Jump to content

Problems with positivity on Aven


brbdogsonfire

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, brbdogsonfire said:

You claim to have been arguing based on facts previously, and now when someone points out how your facts are wrong you decide to keep using the same argument. You are simply arguing in bad faith.

Yes okay, you win.

 

Happy now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The class of people who are "sexual" includes (not an exhaustive list):

  • celibate by choice
  • celibate, not by choice
  • periodic abstinence (for example, the postpartum taboo)
  • people with medical issues that prevent sexual activity
  • people who have sex for money
  • people who have sex just for fun
  • people who have sex for survival (food, medicine, housing)
  • people who have sex just for reproduction
  • people who have sex to satisfy cultural or religious obligations
  • people who have sex to appease abusive partners
  • people who use sex abusively
  • people who have sexual addictions

Those categories are larger than many of us would like to admit. One of my hats includes HIV testing and prevention, so I provide services with people who do some of the above. The first step in that interaction is always to ask, "Why are you concerned? Why do you feel that you're at risk?" And the protocol is to recommend prevention strategies that fit the client's needs and behavior. Assuming that a client is doing sex as part of a romantic pair bond is a luxury I can't afford. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. I have to ask rather than assume.

 

So yes, assuming that a romantic pair bond mediated by sex is endgame for sexual people is projecting a personal bias. It's not for me, and it's not for a fair number of my peers.

 

10 minutes ago, SithEmpress said:

I disagree with that comparison. I understand the difference in sexuality aspect, but we'd have to go with the split attraction model to assume both were bi-romantic to be that interested in each other. In which case it's slightly easier, but misleading to go with purely the sexuality labels. So if you wanted to say a bi-romantic straight person and a bi-romantic gay person then yes, I'd say your comparison was more accurate. 

I know a small but significant number of gay men whose primary emotional relationships are with women, and are very happy having that kind of marriage of convenience and companionship. Since it's only been five years since we could get the same kinds of social support for our long-term relationships, I think it's a lot more common among LGBTQ circles for one's primary emotional relationship to not be a boyfriend or spouse. And a significant number reject monogamy to different degrees. It's another reason why I find the insistence that I need some form of sexual monogamy to be healthy and happy to be short-sighted, the legal and cultural support for that just wasn't there, and still isn't in many areas.

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

Well, 99pc of people are sexual. I think that covers 'almost universal', don't you?

Yeah that's not going to tell you what people's relationship to sex is. There are people who can't or don't want to have sex because it's triggering for a variety of reasons, disabilities affecting libido/how you experience sex and whether it's comfortable, and sexual people can also be sex averse. Some people also choose to be celibate suggesting that at most sex is a want, not a need for them, and people's religious and spiritual beliefs may also affect their sex life.

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

Yeah that's not going to tell you what people's relationship to sex is. There are people who can't or don't want to have sex because it's triggering for a variety of reasons, disabilities affecting libido/how you experience sex and whether it's comfortable, and sexual people can also be sex averse. Some people also choose to be celibate suggesting that at most sex is a want, not a need for them, and people's religious and spiritual beliefs may also affect their sex life.

Okay, 2pc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic
40 minutes ago, Expedition said:

In fact, there's no reason to think that an asexual/sexual relationship is any more likely to work than a straight/gay relationship.

I read up on these. I read that the first year is the hardest. So, I told myself to do that -- to get through that -- that the evidence is the adjustment is the hardest part.
 

But I'm skeptical that this is true. The simple truth is we lack stats. A straight/gay relationship implies living with a partner attracted to others -- but not you -- and that certainly seems harder to me. I welcome counterpoints.

 

(On the other hand, if my partner were gay, that would -- ironically -- be something I could more easily "solve". But that's an idiosyncracy particular to me.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KiraS said:

With all due respect, that's not the dominant message that's being communicated here. 

Could be - I think different people can read the same thread and get different impressions - each honestly believing that they are unbiased. Most of us are not good writers, so our words can be interpreted differently depending on the readers personal experience. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief

@KiraS your comment on different communities' complicated experiences with sex is so informative! I relate to having a complicated relationship with it, due to early sexual trauma, sensory processing issues including touch, gender dysphoria and other things. When I got into relationships with cis men I was very sexual but not in a good place mentally(I'd kinda dismissed my understanding of myself as asexual, which I went back on later, and wasn't out as LGBT+ at all to myself or others).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

Well, in my own opinion, speaking for myself - it's this type of thing that has robbed me of the sexuality that I had, that I could have had. That I still might have. If it's a crime to deny someone their sexuality it's also a crime to rob someone of their own sexuality just because it doesn't conform to the 'norm'. Just because you think that your needs as the more sexual person come first. 

My feeling is that in general in relationships, if someone is unhappy they can leave - with their only obligation being legal stuff like child support.   I don't think it matters why they are unhappy, because that leads to all sorts of unanswerable questions of who's needs are more important.  Also, if one person is unhappy, the other probably is as well, even if they don't know why. 

 

I don't think norm should matter at all. Just compatibility. 

 

I don't know what you mean by "rob someone of their sexuality".   (not disagreeeing, just don't know how to interpret) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Expedition said:

I've honestly only seen asexuals find the split attraction model resonate with their experiences. For sexuals, or seems more like occasionally we fancy someone we don't like, or get romantically attracted to someone we don't fancy, but it's rare and not frequent enough to call any kind of orientation. So I'm sticking with the gay/straight analogy. 

And I will thus claim it's inaccurate. Asexuals may be the only ones who use the model, but it may apply to those who don't use it. (I am going to say I don't know what you mean by "like" and "fancy" here as both are used synonymously for both "sexually attracted to" and "romantically attracted to", but whatever.) Straight means heterosexual which implies heteroromantic. If you're romantically interested in someone of the same sex/gender, then the label would not be accurate. Therefore, a heterosexual heteroromantic individual would NOT have the same attraction to a member of the same sex as a heteroromantic asexual does to members of the opposite sex, and your comparison fails. 

 

Your comparison would only work for an aroace individual, and they do not tend to be in mixed relationships.

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

Your comparison would only work for an aroace individual, and they do not tend to be in mixed relationships.

I can think of 3 women in here (myself being one) who are married to an aro/ace 🤔.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Traveler40 said:

I can think of 3 women in here (myself being one) who is married to an aro/ace 🤔.

All the same, he and I were talking about cases that weren't likely but possible. Neither said a gay/straight couple couldn't and would never work. I was pointed out that his gay/straight comparison only works for an aroace person since "straight" and "gay" imply same-orientation individuals. 

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

And I will thus claim it's inaccurate. Asexuals may be the only ones who use the model, but it may apply to those who don't use it. (I am going to say I don't know what you mean by "like" and "fancy" here as both are used synonymously for both "sexually attracted to" and "romantically attracted to", but whatever.) Straight means heterosexual which implies heteroromantic. If you're romantically interested in someone of the same sex/gender, then the label would not be accurate. Therefore, a heterosexual heteroromantic individual would NOT have the same attraction to a member of the same sex as a heteroromantic asexual does to members of the opposite sex, and your comparison fails. 

 

Your comparison would only work for an aroace individual, and they do not tend to be in mixed relationships.

I think that comes down to some sexuals not really getting how a romantic relationship differs from friendship...  so pairs gay/straight with ace/sexual. Which, doesn't work. A lot of the more unhappy sexual partners though seem to have partners that veer towards more aro than just ace - avoiding all romantic and physical affection, not just sexual acts. Which can happen from the mixed orientation issue, or just because the ace isn't that into affection in general. Which, then things start to feel very friend like for the sexual and then I guess that comparison can start to feel right. 

 

But, probably the majority of sexual/asexual relationships won't work out. It takes a rare combo from both to make it work. Most people prefer sex to be in their lives and if it's not, aren't interested. And that's totally OK. Some sexuals are OK without sex. Some are OK with compromise sex. But, for the most part, both people need to desire each other for it to be a successful relationship. But, in most cases, you also need to want babies for it to be a successful relationship. Majority doesn't mean impossible, just means not as likely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mountain House
4 hours ago, KiraS said:

doing sex as part of a romantic pair bond is a luxury I can't afford

I see, so then it doesn't exist.  I see it isn't represented in your list; well, perhaps in the (not an exhaustive list).  It seems that since this sexual nature is a main point of your thesis it probably should have been.  Is it projecting a personal bias if it is something you cannot afford?

 

4 hours ago, KiraS said:

Those categories are larger than many of us would like to admit.

Is that true?  based on what?  I recognize each and yet have never attempted to quantify any.

 

4 hours ago, KiraS said:

So yes, assuming that a romantic pair bond mediated by sex is endgame for sexual people is projecting a personal bias.

And who is doing that?  Not I.  This bit of your post seems to be directed at me as you and I are the two main participants discussing the nature of "sexual".  Most other posts are focusing on the asexual/sexual relationship dynamic.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I apologize if I am out of context.  But to reiterate:

 

8 hours ago, KiraS said:

I seriously question how much sex is a "need"

  I said:

7 hours ago, Mountain House said:

Without getting too deep into the science of the whole thing, it is a context sensitive attachment mechanism.  To those that have this need, it is a need.

And yes, it is pair bonding.

 

But maybe if I follow through with your context:

  

8 hours ago, KiraS said:

given how often that rhetoric ends up coercing people into sex that's unhealthy for us.

I hear you.  I even understand you taking a questioning stance on this idea of "need".  In fact, I would argue alongside you that a person proclaiming "need" and using this as a coercion tool does not have the "need".  Coerced sex would not work for me.  Quite the opposite in fact.  Perhaps this is a truth filter?

 

My only point is that there exists science that shows that there is a fraction of humanity for which the "need" is a real wired in attachment mechanism.  I am one.  The "need" is as real as asexuality.

 

As an exercise I would find it interesting to hear from you a probability:

Given that there are people that identify as sexual, come to this sub-forum to discuss/ask for advice/support about maintaining a relationship with an asexual person:

How many would be from the group that literally feel bond strength via the "need" -vs- all of those from all of your identified groups?

 

I would wager most identified sexuals that participate here worry about their pair bond with their asexual. They are not worried about getting laid.  A behavior that might indicate that the "need" is real in some of us.

 

I worry that the palette from which you paint sexuals does not have a color for me.

 

Yes, the majority of people on the earth expect sex in relationships.  Yes, some are ne'er-do-wells and thugs.  Some of use care very very deeply for our partners and the relationship we have with our partners and end up here at odds with our wiring and our situation.  We seek advice, stories that meet our definition of success, support all in a fight to keep our relationship.  We love our partners.

 

Oh, and some come here from the other side of this equation, the asexual that recognizes the agony that their partner feels.  Perhaps when they visit these halls they will learn something about the "need" that may resonate in their relationship and this new information may help them find a path to their success.

 

This incompatibility is actually much tougher than @SithEmpress explained because it isn't an incompatibility of belief, this resides midbrain in how we are wired.

 

(End this wall of text with good news!  We probably can't rewire ourselves but this part of us is context sensitive and context is something we can work on!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
AceMissBehaving

I’m asexual, and married to a guy who is sexual. We’ve been together over 17 years now, and still happy together. I did not know I was ace when got married, and the lack of sex was a huge problem in the beginning, and a big contributor to issues for both of us in terms of mental health. My situation was a little unusual in that we not only got married, but I moved to another country to be with him, so there was extra pressure to make things work, and I can say now that I’m glad we stuck it out to get where we are at today.

 

Here’s where I flip flop

 

I really want people who are in mixed relationships to feel like there is some hope, because there is. It’s not easy, but it can work for some, and people can be incredibly happy together. Especially people who have long term relationships and only come to realize they are asexual once that life has been forged. 

 

The problem I have is it seems very often that the idea of mixed relationships, and sexual compromise, is  pushed like it’s not only simple, but the natural choice for romantic asexuals, and I think that’s potentially problematic. 
 

The happy sound bites of “and some asexuals will have sex to please their partner” doesn’t take into account the emotional toll that can take on people, or the complexities of how that can color various parts of both the sexual, and asexual person’s lives.

 

This might just be the things I’ve read, but it seems as a community we spend more time talking about how we can make mixed relationships work than we do talking about what we can do as a community to make asexual dating easier.

 

I would not date anyone else at this point who wasn’t also asexual. If I take on another partner it will only be if I can find another asexual person that I click with.

 

I have positivity for couples navigating mixed relationships, but also want to find ways to focus on making asexual dating more accessible, so that can be the primary dialogue for romantic aces trying to find love.


—————————————————

 

tldr: I have positivity for days that mixed relationships can work, but I also think we need to work together to make asexual dating more accessible instead of focusing on mixed relationships as the primary route to partnership.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whore*of*Mensa
5 hours ago, Serran said:

But, for the most part, both people need to desire each other for it to be a successful relationship. But, in most cases, you also need to want babies for it to be a successful relationship. Majority doesn't mean impossible, just means not as likely. 

What you say is reasonable. Not attacking your comment personally, it's just a balanced summary of what others are saying. I'm just questioning why it needs to be said at all, on this particular thread. 

 

The thread isn't about the majority. I believe what the OP is trying to do, is to create space for people to talk about the exceptions. @HonoraryJedi put this really well on page 1; I tried to quote but keep losing it. We are not all 'most people' .

 

You say, in most cases you also need to want babies for it to be a successful relationship. That's debatable, but OK - maybe. However, if you knew a couple who didn't want children and were happy with that decision, would you then spend all your time arguing with them that most people want babies therefore they should want babies? What would be the purpose of doing that? (some would also say that babies ruin a relationship, by the way, many couples divorce because of the stress of having kids, differences in child-rearing styles etc so that blanket statement is just another example of massive over-simplification).

 

Likewise, what is the purpose of coming onto this thread (not you personally, it's just the general gist of the comments) to effectively tell a couple who are planning a wedding that their relationship is doomed to failure, that they can't possibly be happy because 'most people aren't' in their situation? The problems with mixed relationships are fully discussed on here, in thread after thread. Why are people so threatened by a thread that talks about a success story? Why  not allow space for some different narratives; some new experiences?

 

It's as if some of the people on here just can't deal with the fact that there's a thread which isn't about them, and doesn't reflect their experiences

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whore*of*Mensa
3 hours ago, Mountain House said:

I worry that the palette from which you paint sexuals does not have a color for me.

It seems like you just feel threatened that KiraS is talking about experiences that aren't your own. But don't you think there should be space to talk about a whole range of experiences? Allowing that to happen doesn't invalidate your experience at all, it's just saying that not everybody is the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whore*of*Mensa
8 hours ago, uhtred said:

My feeling is that in general in relationships, if someone is unhappy they can leave - with their only obligation being legal stuff like child support.   I don't think it matters why they are unhappy, because that leads to all sorts of unanswerable questions of who's needs are more important.  Also, if one person is unhappy, the other probably is as well, even if they don't know why. 

 

I don't think norm should matter at all. Just compatibility. 

 

I don't know what you mean by "rob someone of their sexuality".   (not disagreeeing, just don't know how to interpret) 

Well, you were talking about cases where people threaten to leave if they don't get sex. My reaction to this was that it's this type of thing which can turn someone from sex favourable to sex repulsed. It's also sexual abuse. At no point did I say people can't leave - if someone's at the point of getting sex by threatening their partner then they most definitely need to leave. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whore*of*Mensa
11 minutes ago, Expedition said:

Oh come on. Refusing to be in a relationship because there's no sexual element isn't sexual abuse. 

I'm not getting dragged into that debate. You may have deliberately misunderstood what I said or you may genuinely not understand it; either way the discussion is not going to be a good use of my time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic
1 hour ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

It seems like you just feel threatened that KiraS is talking about experiences that aren't your own. But don't you think there should be space to talk about a whole range of experiences? Allowing that to happen doesn't invalidate your experience at all, it's just saying that not everybody is the same. 

Sometimes it feels like KiraS is grinding several axes at once, all interrelated with a sense of "cultural hegemony" (framed by their sense of what and who the "ruling class" is and oppression consists of).

"Sex as an emotional need" (and not listing it) seems to connected to their concerns of cultural hegemony (i.e. that this is the hegemonic presumption, and isn't always true).

But it's strange to seemingly dispute or dismiss it? To take issue with it being "too dominant" in conversation? As a broad issue, it ramifies in other ways: observing that need (emotional, pain-bonding) is part of why (I hope, I think?) we see broad support for issues like marriage equality. (Because we see "homosexuality" as strongly connected to the issue of same-sex love & pair-bonding, and we support people having a right to those things.)

I mean, regarding all the ax grinding, this little thing popped out at me as weird,

 

10 hours ago, KiraS said:
  • periodic abstinence (for example, the postpartum taboo)
  • people with medical issues that prevent sexual activity

… why throw in a postpartum "taboo" here? Postpartum abstinence is for medical reasons, it's a time for healing that's generally recommended clinically (i.e. it falls under the next category). I think six weeks was more than necessary for myself, but it really depends on the amount of damage.

Using a loaded word like "taboo" communicates to me that there's a general sense of grievance regarding cultural mores and sex, and that's coloring just about everything that's communicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

What you say is reasonable. Not attacking your comment personally, it's just a balanced summary of what others are saying. I'm just questioning why it needs to be said at all, on this particular thread. 

 

The thread isn't about the majority. I believe what the OP is trying to do, is to create space for people to talk about the exceptions. @HonoraryJedi put this really well on page 1; I tried to quote but keep losing it. We are not all 'most people' .

 

You say, in most cases you also need to want babies for it to be a successful relationship. That's debatable, but OK - maybe. However, if you knew a couple who didn't want children and were happy with that decision, would you then spend all your time arguing with them that most people want babies therefore they should want babies? What would be the purpose of doing that? (some would also say that babies ruin a relationship, by the way, many couples divorce because of the stress of having kids, differences in child-rearing styles etc so that blanket statement is just another example of massive over-simplification).

 

Likewise, what is the purpose of coming onto this thread (not you personally, it's just the general gist of the comments) to effectively tell a couple who are planning a wedding that their relationship is doomed to failure, that they can't possibly be happy because 'most people aren't' in their situation? The problems with mixed relationships are fully discussed on here, in thread after thread. Why are people so threatened by a thread that talks about a success story? Why  not allow space for some different narratives; some new experiences?

 

It's as if some of the people on here just can't deal with the fact that there's a thread which isn't about them, and doesn't reflect their experiences

 

You do realize this thread is the problem with positivity, not the thread asking for positivity, right ? I'm commenting on the debate between Sith and Expedition about the sexual/asexual mix being comparable to gay/straight. It isn't. But, it is true it is unlikely to work as a mix, just not in anyway comparable to other mixed orientations. Meaning, both have a point even though I disagree with Expeditions comparison. In the positivity thread I listed users who used to be around who were making relationships work and suggested looking up their own posts for positivity.... even listing those who make celibacy work. You seem to be getting confused between brbdogsonfires thread and the other one. 

 

And it's not really debatable that child-free is a major dealbreaker for most people (Gallup's polls put us at 6% in the U.S.). It's up there with no sex in must reveal early. I am child-free, as is my wife. We are both aware of how much of a dealbreaker that is to people. And I have absolutely no problem with people telling me that I need to tell someone I date because I wont be able to make it work with most since kids is a need to most people. I get that it is. And I cant provide it. So I had to find someone who was happy without them and also didn't want them. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whore*of*Mensa
14 minutes ago, Serran said:

You do realize this thread is the problem with positivity, not the thread asking for positivity, right ?

This thread wasn't asking for a debate about positivity. 

 

The OP said:

'When someone is discussing things that have worked for them we should promote these things even if they wouldn't work for us. 

If you find yourself upset at a 'positive' post about a mixed relationship you should consider if your trying to force it around your values or if your actually considering the people making that decision'

 

Cue Expedition arguing for about 3 pages in a way which demonstrated the exact issue that brbdogsonfire was making a statement about. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whore*of*Mensa
16 minutes ago, Serran said:

And it's not really debatable that child-free is a major dealbreaker for most people (Gallup's polls put us at 6% in the U.S.). It's up there with no sex in must reveal early. I am child-free, as is my wife. We are both aware of how much of a dealbreaker that is to people. And I have absolutely no problem with people telling me that I need to tell someone I date because I wont be able to make it work with most since kids is a need to most people. I get that it is. And I cant provide it. So I had to find someone who was happy without them and also didn't want them. 

 

Lots of people find they can't have kids. Some choose not to have kids because of the environment. Some would give up having kids to be with someone they love. It's so much more complex than that. 

 

You will find that more than 6% of people don't have kids in their lifetime. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

I'm not getting dragged into that debate. You may have deliberately misunderstood what I said or you may genuinely not understand it; either way the discussion is not going to be a good use of my time. 

Okay, no debate, but just so I know your position: in your mind, choosing to end a relationship because of lack of sex constitutes sexual abuse? If not, I'm genuinely at a loss to understand what ...

 

Quote

you were talking about cases where people threaten to leave if they don't get sex. My reaction to this was that it's this type of thing which can turn someone from sex favourable to sex repulsed. It's also sexual abuse.

... means.

 

The logic of this is that every person, ever, who's done that, is a sexual abuser.

 

It's also hella asexual elitism, unless you're also saying that asexuals choosing to end a relationship because of sex are also sexual abusers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whore*of*Mensa

Leaving is not sexual abuse. Getting sex by threats is sexual abuse. That is, forcing someone who does not want to have sex with you, to have sex with you, using a threat. 

 

It's not asexual elitism to say that nobody should be forced into sex. That's just the socially accepted, moral and legal norm, you know, consent and all that. 

 

I have misunderstood the OP, anyway, as @Serran suggested - he was more annoyed about asexuals criticising the relationship! So it's ironic the main debate is coming from sexuals. 

 

I'm in the wrong sub-forum, and I'm off! Good day :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

Leaving is not sexual abuse. Getting sex by threats is sexual abuse. That is, forcing someone who does not want to have sex with you, to have sex with you, using a threat. 

Which nobody except you was countenancing as part of the discussion just to be clear, hence my confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whore*of*Mensa
3 minutes ago, Expedition said:

Which nobody except you was countenancing as part of the discussion just to be clear, hence my confusion.

uhtred said There are discussions of things where are on the very tricky boundary - like someone threatening to leave if they don't get sex.  That is a much trickier situation that outright abuse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

Lots of people find they can't have kids. Some choose not to have kids because of the environment. Some would give up having kids to be with someone they love. It's so much more complex than that. 

 

You will find that more than 6% of people don't have kids in their lifetime. 

6% of Americans are child-free - as in dont have and dont want them. Some want but cant have. Some want but choose not to have due to circumstances. But, for a person who doesnt want them like me... a partner that wants them is just out of the question, because if variables line up they will want to have them and need a co-parent and I'm not able to provide that. I mean, it's pretty much universally accepted that child-free is rare (in the U.S. and most other countries, Japan being a more rare case where it's more common due to culture preventing family and a life, it's one or the other). 

 

The OP of this thread is asking to not argue with couples. But, it also is suggesting reasoning for why people may do that. Then, users debated why people may do it. And I pointed out two users had a point, who were disagreeing with each other. All of the posts seem quite on topic. 

 

And... sexual partners section in a thread posted by a sexual partner has a lot of sexuals in it. Is that a surprise ? O.o 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

uhtred said There are discussions of things where are on the very tricky boundary - like someone threatening to leave if they don't get sex.  That is a much trickier situation that outright abuse. 

Well, used the word 'abuse', but only to point out that it wasn't abuse to say you couldn't continue in a sexless relationship, and you appeared to say that it was.

 

But whatever, I understand your meaning now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whore*of*Mensa
3 minutes ago, Serran said:

6% of Americans are child-free - as in dont have and dont want them. Some want but cant have. Some want but choose not to have due to circumstances. But, for a person who doesnt want them like me... a partner that wants them is just out of the question, because if variables line up they will want to have them and need a co-parent and I'm not able to provide that. I mean, it's pretty much universally accepted that child-free is rare (in the U.S. and most other countries, Japan being a more rare case where it's more common due to culture preventing family and a life, it's one or the other). 

 

The OP of this thread is asking to not argue with couples. But, it also is suggesting reasoning for why people may do that. Then, users debated why people may do it. And I pointed out two users had a point, who were disagreeing with each other. All of the posts seem quite on topic. 

 

And... sexual partners section in a thread posted by a sexual partner has a lot of sexuals in it. Is that a surprise ? O.o 

OK, well I have a child, did the whole thing (apart from the conception) completely on my own, although many many people told me that wouldn't work, wasn't natural blah blah blah so pretty much like most people on this sub-forum who want everything to fit into their own expectations and neat social norms. 

 

I am not surprised there are sexual partners on here, that's not what I said. The sexual partner chose to complain that asexuals tell him his relationship is wrong, and in response he got lots of sexuals saying mixed relationships won't work. Maybe he's fine with that and only doesn't like it when asexuals say it. I do not know and do not care. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...