Sex=Relationship, No Sex=Friendship?

[Nameless123]

*

[Ardebis]

As an aromantic asexual I often have trouble understanding where "friendship" ends and "relationship" begins. Also, like you said, I have friends that I use the word "friendship" with, but we care so much for each other and if the situation arose I'd probably die for them. "Friendship" and "relationship" seem like very vague words to use, but as of right now it's all the vocabulary we have to work with.

[Norah]

Relationship probably means many different things to many different people, which is fine. What is not fine is insisting the other people are wrong. For me, relationship in the romantic and/or sexual pairing sense (because there is also the usage of referring to any ties you have with any other person as 'relationship') is what I have with someone I am in love with if they reciprocate. Friendship is what I call liking people but feeling no romantic attraction to them (this may include family), though I feel I also have a friendship with my partner as well as a romantic relationship, which is nice because it made for a stronger relationship all in all.

What would be wrong is if I insisted this is the only way to approach it ever and for anyone. If someone cannot be in love with someone without being sexually attracted to them, I accept that. If someone feels there is no real difference between romantic feelings and (a very strong) friendship, I'll take their word for it. I don't get why people can't accept that it may simply not be the same for someone else, like there has to be one way. Like they have to be able to grasp it on a very basic level before it can be true? No, not really, you don't really have to understand it to accept it.

[Preskom]

Think that's because ''those sexuals who think sex=relationship and nosex=friendship'' are either aromantics or didn't find the right one yet ;p

If someone never experienced love, of course they will never understand how a relationship can be based on that.

And of course, there are those who think a relationship IS for sex and are actually in love with their best friend...

[Latvia]

I suppose when it comes to a majority of people being in love with someone usually means they want to have sex with them. It's not the same thing, but they go hand in hand. So they can't understand how you can love someone in that way without wanting to have sex with them. I guess?

[Melorian]

I was talking about this kind of thing to my very sexual friend a few months ago. She told me that she could never have a relationship without sex, for her, love means sex. If someone didn't want sex with her it would mean they didn't love her. I thought that seemed a bit shallow, but then I am completely her opposite!

[Latvia]

I was talking about this kind of thing to my very sexual friend a few months ago. She told me that she could never have a relationship without sex, for her, love means sex. If someone didn't want sex with her it would mean they didn't love her. I thought that seemed a bit shallow, but then I am completely her opposite!

But... surely she loves her relatives. Does she want to have sex with them?

[Nameless123]

*

[Latvia]

But... surely she loves her relatives. Does she want to have sex with them?

There's a also a difference between romantic love that may or my not be connected to sexual attraction and for lack of a better term platonic love which is usually what people have for their family.

Yeah, sorry. That's just always my first thought when I hear the "love = sex" thing. "But don't you love your relatives?" I'll shut up.

[lrk]

Well, I suppose it depends on what kind of asexual you are. For some, me at least, you can tell the difference between whether it is someone I like a lot, as a friend, or someone I like a lot but would also like to kiss, thus being a romantic interest and not just friendship. I love my friends but I have no interest or desire to kiss them.

[Nameless123]

*

[Norah]

What is not fine is insisting the other people are wrong.

Have I done that?

I don't judge how people are attracted to each other or in what combinations of sexual attraction and/or romantic attraction. That's their thing. What bothers me is how some people seem to say when there's no sex anymore in a relationship it's just a friendship. I don't get how the romantic love you had for someone that was clearly beyond what people consider friendship feelings just leaves right with the sex. Along with the supposed comradeship, the taking care of each other, the sharing each other's lives or whatever else defines relationships?

I suppose my real question is how the physical exercise of getting each other off can be imbued with so much meaning. And a meaning that ironically for me or other asexuals exists completely independently of sex while for sexuals it cannot even exist without sex.

But maybe you're right and I should just accept it without trying to understand.

Actually I was referring to the sexual people you metnioned who insist that without sex there can be no relationship, only friendship.

[Nameless123]

*

[Anonymized]

If the case were sex=relationship, I would ask your friend how they feel that their partner could be equally described as a "friend with benefits."

[Nameless123]

*

[SporkMaster]

I think this argument is often used to try to get something from someone that they may not be giving. In my experience when this argument is used its because they are trying to convince you to use sex to deepen the relationship. I have to admit that i feel completely different.

A decision to be in a relationship should not require physical connection but instead emotional or intellectual connection. In my opinion sex tells you nothing about a person beyond their biological ability. To have a relationship you need to know more than that and so I dont see sex as necessary at all in a relationship.

[gnowee]

I think it's just a barrier of understanding between people in general. Some people can't be in a nonsexual relationship because they equate sex with love. If they're not having sex with their partner, maybe they convince themselves they're not REALLY in love with that person and they're better off just being friends. I don't think they take into consideration the different kinds of love and relationships they really experience. I know the difference between the love I have for my parents, the love I have for my best friend, and the love I had for an ex-boyfriend. They all feel very different. I wasn't sexually attracted to my ex-boyfriend, but I definitely felt something different for him compared to my brother. Likewise, I may love my best friend, but I have no interest in dating her.

According to Sternberg's theory of love, a relationship built on only one of the three components of love cannot last. A relationship needs at least two of the components to endure. Saying that sex or passion alone decides whether two people are in a relationship is completely false. In fact, Sternberg said a relationship centered only on passion vanishes just as quickly as it flares up if the couple do not develop feelings of intamacy and commitment.

Semi-related question:

If sex = relationship and no sex = friendship, then what are "friends with benefits?"

From what I understand (which isn't much, I admit) they're friends who aren't in love but still have sex? So, they're in a relationship? Or are they still only friends?

[Nameless123]

*

[gnowee]

According to Sternberg's theory of love

I have to admit I'm not familiar with it. What are the three components?

Passion, intimacy, and commitment. They're usually oriented on a triangular diagram, but I think this one sums up the types of love best:

From what I understand (which isn't much, I admit) they're friends who aren't in love but still have sex? So, they're in a relationship? Or are they still only friends?

That's precisely the question. What are they, by their own standards? That's what I find so puzzling. Sometimes sex seems to equal love for sexuals or is at least a big component of love, and sometimes it's just some physical thing you do with some random person or even a friend and has no meaning at all apart from the short-lived pleasure.

I understand that not all sexuals feel the same, but I still find it odd that some believe love cannot exist on its own without sex, but sex itself is independent of love depending on the circumstances. Yet, I can't recall ever meeting anyone who would argue against different kinds of love that exist without sex (e.g. love for a deity). Love without sex, in the context of a relationship, being hollow or nonexistent just seems misguided to me.

[Nameless123]

*

[KoreYosef]

so many people believe it because its true!

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

so many people believe it because its true!

Not according to my (sexual) girlfriend, and quite frankly I value her opinion more than yours.

[prettyeyes]

so many people believe it because its true!

Dude, I think you're posting on the wrong site.

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

so many people believe it because its true!

Dude, I think you're posting on the wrong site.

Agreed. Go read the AVEN FAQ to educate yourself and leave us alone. You aren't going to convince an entire forum of self-identified asexuals that we are wrong by the power of your bad spelling and lack of capitalization.

[Guest]

I've heard plenty of sexual people don't consider someone their boyfriend/girlfriend until after they've had sex. It seems to me that what you do is have sex with someone who ISN'T yet your bf/gf, and then wait for that person to decide if you are officially together now. This makes no sense!

[Ninny]

so many people believe it because its true!

Er, no it's not. Trust me.

[Pamcakes]

The presence of sex or sexual attraction alone does not constitute a relationship. It's much more complex than that.

For sexuals in love, a lot of factors have to be in play for a relationship to be maximally fulfilling; yes, sex is one of them, but it's not the only aspect, which is a misapprehension I see many asexuals on this site labouring under, time and again. We need everything that you need to create a satisfying romance; intellectual connection, emotional intimacy, shared interests, mutual respect, a solid basis of friendship...but we also require that one extra factor which is sexual connection.

The idea that sexual relationships are shallow because we have one additional requirement is in itself shallow, ignorant and hurtful.

Yes, the presence of the desire for and availability of sexual activity is the dividing line that generally serves to define the difference between our platonic friendships and our erotic (I use this word in the scientific rather than the colloquial sense) attractions. Sexuals are just as capable of having platonic romances - that is, relationships where high levels of emotional intimacy and dependence are present but no sexual attraction exists - as asexuals, but the difference is that, for us, that simply will always be a particularly precious and treasured close friendship*. The reason sexuals will rarely be willing to make an exclusive commitment to such a friendship, whereas romantic asexuals will be, is simply a difference in definition; we don't see a close emotional relationship that is devoid of sexual attraction as being a solid basis for monogamy because we know ourselves well enough to realise that we need more to be fulfilled. We need that spark, that chemistry, that sexual connection, otherwise we are not getting all of our emotional requirements met.

As for the questions about sexual relationships where no romantic connection is present, there's no easy answer for that. Some sexuals are able to separate sex and emotion. Some aren't. Some can, but choose not to. Some prefer sex only in a committed relationship; some prefer only casual sex and have no desire for a relationship; some would like a relationship, but can comfortably do the casual sex thing while they wait for their soulmate to come along. The short answer is that people are complicated, never more so than in an emotional context, and all have different needs and capabilities.

We're not worse than you. Our relationships are not more shallow. Whenever I see that particular argument, I feel much the way I do when I hear larger women insisting that the fuller female figure is more attractive than "anorexic sticks" or whatever unflattering expression they're using to refer to slimmer women; it's one part of the population trying to cover their insecurities and confusion at their different experience of life from the norm by insisting that their experience is somehow superior, thereby validating it. It's a strange, twisted form of elitism, fueled by a misplaced sense of alienation. But the truth is, larger women aren't inherently more appealing than smaller women, nor vice versa. Asexuals aren't in any way superior to sexuals, nor vice versa. Their relationships aren't inherently more valid, for lacking in sex or sexual desire.

Not better, not worse; just different.

P.

* Which doesn't mean it becomes any less cherished and vital a part of our lives. Yes, I would die for every damn one of my dearest friends, too.

[Sally]

I don't like to hear the argument that sexuals are more "shallow" than asexuals because they don't consider a love relationship complete without sex. Sexuals and asexuals have different sets of needs. We don't want sexuals claiming we're "missing" an important part of life; we shouldn't make claims about their need for sex.

Maybe my attitude is partly the result of being in relationships with sexuals all my life so I can understand that their feeling of need for sex is just as valid as our need to be free of sexual expectations.

[Nameless123]

It's a strange, twisted form of elitism, fueled by a misplaced sense of alienation.

This is an unfortunate side effect of being a minority that always has its point of view challenged. I didn't mean to offend you personally or any other sexual people, but I don't mind sexual people being the ones that have to explain themselves once in a while.

[Ziel]

Well, if you are looking at the literal meaning of the words 'relationship' and 'friendship', then no, sex is not a factor in that at all. Friendship is just a type of relationship.

But it seems to me that in the situations like what the OP is referring to, 'relationship' is implied as meaning 'sexual relationship' or 'physical relationship'. This makes a huge difference in the meaning of the whole thing.

The problem just stems from 'relationship' being far too vague. But I'm not sure there's a better way to really word it, without actually writing out the whole thing. We just suffer the potential for confusion in order to save on words, I guess.