Jump to content

Archived

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

Telecaster68

For asexuals who just haven't been able to take it any more

Recommended Posts

Sally

What on earth are you all arguing about?

The other bit of the band analogy is that the partner who really likes that band now can't go and see them with anyone else, either.

BS. No one has chains on anyone else. If you're talking about the band-lover worrying about the partner's reaction, then say so; that's very different from saying they can't take an independent action.

What is this? Who ever said otherwise? Of course you can have sex with other people, but not necessarily without quitting the relationship or negotiating relationship boundaries. And yeah, when you're sexual and your partner used to compromise on sex, then suddenly stops, then I think that's a serious issue that the couple will have to address, possibly by ending the relationship. I don't get what's so controversial about that?

Of course it's a serious issue to address. However, what was said is that the partner "can't", etc. -- i.e., is not allowed to. That's not true, since the partner has the power to do whatever they need to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Of course it's a serious issue to address. However, what was said is that the partner "can't", etc. -- i.e., is not allowed to. That's not true, since the partner has the power to do whatever they need to do.

Ah. Arguing semantics. Well, I'm guilty of being nitpicky myself, so I guess I can't complain.

I'm sure all Tele meant to say, was that in that situation, you're not free to do whatever you like. You "can't" (ethically) just go out there and have sex with others. Sure, it's a physically possible thing to do, but it wouldn't be "right" to do so without consulting your partner. Which, as far as I'm aware, is colloquial use of the word "can't"? Like, "You can't just stab someone in the throat if you don't like them"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

What's controversial is that many asexuals (just look at the posts in this thread) don't notice, and don't see the problem, and assume that this is in no way an agonising decision that sexuals would rather work with their partners to avoid.

That was the point of the OP, all those months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

What's controversial is that many asexuals (just look at the posts in this thread) don't notice, and don't see the problem, and assume that this is in no way an agonising decision that sexuals would rather work with their partners to avoid.

That was the point of the OP, all those months ago.

I wouldn't expect to count Sally among them, though..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

No, I wouldn't, either. But as my collation of a quotes on another thread showed, she appears to be in the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Of course it's a serious issue to address. However, what was said is that the partner "can't", etc. -- i.e., is not allowed to. That's not true, since the partner has the power to do whatever they need to do.

Ah. Arguing semantics. Well, I'm guilty of being nitpicky myself, so I guess I can't complain.

I'm sure all Tele meant to say, was that in that situation, you're not free to do whatever you like. You "can't" (ethically) just go out there and have sex with others. Sure, it's a physically possible thing to do, but it wouldn't be "right" to do so without consulting your partner. Which, as far as I'm aware, is colloquial use of the word "can't"? Like, "You can't just stab someone in the throat if you don't like them"?

I don't think I was being nitpicky -- there've been a ton of discussions on AVEN about whether partners of asexuals are prevented from having sex with others just because they are married. That's a rather big issue to consider, because there's never really been a consensus, not only between sexuals/asexuals, but even between sexuals/sexuals and asexuals/asexuals. It comes down to an individual attitude about morality, if that's the correct word to use. Thus, I think we have to be careful to be clear about what we mean when we say "can't".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

At the very least it's an issue to discuss in a way that going to see a band with someone else would never be. And in many cases it would be unacceptable to the asexual partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tkadlubo

The other bit of the band analogy is that the partner who really likes that band now can't go and see them with anyone else, either.

BS. No one has chains on anyone else. If you're talking about the band-lover worrying about the partner's reaction, then say so; that's very different from saying they can't take an independent action.

Using the band-to-sex apology translator: what Telecaster is saying is that the sexual partner can't just go have sex with other people. Idk how you can call bullshit in that. Yes, it's theoretically possible that the sexual partner could cheat, or leave the relationship over it, Or that the asexual partner is completely OK with their spouse having a "friends with benefits" on the side, but in almost every case, and probably Telecaster's these are all scenarios that are off the table.

There's a nuisance that a lot of people fail to see about the dynamic of some people's relationships. A lot of people Do consider leaving and having an affair as both being things that are not in the realm of possibilities. Be it for religious reasons, pride or whatever, and it's nobody's place e to tell them they are wrong about that. 100% I will stay with my wife until I'm dead unless she does something to intentionally destroy the relationship (having an affair, domestic abuse, etc.) Sure, you may think it's unhealthy and everyone is better off leaving in that situation, but for me, and many others, a divorce is just not ever an option.

And to that end: Telle's response is absolutely accurate and Is a point of a lot of grief for people "stuck" in a relationship with someone who didn't know, or didn't disclose that they were Ace before committing to having a relationship.

I like the band-to-sex analogy. It works well for me because sexuality and music are the two top sources of joy and pleasure in my life.

I experience music in many ways. I listen to things on youtube a lot. I bought a guitar and an amp and I practice almost daily. I also have a fancy pair of headphones. Sometimes I upload things I play to youtube. I go to music events - on my own, sometimes with my spouse, sometimes with other friends and family members. These days my favorite music piece is the 1979 Satyagraha opera by Philip Glass. I'm not sure my wife ever heard a full recording of it and she probably wouldn't be interested in attending a performance of it if given a chance. She knows Koyaanisqatsi, though, but is more interested with the visual aspect of it than the musical aspect.

Corollaries to the band-to-sex analogy: Try masturbation. Try watching pornography. Try publishing your nude photos on-line (perhaps anonymously). Try having a budget that you'll spend on sex toys and strip bars. Try negotiating a nonmonogamous relationship with your spouse.

There is no rule that says that you can listen to music only during life performances on gigs you go to with your spouse on your date nights. You have options. Embrace that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Corollaries to the band-to-sex analogy: Try masturbation. Try watching pornography. Try publishing your nude photos on-line (perhaps anonymously). Try having a budget that you'll spend on sex toys and strip bars. Try negotiating a nonmonogamous relationship with your spouse.

That's exactly where the analogy breaks down, illuminatingly.

For sexuals, sex is at least 50% about the particular other person, and the effect of the closeness and intimacy that sex has on the rest of the relationship. None of things address that.

To stretch the analogy to breaking point and beyond, the gig is sex. Your suggestions amount to one person watching the gig alone. Or with a bunch of people who don't really like the band. Or going to see a completely different band (and maybe by yourself). Or figuring out the songs for yourself and playing them in your bedroom. None of them match the sheer joy and togetherness of seeing a band you love live, together.

There is no rule that says that you can listen to music only during life performances on gigs you go to with your spouse on your date nights.

But there's exactly that rule in relationships when it comes to sex, and many asexuals aren't open to changing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lixt

That analogy never worked in the first place. Sexuals aren't asking to humour them and go to the gig with them even if you're not fond of that band, they ask you to become a fellow fan of that band and come experience the same thing. That's not possible. And while the desire behind it is understandable, it's absurd to cling to it.

I will never advise someone to compromise, ever. And not only because in many cases it will not be good enough so why bother (although that's clearly an argument, is what is asked really what is desired). That decision has to come from complete and free autonomy, or not at all.

Now for monogamy, that's not on asexuals, most sexuals aren't fond of it either. You are not told no when you are not asking. In fact, I have seen way more openness about it from asexuals and non-heterosexual people. Heterosexuals win the prize of creating and upholding norms and then whining when those norms screw them over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Sexuals aren't asking to humour them and go to the gig with them even if you're not fond of that band, they ask you to become a fellow fan of that band and come experience the same thing.

Uhh. No.

That's not possible. And while the desire behind it is understandable, it's absurd to cling to it.

Who are you talking about?

I will never advise someone to compromise, ever. And not only because in many cases it will not be good enough so why bother (although that's clearly an argument, is what is asked really what is desired). That decision has to come from complete and free autonomy, or not at all.

.. What? Compromise does not contradict autonomy. You are making an informed decision to do something for your partner, because you care about them.

Can you please not generalize from what seems to be your own experience to every single mixed relationship on the planet? Thanks.

Now for monogamy, that's not on asexuals, most sexuals aren't fond of it either. You are not told no when you are not asking. In fact, I have seen way more openness about it from asexuals and non-heterosexual people. Heterosexuals win the prize of creating and upholding norms and then whining when those norms screw them over.

If you check any of the threads on cheating on these forums, I think you'll find that we have some very mono-normative asexual members here, to the point where some are offended by the fact that their partner is asking to have sex outside the relationship. When there exist asexuals that are troubled by even suggesting an open relationship, then it should be obvious that there are sexuals in mixed relationships who would rather not suggest such a thing, in order to avoid making their partner think they're not loved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lixt

Sexuals aren't asking to humour them and go to the gig with them even if you're not fond of that band, they ask you to become a fellow fan of that band and come experience the same thing.

Uhh. No.

That's not possible. And while the desire behind it is understandable, it's absurd to cling to it.

Who are you talking about?

I'm talking about some experiences related on this very forum, about "not good enough/satisfying enough" compromises. Or in other words, the discrepancy between what the sexual want and what they're asking. The "feeling desired" and lack of participation (not just lie back and smile) is something that come often enough, and I don't really want to compile a list of quotes, but I will if I have to prove my point. It's not an attack, but it happens. And, in the context of a long-term intimate relationship, with those feelings building up, probably more often than not. Making sure the compromise is enough and what exactly it entails is important before agreeing to it.

I will never advise someone to compromise, ever. And not only because in many cases it will not be good enough so why bother (although that's clearly an argument, is what is asked really what is desired). That decision has to come from complete and free autonomy, or not at all.

.. What? Compromise does not contradict autonomy. You are making an informed decision to do something for your partner, because you care about them.

Can you please not generalize from what seems to be your own experience to every single mixed relationship on the planet? Thanks.

Ok, bit of reading comprehension.

What I wrote: "I will never advise someone to compromise, ever".

What I didn't write: well basically anything else, including "I will always advise someone to refuse compromise".

What I wrote: That decision has to come from complete and free autonomy, or not at all.

What I didn't write: anything else, including "That decision doesn't/never come from/contradict complete and free autonomy".

Can you please not put words in my mouth? Thanks.

If you check any of the threads on cheating on these forums, I think you'll find that we have some very mono-normative asexual members here, to the point where some are offended by the fact that their partner is asking to have sex outside the relationship. When there exist asexuals that are troubled by even suggesting an open relationship, then it should be obvious that there are sexuals in mixed relationships who would rather not suggest such a thing, in order to avoid making their partner think they're not loved.

Oh yeah, monogamy is still the norm. But don't act like it's on asexuals. 1% of the population doesn't create sexual norms. And in all the asexuals and heterosexuals I know, I heard more asexuals being open to the idea (mainly because it has the benefit of putting sex completely off the table, and we have several threads about such open relationships) than heterosexuals, who still want that special bonding with their partner and no one else (we have proof of that sentiment on this very page, ffs) - again that's not an attack, nothing wrong with that, but don't go "the asexual partner is locking up my genitals, I cannot get out", it's a bullshit excuse if you're not trying anything. The sexual partner is just as likely to not want an open relationship, and never ask for one because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aceghost

In my experience, there seems to be validity in what Lixt is saying regarding the aptness of the "not just go to the gig and pretend to have fun, but become an actual follower of the same band to the same level" wish, at least for some sexuals.

Part of the reason my marriage fell apart as fast as it did once I opened it up is because my wife was able to find someone who was just as into her band's gigs. She had never been to a gig before with someone who was as excited to not just attend, but joyfully participate, and quickly started to draw comparisons to when I would attend gigs and maybe sing along to the chorus, I definitely did not know all the lyrics and wasn't enthusiastic enough to wear the band's face paint or get their logo tattooed on my ass or whatever. (Haha it's fun to wear out analogies ;))

So intellectually, I of course can understand this. I do not understand why it's worth ending a marriage over (esp. when the asexual partner has given permission to have your cake and eat it too), but I guess that's the entire crux of the problem. :P~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
closetPonyfan

I'm sorry to hear that it did break up your marriage. My wife and I have recently discussed opening our relationship up, not for me to go find someone to take care of that need, but rather to invite a third person into both our lives. Basically, as she puts it, she wants a BFF with no sexual obligations, who is someone that is able to take care of her husband (me) in that way

I was shocked that this was her idea/solution. It is weird to think about but it's out on the table as something we can openly talk about and have agreed that we aren't actively looking for someone at the moment, but if I meet someone and fall for them, it's completely OK as long as I honest, and open/honorable to my wife in the whole situation.

In your case, what were some things that I might learn from so ad to not make a mistake that could cost me my wife?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

In your case, what were some things that I might learn from so ad to not make a mistake that could cost me my wife?

Eh, you're fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starlit Sky

I've never understood how anyone could not realize that the other person would notice . . . then again, I've never completely understood how people can actually go through life not realizing that people actually like sex, but that happens, too. Hmm. . . .

I'm firmly of the "if you know you're ace, it's your duty to come out to potential partners no later than at the first date" school of thought. Well, just very maybe as late as the third date if you were dating a complete stranger (which I simply can't see myself doing, period - I need at least a solid acquaintance, preferrably a full-on friendship, before dating even shows up as an option for me) - but IMO, coming out on the third date is very, very, very late even in that scenario. Anything later than that is simply a dick move - no ifs, no buts. I wouldn't blame any sexual for being completely unforgiving about such a huge lie by omission.

I've never really understood this school of thought. For me it's not that I'd be hiding it, because if the topic of sex came up then I'd talk about it. I'm very open about my sexuality (both in kinks and the fact that I don't find anyone, y'know, sexy), though, so maybe that's why I don't feel a need to make it a big deal on the "first/second/third date. . . ."

That, and the fact that I usually advise against having sex with someone that you want a committed relationship with before things are exclusive, anyway, thus meaning that I wouldn't want to talk about sex (because when I talk about asexuality I am always going to be talking about what arouses me) on the first, second, or third date. And I'd never want to enter a committed relationship by the first, second, or third date, either, so you know.

I mean, you could say something like, "Well, you don't have to tell them what your turn-ons/turn-offs/whatevers are!" Excepttt~ yeah, I kinda do. If you're going to tell someone that you don't find them sexually attractive (but you do romantically) and likely never will, then it only makes sense to follow up with what you're okay with compromising with.

I feel like . . . putting that much emphasis on the first date is a little "???" A first date really is only a first date. A first date does not ensure a second date; it doesn't even ensure that you'll see that person ever again. A first date is not meant to be that serious. You don't have to tell someone that you're not looking for marriage on the first date (and yeah, that is a big thing, and I personally think it's comparable to the topic), even if that's what the other person is looking for.

You know, there's a "talk" that comes before a couple becomes exclusive. If a fully-aware-of-their-sexuality-and-limits asexual doesn't talk about it at least by that point then I would DEFINITELY say that's a dick move . . . but first date? Second? Third? Nah.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, so I hope this doesn't come off as rude, condescending, or what-have-you. I'm just . . . saying my piece.

And to that end: Telle's response is absolutely accurate and Is a point of a lot of grief for people "stuck" in a relationship with someone who didn't know, or didn't disclose that they were Ace before committing to having a relationship.

And a total lack of sympathy from the asexual makes the whole relationship far, far harder.

(I'm tired and slightly emotional, so ignore me.) I'm sorry. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

I'm firmly of the "if you know you're ace, it's your duty to come out to potential partners no later than at the first date" school of thought. Well, just very maybe as late as the third date if you were dating a complete stranger (which I simply can't see myself doing, period - I need at least a solid acquaintance, preferrably a full-on friendship, before dating even shows up as an option for me) - but IMO, coming out on the third date is very, very, very late even in that scenario. Anything later than that is simply a dick move - no ifs, no buts. I wouldn't blame any sexual for being completely unforgiving about such a huge lie by omission.

I've never really understood this school of thought.

That's because Mysti didn't put their (ha! I remembered!) usual disclaimer.. What me and Mysti don't understand, is why you would ever "date" someone, you don't already know well enough to talk about these very personal things. So it's hard for us to imagine a scenario where there's the potential of a relationship, yet you're not comfortable talking about sexual orientation. Another point is that Mysti is sex-repulsed, and I do think that sex repulsed aces should mention that ASAP, because if you're sex repulsed you're basically not looking for a sexual kind of relationship at all, and many people expect dating to be about sexuality by definition.

By the way, in media there are a lot of people who claim you should *actually have sex* by the third date. Which sounds stupid to me, but apparently some people actually go by that rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starlit Sky

I'm firmly of the "if you know you're ace, it's your duty to come out to potential partners no later than at the first date" school of thought. Well, just very maybe as late as the third date if you were dating a complete stranger (which I simply can't see myself doing, period - I need at least a solid acquaintance, preferrably a full-on friendship, before dating even shows up as an option for me) - but IMO, coming out on the third date is very, very, very late even in that scenario. Anything later than that is simply a dick move - no ifs, no buts. I wouldn't blame any sexual for being completely unforgiving about such a huge lie by omission.

I've never really understood this school of thought.

That's because Mysti didn't put their (ha! I remembered!) usual disclaimer.. What me and Mysti don't understand, is why you would ever "date" someone, you don't already know well enough to talk about these very personal things. So it's hard for us to imagine a scenario where there's the potential of a relationship, yet you're not comfortable talking about sexual orientation. Another point is that Mysti is sex-repulsed, and I do think that sex repulsed aces should mention that ASAP, because if you're sex repulsed you're basically not looking for a sexual kind of relationship at all, and many people expect dating to be about sexuality by definition.

By the way, in media there are a lot of people who claim you should *actually have sex* by the third date. Which sounds stupid to me, but apparently some people actually go by that rule?

Ohhh! Okay, okay, I understand that!

For me, I don't feel like I need to know someone really well to go on a first date, but I wouldn't want to go on a date with a total, complete stranger, either. I've been told it's just to "get to know them," but oh well. I'd just rather get to know them outside of the dating scene. XD

Sex-repulsed aces, though? Yeah, it probably would be a good idea for them to mention it as soon as they could, or that might not go over pretty well at all!

As for the "sex on the third date," thing--I know! And I swear that's kinda crazy to me. Often those relationships don't make it to marriage, though, and if they do then it can be difficult to make it through. There's sort of a "three month waiting period" where hormones go bat-shit crazy. I can't remember the proper term, but some people call it the "baby-making hormones." Most people feel it (regardless of their orientation; I know I've felt it, even though I wasn't wanting sex) right at the beginning of the relationship, and sometimes the relationship can fall through after those three months, depending on the situation, the people, etc. It's why I usually advise against it, but to each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I agree about the becoming a band follower thing - it is something that sexuals find is a big issue. It's something that I've found possible to compromise on, and I know some other sexuals (Tar And Ladygirl for instance) have too. The asexual end of that compromise is would be finding a way to actually participate actively rather than laying there inertly or just saying nope, don't see the point, forget it, and not even trying to find something in it they can enjoy, even if it's just their partner's pleasure. It's not always possible though.

But if we opened up our relationship and I found someone who was as big a band follower, I can see it would definitely be a big risk to the marriage.

I'm not sure it is possible to negotiate the full extent of a compromise before the fact. The sexual may think, in all good faith, that the decaffeinated version of sex will be enough; the asexual may think they can find something enjoyable in it. But in practice, it turns out not to work for one or both of them. It has to be more of a mutual exploration.

As for monogamy... From what I recall, about half the AVEN asexuals identify as romantic, which means they're probably not okay with opening up the relationship. That kind of thing can only be worked out from couple to couple so framing it as some kind of asexual vs sexual power struggle by either side doesn't help anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

And a total lack of sympathy from the asexual makes the whole relationship far, far harder.

(I'm tired and slightly emotional, so ignore me.) I'm sorry. :(

I literally have no idea what you're apologising for, Star. It was a completely general observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starlit Sky

And a total lack of sympathy from the asexual makes the whole relationship far, far harder.

(I'm tired and slightly emotional, so ignore me.) I'm sorry. :(

I literally have no idea what you're apologising for, Star. It was a completely general observation.

Oh, I thought you were talking about your own relationship specifically. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

As for the three date thing, I'd always assumed that was some kind of weird unspoken New York/LA convention that Sex In The City had exaggerated for comedic effect. Apparently not. I've never come across it in real life. In my world, people just gradually see more of each other till at some point they decide sex would be a really good idea. Could be after an hour, could be after six months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I literally have no idea what you're apologising for, Star. It was a completely general observation.

Oh, I thought you were talking about your own relationship specifically. :rolleyes:

Nope, my wife's been sympathetic, after an initial period of denial. Hasn't actually resulted in much of a change in behaviour, but she's sympathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starlit Sky

I literally have no idea what you're apologising for, Star. It was a completely general observation.

Oh, I thought you were talking about your own relationship specifically. :rolleyes:

Nope, my wife's been sympathetic, after an initial period of denial. Hasn't actually resulted in much of a change in behaviour, but she's sympathetic.

Ahh, perhaps that's something? I'm not really sure how much it'd help or not . . . I guess that'd depend on the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Yeah, it's something, and she has some medical issues quite apart from her apparent asexuality. I'm not sure how much the medical stuff plays into her lack of sexuality, but she manages to do nonsexual stuff she wants to do, like working, going out, etc, put it that way...

It still leaves me feeling frustrated and somewhat disconnected though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starlit Sky

Oh yes, I wouldn't expect her being sympathetic to solve all the problems or anything. I mean, it's gotta suck either way. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Quite, and tricky to know whether to keep the conversation going because some kind of progress might be possible or on the other hand, just let it drop because it clearly isn't going anywhere, or at least would be so painful for so little upside for either of us that it's just not worth the grief.

And even starting 'talks about talks' would be stressful for her (based on experience) and I can easily imagine her saying she'd try something she didn't really want to commit to purely to placate me. And to anticipate your next question, she doesn't want to try counselling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

I'm firmly of the "if you know you're ace, it's your duty to come out to potential partners no later than at the first date" school of thought. Well, just very maybe as late as the third date if you were dating a complete stranger (which I simply can't see myself doing, period - I need at least a solid acquaintance, preferrably a full-on friendship, before dating even shows up as an option for me) - but IMO, coming out on the third date is very, very, very late even in that scenario. Anything later than that is simply a dick move - no ifs, no buts. I wouldn't blame any sexual for being completely unforgiving about such a huge lie by omission.

I've never really understood this school of thought. For me it's not that I'd be hiding it, because if the topic of sex came up then I'd talk about it. I'm very open about my sexuality (both in kinks and the fact that I don't find anyone, y'know, sexy), though, so maybe that's why I don't feel a need to make it a big deal on the "first/second/third date. . . ."

That, and the fact that I usually advise against having sex with someone that you want a committed relationship with before things are exclusive, anyway, thus meaning that I wouldn't want to talk about sex (because when I talk about asexuality I am always going to be talking about what arouses me) on the first, second, or third date. And I'd never want to enter a committed relationship by the first, second, or third date, either, so you know.

I mean, you could say something like, "Well, you don't have to tell them what your turn-ons/turn-offs/whatevers are!" Excepttt~ yeah, I kinda do. If you're going to tell someone that you don't find them sexually attractive (but you do romantically) and likely never will, then it only makes sense to follow up with what you're okay with compromising with.

I feel like . . . putting that much emphasis on the first date is a little "???" A first date really is only a first date. A first date does not ensure a second date; it doesn't even ensure that you'll see that person ever again. A first date is not meant to be that serious. You don't have to tell someone that you're not looking for marriage on the first date (and yeah, that is a big thing, and I personally think it's comparable to the topic), even if that's what the other person is looking for.

You know, there's a "talk" that comes before a couple becomes exclusive. If a fully-aware-of-their-sexuality-and-limits asexual doesn't talk about it at least by that point then I would DEFINITELY say that's a dick move . . . but first date? Second? Third? Nah.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, so I hope this doesn't come off as rude, condescending, or what-have-you. I'm just . . . saying my piece.

A big problem with this approach? I never, ever go exclusive with anyone, on principle. I simply will not agree to enter a monogamous relationship - it's either open/poly from day one, or it is not going to happen, period. People who prefer - let alone insist on - monogamous relationships can never hope to get out of my "friendzone", as they're simply incompatible with me on a partner level.

(Which is yet another thing that I see as my duty to bring up on the first date or earlier. It's a pretty big dealbreaker-size issue for many people, so I think it's best to bring this up ASAP... it would just waste both our times, otherwise.)

There's not point for me between first date and "serious committed relationship" - first date is when that relationship starts, there simply won't be any additional layer later. And in turn, that means I'd feel led on if someone who goes on a date with me then said that we aren't in a (partnery) relationship... duh, of course we are, otherwise I wouldn't have dated them in the first place!? For me, not getting a second date equals breaking up again at the first opportunity, so we weren't partners for longer than a day or so; I find it really odd that (apparently, a lot of) people would rate it as the relationship never having started. It's a view/evaluation of what a "date" is that just is very, very different from my own. *shrug*

That's because Mysti didn't put their (ha! I remembered!) usual disclaimer..

I did. Just look at the part in brackets. Maybe I was too subtle. *sigh*

(But thanks for remembering, Tar. ^_^ :cake: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starlit Sky

Quite, and tricky to know whether to keep the conversation going because some kind of progress might be possible or on the other hand, just let it drop because it clearly isn't going anywhere, or at least would be so painful for so little upside for either of us that it's just not worth the grief.

And even starting 'talks about talks' would be stressful for her (based on experience) and I can easily imagine her saying she'd try something she didn't really want to commit to purely to placate me. And to anticipate your next question, she doesn't want to try counselling.

Naw, I wasn't gonna suggest counseling. Therapy isn't really something I jump to too often. Maybe especially since you said that "talks about talks" would be stressful (which, I can relate with her on that; depending on the subject, those kinds of talks are even worse than the talks).

I'm firmly of the "if you know you're ace, it's your duty to come out to potential partners no later than at the first date" school of thought. Well, just very maybe as late as the third date if you were dating a complete stranger (which I simply can't see myself doing, period - I need at least a solid acquaintance, preferrably a full-on friendship, before dating even shows up as an option for me) - but IMO, coming out on the third date is very, very, very late even in that scenario. Anything later than that is simply a dick move - no ifs, no buts. I wouldn't blame any sexual for being completely unforgiving about such a huge lie by omission.

I've never really understood this school of thought. For me it's not that I'd be hiding it, because if the topic of sex came up then I'd talk about it. I'm very open about my sexuality (both in kinks and the fact that I don't find anyone, y'know, sexy), though, so maybe that's why I don't feel a need to make it a big deal on the "first/second/third date. . . ."

That, and the fact that I usually advise against having sex with someone that you want a committed relationship with before things are exclusive, anyway, thus meaning that I wouldn't want to talk about sex (because when I talk about asexuality I am always going to be talking about what arouses me) on the first, second, or third date. And I'd never want to enter a committed relationship by the first, second, or third date, either, so you know.

I mean, you could say something like, "Well, you don't have to tell them what your turn-ons/turn-offs/whatevers are!" Excepttt~ yeah, I kinda do. If you're going to tell someone that you don't find them sexually attractive (but you do romantically) and likely never will, then it only makes sense to follow up with what you're okay with compromising with.

I feel like . . . putting that much emphasis on the first date is a little "???" A first date really is only a first date. A first date does not ensure a second date; it doesn't even ensure that you'll see that person ever again. A first date is not meant to be that serious. You don't have to tell someone that you're not looking for marriage on the first date (and yeah, that is a big thing, and I personally think it's comparable to the topic), even if that's what the other person is looking for.

You know, there's a "talk" that comes before a couple becomes exclusive. If a fully-aware-of-their-sexuality-and-limits asexual doesn't talk about it at least by that point then I would DEFINITELY say that's a dick move . . . but first date? Second? Third? Nah.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, so I hope this doesn't come off as rude, condescending, or what-have-you. I'm just . . . saying my piece.

A big problem with this approach? I never, ever go exclusive with anyone, on principle. I simply will not agree to enter a monogamous relationship - it's either open/poly from day one, or it is not going to happen, period. People who prefer - let alone insist on - monogamous relationships can never hope to get out of my "friendzone", as they're simply incompatible with me on a partner level.

(Which is yet another thing that I see as my duty to bring up on the first date or earlier. It's a pretty big dealbreaker-size issue for many people, so I think it's best to bring this up ASAP... it would just waste both our times, otherwise.)

There's not point for me between first date and "serious committed relationship" - first date is when that relationship starts, there simply won't be any additional layer later. And in turn, that means I'd feel led on if someone who goes on a date with me then said that we aren't in a (partnery) relationship... duh, of course we are, otherwise I wouldn't have dated them in the first place!? For me, not getting a second date equals breaking up again at the first opportunity, so we weren't partners for longer than a day or so; I find it really odd that (apparently, a lot of) people would rate it as the relationship never having started. It's a view/evaluation of what a "date" is that just is very, very different from my own. *shrug*

Ah yes, for you that wouldn't work at all! In which case I would definitely agree that talking about asexuality, polyamory, etc., would be the best way to go on the first date. It also does make sense that you would consider the first date to be the start of your relationship, considering that you'd much prefer to be good friends with them in the first place.

Actually, though, for a long time I looked at the first date as the start of the relationship, too. The only reason I don't anymore is because I've since learned that (for the majority of guys, at least) if there's no "talk" then there's no actual relationship. I've been told that it's a mistake to assume that there is a relationship before it's confirmed. . . . I guess I just changed my mindset and moved on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

Mysticus, how does someone know if they are on a first date with you? It seems like you only date people you already know. Do you ever have lunch with someone platonically, for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...