 3, they never want to go out with you again. Forget waiting patiently for weeks or months or years.

...Hence why I've completely stopped dating. Well, sexuals, anyway.

[Kitty Spoon Train]

Wow, that was some epic necromancy...

But wow, what an awesome and riveting thread! :D

[Qutenkuddly]

From the AVEN Terms of Service:

If a thread is more than a month old and you have nothing significant to contribute, please do not revive it.

Thread closed for necromancy.

Qutenkuddly,

Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator