ethical obligations

[Telecaster68]

Mostly I've experienced double-takes and "you're very sweet, but not for me".

To be blunt (but nicely, I hope), I think that's probably more to do with gender stuff than virginity, or more likely still, you are very sweet but not right for that particularly person.

Since we're explicitly discussing you, Hadders, I'd suggest trying either the 'very slow with lots of intense raw conversations' route, or the 'screw it, lie through your teeth to get what you want short of really hurting people and see how the cookie crumbles'.

[Guest]

^^ Couldn't agree more, Tele.

Lying isn't "right" but it is a good way to get what you want. And I very much agree that with you, Hads, forming an emotionally intimate relationship prior to sex is probably a good way to go.

[Telecaster68]

Hads is short of data. Lying would get her data, and thus allow better decisions. And honestly, if you're not a complete bastard (which she clearly isn't), any agonies suffered by dating partners would come under 'fair wear and tear' in my book. They'll live and learn. People screw up all the time, and survive. They're grown ups, they're responsible for their own feelings, they'll be okay.

[butterflydreams]

Mostly I've experienced double-takes and "you're very sweet, but not for me".

To be blunt (but nicely, I hope), I think that's probably more to do with gender stuff than virginity, or more likely still, you are very sweet but not right for that particularly person.

Since we're explicitly discussing you, Hadders, I'd suggest trying either the 'very slow with lots of intense raw conversations' route, or the 'screw it, lie through your teeth to get what you want short of really hurting people and see how the cookie crumbles'.

It's not like the same thing didn't happen before I started transitioning. I've been hearing that line or variations upon it for years. Though I'm not blind to what complications gender throws into the mix. As far as that goes, I've long since resigned to being realistic about it. I get that I'm probably not very appealing to the overwhelming majority of straight cis guys. And I don't want to be appealing to straight cis girls.

I'll heed the very slow suggestion, because what else can I do? I just wish others would be willing to do it too. Instead of sizing me up after 90 minutes and tossing me aside.

[Telecaster68]

what else can I do?

Search out other groups of potential dates? New hobbies, classes, groups, whatever? I don't know what would work best for you.

[Guest]

Hads is short of data. Lying would get her data, and thus allow better decisions. And honestly, if you're not a complete bastard (which she clearly isn't), any agonies suffered by dating partners would come under 'fair wear and tear' in my book. They'll live and learn. People screw up all the time, and survive. They're grown ups, they're responsible for their own feelings, they'll be okay.

Couldn't agree more. If you can't accept that you may get dicked over while dating, you shouldn't date.

Hads... my suggestions are: make friends on forums where people get to know who you are, and see if you can strike up a romance or a meeting, etc... also, join groups, like, trans groups, IRL. Having a group of friends who can help take you out, party, meet people, etc, is always helpful. People like dating other people who seem social, friendly, and fun. Besides, you won't feel as vulnerable if you have a few friends in your same boat.

[butterflydreams]

Well I did just join a trans group. It was kinda meh, but I'll keep going. Maybe there's something there. I don't really have local real life friends, but I'm out and about a lot. I insist on it. I get that that's not the ideal method of meeting people, but it's the best I can do, and I've been relentless about doing it.

I'm honestly surprised how sociable and engaged I've been with people on this forum. It's very unlike me.

[Telecaster68]

The other thing that works infallibly is Sod's Law. Trick yourself into not being interested in a relationship and just out to socialise, at which point opportunities will proliferate. This will also happen as soon as you do start something with someone else. Another possibilities will arise. The flip side is that when you do get laid, you'll probably notice other, er, opportunities too.

[Guest]

I'm honestly surprised how sociable and engaged I've been with people on this forum. It's very unlike me.

Good good!! Being engaged on AVEN is very helpful :) If someone feel emotionally connected to you, feels safe sharing secrets with you and feels that you've shared secrets with them... you're like 70% there... add a bit of flirting and you've pretty much got it in the bag. There is something of a science to winning peoples' affections. And, stick with the trans group until one of two things happens: 1) you're so sick of it you can't go anymore, or 2) you end up with a good friend out of it (may not be a group member... but the group will expose you to other friendly folk).

[Telecaster68]

If someone feel emotionally connected to you, feels safe sharing secrets with you and feels that you've shared secrets with them... you're like 70% there... add a bit of flirting and you've pretty much got it in the bag. There is something of a science to winning peoples' affections.

So cynical. So effective.

Oh, and make them laugh. Always, always, always.

[binary suns]

something critical to understand, is that there is a major difference between expectations and obligations. there is also a major difference between match-quality of communication, and quality of communications..

if someone doesn't communicate in the "right" way for someone else, it doesn't mean that that person communicated "wrongly" in any way other than for that one specific person. If someone doesn't feel comfortable revealing they are asexual as early as possible, and that doesn't go well for their listener, that doesn't make either person "Wrong" it just makes the two people's expectations not to meet.

generally speaking, it is beneficial to try to understand what the common expectations are, when communicating. if it is indeed so common to talk about sex by date x and have sex by date y, then understanding the person is likely to have this expectation will be beneficial for you to connect with that person, but it will not make your personal expectations or wants "wrong" and it doesn't "oblige" you to meet the common expectation.

and then of course, there is the catch-22, not sure if it happens with sex or not, of the situation where two of the common expectations do not match. such as the male who expects the toilet seat to be up verse the female who expects the toilet seat to be down. Reaching a matching expectation is beneficial in this scenario, but who is "wrong"? neither. who is "obliged"? neither. yet because of the mismatch, both people feel like they deserve their expectation met....

[butterflydreams]

I'm honestly surprised how sociable and engaged I've been with people on this forum. It's very unlike me.

Good good!! Being engaged on AVEN is very helpful :) If someone feel emotionally connected to you, feels safe sharing secrets with you and feels that you've shared secrets with them... you're like 70% there... add a bit of flirting and you've pretty much got it in the bag. There is something of a science to winning peoples' affections. And, stick with the trans group until one of two things happens: 1) you're so sick of it you can't go anymore, or 2) you end up with a good friend out of it (may not be a group member... but the group will expose you to other friendly folk).

Heh, I never thought about it like that. I was actually surprised when I went. I thought I'd get there and it would be all people who'd been transitioning forever, were confident and everything. But they were shocked I'd walked two blocks to get there just as myself. And that I was "out" at work. They were amazed. I guess I never thought that I was actually doing well.

I guess next I look up "how to flirt". I'm pretty good at making people laugh, when I relax. Not always easy to relax though.

[deactivated account]

O-O)// good luck Hadley

[Guest]

Flirting... be funny, and sort of... toe the line with giving them special attention. Don't want to be creepy, but want them to know you're thinking of them. Like... hey this meme reminded me of how cute you are when you're nervous! or texting them after an event to debrief and throwing out a someone told this joke and I made sure to remember it because it's such a bad joke I just had to torture you with it too!

That sorta thing.

[butterflydreams]

So, might the takeaway from this discussion be a few things:

- The right person(s) won't be bothered by various elements of the situation (virginity, gender, etc).

- The right person(s) do exist somewhere.

- As long as you're reasonably up front about stuff, nobody is going to get hurt any more than any other relationship.

Does that about cover it?

Hehe, on the flirting, I've always been too rigid to let stuff like that flow naturally. Hoping and expecting transition will help me feel more natural (it already has) and more...and I hate this term but it's true...in the moment. Then maybe that stuff will actually be fun. God, what a concept!

[Evren]

https://lgbtqutie.com/This might help? I'm not sure. I got it at pride the other day. :)

[Plectrophenax]

I think I've discussed this very topic a while back, but I can't at the moment find the right thread. So here I go again;

There seems to me to be a huge difference between the early days of a relationship between people who already decently know each other and people who do not. In the first case, if someone who I know fairly well would suddenly approach me in a way that indicates or perhaps even makes very clear is coloured with the desire to form a relationship [or to check out the possibility for one, as it were], then I would not only feel comfortable but also compelled to disclose my orientation right then and there. It's quite likely to come up anyway, since they would have noted a conspicuous absence of partnership and the discussion thereof, and they would likely want to bring that up considering their interest in estimating their chances. I would also not feel as though I had 'lost' something in this scenario, even if the friendly relationship we may have had before were to become slightly different because of this exchange. It's miles better than the alternative of attempting a relationship and seeing it fail.

[This actually did happen to me once, and I could not turn them down when they suddenly jumped me with romantic interest because of a stupid sense of 'politeness'. When I expressed this to others, they urged me to keep up the front of interest in order to accumulate some experience, which seemed even more wrong to me. Over other channels, this reached their ear and they showed respect and maturity beyond their years and willingly distanced themselves from me again. I still feel horrible for that.]

What is more peculiar to me is the situation when relative strangers are involved. For one, I probably wouldn't be able to distinguish a romantic-relationship-related interest from a general let's-be-friends-related interest unless they came out specifically with their intention. I don't generally assume hidden agendas and would feel excessively entitled in doing so. I don't consider my sexuality to be relevant to people I know, let alone to strangers. But what I think would be common courtesy in a case like this is to profess no concrete interest of one's own - least of all feigning it - but rather willingly engage with said person [if one is so inclined] and see if there is even a basic compatibility.

Even if the asexual position is the much rarer one than the sexual position, I would consider it the responsibility of the one doing the approaching to disclose whether or not they have sexual or sexuality-related intentions or not [after all, much like I do not make assumptions about them, I'd rather not have them making assumptions about me]. Only then is it the other person's 'obligation' to be upfront and honest, whether it's an "I'm sorry, I'm not interested", an "I'm sorry I don't swing that way", or an "I'm sorry, I don't swing at all".

I think everyone should sit down and have a frank discussion of what their okay with and not okay with, when entering a relationship. And Andy can say, "I don't know." There's nothing wrong with, "I don't know, or I think I might, but I'm not sure." As long as everyone is truthful, these things tend to work out much better.

What timeframe is 'entering a relationship'? What topics does 'what their okay with and not okay with' include? Sexuality and it's subcategories, I assume, but is that really a topic that comes up naturally and is talked about frankly at such an early stage?

I think if you know something about yourself that would be a deal breaker for the majority of the population, you are required to reveal it by the third date. Since Sexual Sarah knows that Asexual Andy is asexual but is dating Andy anyway, Andy has fulfilled his obligation in this matter. Ideally Andy should start by saying that he will probably never be willing to have sex. If later he decides he is open to compromise that will probably be a pleasant bonus for Sarah, so she won't be angry that he didn't tell her sooner. If Sarah in good faith thinks that she can handle a sexless relationship but later finds out that she can't, that's a no fault situation, just like if Andy had no idea he was asexual at the beginning of the relationship. If Sarah entered the relationship thinking she would convert Andy to a sexual somehow I guess she should have revealed that up front, but really that relationship shouldn't have survived the third date in the first place.

I agree with everything you say, but I don't quite get how you relate 'relationship' and 'date' when you say that the 'relationship' should not have survived up to the third 'date'. Would you consider everything from the fist date and onwards part of the relationship, or is there a turning point at one stage?

The overwhelming majority of sexuals assume a long-term romantic relationship will be a sexual one. If two sexuals start dating and decide there's some sort sexual incompatibility, they are not going to shrug and keeping dating without having sex. They will move on to people that are sexually compatible with, because having a sex life with their partner is what they need to have a happy relationship.

If you are asexual and can't really have sex, then you are incompatible romantically with an enormous percentage of the world. The chances of the random person you agree to go out with coincidentally being one of the tiny percentage of people who a sexless relationship is not a deal-breaker is, again, very very unlikely.

You speak of 'sexual incompatibility' as well as 'romantic incompatibility'. I assume that equates to the notion that most people don't distinguish the two?

I agree that the second of the two options you mention has something naïve and arguably unethical, but I would still feel inclined to assume that it isn't that uncommon for a relationship to work without sexuality being a major part of it. Sure, there is likely going to be the need for consideration and maybe even sacrifice from both sides [as one might be inclined to suffer the hobbies of a partner and/or reduce a hobby of one's own for the sake of them] - and for that reason alone it would certainly be commendable to make note of that possibility as early as possible - but to consider it an incompatibility from the outset seems to me a rather too strong conclusion.

But maybe that's just showing the very naïveté you referred to.

Andy doesn't want to be like "Hi my name is Andy and I am asexual, so I don't think I want to have sex with you!", but once he's in the "Hey I think you're cool, I may want to be more than just casual no strings dating for you" ... he should be able to have a basic conversation about something personal. And if after a few dates, he isn't feeling the "Hey maybe I want more", he should probably let the person know he wants to keep things casual until further notice.

I think this is the case that is generally uncontested. If its you, as in the asexual, who feels inclined towards a relationship, then the matter should be obvious. But if you aren't at that stage yet but the other person is [and assuming you may or may not actually know this], then I'm not so sure. If someone comes up to you and says something like "I find you interesting, wanna go on a date?" - are you obligated to say "sure, but - full disclosure - I'm asexual"? Is anything that isn't a flat-out rejection already an acceptance of the possibility of a romantic/sexual relationship?

From what I understand (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but sexuals are the norm, and some type of sexual contact is probably assumed to be a given by a lot of people with a partner. Declared asexual or otherwise.

I love that you are willing to be wrong about this ^_^

All humility when making strong claims in honour, but this one is uncontestable.

[Guest]

Andy doesn't want to be like "Hi my name is Andy and I am asexual, so I don't think I want to have sex with you!", but once he's in the "Hey I think you're cool, I may want to be more than just casual no strings dating for you" ... he should be able to have a basic conversation about something personal. And if after a few dates, he isn't feeling the "Hey maybe I want more", he should probably let the person know he wants to keep things casual until further notice.

I think this is the case that is generally uncontested. If its you, as in the asexual, who feels inclined towards a relationship, then the matter should be obvious. But if you aren't at that stage yet but the other person is [and assuming you may or may not actually know this], then I'm not so sure. If someone comes up to you and says something like "I find you interesting, wanna go on a date?" - are you obligated to say "sure, but - full disclosure - I'm asexual"? Is anything that isn't a flat-out rejection already an acceptance of the possibility of a romantic/sexual relationship?

A date and they aren't already your friend? Nope, you shouldn't have to disclose anything. A second or third getting to the point where you obviously like each other and want to keep dating? Disclose imo.

[OutsideObserver]

The overwhelming majority of sexuals assume a long-term romantic relationship will be a sexual one. If two sexuals start dating and decide there's some sort sexual incompatibility, they are not going to shrug and keeping dating without having sex. They will move on to people that are sexually compatible with, because having a sex life with their partner is what they need to have a happy relationship.

If you are asexual and can't really have sex, then you are incompatible romantically with an enormous percentage of the world. The chances of the random person you agree to go out with coincidentally being one of the tiny percentage of people who a sexless relationship is not a deal-breaker is, again, very very unlikely.

You speak of 'sexual incompatibility' as well as 'romantic incompatibility'. I assume that equates to the notion that most people don't distinguish the two?

I agree that the second of the two options you mention has something naïve and arguably unethical, but I would still feel inclined to assume that it isn't that uncommon for a relationship to work without sexuality being a major part of it. Sure, there is likely going to be the need for consideration and maybe even sacrifice from both sides [as one might be inclined to suffer the hobbies of a partner and/or reduce a hobby of one's own for the sake of them] - and for that reason alone it would certainly be commendable to make note of that possibility as early as possible - but to consider it an incompatibility from the outset seems to me a rather too strong conclusion.

But maybe that's just showing the very naïveté you referred to.

The overwhelming majority of sexuals are not going to be happy with a sexless relationship. It's not the same thing as giving up a hobby you really like. I don't mean to sound condescending, but I don't know how else to say it, it seems like you are coloring your understanding of sexuals from your own perspective on sex.

Asexuals who enter the dating world armed with the optimistic belief that sexual incompatibility just won't be an issue for them in relationships are setting themselves up for a lot of heartache.

[butterflydreams]

Asexuals who enter the dating world armed with the optimistic belief that sexual incompatibility just won't be an issue for them in relationships are setting themselves up for a lot of heartache.

Yeah, I'm really not comfortable with the idea of being with someone who wants sex that I can't deliver. I would not feel good about that. It's definitely one of the things I was trying to figure out how to avoid by creating this thread.

[Guest]

You speak of 'sexual incompatibility' as well as 'romantic incompatibility'. I assume that equates to the notion that most people don't distinguish the two?

I agree that the second of the two options you mention has something naïve and arguably unethical, but I would still feel inclined to assume that it isn't that uncommon for a relationship to work without sexuality being a major part of it. Sure, there is likely going to be the need for consideration and maybe even sacrifice from both sides [as one might be inclined to suffer the hobbies of a partner and/or reduce a hobby of one's own for the sake of them] - and for that reason alone it would certainly be commendable to make note of that possibility as early as possible - but to consider it an incompatibility from the outset seems to me a rather too strong conclusion.

But maybe that's just showing the very naïveté you referred to.

The overwhelming majority of sexuals are not going to be happy with a sexless relationship. It's not the same thing as giving up a hobby you really like. I don't mean to sound condescending, but I don't know how else to say it, it seems like you are coloring your understanding of sexuals from your own perspective on sex.

Asexuals who enter the dating world armed with the optimistic belief that sexual incompatibility just won't be an issue for them in relationships are setting themselves up for a lot of heartache.

Yeah, I feel like being asexual and thinking "pffttt... so what if people want sex, I'm sure once they meet me they'll totes stop caring about it as much because that's how awesome I am" is going to lead to a lot of heartbreak. Of course I realize that's not word-for-word what you said, Plex, but that's the general gist of it, I think. Because honestly, the world is full of sexuals. What about you is so amazing that a sexual would be willing to have a non-sexual relationship with their partner? For most of us, for better or worse, we can get pretty close to EXACTLY what we want in a partner. Putting up with no sex just because? Not many people are gonna take you up on that offer.

It's also very presumptuous. Let's say that I'm a successful middle aged single woman looking for a relationship. Let's say that I already know that I will never move in with or marry the person I partner with... I prefer long distance and I don't believe in marriage. Wouldn't it be a bit presumptuous of me to refuse to disclose these preferences and rather simply assume that the person I fall in love with will be willing to change their core personality for me?

[butterflydreams]

Yeah, I feel like being asexual and thinking "pffttt... so what if people want sex, I'm sure once they meet me they'll totes stop caring about it as much because that's how awesome I am" is going to lead to a lot of heartbreak. Of course I realize that's not word-for-word what you said, Plex, but that's the general gist of it, I think. Because honestly, the world is full of sexuals. What about you is so amazing that a sexual would be willing to have a non-sexual relationship with my partner? For most of us, for better or worse, we can get pretty close to EXACTLY what we want in a partner. Putting up with no sex just because? Not many people are gonna take you up on that offer.

Ok, so I don't want this to seem weird or overdramatic, but this actually scares me, and I bet there are other asexuals who feel similarly. Like there's this whole layer of rules and desires and social mechanics out there that I'm largely blind to. And as an asexual, whether you want to or not, chances are you're going to find yourself in it one way or another. That's definitely a worry I have. I mean, what happens when you get into it and find more stuff you're blind to? How can I ever develop a proper understanding of what sex means to people in order to form healthier relationships with them?

[scarlett45]

I'm a heterosexual/romantic woman, if a man asked me out on a "date"(which has romantic connotations, as a social activity together to determine interest/spend quality time), I would want to know before the 1st date, certainly by the end of the 3rd date.

I would not to spend time becoming romantically involved with someone who couldn't be sexually attracted to me. Assuming how well we got along/had familiar interests we could become good friends but that would be a friendship relationship not a romantic relationship.

For the majority of the USA (I can only speak for my own culture, I know we have posters from all over the world), ask for a date implies you have sexual AND romantic interests towards the person. Think of dating as the color purple, sex as the color red, and romance as the color blue......your own feelings may determine the SHADE of purple but for sexuals dating is usually purple (hooking up would be red).

[scarlett45]

The overwhelming majority of sexuals assume a long-term romantic relationship will be a sexual one. If two sexuals start dating and decide there's some sort sexual incompatibility, they are not going to shrug and keeping dating without having sex. They will move on to people that are sexually compatible with, because having a sex life with their partner is what they need to have a happy relationship.

If you are asexual and can't really have sex, then you are incompatible romantically with an enormous percentage of the world. The chances of the random person you agree to go out with coincidentally being one of the tiny percentage of people who a sexless relationship is not a deal-breaker is, again, very very unlikely.

You speak of 'sexual incompatibility' as well as 'romantic incompatibility'. I assume that equates to the notion that most people don't distinguish the two?

I agree that the second of the two options you mention has something naïve and arguably unethical, but I would still feel inclined to assume that it isn't that uncommon for a relationship to work without sexuality being a major part of it. Sure, there is likely going to be the need for consideration and maybe even sacrifice from both sides [as one might be inclined to suffer the hobbies of a partner and/or reduce a hobby of one's own for the sake of them] - and for that reason alone it would certainly be commendable to make note of that possibility as early as possible - but to consider it an incompatibility from the outset seems to me a rather too strong conclusion.

But maybe that's just showing the very naïveté you referred to.

The overwhelming majority of sexuals are not going to be happy with a sexless relationship. It's not the same thing as giving up a hobby you really like. I don't mean to sound condescending, but I don't know how else to say it, it seems like you are coloring your understanding of sexuals from your own perspective on sex.

Asexuals who enter the dating world armed with the optimistic belief that sexual incompatibility just won't be an issue for them in relationships are setting themselves up for a lot of heartache.

For most sexuals, experiencing fulfilling partnered sex is one of the reasons we enter a romantic relationship. Knowing from the "get go" that we are NEVER going to have that, meaning have a sexual relationship where our partner desires is as much as we desire them is reason not to have the relationship at all. No it's not like giving up a hobby we like, or living in the city vs the country or something of that nature. It goes to the core of our identity and personal expression.

[Plectrophenax]

The overwhelming majority of sexuals are not going to be happy with a sexless relationship. It's not the same thing as giving up a hobby you really like. I don't mean to sound condescending, but I don't know how else to say it, it seems like you are coloring your understanding of sexuals from your own perspective on sex.

Asexuals who enter the dating world armed with the optimistic belief that sexual incompatibility just won't be an issue for them in relationships are setting themselves up for a lot of heartache.

Yeah, I feel like being asexual and thinking "pffttt... so what if people want sex, I'm sure once they meet me they'll totes stop caring about it as much because that's how awesome I am" is going to lead to a lot of heartbreak. Of course I realize that's not word-for-word what you said, Plex, but that's the general gist of it, I think. Because honestly, the world is full of sexuals. What about you is so amazing that a sexual would be willing to have a non-sexual relationship with my partner? For most of us, for better or worse, we can get pretty close to EXACTLY what we want in a partner. Putting up with no sex just because? Not many people are gonna take you up on that offer.

It's also very presumptuous. Let's say that I'm a successful middle aged single woman looking for a relationship. Let's say that I already know that I will never move in with or marry the person I partner with... I prefer long distance and I don't believe in marriage. Wouldn't it be a bit presumptuous of me to refuse to disclose these preferences and rather simply assume that the person I fall in love with will be willing to change their core personality for me?

You both make fair points that I completely agree with [and don't worry, OutsideObserver, you don't come across as condescending]. But you are refering to the very extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to asexual compatibility with sexuals, i.e. the one who is either incapable or simply unwilling to even consider engaging in sexual acts. I had hoped to have been clear enough when I stated that the sacrifice can [and, if one is serious about a relationship, should] fall on both sides. When I made note of hobbies, I didn't mean to imply that sexual activity - let alone sexual desire - was the same as any old hobby and can be endulged in or discarded at will. But it's easy to imagine forming a relationship with someone who has a hobby that is incompatible with you in some way [like, say, foxhunting when you are particularly sensitive to animal abuse]. Naturally such a circumstance can ruin the very foundation of a relationship, but it doesn't have to. What will have to happen is that one or, ideally, both have to readjust their expectations to some degree [there are options that lie between blind acceptance and complete abstaining, after all]. And I honestly cannot comprehend how this is much different with sexuality - though I assume it is, even if that implies most sexuals not just have a desire for sexual activity but an outright thirst for it. [EDIT: this is much more properly expressed by scarlett45 just above when noting that it relates to the "core" of ones "identity and personal expression" - and, it seems, has no counterpart in its degree of import.]

Only when one has this readiness to find common ground [and maybe be particularly lucky or particularly unlucky - who can tell?], in my mind, is one not obliged to disclose ones sexuality right from the outset. If one is dead set against compromise of any sort, then obviously it's the minority opinion that has to be upfront about it as soon as possible, if not for moral then at least for practical reasons. Otherwise it is a matter of choice and certainly not an obligation - though naturally I don't think one should lie if the other person brings up the subject, no matter at what stage they decide to do so.

I will say, remembering a past conversation on this topic [you may recall it, Skullery, I think you partook as well], that there will certainly be cases where such a compromise is simply not possible even if willingness is present. Just like someone might be willing to participate in weekly bowling games [to again use a probably offensively trivial illustration] for the sake of their partner, if they do so without enthusiasm it may well suck out the enjoyment for the partner, whose very enjoyment was supposed to be ensured. Likewise an asexual person who is willing to engage in occasional sexual intercourse might very well not be able to satiate a sexual person's need. The notion, if I remember correctly, was that a relevant part of sexual satiation is the feeling of actually pleasuring someone else, and likewise sensing them pleasuring you [and liking it]. Someone going through the motions - even if they really don't mind and truly enjoy making their partner happy - cannot emulate this innate passion, as it were. If this is the norm when it comes to the expectations of sexuals, then I probably am guilty of naïveté. But it seems to me that, when everything else about one another falls into the range of promising to perfect, this is not and need not be the deciding factor.

[nanogretchen4]

Even if you think now that you will be okay with compromising, you still have to tell the truth. It's not okay to have sex with someone even once without telling them honestly that you don't have any desire to have sex with them but you are willing to do it occasionally to keep them happy. That would not be acceptable to most people. It's not going to be a good day when they find out that their partner has been knowingly deceiving them from the start.

[OutsideObserver]

As a separate statement unrelated to the rest of the conversation, I am comfortable in saying that I experience a desire for a sex life that is akin to a thirst. Only instead of dying of thirst, I am in a perpetual state of being feeling ugly, stressed out, lonely and generally all around miserable . All of the time.

Not speaking for all sexuals. Just verifying that your impression of how we talk about sex is not inaccurate.

[Telecaster68]

I would still feel inclined to assume that it isn't that uncommon for a relationship to work without sexuality being a major part of it.

You'd be wrong.

[OutsideObserver]

You both make fair points that I completely agree with [and don't worry, OutsideObserver, you don't come across as condescending]. But you are refering to the very extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to asexual compatibility with sexuals, i.e. the one who is either incapable or simply unwilling to even consider engaging in sexual acts. I had hoped to have been clear enough when I stated that the sacrifice can [and, if one is serious about a relationship, should] fall on both sides. When I made note of hobbies, I didn't mean to imply that sexual activity - let alone sexual desire - was the same as any old hobby and can be endulged in or discarded at will. But it's easy to imagine forming a relationship with someone who has a hobby that is incompatible with you in some way [like, say, foxhunting when you are particularly sensitive to animal abuse]. Naturally such a circumstance can ruin the very foundation of a relationship, but it doesn't have to. What will have to happen is that one or, ideally, both have to readjust their expectations to some degree [there are options that lie between blind acceptance and complete abstaining, after all]. And I honestly cannot comprehend how this is much different with sexuality - though I assume it is, even if that implies most sexuals not just have a desire for sexual activity but an outright thirst for it. [EDIT: this is much more properly expressed by scarlett45 just above when noting that it relates to the "core" of ones "identity and personal expression" - and, it seems, has no counterpart in its degree of import.]

Only when one has this readiness to find common ground [and maybe be particularly lucky or particularly unlucky - who can tell?], in my mind, is one not obliged to disclose ones sexuality right from the outset. If one is dead set against compromise of any sort, then obviously it's the minority opinion that has to be upfront about it as soon as possible, if not for moral then at least for practical reasons. Otherwise it is a matter of choice and certainly not an obligation - though naturally I don't think one should lie if the other person brings up the subject, no matter at what stage they decide to do so.

I will say, remembering a past conversation on this topic [you may recall it, Skullery, I think you partook as well], that there will certainly be cases where such a compromise is simply not possible even if willingness is present. Just like someone might be willing to participate in weekly bowling games [to again use a probably offensively trivial illustration] for the sake of their partner, if they do so without enthusiasm it may well suck out the enjoyment for the partner, whose very enjoyment was supposed to be ensured. Likewise an asexual person who is willing to engage in occasional sexual intercourse might very well not be able to satiate a sexual person's need. The notion, if I remember correctly, was that a relevant part of sexual satiation is the feeling of actually pleasuring someone else, and likewise sensing them pleasuring you [and liking it]. Someone going through the motions - even if they really don't mind and truly enjoy making their partner happy - cannot emulate this innate passion, as it were. If this is the norm when it comes to the expectations of sexuals, then I probably am guilty of naïveté. But it seems to me that, when everything else about one another falls into the range of promising to perfect, this is not and need not be the deciding factor.

The ability to compromise on sex certainly raises your pool of compatible people immensely. In the context of this thread, however, the OP was explicitly saying the didn't really know if they could compromise. In terms of forming a relationship, "Maybe I can have sex eventually some day but I don't know when if ever" should be treated with the same seriousness as "No, I can't have sex", it's a miserable situation to put someone else in without warning them first.

I can't confidently say that all sexuals need mutually-enjoyed sex with their partner to be happy in a relationship. My gut tells me that many, many sexuals do, but I can't back that up with anything. Regardless, unless you are a world-class method actor, a sexual relationship between a sexual and asexual is going to suffer a lot of strain on a long enough timeline. I think basically everyone who has ever been in a mixed relationship on this forum can attest to that much. The inevitability of this strain may not be enough of a reason to not try, But because it is inevitable, and for some it is a deal-breaker, I think that it's smart for even a compromising asexual to disclose the truth early on in the relationship. Certainly before actually having sex. Yes, "on paper" you are offering everything a sexual person would in a relationship, but the truth is not quite the same.

[OutsideObserver]

double post