The Asexual-Sexual Q&A Thread

[Olallieberry]

10 hours ago, ubereatsme said:

You're worried about losing money

And more. This is absolutely about more than money to me. Money's the least of it. I know I used the word "costly," but I think this reaction says more about you than it does about me.

 

Anyway: I'm not trying to convince other people. And my personal boundary doesn't matter to anyone but my (hypothetical, at this point) partner.

 

Hey, if I were (hypothetically) to propose to someone I wasn't living with (but had been seeing for an appropriate length of time and at an appropriate depth of commitment), and if they said No because they're not sure whether we could live together, maybe that would break us up. Better to find out that way than to entangle ourselves even further before knowing if they'd later come to a Yes.

 

10 hours ago, ubereatsme said:

Why would you assume that an adult woman (in your case) wouldn't consider the commitment they're making?

I don't assume it at all. I'm saying what my own attitude, and boundary, toward it will be if she doesn't communicate about it and instead just tries to shack up. We don't have to cohabitate to communicate about commitment.

 

10 hours ago, ubereatsme said:

misery and exhaustion once you're legally bound

My boundary saves me from having misery inflicted upon me while not legally bound. This isn't some incel shit I heard from some misogynistic podcaster/vlogger, this is something I've lived through three times. 

 

10 hours ago, ubereatsme said:

Your concerns are just not equal. 

First of all, they don't have to be equal, they don't have to be the same, but I can have my concerns and they can have theirs. Come on.

 

Second, it's weird to make this a gendered thing. If you can show me any sort of figures which show that there are gender differences in attitudes about cohabiting and pre-engagement living arrangements, prove me wrong. There are benefits to cohabiting, and you're acting like men don't appreciate, understand, or value them as much as women do. And to make it about emotional consequences which could either happen to any gender seems genderist in itself, or to make it about mortal consequences which could happen with-or-without marriage just seems rhetorically performative.

 

Anyway, like I said, nobody else has to have these boundaries. They are mine, not yours. There is no need to challenge them. That's gaslighty and it's not even something you have any stakes in whatsoever. 

 

And your hyperbole is absolutely unbelievable. Murder? How does marriage enable or trigger that in a way which not being married somehow protects against? The "man vs bear" thing isn't about the man she's married to. Don't answer that question, it's rhetorical.

 

 

[Olallieberry]

4 minutes ago, Olallieberry said:

seeing for an appropriate length of time and at an appropriate depth of commitment

This is really what my post was about. It was to illustrate to the OP (@iff) that "appropriate" has different values for everyone and every situation. I proposed to my wife after one year. The depth of commitment was appropriate despite having previously cohabitated for zero years.

 

The fact that some particular couple might disagree about what's appropriate does not mean that one of them is wrong, @ubereatsme

[10 Lubak]

Can I ask some allosexuals something? Is sexual attraction ever like distracting to normal life or is it just a bonus thing that happens sometimes?

[Ceebs]

People are probably going to have different answers to that.

 

Nothing to do with any form of attraction interferes with my ability to function in my 'normal life', if that's what you're asking. On the rare occasions that I have seriously intense crushes on people, like some form of infatuation that could lead to falling in love if the connection goes the way I'd like it to, then I'm probably thinking about them quite a lot and they're taking up a lot of my headspace. BUT that's not just sexual at that stage, and it's more than some sort of passing attraction.

 

And when it comes to sexual attraction within an established relationship with someone I love, for sure there are times I'm more interested in being sexually intimate and times I'm less in the mood, but my desire for my partner doesn't distract me from the rest of life in any negative sort of way. Maybe it's a pleasing brief mental distraction, like if he's out somewhere and I'm thinking about how I'd like to have sex when he's home later, but it doesn't mean that in the meantime I can't focus on a TV show or a conversation with someone or do the laundry or whatever.

[Olallieberry]

35 minutes ago, 10 Lubak said:

Can I ask some allosexuals something? Is sexual attraction ever like distracting to normal life or is it just a bonus thing that happens sometimes?

It can be distracting, sure.

 

In a similar way to how the debut of a new killer song can be distracting, or the smell of really good hot food, or an extra-nice day. These things could make you late to an appointment, break your diet, or want to skip work so that you can use your time to indulge the nice stimulus.

 

It's not usually that distracting, but it can be.

 

Comparing it to other life experiences is my way of normalizing it and illustrating that it isn't very different from other intense stimuli and strong motivations which can cause people to alter the course of their "normal life" for a moment or an hour or a day.

[TheMaria]

Question for allos: how do you feel about the idea of having sex with a random stranger you're not attracted to, neither emotionally, nor physically, nor anything?

 

Sometimes I think "why is sexual intimacy so doable for other people, but so deeply uncomfortable to me", and I wonder if it's because well, people have sex with people they feel attracted to! Maybe it's actually common for allos to feel as repulsed as me towards sex without attraction, I don't know.

[Ceebs]

21 minutes ago, TheMaria said:

 

Question for allos: how do you feel about the idea of having sex with a random stranger you're not attracted to, neither emotionally, nor physically, nor anything?

 

Ew.

 

If I'm not attracted to someone, the idea of having sex with them is quite off-putting. I don't even want to have sex with people I know and really like but am not attracted to. Hell, I stopped wanting to have sex with my own (ex) husband because I only liked him platonically by that point. 
 

It's just really strange and uncomfortable to share that type of intimacy with someone for whom you feel no desire and it feels 'wrong' to me. A large portion of the point of sex is the actual interpersonal connection, not just the physical pleasure, so actually feeling some type of interest in the other person in that way -- and having it reciprocated -- seems pretty important. If truly the only thing I want is physical sensation, that's what masturbation is for.

[Ceebs]

And yes...

 

29 minutes ago, TheMaria said:

Sometimes I think "why is sexual intimacy so doable for other people, but so deeply uncomfortable to me", and I wonder if it's because well, people have sex with people they feel attracted to!

That would be it I believe, haha.

[Older Player Amsterdam]

On 4/19/2006 at 9:35 AM, HelloToYou said:

sonofzeal, how is that weird? I know a LOT of guys that aren't into having sex with random people. As a matter of fact, very few guys I know, would do that. Am I ignorant? Do I just know good guys? I don't know, but I do know that what you said really isn't weird.

Edit: I just looked at your profile.... you're 23.... I'm 17.... I'm thinking about high schoolers and you're college or post college age... that could make a difference...

The oldest profession in the world obviously proves this wrong. Every area in America is covered with escort services, massage parlors that provide sex, and bars where people meet and partake in one night stands by the millions. At 16,17, 18-2x young adults are still learning to interact socially and sexually so the idea of having sex with random people is still very much new and definitely makes a difference. 

[Ceebs]

Is that somehow a reply to the posts above or are you expecting someone will reply to a post that's 19 years old...?

[Older Player Amsterdam]

It’s probably a reply to nineteen year old post. 😂 I click the button to read last unread and think I’m reading something recent and it turns out to be some old post on the board. 
 

I really do poorly navigating the discussion boards especially bad on my phone with sleep meds taking effect. 

[Older Player Amsterdam]

I thought I was reading current posts. I don’t know how I end up replying to a 19 year old post. But there it is plain as day in bold type. 4/19/2006. I should probably just stick to reading only. 

[Ceebs]

3 minutes ago, Older Player Amsterdam said:

I thought I was reading current posts. I don’t know how I end up replying to a 19 year old post. But there it is plain as day in bold type. 4/19/2006. I should probably just stick to reading only. 

Just navigate to the last page in a thread and you'll find the most recent stuff. The double arrows at the top or bottom of the page will get you there.

[ryn2]

18 minutes ago, Mrs Telecaster-to-be said:

Just navigate to the last page in a thread and you'll find the most recent stuff. The double arrows at the top or bottom of the page will get you there.

Specifically, since it’s probably how @Older Player Amsterdam got in this pinch to start with…

 

All four options are links.  From the page you are on:

prev takes to you to the immediately preceding page

next takes you to the immediately following page

<< takes you to the very first (oldest) page of the thread

>> takes you to the very last (most recent) page of the thread

[ubereatsme]

12 hours ago, Mrs Telecaster-to-be said:

I've never once worried about a man I've been in a relationship with murdering or exhausting or mistreating me, or even making me miserable.

Okay but that's probably more a misunderstanding of risk and danger than based on anything solid. Escalating a relationship is the prime time for abuse to start or increase. 

 

Roughly half of women in your country experience abuse and you're absolutely right that it isn't just a heterosexual thing but as far as I know, Ollie was speaking about women. 

 

As for who wants to live together before marriage in terms of gender, I'd say women have different motivations. Men are rarely considering their safety in the same way women are, even when they should be. But to hear some guy say that he wouldn't live with a woman without her agreeing to marry him ignores that there are some very gendered factors when it comes to risk and marriage like financial deprivation and abuse. 

 

And yeah, women are pretty cautious. That's why we spend inordinate amounts of time doing safety checks for each other, warning each other about guys and situations, watching out for who might be a creep or controlling and discussing when is the best and safest times to (de)escalate relationships. We look for people who can look after themselves so we don't have to look after them, we revel in a man who can cook and clean (at least after himself) and hopefully attend to his own children. 

 

Does every single women feel the same? No but enough women for it to be fair to say that these concerns are universally more relevant to women than men. If we aren't concerned about these things a group, then we wouldn't find as many women who won't even let a date walk them to their car. 

 

 

12 hours ago, Mrs Telecaster-to-be said:

When I move in with someone, I wonder about whether we'll both have enough personal space and how our routines will work together and whether I'll be too annoying or need too much alone time or how my mental and physical health struggles will impact them 

The last part makes you more of a risk of being a victim of abuse as you might know. In fact, if any of those things do become a problem, especially if the other person doesn't have the means to exercise their autonomy and leave, then the chances of the situation becoming abusive rises substantially. Sometimes just because the situation is so untenable for all concerned and they've exhausted their ability to cope with it. 

 

You're right to be concerned about these things, because as a woman with health issues, you're more likely to end up with the worst experience. But equally as a woman, you're probably more concerned about them having a nice time and not getting in their way. 

[ubereatsme]

10 hours ago, Olallieberry said:

The fact that some particular couple might disagree about what's appropriate does not mean that one of them is wrong,

The fact that you won't consider living with a woman before marrying her, to me, shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the dating world today. And yeah I'd say the same to a woman who failed to see why it would be a risky idea for a man to marry her before cohabiting. I'd find her painfully oblivious of the risks to herself but also quite selfish in seeing why a sensible man would never agree to that for his own self-preservation. 

[Olallieberry]

If this marriage were to not work out, maybe I just wuldn't get married again.

 

I can live with that.

 

Doesn't mean I wouldn't (find anyone to) date or have relationships with.

[ubereatsme]

10 hours ago, Olallieberry said:

We don't have to cohabitate to communicate about commitment.

 

No but cohabiting before you decide to legally bind yourself to each other just seems smarter than not. 

 

10 hours ago, Olallieberry said:

My boundary saves me from having misery inflicted upon me while not legally bound.

This sounds like you assume that living with a woman will come with misery so you want to be compensated with marriage before you have to endure what is inevitable. I have to say that does seem incelish. 

 

Surely the attitude is to find compatible partners who won't make you miserable and part of that is likely cohabiting before legally compromising your independence. You know see how much they still want sex after a year of living together, things like that. See that BEFORE you essentially offer them half your assets. 

10 hours ago, Olallieberry said:

and you're acting like men don't appreciate, understand, or value them as much as women do

No I'm acting like you don't. I seriously don't know any men who aren't from some very religious background who would say anything like this either because they're worried about themselves or genuinely worried it will be a disaster for both parties. This isn't a man thing, it's a you thing. 

 

10 hours ago, Olallieberry said:

And your hyperbole is absolutely unbelievable. Murder? How does marriage enable or trigger that in a way which not being married somehow protects against? The "man vs bear" thing isn't about the man she's married to

You're legally bound to someone and depending on your beliefs, may have made a religious or cultural commitment that makes it even harder to leave. Your finances are intermingled and you're less likely to have alternative accommodation and supportive people when leaving a marriage. 

 

 

 

But when it comes to.abuse, any escalation of the relationship is a danger time for abuse to start or escalate. Getting engaged, having a baby, greater time, moving in together. For some people, the abuse literally went from 0-10 immediately after one of these events. 

 

And that is why the man vs bear thing is so stupid. The stats show that you're far more likely to be murdered or harmed in any way by a LTP than a stranger or a first date. So even when you weigh up strange man vs bear, you have to consider that actually a strange man is probably one of the safest men. It would be far scarier for your husband to suddenly pop up in the woods where you're hiking unexpectedly. He's probably there to kill you.

[iff]

please note, there is as many of you aware, already a thread on the 'man v bear' question so please try to avoid overlapping the topic.

 

people have also given their personal perspective on the initial question. It is a question for each couple to decide for themselves on right time to move in so let's avoid judging other members for sharing their own  decisions.

 

Iff,

Moderator, sexual partners, friends, and allies 

Edited January 21, 2025 by iff

[Ceebs]

13 hours ago, ubereatsme said:

You're right to be concerned about these things, because as a woman with health issues, you're more likely to end up with the worst experience. But equally as a woman, you're probably more concerned about them having a nice time and not getting in their way. 

Actually, interestingly, that last part is something I never felt until I was older and more emotionally mature, and it comes from a healthy place of caring about others' wellbeing and I wouldn't say I'm more concerned about that than about my own. Pretty much equally. I have a long history of being quite unaware of and not relating to many of the messages -- good, bad or neutral -- that other women seem to absorb from society on the basis that they're women. I've never felt like I understood the expectations or worries many other women talk about relating to things like behaviour, appearances, roles and responsibilities and obligations, dynamics with those of the same or opposite gender, etc. Most of it is pretty foreign to me. And honestly when I was younger I was so wrapped up in my own stuff that I really didn't think too much at all about whether someone else was having a nice time or getting their way. Frankly, I was pretty emotionally immature and self-centred a lot of the time. I've come quite a ways since then I think, and have a pretty healthy awareness of my own needs and boundaries and also of how to be mindful of those of other people. It's never coming from a place of being a woman though. It's probably partly a personality thing and partly the fact that I've spent very large portions of my life socially disconnected in ways that most people haven't. But I'm not usually someone to just... acquiesce for others' comfort or convenience.
 

At any rate, although I agree it's true that you can never predict when someone is going to have a psychotic break or whatever, I've only ever lived with two men, both of whom I knew very very well and trusted and felt completely safe with for a long time before moving in, to the point that although nothing is impossible, it would've seemed utterly bizarre to worry their personalities would change drastically and I'd find myself the victim of abuse. At the time I met him my ex-husband was the most compassionate and non-judgemental person I'd encountered in my life so far. Actually he has people-pleaser tendencies far more than I do and developing better boundaries was something he's had to work on. At any rate, he's about the least threatening human I've ever met. And by the time my fiancé became my partner, we'd been friends for several years and I'd just come out an emotionally hellish toxic relationship with my ex-girlfriend that actually made me a much more self-aware and mature person and I knew what sort of dynamic I wouldn't be willing to entertain again. He'd spent several years in therapy working through issues relating childhood psychological abuse and had left his unhappy marriage and we spent lots of time discussing both of our pasts, so we were pretty... emotionally aware and connected to each other's needs. Never say never, true, I get it, but my ex and my fiancé both seemed like very low risk people and the idea of anything turning bad never even occurred to me.

 

I do know that's not everyone's experience, of course. But that's the story of why I haven't worried about the men I've been in relationships with turning abusive.

[uhtred]

On 1/20/2025 at 8:51 PM, ubereatsme said:

The fact that you won't consider living with a woman before marrying her, to me, shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the dating world today. And yeah I'd say the same to a woman who failed to see why it would be a risky idea for a man to marry her before cohabiting. I'd find her painfully oblivious of the risks to herself but also quite selfish in seeing why a sensible man would never agree to that for his own self-preservation. 

I know a few couples that have lived together for a long time without getting married and had it work out fine.  All marriage provides is some financial protection (and can be a social or religious statement)  and if both people are able to support themselves, that protection isn't relevant.

What is the risk you are worrying about?

[uhtred]

On 1/20/2025 at 6:46 PM, TheMaria said:

Question for allos: how do you feel about the idea of having sex with a random stranger you're not attracted to, neither emotionally, nor physically, nor anything?

 

Sometimes I think "why is sexual intimacy so doable for other people, but so deeply uncomfortable to me", and I wonder if it's because well, people have sex with people they feel attracted to! Maybe it's actually common for allos to feel as repulsed as me towards sex without attraction, I don't know.

Its an interesting question.   Some of this has to do with the impreciseness of language  "not attracted to" can be read as anything  from "no active attraction" to "put off by".  

 

I don't have any objections to random sex, but its not something I'm particularly interested in or have ever done or wanted to do.

[ubereatsme]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

I know a few couples that have lived together for a long time without getting married and had it work out fine.  All marriage provides is some financial protection (and can be a social or religious statement)  and if both people are able to support themselves, that protection isn't relevant.

What is the risk you are worrying about?

Have you misunderstood my post? I'm saying that asking someone to marry you WITHOUT living together is problematic. 

[daveb]

22 minutes ago, ubereatsme said:

I'm saying that asking someone to marry you WITHOUT living together is problematic. 

I disagree. Plenty of people have done just that and had good marriages, and I don't believe that only happened in the distant past. But that's just my opinion, and not something I care enough to argue about.

[uhtred]

49 minutes ago, ubereatsme said:

Have you misunderstood my post? I'm saying that asking someone to marry you WITHOUT living together is problematic. 

Sorry, I must have missed a minus sign.  Read to quickly

 

I don't think its essential but I do think living together first is a good idea.

[daveb]

What about not wanting to live together after the wedding?  

 

(semi-serious - I saw an episode of some news-type tv show a long time ago, where they covered a few happily married couples where they had some sort of separate living arrangements - not just separate bedrooms, but even adjoining homes or an apartment above the garage or whatever. Sounded great to me.)

[Vorps]

Seems like, as with a lot of other things here, its mostly up to personal preference and the relationship in question.

 

My wife and I moved in very early in our relationship. Fortunately we cohabitate very well

[Ceebs]

Eh, we're doing fine and we got engaged before moving in together. The main reason for that being a very practical one -- living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. We had spent several months total cohabiting over the course of multiple visits of roughly three weeks each time, but yes of course there are still additional elements when you've properly moved in together. And we knew that would be the case and there have been a handful of difficult moments figuring out what works best for both of us. But still, given that we'd known each other well for over six and a half, nearly seven, years (the first two as friends, about four and half in a relationship) and did have some decent enough experience inhabiting the same space, we were both confident any bumps in the road living together all the time would be just that -- bumps in the road. Really no huge deal other than in the moment it can be a bit stressful, and we're good. 
 

2 hours ago, Vorps said:

Seems like, as with a lot of other things here, its mostly up to personal preference and the relationship in question.

Agreed, yep.

 

2 hours ago, daveb said:

What about not wanting to live together after the wedding?  

 

(semi-serious - I saw an episode of some news-type tv show a long time ago, where they covered a few happily married couples where they had some sort of separate living arrangements - not just separate bedrooms, but even adjoining homes or an apartment above the garage or whatever. Sounded great to me.)

Yeah, as I've mentioned before, Tele's closest friend and his wife don't live together. They don't even live a few minutes apart, more like at least half an hour. It's what works for them, for whatever reason. My ex-father-in-law (is that a thing? my ex-husband's dad haha) has a good friend who has a similar arrangement, with him and his wife living in completely different homes.

 

There's no universal right or wrong way to do it. Personally I think there are things that wouldn't be right for me, like moving in together after only a few weeks or months in a relationship, or also if we initially met online and hadn't spent any time together in person yet, I wouldn't want anyone to be committing to moving. And I do think most people would be best off following some sort of similar timeline. But, it's their life.

 

I also think getting engaged or outright married very early on is a bad idea. I have an acquaintance who married her husband about four months into the relationship. It was also her first relationship ever, she'd never even kissed anyone before, certainly hadn't had sex... nothing. (He'd had a fair amount of relationship experience.) They're still together about three and a half years later, so hopefully it lasts. Also Tele's parents apparently got engaged three weeks into their relationship. His mum was a basically a full-on narcissistic psychological abuser, and from everything I know of her I'm sure she was very, very, very charming in the process of getting her claws into his dad.

[Olallieberry]

3 hours ago, daveb said:

What about not wanting to live together after the wedding?  

 

(semi-serious - I saw an episode of some news-type tv show a long time ago, where they covered a few happily married couples where they had some sort of separate living arrangements - not just separate bedrooms, but even adjoining homes or an apartment above the garage or whatever. Sounded great to me.)

My parents divorced each other after 23 years of marriage. Within two years they remarried each other, and they lived in different houses (not far apart) for half the year.

 

Now they've been married longer than they were the first time, and they don't split houses anymore.

 

Anyway: I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to put myself through "shacking up" again. Fuck the lectures and invalidation. And for gods sake why doesn't ignoring someone hide their quotes in addition to their posts?

[Frameshift07]

25 minutes ago, Olallieberry said:

Anyway: I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to put myself through "shacking up" again. Fuck the lectures and invalidation. And for gods sake why doesn't ignoring someone hide their quotes in addition to their posts?

Invision Community is the host of this forum. I'd guess actually blocking posts so they don't show up as You've chosen to ignore bla bla bla or as quotes would prevent them from "driving up engagement" or whatever their shareholders probably want.