Jump to content

Hetero-romantic Asexuals Should Not Try to Date Allosexauls


Georgetown

Recommended Posts

Heterosexual dating, at least in the United States, is so toxic and hyper-aggressive and gender asymmetrical and body-language-based that I feel like asexuals get totally lost in it. There’s no reason for an asexual to take part in this horrendous male-versus-female cat-versus-mouse fiasco unless they already have a partner or are in a close-knit community of some sort.

 

Hetero-romantic asexual men are often not suited at all to the allosexual straight “dating game”, either by lacking the common understanding of certain signals and cues that are sexual in origin or by lacking the intense motivation spurred by sexual gratification that encourages allosexual straight men to go to ridiculous lengths to attract women.

 

Hetero-romantic asexual women on the other hand, particularly ones willing to compromise and have sex for their partner’s sake or to just feel close to others emotionally, will almost always just end up with an allosexual straight guy anyway given the sheer fact that there are way more allosexual men out there and they will probably be more aggressive in courting her than an asexual man would be.

 

The solution is for people to commit to asexual-only dating (at least for hetero-romanticism since homo-romantic asexuality is totally different) and actually turn asexuality into a real orientation with a viable dating pool and not just an abstract Internet concept.

 

Barring some near-impossible scenario where a compatible allosexual straight woman pursues me, I will only try to date or be with asexual women going forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Georgetown said:

actually turn asexuality into a real orientation with a viable dating pool and not just an abstract Internet concept.

I’m aromantic so the above situations don’t apply. But I don’t like what you said here^^^

 

It’s basically invalidating asexuality. It’s already a real orientation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heterosexual dating, at least in the United States, is so toxic and hyper-aggressive and gender asymmetrical and body-language-based that I feel like asexuals get totally lost in it. There’s no reason for an asexual to take part in this horrendous male-versus-female cat-versus-mouse fiasco unless they already have a partner or are in a close-knit community of some sort.

There's tons of "bad guys" out there. There's also 7 billion people on this earth. Don't let one bad experience with dating ruin the idea of dating. There are genuine guys out there who genuinely want a mutually consenting and healthy relationship. Many alloxaces (or a-spec) come up with a compromise to make dating or engagement/marriage work (open relationships, have sex X days of the week, go to swinger parties, etc.). 

 

Hetero-romantic asexual men are often not suited at all to the allosexual straight “dating game”, either by lacking the common understanding of certain signals and cues that are sexual in origin or by lacking the intense motivation spurred by sexual gratification that encourages allosexual straight men to go to ridiculous lengths to attract women.

You're making it sound like asexual individuals are completely inept at understanding body language, which is complete bullshit. Not all heterosexual people (men/women/whatever) just want to have sex the second they see you. Both hetero men and women "peacock" to each other to try to attract each other. 

 

Hetero-romantic asexual women on the other hand, particularly ones willing to compromise and have sex for their partner’s sake or to just feel close to others emotionally, will almost always just end up with an allosexual straight guy anyway given the sheer fact that there are way more allosexual men out there and they will probably be more aggressive in courting her than an asexual man would be

You're being pessismistic for the sake of being pessismistic here. Girls can be just as bad, if not worse then men in regards to putting too much focus on the "sex" part of a relationship. 

 

Barring some near-impossible scenario where a compatible allosexual straight woman pursues me, I will only try to date or be with asexual women going forward.

If you only feel comfortable dating other aspec people, that's fine, but please don't go around sprouting that every heterosexual man or woman is just interested in sex and sex alone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you also can't help who you fall in love with, and sometimes a romantic asexual and a sexual person will fall in love with each other regardless of whether or not they intended to. It would be great if the asexual dating pool was larger, but a lot of people don't want to have distance relationships and there aren't any suitable aces near them, so that can really complicate matters when you're romantic and desire to be loved romantically. It's a difficult situation no matter which way you look at it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect a lot more people would be agreeable to have platonic relationships than it appears from the "mass sex market" perception. Most people in established relationships have relatively infrequent sex, many singles don't get any sex and hardly anyone feels understood these days. The issue is more of the "norms". Perhaps being vocal about platonic relationships - for whatever reason, not necessarily asexuality would actually create a useful trend for many people.

 

I think platonic committed relationships would fill an important need for many - particularly if they were not exclusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
5 hours ago, anamikanon said:

Most people in established relationships have relatively infrequent sex,

That's not what the best available stats (from Kinsey) say, unless you consider about once a week relatively infrequent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

That's not what the best available stats (from Kinsey) say, unless you consider about once a week relatively infrequent. 

I do call once a week infrequent :P 

 

Though my statement was from some place I can't recall that said 2/3rds of relationships die down on the sexual front after some years have passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Just now, anamikanon said:

I do call once a week infrequent

It's the very very broadbrush average frequency in the US for people in relationships. I don't think many people would consider it anything like platonic though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prufrock, but like, worse

It's kind of harmful to reinforce the unwritten rule that people have their identity pinned down to a specific thing before they're allowed to date a person they like. Knowing what you want out of a relationship in theory (esp. if you've never had one before) is entirely different from how it ends up working in practice, and making it harder to have that crucial experimentation helps nothing.

 

I do agree that US hetero dating norms are highly broken in a number of ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

It's less about having to pin an identity down, and more about understanding what you need from a relationship. Most people are pretty sure sex is one of those needs, to the point that it's the default and assumed, which is why its absence, and the need for it to not be part of the relationship, needs to be made clear. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prufrock, but like, worse

deleted

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that for a lot of aces, especially romantic ones who have never heard of asexuality, we don't realise that sex is something that people assume they need from a relationship because we have no frame of reference to notice that it really is something people need or expect. We don't need it, and if not challenged outright, most human beings tend to believe that most people are like them and what is correct for them is probably correct for everyone else as well.

 

(i.e. I always thought that my friends and people around me were just exaggerating about being sexually attracted to people, and everything else in books/movies etc. was just fiction and dramatised for effect/entertainment. I thought 'picking' who you had a crush on or pretending to be head over heels for someone or saying someone was 'sooo hot/sexy' was just part of fitting in and that everyone else was faking it to varying extents. I mean, of course some of my friends were better at it than others - after all there were those who were also a little shy/reclusive too and never talked about who they liked! Then later I found out they were also having sex/relationships and I just didn't know about it because they are private people... )

 

Once we know about our identity and that it's something that isn't strictly speaking 'the default', it does need to be discussed and made very clear, though...

 

((p.s. Also, to me, once a week is a LOT ....? I wouldn't call that infrequent o_o;; ))

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

@gaogao

 

I can completely understand your point about unknown unknowns, but I'm not entirely sure what could be done about it. The last thing most  aces seem to want is sexuals banging on even more about how important sex is... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Telecaster68

 

Tbh... I think the solution is really for asexuality to be taken seriously as an actual sexual identity and for it to be more understood so that people recognise what they are from the beginning.... But until there's a proper definition and understanding of asexuality that people aren't confused by, there will always be people who don't know what they are... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
StupidDream
23 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

you also can't help who you fall in love with, and sometimes a romantic asexual and a sexual person will fall in love with each other regardless of whether or not they intended to.

This. Completely agree and it kinda sucks when it happens! Maybe some people can make that scenario work but I'm not convinced.....!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, anamikanon said:

I suspect a lot more people would be agreeable to have platonic relationships than it appears from the "mass sex market" perception. Most people in established relationships have relatively infrequent sex, many singles don't get any sex and hardly anyone feels understood these days. The issue is more of the "norms". Perhaps being vocal about platonic relationships - for whatever reason, not necessarily asexuality would actually create a useful trend for many people.

 

I think platonic committed relationships would fill an important need for many - particularly if they were not exclusive.

A non-exclusive platonic relationship is... a friendship,which most people  already have plenty of. People date to find something more than that.

 

And most romantic asexuals aren't looking for a platonic relationship, they want an actual romantic relationship that just doesn't include sex as an aspect of the romantic intimacy.  (And yes I agree with some of the other comments here that if you KNOW you don't want sex then you need to make that clear or stick to ace dating. However many romantic aces don't know they're asexual to start with, and even after one or two sexually incompatible relationships they will often think "the next one will work, I'm sure" not realizing that the sexual incompatibility is actually a direct result of their asexuality, it's not until they can identify their asexuality that things fall into place for them.)

 

7 hours ago, anamikanon said:

I do call once a week infrequent

Well no one else would say a relationship where sex happens once a week, or even once a month,a platonic relationship. And once a week certainly wouldn't count as 'infrequent' for an asexual.. it'd still be too much in an aces perfect world (just as for many sexual people it may not be quite enough in their perfect world).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for a lot of hetero-romantic asexual men, myself included, dating middle-class or upper-class allosexual women in the United States is virtually impossible, even if we wanted it. I’d love to date allosexual women and try to make it work in an imperfect situation, but even just getting to that point requires moving mountains in terms of expending time and developing sophisticated social skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Georgetown said:

I think for a lot of hetero-romantic asexual men, myself included, dating middle-class or upper-class allosexual women in the United States is virtually impossible, even if we wanted it. I’d love to date allosexual women and try to make it work in an imperfect situation, but even just getting to that point requires moving mountains in terms of expending time and developing sophisticated social skills.

Is this related to sex or to your ability to court a partner? What does class have to do with it? 

 

I am a middle class, allosexual, American woman who is very happily dating an asexual man, and I can assure you his charm (and ability to solo endgame dungeons, I cannot lie) won me over far more than any sort of sexual strutting would have done. I know we aren't the norm by far, but he didn't have to move mountains to win me - he just had to be charming, open, and honest. 

 

Maintaining mixed relationships comes with a unique brand of hurdles to jump, but suggesting that people are barred from doing so paints a needlessly bleak picture. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Georgetown said:

I think for a lot of hetero-romantic asexual men, myself included, dating middle-class or upper-class allosexual women in the United States is virtually impossible, even if we wanted it. I’d love to date allosexual women and try to make it work in an imperfect situation, but even just getting to that point requires moving mountains in terms of expending time and developing sophisticated social skills.

I'm confused by this comment, what does them being upper class or middle class have to do with it? It almost sounds like you're saying the poor ones would accept any asexual man but those women aren't worth pursuing due to their status in society :o But if a woman wants sex it doesn't make any difference if she's poor as dirt or literally rolling around in money, she'll still be unhappy in a mixed relationship with an asexual if neither person can be happy with the compromises they're each able to make.. her class won't change that.

 

You probably didn't mean your comment to come across like that, lol, I'm sure you'll explain what you meant now that both me and @Chimeric have pointed that out to you :P

 

Which game are you and Evil playing Chimeric? :o I've played 1,700 hours of Path of Exile and still haven't made it to end-game, LOL :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

off topic but i also want to know what game @Chimeric is playing :lol: 

my first thought when i read 'ability to solo endgame dungeons' was hot damn so i'm super curious.

 

(legit a good reason to be attracted to someone probably)

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

I'm confused by this comment, what does them being upper class or middle class have to do with it? It almost sounds like you're saying the poor ones would accept any asexual man but those women aren't worth pursuing due to their status in society :o But if a woman wants sex it doesn't make any difference if she's poor as dirt or literally rolling around in money, she'll still be unhappy in a mixed relationship with an asexual if neither person can be happy with the compromises they're each able to make.. her class won't change that.

 

You probably didn't mean your comment to come across like that, lol, I'm sure you'll explain what you meant now that both me and @Chimeric have pointed that out to you :P

 

Which game are you and Evil playing Chimeric? :o I've played 1,700 hours of Path of Exile and still haven't made it to end-game, LOL :lol:

Well, straight allosexual dating in general is just very very expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Georgetown said:

Well, straight allosexual dating in general is just very very expensive.

it doesn't have to be expensive! you can take some sandwiches to the beach or go for a walk together or something like that (which I'd take over a fancy restaurant any day!!). Also, cooking dinner together and streaming a movie while you sit together on the couch - way more appealing than actually going to a movie theater! There are heaps of cheap (and much more rewarding!) ways to date :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely understand what you mean...the thing is is that asexuals are such a diverse group, it's impossible to confine them all to the same dating pools. There are actually cupiosexuals who desire a sexual partner although they have no sexual attraction themselves. And there are aces like me who know that they could only date other aces, no exceptions. And then there are other aces who could care less about the sexual orientation of their partner and have no problem pleasing their partner if they love them. But I definitely understand your argument. At this point in my life I'd never consider dating a sexual person, although I love platonic companionship and deep friendship. But we can't really speak for other aces, everyone is different :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
little_dragon

Is this post about aspects of asexuality, or is it about insulting heterosexual people? Because it feels strongly like the later. I agree that many people, so many people in fact, are toxic to themselves and to others in the way they go about their relationships, especially on the sex front. But to suggest that this is a fault of heterosexuality within itself, is insulting. And insulting a majority in defense of a minority only breeds chaos and hate and increased, mutual lack of understanding.
We want allosexual communities to understand us, not feel criticized by us. That's how important social issues get brushed off as fake hipster movements by the public.

I can't deny however that I've noticed more relationship issues among heteronormative couples than among couples outside that norm, such as homosexual, romantic asexual, or polyamorous, etc. etc. (at least, from what I have witnessed in my life).

People in these communities experience a period of introspection and self-discovery, wherein they turn inwards to understand themselves, and reach outwards to understand others. It makes sense that people who go through this period of experience would have a stronger sense of self and a better understanding of others, and are thus more capable of forming stronger relationships. And even outside that, have a better understanding of what they want out of a relationship, often before they seriously commit to anyone.

Heteronormative people are not encouraged to do this.
And so, it makes sense that relationship problems are more prevalent in heteronormative circles; but that's not their fault, that's the fault of society, and the failure of sex education, the failure of the education system, period. Non-normative individuals seek out alternative sources of understanding once they realize they don't fit the norm, but heteronormative individuals are typically dependent on a broken system for their sense of understanding.
Whether or not we fit the norm, we are all victims of a society that's denied colour and diversity to fill the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 9:34 AM, gaogao said:

 if not challenged outright, most human beings tend to believe that most people are like them and what is correct for them is probably correct for everyone else as well.

 

I really don't think that's true.  Although I hadn't heard about asexuality until I was in my late adulthood, I definitely knew that I was not like my teenage friends, because they were talking about things I wasn't interested in (sex).   That continued on until I was old enough to realize that whatever happened to them definitely wasn't going to happen to me.  (Although I kept trying to make it happen...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweet Potato

well Id love to date an asexual. here is my problem:

my towns population : 2600

1% 26

lets say half of them are men: 13

of those about a third in a reasonable age bracket: 4

of those 4, how many do you think are A) single, B) religiously and politicaly compatable C) share at least some common interests, D) are hetero-romanic

Im thinking my ace dating pool is non exsistant, so I either stay single, go long distance, or date a allosexual. No, I cant move to a city

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, little_dragon said:

People in these communities experience a period of introspection and self-discovery, wherein they turn inwards to understand themselves, and reach outwards to understand others. It makes sense that people who go through this period of experience would have a stronger sense of self and a better understanding of others, and are thus more capable of forming stronger relationships. And even outside that, have a better understanding of what they want out of a relationship, often before they seriously commit to anyone.

Heteronormative people are not encouraged to do this.
And so, it makes sense that relationship problems are more prevalent in heteronormative circles

Are there actual statistics from well-designed studies that define the terms you're using ("stronger," "relationship problems") and support the assertions you're making here? Otherwise, I'm uncomfortable with all of these generalizations.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
little_dragon
15 minutes ago, wonk said:

Are there actual statistics from well-designed studies that define the terms you're using ("stronger," "relationship problems") and support the assertions you're making here? Otherwise, I'm uncomfortable with all of these generalizations.  

I straight up said in my original post that this opinion is based on what I have witnessed in my life time. I apologize that I had to use words to describe my opinion and my observations, I'm not sure what you expect me to use in place of "stronger," "relationship," or "problems," but if those words make you uncomfortable, I will strive to find better ones next time.

I, on the other hand, am uncomfortable with your use of the words "actual," "well-designed" and "generalizations."
Everyone has the freedom to speculation, which is all I was doing, and is how all research begins. If you are interested in researching potential existing studies on the topic I presented, or even undertaking one yourself (provided you have the means to do so) then I suggest you do that instead of belittling my speculations.

My post was about defending heteronormativity and defending why there appear to be more problems between heteronormative couples than non-normative couples without pointing the finger at heteronormativity itself, which is what the creator of this thread appeared to me to be doing. Please do not take my words out of context, I was not insulting heteronormativity, which is what it feels like you think I was doing.

Perhaps I should have written "may be" instead of "are," and I apologize if I slipped up with that, I am usually more careful about using absolute language like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, little_dragon said:

I, on the other hand, am uncomfortable with your use of the words "actual," "well-designed" and "generalizations."
Everyone has the freedom to speculation, which is all I was doing, and is how all research begins. If you are interested in researching potential existing studies on the topic I presented, or even undertaking one yourself (provided you have the means to do so) then I suggest you do that instead of belittling my speculations.

I wasn't intending to belittle you, so I'm sorry if that was the effect. Mutual misunderstanding it sounds like. I'll clarify below, but I'm not asking for labor on your part.

 

What I meant by "actual": existing. "well-designed": in terms of the way they're set up--that wasn't a judgment on you but a clarification of what kind of study I meant. Suitably large sample size, replicatible, that kind of thing. I'm not sure why "generalizations" made you uncomfortable, but if there's another word that works better, I'm happy to use it. I simply meant that I am uncomfortable with taking anecdotal evidence--that is, what either of us has witnessed--and applying it to such large groups as a grouping of non-heteronormative people.

 

In terms of  "stronger" and "relationship problems," I just genuinely don't understand what you meant there. For example, when you say "stronger," do you mean longer lasting? More intimate? Happier? All of them? When you say "relationship problems," do you mean "dissolutions," dissatisfaction generally? I want to look the studies up myself, and I can't do so if I don't know what you mean. I realize now that part wasn't clear, and that's my fault.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...