ethical obligations

[Telecaster68]

Treble post. Thanks, AVEN.

[Telecaster68]

Treble post. Thanks, AVEN.

[Telecaster68]

It's not just being able to participate in the act - in fact that's almost the least of it. One of the delights of sex for sexuals is the rush of feeling desired, and asexuals, by definition, don't desire them. However loving, fun, kinky, or whatever the asexual could be, they'll never be able to; and sexuals can tell there's something 'off'. There's an energy, or focus, that's missing.

It might be that the sexual can live with that for the joy they get from the rest of the relationship, but they have to know what's going on, because otherwise we have to work on the basis that the asexual doesn't want sex for the same reason sexuals don't want sex: there's something amiss with either their partner or their relationship, and they'll spend forever agonising over trying to figure it out and solve it.

[Guest]

Asexuals, who (justifiably and wisely) push for asexuality to be treated like any other orientation, really need to start treating it like an orientation themselves. Gay people don't try to date straight people, etc etc etc.

So this thing that asexuals do, where they play both sides of the orientation field, needs to stop. The sooner it stops, the better. If asexuality is an orientation, then asexuals need to stop trying to date sexuals... or at least, stop trying to date sexuals as if asexuality and sexuality aren't mutually incompatible. It's absurd and it's one of the things that makes me actually angry, the whole "we're an orientation, respect us!" and then in the next sentence "I don't see why I should have to disclose, relationships shouldn't hinge on sex".

[Guest]

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.

Going thru the motions/ compromise is OK for some people but not for others. For me personally, I refuse to have sex with someone who's just doing it for me. I know many other sexuals around here who feel similarly, whether or not they've actually ceased having sex with their partners. It's almost more heartbreaking to have compromise sex than no sex at all.

Also... whether or not you think the check marks all add up to "stay in sexless relationship" doesn't matter, and it seems you're not listening to us. Sex and romantic love are what make a relationship not a friendship. If you remove 50% of that from your relationship, your partner is going to be miserable. They may not leave... look around and see the miserable people on r/deadbedrooms and in this forum... but surely your end goal isn't to have a miserable partner who feels too guilty to leave you, right?

[Telecaster68]

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.

I've got a really nice car, everything about it is in the range of promising to perfect, apart from the absence of engine. But hey, everything else is good, so you'd want it, yes?

And while we're at it, I can sell you a house with no plumbing. Everything else is promising to perfect though, so I'm sure that won't be a problem.

[scarlett45]

Asexuals, who (justifiably and wisely) push for asexuality to be treated like any other orientation, really need to start treating it like an orientation themselves. Gay people don't try to date straight people, etc etc etc.

So this thing that asexuals do, where they play both sides of the orientation field, needs to stop. The sooner it stops, the better. If asexuality is an orientation, then asexuals need to stop trying to date sexuals... or at least, stop trying to date sexuals as if asexuality and sexuality aren't mutually incompatible. It's absurd and it's one of the things that makes me actually angry, the whole "we're an orientation, respect us!" and then in the next sentence "I don't see why I should have to disclose, relationships shouldn't hinge on sex".

I am a heterosexual so I don't pretend to speak for my ace comrades but this makes sense to me. Yes there have been gay people who have entered relationships with straight people (due to religious reasons, social pressure etc) but IMO a disclosure is required for it to be ethical. I (and I would say MOST sexuals) assume the person we are dating is sexually attracted to us (or they wouldn't be dating us we would be forming a friendship) and if thats not the case I think it needs to be discussed.

Of course I understand that MANY asexual people aren't aware of their asexuality until they are already in an established relationship, of course that is a different circumstance and I don't pretend to know all of the answers.

[butterflydreams]

Asexuals, who (justifiably and wisely) push for asexuality to be treated like any other orientation, really need to start treating it like an orientation themselves. Gay people don't try to date straight people, etc etc etc.

So this thing that asexuals do, where they play both sides of the orientation field, needs to stop. The sooner it stops, the better. If asexuality is an orientation, then asexuals need to stop trying to date sexuals... or at least, stop trying to date sexuals as if asexuality and sexuality aren't mutually incompatible. It's absurd and it's one of the things that makes me actually angry, the whole "we're an orientation, respect us!" and then in the next sentence "I don't see why I should have to disclose, relationships shouldn't hinge on sex".

This makes sense I guess. Though I'd argue it's not quite a perfect parallel to gays dating gays, etc. God knows there are plenty of gays in heterosexual relationships of widely ranging functionality. I've even known a few personally.

You wouldn't catch me saying that I shouldn't have to disclose it, or that relationships shouldn't hinge on sex. I mean, I don't have a personal understanding of how important sex is in a relationship. If you asked me how I'd feel about never having sex (I already never have), I'd probably say, "meh, I'm disappointed, but in the same way I'd be disappointed if I never went skydiving." Probably not a response a sexual person would give. I think the hitch comes from the fact that asexuals (heteroromantic ones anyway) can appear way more straight than a gay person. Like, aside from this one "little" thing, it's really close. So maybe asexuals get it into our heads that, "how big a deal can it be? It'll be fine. It's soooo close."

I'm happy to disclose to partners, or potential partners, what my deal is. That I may never be able to be into sex, but that I'd like to try.

I'd also be pretty close to thrilled to be able to date asexuals exclusively. But we have to admit that the infrastructure isn't there. Not in the same way it is for gays and lesbians. Not saying that justifies always trying to date sexuals, but it makes it a lot harder to stay in your own yard...so to speak.

[Telecaster68]

"I think the hitch comes from the fact that asexuals (heteroromantic ones anyway) can appear way more straight than a gay person"

I dunno. My reasonable wide experience of The Gays is that effeminate gay men and butch lesbians are fairly rare. I think I know more camp straight blokes than camp gay ones.

[Guest]

I'm not trying to yell at anyone, least of all you, Hadley. And you're right, there are a million shades of grey when talking about libido that aren't present in the gay/straight dichotomy. But of course all that means is that people should be communicating more, not less, about their sexual drive/wants/needs.

EDIT: I'm failing to see the difference, entirely... you say that the difference between gay and straight is much bigger than the difference between sexual and asexual, because between sexual and asexual it's just "this one little thing". But isn't it the exact same one little thing that separates gay and straight? It's just that no one else thinks it's a little thing except some asexuals... the reason why gays and straights don't date is, in part, because they both agree that it's not a little thing. And the fact that it is a little thing to some asexuals is just further evidence of the incompatibility.

[butterflydreams]

"I think the hitch comes from the fact that asexuals (heteroromantic ones anyway) can appear way more straight than a gay person"

I dunno. My reasonable wide experience of The Gays is that effeminate gay men and butch lesbians are fairly rare. I think I know more camp straight blokes than camp gay ones.

No I know, I meant that poking around in the beginning stages of a relationship, especially if you're giving off the right romantic vibes, it'll be easier to hide that you're not really sexual vs being gay.

I'm not trying to yell at anyone, least of all you, Hadley. And you're right, there are a million shades of grey when talking about libido that aren't present in the gay/straight dichotomy. But of course all that means is that people should be communicating more, not less, about their sexual drive/wants/needs.

Sure, I hear ya. I think there's a lot of frustration and "not sure what to do"-ness with asexuals. I know I feel it. I don't know what to do. I don't know how to walk the line of my orientation and explore what I feel I need to explore. Granted, I in particular probably have a lot more things to keep in mind (gender and all).

[Sally]

you say that the difference between gay and straight is much bigger than the difference between sexual and asexual, because between sexual and asexual it's just "this one little thing". But isn't it the exact same one little thing that separates gay and straight? It's just that no one else thinks it's a little thing except some asexuals... the reason why gays and straights don't date is, in part, because they both agree that it's not a little thing. And the fact that it is a little thing to some asexuals is just further evidence of the incompatibility.

Yes yes yes

[butterflydreams]

EDIT: I'm failing to see the difference, entirely... you say that the difference between gay and straight is much bigger than the difference between sexual and asexual, because between sexual and asexual it's just "this one little thing". But isn't it the exact same one little thing that separates gay and straight? It's just that no one else thinks it's a little thing except some asexuals... the reason why gays and straights don't date is, in part, because they both agree that it's not a little thing. And the fact that it is a little thing to some asexuals is just further evidence of the incompatibility.

No I know it's not "one little thing". I think it just seems that way to asexuals. It seem like, "well, I'm heteroromantic, I'm halfway there!" But really, the incompatibility is just as great as with someone who was gay and someone who was straight. At least, that's my theory. I certainly don't feel that way myself. I know it's a big damn difference, and I know I don't really know how big it is. So in the interest of being cautious, I tend to tread carefully and distantly.

[nanogretchen4]

I have to say that the gay community infrastructure was not built by elves, but by gays, and a lot of it was built before the internet. So building comparable asexual infrastructure will be work, but it can be done.

[Heart]

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?

Dating is scary, and that's ok! But the only way to learn how to navigate this world in which you're blind (or, at least I am!) is to try, and grope around for a bit. I've gotten to the point with my sexual boyfriend where he understands that I approach everything always with good intentions, so he just thinks I'm adorable when it turns out I fundamentally didn't understand something that all sexuals magically just know. And that's fine. He knew before we even started dating that this was going to happen.

My question is: how much of an understanding do you really need in order to make a fulfilling and successful relationship with a sexual? The answer will depend on all the people involved, as well as the relationship parameters themselves. But sometimes (not always!) that level of needed understanding is as simple as "I know you need sex (or certain types of sex, or sex with certain people, etc), and I will respect your need for sex even if I never understand why". That's where my relationship is. I don't intuitively understand why sexuals need or desire sex, or why masturbation is different (for most of them), but I have faith in those who tell me this, so I know those to be facts and I won't question or attack those facts. Instead, I'll just accept that I will never intrinsically understand, just like they'll never intrinsically understand me, so I must just trust them when they say things they need, and we can move on to finding ways to make sure everyone is happy and gets all of their needs met. I also acknowledge that sometimes people don't know their full set of needs right away, and once you start decoupling sex and desire, then maybe it turns out that they had thought that all they needed was sex but they really need desire as well. That's ok. To me, it's much more important to keep open a line of communication than to know at the outset what's up. I, too, change and discover things about myself. Sometimes that means relationships end. That sucks, and can hurt a lot on all sides, but it's part of dating. And sometimes such an occurrence can strengthen the relationship instead. But it's important to remember that it's no one's fault or victory; it's just the way things are. Sometimes, having faith that everyone is approaching the situation with good intentions is the hardest thing in the world, especially when you're hurting, but it's a key ingredient in a relationship.

If you come from a place of good intentions, and of making sure to try to fulfil needs (including your own) instead of questioning why those needs exist, you'll be in a good place to start. That doesn't guarantee the relationship will work, but it does guarantee a certain minimization of harm, even if that minimization of harm involves ending the relationship.

Asexuals, who (justifiably and wisely) push for asexuality to be treated like any other orientation, really need to start treating it like an orientation themselves. Gay people don't try to date straight people, etc etc etc.

So this thing that asexuals do, where they play both sides of the orientation field, needs to stop. The sooner it stops, the better. If asexuality is an orientation, then asexuals need to stop trying to date sexuals... or at least, stop trying to date sexuals as if asexuality and sexuality aren't mutually incompatible. It's absurd and it's one of the things that makes me actually angry, the whole "we're an orientation, respect us!" and then in the next sentence "I don't see why I should have to disclose, relationships shouldn't hinge on sex".

Skulls makes a good point here, and I think that thinking of asexuality as a distinct orientation, much like gay/bi/straight, is a practical working model to use when approaching relationships. That doesn't mean they can't work, but that does mean that you can't expect to apply the usual script/mould. Cross-orientation relationships of all types require build-your-own scripts, involving much more communication. This includes when bisexual women date straight guys, or bisexual men date gay guys, or whatever. Even if both parties are sexually attracted to each other, your orientation can be very important. Of course, you'll meet people to whom it's not at all important. But I advocate erring on the side of caution on that one, because you will also meet people who care greatly. And not even in a homophobic way. I know at least one bi person who would greatly prefer dating other bi or pan people simply because they feel that only other bi/pan people can really understand what they feel to be an important part of their experience. This aso applies to when both partners are romantically attracted to each other, but have different orientations (read: asexual and sexual). It takes an entirely different script than Hollywood and society like to sell us as the default.

It can still happen. But I like to think that treating it like any other fundamental difference is worthwhile. Fundamental differences are not the same as ones that you can change, like a hobby, and so you can't treat them the same way. They will always remain differences, and neither partner can change by will alone (ie changes can happen, but don't count on it, they tend to be the statistical anomaly rather than the norm); but you can sometimes find ways of working with it anyways, if you both want to.

I'm going to be blunt. As an ace that does and has dated sexuals, the only way I've ever made it work is with polyamory, where my partners can get whatever needs I don't meet met with others (including but not limited to sex of some kind, maybe just sex or maybe emotionally attached sex, or whatever). Others have found ways of doing it monogamously, but I don't know how to do that so I won't comment further. Now, it just so happens that I'm inherently poly; I love it, I find my love towards my partners genuinely feels stronger when I have two or more, and when they get other partners my genuine first reaction is excitement. That isn't the case for everyone, obviously, and I find I can't date monogamous people unless they accept my polyamory (and the monogamous people who can do that are rarer in my experience than those that can't, and that's not something they can control or should ever be blamed for). But it's also not the only answer. It just so happens to be my only answer, which is different than the only answer. The moral of this paragraph though is that to me and my partners, a compatibility on the scale of polyamory is more important than sexual compatibility. That's just our story, but it is possible.

Wow, that was so much more than I was expecting to write when I popped my head in. I hope it's helpful in some way. I guess my summary is this: to me, the ability to communicate is absolutely essential and necessary (but not sufficient) to building a non-traditional relationship. And by non-traditional relationship, I mean to include ones in which there are fundamental differences between the people in it such as orientation. Any fundamental incompatibility should be treated with respect and no assumptions should be made about being able to work with it. But if both parties are willing to try (emphasis on try), then sometimes things can happen in the most amazing ways. And it's hella worth it!

[Tarfeather]

I don't really have words for this discussion anymore, particularly not on the respectful side of things..

Hadley's confused and unsure of herself, and all most of you guys have to offer is whining about your expectations in a "relationship".

Frankly, if you don't understand that having a relationship with things to whine about is a privilege, then you have no place talking to Hadley about what asexuals are supposed to do. You're just too well off to understand her problems.

[Philip027]

Asexuals, who (justifiably and wisely) push for asexuality to be treated like any other orientation, really need to start treating it like an orientation themselves. Gay people don't try to date straight people, etc etc etc.

So this thing that asexuals do, where they play both sides of the orientation field, needs to stop. The sooner it stops, the better. If asexuality is an orientation, then asexuals need to stop trying to date sexuals... or at least, stop trying to date sexuals as if asexuality and sexuality aren't mutually incompatible. It's absurd and it's one of the things that makes me actually angry, the whole "we're an orientation, respect us!" and then in the next sentence "I don't see why I should have to disclose, relationships shouldn't hinge on sex".

This is actually part of why I *don't* treat asexuality as an orientation. Certainly not "like" every other orientation. I treat it more like the absence of orientation. It's the same sort of reason why I personally would not feel comfortable in LGBT spaces.

I've got a really nice car, everything about it is in the range of promising to perfect, apart from the absence of engine. But hey, everything else is good, so you'd want it, yes?

And while we're at it, I can sell you a house with no plumbing. Everything else is promising to perfect though, so I'm sure that won't be a problem.

I think *this* is what asexuals in general have a harder time understanding, how sex can at all be equated to something like a car's engine or a house's plumbing. Because that's what I sure have a hard time understanding, at least. This is why it's easier for us to get that whole "it shouldn't be a big deal" feeling.

[OutsideObserver]

I don't really have words for this discussion anymore, particularly not on the respectful side of things..

Hadley's confused and unsure of herself, and all most of you guys have to offer is whining about your expectations in a "relationship".

Frankly, if you don't understand that having a relationship with things to whine about is a privilege, then you have no place talking to Hadley about what asexuals are supposed to do. You're just too well off to understand her problems.

I've read over everyone's post again, just to see where someone was whining. I couldn't find anything.

Did you think a bunch of people being brutally honest to someone who kind of needs that brutal level of honesty was whining? Whining is complaining about something. None of the people talking to Hadley about sexual expectations is complaining about anything. They are talking to her honestly about pitfalls she almost certainly is going to run into in a way that doesn't allow for a reinterpretation laced with wishful thinking on the part of people who admit they don't 100% understand what the problem is. Not being willing to have sex with a partner means you now have a tiny dating pool of compatible people. Period. End of Story. No Whining involved.

It is not wrong to decide that you can't date someone who won't have sex with you. I don't care how hard it is for some people to find partners, that doesn't suddenly mean everyone on earth needs to settle for whoever comes along.

I spent most of my early to mid twenties single. I went through bouts of deep depression, thinking I would never, ever get a girlfriend. Don't tell me that I am talking as a person who never had trouble finding someone. I did, and I felt subhuman because of it. But, I also terminated two of the relationships I've been in, because my needs weren't being met in them (okay, the first relationship ended because she was a psycho who cheated on me, but not being cheated on is a need too). The point is, being honest about what you need is not whining.

Using your own personal issues as your basis for criticizing others, however, can be interpreted as whining....

[OutsideObserver]

Also, at any given time, over half the population of any given country is married. Over half. That statistic doesn't even address non married couples. Relationships are not some precious resource that everyone in the world should cling to no matter what. Relationships are only valuable if they genuinely make you live a happier life.

[butterflydreams]

Hmm, this discussion certainly is very interesting.

Hadley's confused and unsure of herself, and all most of you guys have to offer is whining about your expectations in a "relationship".

I don't necessarily think that's what's going on here. I mean, people are sharing their expectations, and in some way, it's interesting to know about that, since I don't really have any experience with what the expectations of people are. But I do think things have veered away a bit from simply being unsure about where a person falls, and how to be respectful of others while figuring yourself out towards a more rote back and forth about mixed relationships. I understand there are probably sexual people here who are quite understandably very emotionally invested in these subjects.

Frankly, if you don't understand that having a relationship with things to whine about is a privilege, then you have no place talking to Hadley about what asexuals are supposed to do. You're just too well off to understand her problems.

I wouldn't call it being too well off...but I would say it's very hard for people to understand my perspectives in this, and even I don't know why that is. It's caused many arguments with my mom because of her complete failure to look at anything from my perspective. Total communication breakdown. I don't know what to say to her, and I really don't know what to say to all of you. That's not good or bad, I just...well, I don't know.

I straddle the line, probably more than most, when it comes to being realistic vs being hopeful. I think it's an important balance to strike. I'd be very curious if there was someone out there who was in my position. Who was like me. Who'd gone through things on a similar timeline. It's probably very unlikely. I'd like to know what that person did. I'd like to know how they found deliverance from this situation.

Fall too far on any side of the realistic/hopeful line and you have trouble. Too "realistic" and you'll start telling yourself things like I sometimes do, "realistically, no one is going to want a <t-slur> like you that they can't even fuck." Too "hopeful" and you end up being so full of yourself and deluded (you're better than sliced bread!) that you'll fail to make any connections.

Dating is scary, and that's ok! But the only way to learn how to navigate this world in which you're blind (or, at least I am!) is to try, and grope around for a bit. I've gotten to the point with my sexual boyfriend where he understands that I approach everything always with good intentions, so he just thinks I'm adorable when it turns out I fundamentally didn't understand something that all sexuals magically just know. And that's fine. He knew before we even started dating that this was going to happen.

Well, he certainly sounds great, and it's not like I've never heard of these kinds of people before, but I've never met one. People I've met, no offense intended, tend to be more like those in this thread. Very rigid in their feelings and unwilling to meet me anywhere on the bridge between themselves and me. No, it's always that I have to go to their shore. It's extraordinarily disheartening. Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (as Skulls herself used to quip: you do you, bro), but it is disheartening. And demoralizing too. I walked so far across so many bridges, but it's never enough. I think I'd die from shock if someone walked all the way to my shore.

Wow, that was so much more than I was expecting to write when I popped my head in. I hope it's helpful in some way. I guess my summary is this: to me, the ability to communicate is absolutely essential and necessary (but not sufficient) to building a non-traditional relationship. And by non-traditional relationship, I mean to include ones in which there are fundamental differences between the people in it such as orientation. Any fundamental incompatibility should be treated with respect and no assumptions should be made about being able to work with it. But if both parties are willing to try (emphasis on try), then sometimes things can happen in the most amazing ways. And it's hella worth it!

100% agree, I really do, but this kind of thing has been so elusive in my life, and not for lack of trying on my part. Threads like this, in forums like this...it gets down to brass tacks, and like it or not, it's a lot more representative of my lived experience. That is horrifying. I feel hopeless and helpless.

This whole thread is about me trying to be respectful of others, because god knows I don't want to hurt anyone. But I have to say, once again, it feels like I'm the most likely one to be hurt. And in my perhaps futile attempts to look out for others, I'll once again end up throwing myself under the bus. -_-

[Telecaster68]

Very rigid in their feelings and unwilling to meet me anywhere on the bridge between themselves and me.

I'm not entirely sure what you were referring to sexuals (presumably) being rigid and unwilling about, but if you meant essentially 'being okay with removing sex from a relationship', it's not a question of unwillingness. That implies we can choose, and we can't, any more than many asexuals can choose to be okay with sex being part of a relationship.

If myself, Skulls, and Tar - picking us because we're on this thread - were unwilling and rigid, we'd have walked away from our relationships. But we didn't. We're trying to make it work. Our partners are simply unable to come very far over onto our side of the bridge, so if making it work means we have to go way over to their side, shut up and deal with the distress that can bring over the longer term, that's what we choose to do. I'm not claiming this as something heroic, just that it is happening. What we can't choose is to always, unfailingly, be okay with it, forever.

How asexuals deal with that is up to them of course, but I wonder if since sex is just a little thing to asexuals, the nature of that bridge-crossing is seen as a little thing for sexuals, and it's really not. But to say we're rigid and unwilling stings.

People refusing to embark on a relationship in which they know they won't be desired are I guess being rigid, but then so are asexuals who won't countenance sex. And there seem to be a fair number of instances where people aren't as rigid as that - the posts with 'my boyfriend's said he's okay with not having sex', or 'I'm okay with having sex for my partner's sake'.

[butterflydreams]

I wasn't referring to sexual people in particular. Trust me, I'm the last person who would even suggest that sexuals have any kind of obligation to forgo sex, or that they're being rigid for no doing so. Absolutely not. I know that you guys here have made lots of effort in meeting partners somewhere. I guess I let my inner cynic get the best of me because that has not been my personal experience, and that's where those statements and sentiments come from. No communication, no leeway, if I didn't meet them squarely on their terms, on their shore, they were gone. So from my perspective I'm left wondering what more I could've possibly done.

All I was really getting at here was what my obligations were in terms of preventing someone from getting into a situation with me where sex was expected and not delivered. And the twist was that I might be able to deliver it, but I don't know for sure, and so how to make that clear.

And as an aside, I'm sorry if anyone here feels under attack. That's not my intention at all, and I don't roll that way. It's just information gathering. I know it's a sensitive subject for people here, but remember too that it's sensitive for me as well. So if I got too defensive anywhere, I apologize. It just means I let my personal experiences color my responses too much.

[Telecaster68]

I think *this* is what asexuals in general have a harder time understanding, how sex can at all be equated to something like a car's engine or a house's plumbing. Because that's what I sure have a hard time understanding, at least. This is why it's easier for us to get that whole "it shouldn't be a big deal" feeling.

Philip

Just to be clear... I'm equating it in the way that an engine and plumbing don't make a car or a house by themselves, but most people wouldn't want a car or a house without them, however nice the bodywork or glorious the view. But I'm sure you get that intellectually.

(Cue sounds of metaphor being strained to breaking point... and apologies to Anthracite...)

Why's it important? Because you expect a car to get you from A to B, and to be able to have a shower in your own house. They're attributes of cars and houses for most people that make them cars or houses - otherwise what you have is an over-engineered metal box or a shed. Nothing wrong with metal boxes or sheds but they don't fill the role of cars or houses for most people. Most people might enjoy the comfiness of car seats or admire its lines, but they're not really the essence of car-ness and you still don't have any means of transport. Or they could get a Portaloo for the shed, or stand out naked in the rain but it's still not a house however much they appreciate how well it stores their lawnmower, and the neatness of their workbench.

And one of the key attributes of relationships is intimacy with another a human being and while cuddles and talk are good, they're the comfy seats and lawnmower storage. You need them too, but you still need an engine and plumbing.

(Like any analogy, this only works in this specific case. Obviously it won't work if you try to come from other angles, but for this comparison, it seems to do the job)

[Telecaster68]

Hadley

It's okay, no need to apologise. I didn't feel you were attacking me and I had a feeling you were making a wider point.

At times there's a trope on AVEN from time to time (not from you, at all) that if an asexual has any willingness to have sex whatsoever, they're the only doing any compromising and I just wanted to put out there that sexuals with asexuals are generally compromising de facto (on frequency and being desired).

It's different when you're trying to establish a relationship I guess. Might under-promising and over-delivering work? That is, put yourself out there for friendships rather than dating, don't even make things dating-esque in any way. Then if something does develop, it'll be a bonus for your 'intended'. There's a chance a they wouldn't be interested, I guess, but I'm sure you'd pick up signals that they weren't. And honestly, for most sexuals, being hit on non-crudely by someone isn't traumatic in the way some asexuals seem to experience. It's mostly flattering and at worst, transiently embarrassing.

It would be a kind 'crypto-demi' approach, I guess.

[Plectrophenax]

You'd be wrong.

I'm not really sure what to say to this. I suppose it should be obvious, given that most relationships are with someone of the sex one happens to be attracted to [indicating that this aspect of their person was not just relevant but vital]. But it still seems strange to me to consider sexual interaction not merely an important aspect of a relationship, but a particularly important one, indeed one that is so central that it is very likely to be an instant deal-breaker even when everything else is good or even ideal.

This is quite a hard pill to swallow, as it makes the factor of alienation that I sense all the more jarring [and I reckon it's the same in return]. But I am fully aware I have no grounds to claim otherwise - only that relationships can work in this way, like for example in the way Heart expresses.

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.

I fully agree with both bolded statements. And it isn't that one offers everything a sexual would - I am well aware that's not the case. I'm merely inclined to believe that one can still offer everything that constitutes a functioning relationship. But that's because I do not consider [for reasons that are probably obvious by now] sexual activity as a constitutive factor. I am clearly wrong about this.

Asexuals, who (justifiably and wisely) push for asexuality to be treated like any other orientation, really need to start treating it like an orientation themselves. Gay people don't try to date straight people, etc etc etc.

So this thing that asexuals do, where they play both sides of the orientation field, needs to stop. The sooner it stops, the better. If asexuality is an orientation, then asexuals need to stop trying to date sexuals... or at least, stop trying to date sexuals as if asexuality and sexuality aren't mutually incompatible. It's absurd and it's one of the things that makes me actually angry, the whole "we're an orientation, respect us!" and then in the next sentence "I don't see why I should have to disclose, relationships shouldn't hinge on sex".

This is a helpful way of looking at it. I suppose I tend to get a little carried away by the distinction between the sexual and the romantic, which has the unfortunate side effect of making me forget that, it seems, almost everyone consideres them to be either synonymous or at least equally relevant when it comes to 'relationships' [and perhaps even find the sexual more important than the romantic at times].

If sexual interactions are as undeniably essential to a standard relationship as people so strongly suggest, then it would seem to be the best course of action to consequently treat asexuality as its own orientation [i.e. a factor that majorly determines potential partners], and have the 'mixed' relationships be treated as the outliers - and the functioning ones as the lucky exceptions - that they are.

This doesn't make it any easier for asexuals, but considering it may lead to more focused endeavours to provide asexual platforms - not to mention establish its general visibility to the point, say, that it becomes a choosable option on conventional dating sites - it might prove a lot more fruitful in the long run.

Going thru the motions/ compromise is OK for some people but not for others. For me personally, I refuse to have sex with someone who's just doing it for me. I know many other sexuals around here who feel similarly, whether or not they've actually ceased having sex with their partners. It's almost more heartbreaking to have compromise sex than no sex at all.

Also... whether or not you think the check marks all add up to "stay in sexless relationship" doesn't matter, and it seems you're not listening to us. Sex and romantic love are what make a relationship not a friendship. If you remove 50% of that from your relationship, your partner is going to be miserable. They may not leave... look around and see the miserable people on r/deadbedrooms and in this forum... but surely your end goal isn't to have a miserable partner who feels too guilty to leave you, right?

Yes, some people. To me, that seems like a chance worth taking if one is so inclined [though I, personally, couldn't do it, for the very reason you express in your last sentence here].

And indeed, relationships do seem universally understood as "romantic love + sex". I'm still not convinced that this is an unshakable truth, but I acknowledge that this is one of the times where I'm probably simply unable to accept it as such. I freely concede, at least, that it is the most commonly held understanding and will thus naturally form the most commonly held expectations. I also concede that any possible solution that doesn't involve the asexual suddenly becoming sexual or vice versa does not necessarily - and perhaps only rarely - satisfy. Like the notion of compromise, a stronger focus on sensual intimacy, or polyamory. I take "deadbedrooms" to be a problem of such a nature so as to not be addressed by 'solutions' of this kind - it expresses a lack of actual sex with ones de facto partner within ones current relationship. Thus, the only remedy is sex, and not the pity or the self-sacrifical kind either. Am I assuming correctly?

I've got a really nice car, everything about it is in the range of promising to perfect, apart from the absence of engine. But hey, everything else is good, so you'd want it, yes?

And while we're at it, I can sell you a house with no plumbing. Everything else is promising to perfect though, so I'm sure that won't be a problem.

Ha! Yes, here it becomes plain as day that I simply don't think the same way as sexuals do. It would never have occured to me to consider sexual compatibility as that important. But thanks for making it as clear as you do. In your examples given, I indeed would not want either the car or the house. So if that is similar to what a sexual may think when confronted with an asexual, you have successfully made me understand. Thanks for the reality check ^_^

I am a heterosexual so I don't pretend to speak for my ace comrades but this makes sense to me. Yes there have been gay people who have entered relationships with straight people (due to religious reasons, social pressure etc) but IMO a disclosure is required for it to be ethical. I (and I would say MOST sexuals) assume the person we are dating is sexually attracted to us (or they wouldn't be dating us we would be forming a friendship) and if thats not the case I think it needs to be discussed.

Once more I have to ask where the exact boundaries between 'forming a friendship' and 'dating' are. It seems as though 'dating' is literally understood to mean something like "getting to know someone with the explicit intent of eventually having sex with them [among other things]". This dumbfounds me a little bit because I do know several people [who are at least romantically inclined - I don't know of their sex lives] who consider dating as more like "the gauging of compatibility" and account for the fact that there are at least three possible outcomes for it; relationship, friendship, or seperation. I suppose this happes to be a more unique stance? [And one that may be in part to blame for my skewered understanding?]

My question is: how much of an understanding do you really need in order to make a fulfilling and successful relationship with a sexual? The answer will depend on all the people involved, as well as the relationship parameters themselves. But sometimes (not always!) that level of needed understanding is as simple as "I know you need sex (or certain types of sex, or sex with certain people, etc), and I will respect your need for sex even if I never understand why". That's where my relationship is. I don't intuitively understand why sexuals need or desire sex, or why masturbation is different (for most of them), but I have faith in those who tell me this, so I know those to be facts and I won't question or attack those facts. Instead, I'll just accept that I will never intrinsically understand, just like they'll never intrinsically understand me, so I must just trust them when they say things they need, and we can move on to finding ways to make sure everyone is happy and gets all of their needs met. I also acknowledge that sometimes people don't know their full set of needs right away, and once you start decoupling sex and desire, then maybe it turns out that they had thought that all they needed was sex but they really need desire as well. That's ok. To me, it's much more important to keep open a line of communication than to know at the outset what's up. I, too, change and discover things about myself. Sometimes that means relationships end. That sucks, and can hurt a lot on all sides, but it's part of dating. And sometimes such an occurrence can strengthen the relationship instead. But it's important to remember that it's no one's fault or victory; it's just the way things are. Sometimes, having faith that everyone is approaching the situation with good intentions is the hardest thing in the world, especially when you're hurting, but it's a key ingredient in a relationship.

If you come from a place of good intentions, and of making sure to try to fulfil needs (including your own) instead of questioning why those needs exist, you'll be in a good place to start. That doesn't guarantee the relationship will work, but it does guarantee a certain minimization of harm, even if that minimization of harm involves ending the relationship.

[…]

It can still happen. But I like to think that treating it like any other fundamental difference is worthwhile. Fundamental differences are not the same as ones that you can change, like a hobby, and so you can't treat them the same way. They will always remain differences, and neither partner can change by will alone (ie changes can happen, but don't count on it, they tend to be the statistical anomaly rather than the norm); but you can sometimes find ways of working with it anyways, if you both want to.

I'm going to be blunt. As an ace that does and has dated sexuals, the only way I've ever made it work is with polyamory, where my partners can get whatever needs I don't meet met with others (including but not limited to sex of some kind, maybe just sex or maybe emotionally attached sex, or whatever). Others have found ways of doing it monogamously, but I don't know how to do that so I won't comment further. […] The moral of this paragraph though is that to me and my partners, a compatibility on the scale of polyamory is more important than sexual compatibility. That's just our story, but it is possible.

This is more or less what I would like to have come across as saying when stating that differences in sexual needs, even to the point of sexual incompatibility, don't have to be considered dealbreakers. I fully agree that the most vital components for that to be the case [though I would like to assume that it's also vital for conventional relations] are an open line of honest communication and a mutual - unpressured but informed - willingness to go further. It will probably result in a lot of sad first/early encounters, but that is still better than holding people emotionally hostage. And naturally assuming well-meaning intentions is important too, though it seems so obvious to me that I tend to forget that people don't always do that.

But, if I may ask, did you make the experience that the "fundamental difference" of sexual compatibility is, in a way, uniquely fundamental? Because that seems to be the impression I'm generally getting from threads like this.

No communication, no leeway, if I didn't meet them squarely on their terms, on their shore, they were gone. So from my perspective I'm left wondering what more I could've possibly done.

All I was really getting at here was what my obligations were in terms of preventing someone from getting into a situation with me where sex was expected and not delivered. And the twist was that I might be able to deliver it, but I don't know for sure, and so how to make that clear.

Having been considered a sort of pillar for moral support among some of my friends and acquaintances [don't ask me why], I heard quite a few times the desparation of having to fully coform and commit to the terms of someone else. And there really isn't much to be said there other than that you shouldn't [or, if you do, try not to] care about people like that. Easier said that done, I'm sure.

And it really seems to be a situation you can't win, considering the view that sex is generally the expected outcome of dating. In order to conform to that outlook, it seems you would have to make due note of your possible [likely?] lack of desire in that respect as soon as you possibly can, even if it means that you might end up severely limiting the amount of chances to assess common ground in the first place. Still, the obligation, as it were, of being upfront is not a bad takeaway from this/these discussion/s.

[butterflydreams]

And it really seems to be a situation you can't win, considering the view that sex is generally the expected outcome of dating. In order to conform to that outlook, it seems you would have to make due note of your possible [likely?] lack of desire in that respect as soon as you possibly can, even if it means that you might end up severely limiting the amount of chances to assess common ground in the first place. Still, the obligation, as it were, of being upfront is not a bad takeaway from this/these discussion/s.

I'm wondering if the whole thing isn't that I'm just so afraid (justifiably so, given my experiences) that no one will want to be with me. It's like I'd rather have the illusion of someone who wants to be with me, only because I haven't been as forthcoming about my asexuality. I know they wouldn't really like me if they knew I was asexual, and knew sex wasn't a given, but the illusion seems better than nothing. I know that's wrong. I just think that's maybe where I (and others?) are sort of coming from.

In that case, maybe better communication could be facilitated by breaking away from that feeling (that no one will want to be with me). Unfortunately, at this point, I'm not sure what would convince me of that. I've been alone my whole life. That outcome is all I've ever known.

[Telecaster68]

It seems as though 'dating' is literally understood to mean something like "getting to know someone with the explicit intent of eventually having sex with them [among other things]".

That's pretty much it, apart from the nuance of 'intent'. It's more that you start with a minimal amount of information about someone - which often includes how they look - which piques your interest as a potential partner, including sexually. Then as you find out more, the "the gauging of compatibility" happens, and as you say that can turn into relationship, friendship, or separation. Part of that gauging is discovering you're more compatible than you knew at first, and there's no fundamental dealbreakers. So there's a degree of intent, but it's not immovable.

But with dating, as opposed to generally meeting people, the potential for sex is there from the start. It's the default, and as you find out more about them, it may turn into a definite, urgent desire, or disappear entirely, on both sides.

An analogy would be considering an investment - your initial impression of it is that it looks great. Then you look into it further and it may become clear with more information that it's a bad idea, or that it's an amazing idea. But you wouldn't even have investigated if it didn't seem at some point that it might be a good idea.

[Plectrophenax]

In that case, maybe better communication could be facilitated by breaking away from that feeling (that no one will want to be with me). Unfortunately, at this point, I'm not sure what would convince me of that. I've been alone my whole life. That outcome is all I've ever known.

The best advice I can give you on that front is to direct you to generally supportive communities such as this one [though I'm sure you don't need to be told]. And don't let past experiences cloud your outlook onto future ones. You may have experienced no outcome resulting in mutual understanding and eventual relationship yet, but the keyword in that phrase is "yet". Even if you happen to be exceedingly unlucky throughout your life - and depending on your attitude that really isn't that likely - a generally open and, dare I say, optimistic and confident stance is the only real way to approach these things.

No partiuclarly helpful words, I fear, but I still felt inclined to write them.

[Heart]

I found an article this morning. I think it's very relevant here, though I will let others read it and form their own opinions.

This is more or less what I would like to have come across as saying when stating that differences in sexual needs, even to the point of sexual incompatibility, don't have to be considered dealbreakers. I fully agree that the most vital components for that to be the case [though I would like to assume that it's also vital for conventional relations] are an open line of honest communication and a mutual - unpressured but informed - willingness to go further. It will probably result in a lot of sad first/early encounters, but that is still better than holding people emotionally hostage. And naturally assuming well-meaning intentions is important too, though it seems so obvious to me that I tend to forget that people don't always do that.

But, if I may ask, did you make the experience that the "fundamental difference" of sexual compatibility is, in a way, uniquely fundamental? Because that seems to be the impression I'm generally getting from threads like this.

I don't think that sexuality is the only fundamental thing about people that can be in conflict. I think that in many ways it is unique, in that there is nothing else really like it (but I'm not qualified to talk about that directly; I am assuming this based on the lack of a perfect metaphor that sexuals can use to describe it to me, so I am only extrapolating). But it is not unique in being the only kind of fundamental difference that can make a difference in relationships.

I think there are many things about a person that you do not have a choice over, but that must be acceptable to the other person in a relationship somehow. I mean, there are the obvious ones like sexual compatibility. Two people can be the same orientation, but be completely incompatible in the actual act (eg one has a fetish that the other finds unacceptable to them). But there are other things, like being devout in different religions, that can be just as valid deal-breakers. I know many people can argue that faith in a religion is something that you can change, but in practice I have only rarely seen someone convert from being devout in one religion to a different one in order to marry someone else, or for both partners to look past the religions they are. From pure observation, it seems on the surface to map somewhat well to the concept of mixed relationships on the orientation front; sometimes it works, but often it's just straight-up a deal-breaker and the relationship never even gets started. Religious faith can be as central to someone's identity as their orientation or gender. So no, I don't think that sexuality is the only such fundamental difference. I think it's just the most talked about one in this forum, for obvious reasons. Does that make sense?

[scarlett45]

It seems as though 'dating' is literally understood to mean something like "getting to know someone with the explicit intent of eventually having sex with them [among other things]".

That's pretty much it, apart from the nuance of 'intent'. It's more that you start with a minimal amount of information about someone - which often includes how they look - which piques your interest as a potential partner, including sexually. Then as you find out more, the "the gauging of compatibility" happens, and as you say that can turn into relationship, friendship, or separation. Part of that gauging is discovering you're more compatible than you knew at first, and there's no fundamental dealbreakers. So there's a degree of intent, but it's not immovable.

But with dating, as opposed to generally meeting people, the potential for sex is there from the start. It's the default, and as you find out more about them, it may turn into a definite, urgent desire, or disappear entirely, on both sides.

An analogy would be considering an investment - your initial impression of it is that it looks great. Then you look into it further and it may become clear with more information that it's a bad idea, or that it's an amazing idea. But you wouldn't even have investigated if it didn't seem at some point that it might be a good idea.

I agree with Telecaster. As a hetero-womanif a man asks me on a "date" I'm assuming he's sexually attracted to me and if I accept I find him sexually appealing as well. Of course whether or not anything happens is a whole nother issue. I wish I was so lucky to have sex every time I went on a date😉.

I don't ask women on "dates", I ask them to join in activities. I don't ask men I'm not attracted to out on dates, we may join in an activity together, often in a group setting to enjoy said activity and socialize- but that's not a date. "Dating" for most of the English speaking world has sexual/romantic implications (like my post up thread that dating is like the color purple, sex us red and romance is blue).