Jump to content

What is the point of asexual romance?


Roy M.

Recommended Posts

I don't think AVEN is the right place to seek out argument and disputations for their own sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitchens's quote more or less sums up why I bothered to make this thread.

"Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

I hardly think Hitchens meant that we should waste anyone's time criticizing other peoples' relationships.

Who is doing that? I haven't seen anyone do that.

I don't think AVEN is the right place to seek out argument and disputations for their own sake.

Why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rome, you asked what point there is to romantic relationships if there's no sex involved. Many people have replied, trying very hard to explain that there is a substantial difference in subjective experience between friendship and a romantic relationship. You can either accept those answers or not, but this conversation will probably fair better if you at least accept that you are as unlikely to change any else's thoughts on the matter than they will yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go back and take a closer look, a lot of my response have had questions, leaving open the possibility for others to explain themselves. It's not so much about arguing to convince you guys as it is me arguing to learn, hence why they are valuable prerogatives for their own sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Touchofinsight
I don't get it. What makes the relationship romantic if there's nothing sexual to it? Isn't sex ultimately why romantic relationships are a thing, you know, to get to know someone before you open up sexually to them? What makes romance without the sex any different than a close friendship? Why not simply call it friendship then?

I'll start the "debate" or argument with you with my 1st point.

People get into all types of different relationships based on different needs. Romance, does not always equal sex. Again this is very subjective its based on the individual needs of a person.

So to answer your question lets look through the view point of someone who doesn't care about sex whether or not they are asexual.

That person may just want companionship that is beyond a "friend" level. Someone to support and be supported by. A partner in life, if you will. Someone they can talk to, share important parts of their lives with etc.

Some people just enjoy being intimate physical without the act of sex, their may be sensual/sexual touching but it can stop there. Even the very sexual girls I know who go out for 1 night stands and enjoy sleeping around with men (whom I strongly support by the way) still enjoy and desire non sexual contact (usually cuddling) and not always a post sex act.

Others just don't like the idea of not being alone, sometimes people have what I call "placeholder boyfriend/girlfriends" just for the sake of saying they have one so they don't feel left out with their peers. I.E. They are with a group of friends and the group conversation starts to turn to boyfriends/husbands etc they don't want to feel left out regardless of the state of their relationship. This happens with both asexual and sexual people (people stay in a relationship for the sake of having a relationship even if isn't going well sex or no sex).

In the end it really depends on how you define friendship, romance, and sex.

I define friendship as a very close bond where I could do most of these above things with people, however even with my best friend I don't want to be intimate and cuddle with him, so If I desired a relationship he wouldn't be the person I'd pursue it with.

Others define friendship as something less then lovers.

I think for many people your statement is true but for another portion of the audience it just doesn't work for them.

People have their own special needs and desires entering a relationship which will eventually change via compromise, prioritization and sacrifice.

This is exactly why the politically correct movement is complete folly. (not the intention but the results)

No matter how many words or ideas you try to create you can't encompass everyone under a single idea or label, someone will always raise their hand go.. "but what about me?"

Superlatives... never work, Oh the irony!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexual aromantic here: sex and romance are worlds away from my own which confuse me terribly, and I have spent a long time trying to understand how both work. But I have certainly never had trouble with the idea of asexual romance.

Ever since I was a teenager I never thought that sex and romance went together. I guess this is because of my parents' relationship. I have no doubt that my parents love one another - they have been though hell and back throughout their time together but have stuck through it and remained very close. But they don't have sex. My mum is disabled and sex has always been uncomfortable for her, and she stopped doing it after my brother was born. My dad is a sexual man who has sex with other women (who he is certainly not in a romantic relationship with) My parents have a romantic relationship together. My dad has sexual relationships with other people. There is no point at which the sex and the romance goes together. And that is how I have always viewed every relationship.

From my limited understanding of relationships and from my experience with my parents I assume that romance is the state of relationship you have with a person that causes you to want to be together forever, want to live together, want to raise children together (maybe), want to spend all of your time together, missing each other when you are apart, wanting to see each other, and just knowing the other person better than you know yourself. This is not something that happens with a friend, even a 'best friend'. I have very close friendships but at no point do I care about them to the point of romance. I have no desire to spend everyday with my best friend and often I think I see too much of her and just wish she would leave me alone sometimes.

Sex is just an action that some people want to do with other people; to me, there is no love or romance there. Just icky stuff (lol).

My best friend is very sexual, loves sex, loves guys. But even she has agreed that sex is not the be all and end all of her relationships. She says that sometimes she just likes the romance. She has has many sexual relationships but the only relationship that she said meant anything at all to her was one when they never had sex. They were together two years and sex never happened. And yet she was in love with him. There was romance there. No sex necessary. She has always said that sex has ruined every relationship she has been in.

The point of asexual romance? The question is flawed. Romance doesn't need a point. It just what people feel, and desire to have with other people. There's no motive to romance, it just happens... or doesn't depending on who you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think AVEN is the right place to seek out argument and disputations for their own sake.

Why not?

Because AVEN was created to be a safe space for asexuals, partners and allies to meet and discuss asexuality, relationships and else, and while controversy is fine at times if it has a point (if it's good for a discussion), seeking out arguments and disputations for their own sake is definitely not the same thing. Our terms of service also don't allow to antagonize other members, or to flame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Close to companionship. Having a partner in life where you are both there for each other every step of the way. Somebody that you can experience the world with and just be yourself around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

This thread is making me realise something...

It would be quite possible for me to have the exact same relationship (in terms of what actions it contains and how it looks to the outside), but for it to be internally considered either romantic or platonic, depending on whom I'm with.

This is sort of why it makes sense to me personally to do away with the labels altogether. But I can see how they make sense for the more clearly-defined cultural norm scenarios. But really, it's pointless to try to nail down absolutely exact definitions with this sort of thing. Just accept that it's Fuzzy Logic, that edge cases can go either way depending on who you ask, and live and let live.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have always viewed sexual romance as a this for that. As in you have sex with me and I will love you. Kind of like that bus driver when I was in kindergarten...I'll only let everyone off the bus if you give me a kiss. To me it is the same. It always feels like - in my case - the man only loving what I do for him and not really loving me at all. And what's the point in that - especially when I get nothing from sex - no orgasm, no pleasure, no "connection"....oh yes that's right I get his love. I'm looking for a man who treasures my love for him and who will love me for me. And who will not require sex as a sort of down payment. I may be Demi - but no man has ever wanted to wait longer than a month for me.

This reminds me of a situation that happened almost ten years ago....

I was dating / getting to know a girl whom my friends kinda set me up with. But she had just come out of a bad relationship and wasn't keen on diving right into another relationship. I did find her quite cute and was keen on getting to know her well, but of course, certainly had no intentions of getting into her pants straight away (this is years before I knew anything about demisexuality by the way).

Well, after a few months of basically very slow dating - but really just being friends I guess - all our mutual friends (the ones who set us up) were terribly pissed off with her for "leading me on and using me". She didn't have a car you see, so I was giving her rides a lot on weekends, and apparently this means that she was just stringing me along and "using me". I never saw it that way. I was happy to spend time with her, but logistically it's just the way it worked out at the time - that I'd have to drive over to her end of the city a lot, etc etc.

I never really understood the logic behind why they were so pissed off. The subtext seems to be something like: "Why would you go out of your way for someone for so long unless she's putting out?". I actually find this kind of thinking pretty cynical. So that's the deal huh? Sex in exchange for rides? Urgh.

If I look at it with the benefit of hindsight now, the only thing I would have done differently is pushed for some more solid communication. But as for dating for a few months without "getting any" being a problem? Really?? People actually think that way? It still doesn't compute.

Solid communication had always been my weakness. However, since finding this site - I've found the proper tools to communicate with these guys. I am also able to recognize when I guy is romancing me (which I'm good with) or if he is attempting to seduce me (lol - doesn't work too well). They weren't too happy with the communications - but, no ones time was wasted.

Anyways, thanks for sharing your story - it's good to know there are people out there who are like-minded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From my limited understanding of relationships and from my experience with my parents I assume that romance is the state of relationship you have with a person that causes you to want to be together forever, want to live together, want to raise children together (maybe), want to spend all of your time together, missing each other when you are apart, wanting to see each other, and just knowing the other person better than you know yourself. This is not something that happens with a friend, even a 'best friend'. I have very close friendships but at no point do I care about them to the point of romance. I have no desire to spend everyday with my best friend and often I think I see too much of her and just wish she would leave me alone sometimes.

Again, I have to disagree with the absolutist nature of this statement. I generally feel this way with my best friend. Additionally, I've observed many a romantic individual that has desired a little space from their partner. Certainly, a "clingy" partner is often seen as a turn-off.

The point of asexual romance? The question is flawed. Romance doesn't need a point. It just what people feel, and desire to have with other people. There's no motive to romance, it just happens... or doesn't depending on who you are.

Perhaps you may be right there. Nonetheless, I do feel that you did a fine job of answering my question, as your explanation perhaps does the best at explaining how asexual romance can work so far, albeit with some flaws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of text.

I mean no disrespect, but you kind of brought up a conglomeration of points that have been discussed at length already, and I haven't the energy to revisit them again, but thanks anyway for your input.

I don't think AVEN is the right place to seek out argument and disputations for their own sake.

Why not?

Because AVEN was created to be a safe space for asexuals, partners and allies to meet and discuss asexuality, relationships and else, and while controversy is fine at times if it has a point (if it's good for a discussion), seeking out arguments and disputations for their own sake is definitely not the same thing. Our terms of service also don't allow to antagonize other members, or to flame.

Well, that's not really the point at all. Hell, I wouldn't have quoted Hitchens if he was referring to that kind of mindset.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rome, I don't believe that your motive is to "learn". I don't believe it because you rarely concede a point, and in my experience, when a person seeks to learn they do not consistently argue against their "teachers". They follow, they apply, and then they come back with questions. If you aren't motivated to do that, then you're seeking the wrong "teachers" here. Nobody has to provide you with justifications for their relationship beliefs. If you truly want to learn, you must open your mind to the idea that your preconcieved notions of romance and friendship are subjective, so that you can understand what people here are telling you.

Don't keep asking "Prove to me how the blue sky can be red." Don't even keep asking "How can that red bit of the blue sky be blue." Just as color perception depends on how your eyes transmit information and is decoded by your brain, such is the case in most other things in life. Sometimes we have to just take people at their word, even when it sounds like nonense. And if that's too much to handle (as it often is for me) we have the option to walk away and keep our own opinions. Does it really matter? Because right now you're at an impasse and I can't see the point.

Anyone that seeks to learn questions their instructors. That's the Socratic method. That's skepticism. That's how you filter the brilliance from the nonsense. I've believed enough embarrassing things in my younger days not to want to be so gullible again. Sure, it will require a bit of effort (oh, the calamity) on the part of those trying to teach me, but if it's really worth teaching,then I am sure that that should not pose any serious obstacle.

And certainly, no one has to provide justifications, as no one is compelled to post in threads that I make or reply to posts that I make in other threads, but if people are going to bother with it, then giving a well reasoned answer to a legitimate question certainly ought to be the priority. I don't get why some people who bother to reply seem afraid of having a conversation. Just don't post then. No one's twisting your arm. =/

Also, I think I concede points more than you think. It is probably that my dismissive moment are the more memorable episodes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rome, I don't believe that your motive is to "learn". I don't believe it because you rarely concede a point, and in my experience, when a person seeks to learn they do not consistently argue against their "teachers". They follow, they apply, and then they come back with questions. If you aren't motivated to do that, then you're seeking the wrong "teachers" here. Nobody has to provide you with justifications for their relationship beliefs. If you truly want to learn, you must open your mind to the idea that your preconcieved notions of romance and friendship are subjective, so that you can understand what people here are telling you.

Don't keep asking "Prove to me how the blue sky can be red." Don't even keep asking "How can that red bit of the blue sky be blue." Just as color perception depends on how your eyes transmit information and is decoded by your brain, such is the case in most other things in life. Sometimes we have to just take people at their word, even when it sounds like nonense. And if that's too much to handle (as it often is for me) we have the option to walk away and keep our own opinions. Does it really matter? Because right now you're at an impasse and I can't see the point.

Anyone that seeks to learn questions their instructors. That's the Socratic method. That's skepticism. That's how you filter the brilliance from the nonsense. I've believed enough embarrassing things in my younger days not to want to be so gullible again. Sure, it will require a bit of effort (oh, the calamity) on the part of those trying to teach me, but if it's really worth teaching,then I am sure that that should not pose any serious obstacle.

And certainly, no one has to provide justifications, as no one is compelled to post in threads that I make or reply to posts that I make in other threads, but if people are going to bother with it, then giving a well reasoned answer to a legitimate question certainly ought to be the priority. I don't get why some people who bother to reply seem afraid of having a conversation. Just don't post then. No one's twisting your arm. =/

Also, I think I concede points more than you think. It is probably that my dismissive moment are the more memorable episodes.

Well. I've just realized something. It is not worth teaching. We all seem to know the difference and we've tried to tell you in many different ways what that is. It's funny - we all understand what the others are saying. You are the only one not getting it - of course, that is why you asked the question! lol

While not impossible, it's really difficult to take a Calculus class without first knowing a little bit about trigonometry and all the math classes before it. With math and many other subjects - you have to start with the basics, and then work your way up.

For example, if you ask me what VARs are - I could give you a detailed intelligent concrete explanation. Electrical engineers will understand exactly what I am saying - even if it is mumbled and jumbled. You won't - you will dismiss my answers.....because you don't understand them. Which is understandable. And my response to that will be - go learn what AC and DC are, then go learn the Ohm's law and understand it and what PIE means, then go learn what reactances (capacitive and inductive) are and how they work, you also might want to learn what a sine wave is and what phase angles are -- then ask me about VARs.

I think that maybe all of our answers have been going over your head. I am sorry about that, I didn't realize it until now. Maybe you should start with the basics first. You seem to understand a little about friendship and you know about sexual relationships and sexual attraction - good start. So next learn what love is (both conditional and unconditional), then learn what romantic love is, then learn all of the various forms of sex (..and I don't mean positions) that there are, and the art of seduction. Then come back and ask about asexual romance. That is - if you really do desire to learn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well. I've just realized something. It is not worth teaching. We all seem to know the difference and we've tried to tell you in many different ways what that is. It's funny - we all understand what the others are saying. You are the only one not getting it - of course, that is why you asked the question! lol

While not impossible, it's really difficult to take a Calculus class without first knowing a little bit about trigonometry and all the math classes before it. With math and many other subjects - you have to start with the basics, and then work your way up.

For example, if you ask me what VARs are - I could give you a detailed intelligent concrete explanation. Electrical engineers will understand exactly what I am saying - even if it is mumbled and jumbled. You won't - you will dismiss my answers.....because you don't understand them. Which is understandable. And my response to that will be - go learn what AC and DC are, then go learn the Ohm's law and understand it and what PIE means, then go learn what reactances (capacitive and inductive) are and how they work, you also might want to learn what a sine wave is and what phase angles are -- then ask me about VARs.

I think that maybe all of our answers have been going over your head. I am sorry about that, I didn't realize it until now. Maybe you should start with the basics first. You seem to understand a little about friendship and you know about sexual relationships and sexual attraction - good start. So next learn what love is (both conditional and unconditional), then learn what romantic love is, then learn all of the various forms of sex (..and I don't mean positions) that there are, and the art of seduction. Then come back and ask about asexual romance. That is - if you really do desire to learn.

I think that is a very unfair conclusion about me. Frankly, it's downright insulting, talking down on me as if I'm Data from Star Trek and incapable of basic human thought or emotion.

I think my posts have shown that I understand the issue pretty well to the point that I can point out a flaw in an explanation where I see one. Honestly, I feel that rather than having been overburdened with complex answers, I've just not been critically satisfied with some very simple and incomplete answers, which many in this thread have been, often in the approximate phrasing of "Romance and friendship are just different" with no explanation, rather an expectation that I take it as an absolute, irrefutable fact of life, while also taking on an attitude of everything being subjective, at odds with such absolutist statements.

Where I have pointed out perceived flaws, there has been little, if any, effort to explain them. No, instead I get a post such as yours, basically saying, "Oh, you don't agree with me, so you must be stupid."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my posts have shown that I understand the issue pretty well to the point that I can point out a flaw in an explanation where I see one.

No one is interested in you pointing out flaws in explanations. Not understanding that is the flaw in your thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train
I think my posts have shown that I understand the issue pretty well to the point that I can point out a flaw in an explanation where I see one.

No one is interested in you pointing out flaws in explanations. Not understanding that is the flaw in your thinking.

I went and thought about something regarding all these various definitions of what makes romance romance, and came to an interesting conclusion....

Basically, for pretty much every heavily accepted explanation of what makes a relationship romantic, you can use another common explanation to counter it. And if you excluded all of those "countered by another interpretation" relationships, there would be virtually none left that qualify as "real romantic relationships" in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that feeling of having "butterflies in your stomach" that you get sometimes when you see your significant other? Well, romantic asexuals get that too. Just because we don't get sexually aroused by looking at our significant other, it doesn't mean we don't still get a warm fuzzy feeling of happiness.

We crave emotional closeness, and feel that it would be a shame to forgo that emotional closeness just because we don't like sex. In fact, many of us end up in sexual relationships because we can't find an asexual partner but still want that emotional closeness so badly that we're willing to make sacrifices for the one we love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my posts have shown that I understand the issue pretty well to the point that I can point out a flaw in an explanation where I see one.

No one is interested in you pointing out flaws in explanations. Not understanding that is the flaw in your thinking.

Actually, I understand that pretty well. I was just trying to give you guys the benefit of the doubt before such an accusation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well. I've just realized something. It is not worth teaching. We all seem to know the difference and we've tried to tell you in many different ways what that is. It's funny - we all understand what the others are saying. You are the only one not getting it - of course, that is why you asked the question! lol

While not impossible, it's really difficult to take a Calculus class without first knowing a little bit about trigonometry and all the math classes before it. With math and many other subjects - you have to start with the basics, and then work your way up.

For example, if you ask me what VARs are - I could give you a detailed intelligent concrete explanation. Electrical engineers will understand exactly what I am saying - even if it is mumbled and jumbled. You won't - you will dismiss my answers.....because you don't understand them. Which is understandable. And my response to that will be - go learn what AC and DC are, then go learn the Ohm's law and understand it and what PIE means, then go learn what reactances (capacitive and inductive) are and how they work, you also might want to learn what a sine wave is and what phase angles are -- then ask me about VARs.

I think that maybe all of our answers have been going over your head. I am sorry about that, I didn't realize it until now. Maybe you should start with the basics first. You seem to understand a little about friendship and you know about sexual relationships and sexual attraction - good start. So next learn what love is (both conditional and unconditional), then learn what romantic love is, then learn all of the various forms of sex (..and I don't mean positions) that there are, and the art of seduction. Then come back and ask about asexual romance. That is - if you really do desire to learn.

I think that is a very unfair conclusion about me. Frankly, it's downright insulting, talking down on me as if I'm Data from Star Trek and incapable of basic human thought or emotion.

I think my posts have shown that I understand the issue pretty well to the point that I can point out a flaw in an explanation where I see one.

Where I have pointed out perceived flaws, there has been little, if any, effort to explain them. No, instead I get a post such as yours, basically saying, "Oh, you don't agree with me, so you must be stupid."

1. Just because a person doesn't understand something - doesn't mean they are stupid. You came to that conclusion on your own.

2. If you understand the issue so well that you can point out flaws in other peoples answers - then why did you ask the question.

3. I don't know who Data is - again a conclusion you came to on your own. I have no doubt that you have feelings and emotions. You told me yourself that you have been in love and you've stated several times that you have close friends. What I meant by learning the basics is this - start with what you don't know - if you already know that there is a difference between conditional love and unconditional love then skip it. Go to the next concept. If you already know that 1+1 = 2, then obviously you don't need to relearn it. But, just to make sure: Conditional love = requires the person to have sex with you. Unconditional love = doesn't matter whether the person has sex with you or not. Of course, you could substitute sex with anything - but, that seems to be the main topic here.

4. See, you are missing something - no not intelligence .. you are missing some key information (you don't answer my questions - so I can't pinpoint what that missing information is). I asked you those questions for a reason - to find out what information you are missing. If you had that information - these answers (all of them) would make sense - well, maybe. For now all you get is - asexual romance is not just a close friendship - it is that and so much more. We are just a special breed that can fall in "unconditional love" without the thought of sex.

5. You are not a technical writing teacher. Stop insulting people with responses such as ( Your answer is lazy, inadequate, and incomplete). It's very annoying at best. I graduated college a long time ago and don't need my papers corrected anymore. Thanks. A more appropriate and a more acceptable response would be "I'm sorry - I just still don't get it..thanks for trying."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think my posts have shown that I understand the issue pretty well to the point that I can point out a flaw in an explanation where I see one.

No one is interested in you pointing out flaws in explanations. Not understanding that is the flaw in your thinking.

I went and thought about something regarding all these various definitions of what makes romance romance, and came to an interesting conclusion....

Basically, for pretty much every heavily accepted explanation of what makes a relationship romantic, you can use another common explanation to counter it. And if you excluded all of those "countered by another interpretation" relationships, there would be virtually none left that qualify as "real romantic relationships" in the world.

I think my posts have shown that I understand the issue pretty well to the point that I can point out a flaw in an explanation where I see one.

No one is interested in you pointing out flaws in explanations. Not understanding that is the flaw in your thinking.

I went and thought about something regarding all these various definitions of what makes romance romance, and came to an interesting conclusion....

Basically, for pretty much every heavily accepted explanation of what makes a relationship romantic, you can use another common explanation to counter it. And if you excluded all of those "countered by another interpretation" relationships, there would be virtually none left that qualify as "real romantic relationships" in the world.

...hmmm...you've got a pretty good point there....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rome, I don't believe that your motive is to "learn". I don't believe it because you rarely concede a point, and in my experience, when a person seeks to learn they do not consistently argue against their "teachers". They follow, they apply, and then they come back with questions. If you aren't motivated to do that, then you're seeking the wrong "teachers" here. Nobody has to provide you with justifications for their relationship beliefs. If you truly want to learn, you must open your mind to the idea that your preconcieved notions of romance and friendship are subjective, so that you can understand what people here are telling you.

Don't keep asking "Prove to me how the blue sky can be red." Don't even keep asking "How can that red bit of the blue sky be blue." Just as color perception depends on how your eyes transmit information and is decoded by your brain, such is the case in most other things in life. Sometimes we have to just take people at their word, even when it sounds like nonense. And if that's too much to handle (as it often is for me) we have the option to walk away and keep our own opinions. Does it really matter? Because right now you're at an impasse and I can't see the point.

Hooray :D nicely put Sweety.

It also seems to me that Rome has a slight issue with honesty and trust. Just thumbing through a few of the replies you seem to be hung up on whether or not people are being honest. You also seem to get a little defensive when people call you out on your lack of seeing where they are coming from, much like you seem to attack their opinions.

When in Rome..............................................etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rome, as far as I seem to understand, you've been married, right? If you take out the sexual attraction you felt for your wife, would it take out all of the love?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

What makes a relationship romantic when it's sans sex? I'd say it's the emotions that come with it - a person wouldn't have the sexual attraction and desire but there would still be the longing to be near that person, there would still be the physiological reactions such as pupils dilating and the endorphins being released. There's the cultural implementations as well, based on the each couples' viewpoint on what is romantic - stereotypically in Western culture, things like candle-lit dinners, a bouquet of roses and so on.

I would probably agree with you when you say "isn't sex ultimately why [relationships] are a thing?" but I don't believe that it's not possible for people to have "genuine" relationships (for want of a better word) minus sex. Which leads me to my final point.

My relationships with close friends tend to be quite different from romantic relationships. I would say I only have two friends I'd consider to be quite close, and I can honestly say that with neither of them have I wanted the same things as I want from a romantic relationship. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable cuddling with my close friends, although I am fine with hugs, and there's no way I'd share a bed with either of them, even though it really would be just sleeping.

It's that which leads me to define close friendship differently from romantic relationship - there are just some boundaries I wouldn't cross with those two that I would with a boyfriend.

Hopefully this has been able to at least partially answer your questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Crooked Ascension

I would have to strongly disagree with you. I am sure that at one time or another you had a romantic partner and you didn't get so far as to having sex. Now, if you were dating a gf/bf and you once again, got tipped out of the relationship, it would still be romantic. Sex is very overrated in my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Purnkin Spurce

Romance in an asexual relationship is JUST if a "normal" relationship but without the sex. You know how some couples don't like everything together, so they don't do that project/activity togetehr? It's like that with sex for asexuals. We don't NEED it to feel romance with one another. It can't be just a friendship because you don't have romantic attractions to your platonic friends.

We still share our vulnerabilities with that person. When two people have sex they are showing each other their vulnerable sides and letting the other person in to connect with not just their minds but their bodies.

With us we still have to put our walls down to let them in romantically. That's something you don't do with friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...