Why does society conflate romance and sex?

[Rhyn Corinn]

Does anyone else find it strange how sex and romance are so closely associated with each other in our society?

 

I, myself, have never really understood the connection. I remember once when I was about thirteen, I was at a youth devotional at our church, and I was talking to a girl (who I happened to have a crush on) in a classroom with the door closed. Afterwards, when I was talking about it with my mom, she reacted in a way that really confused me. She didn't, like, freak out or anything, but she said something along the lines of, "I would prefer you not be in a closed room with someone, even though I know you're not having sex or anything..." 

 

And the thing is, I wasn't upset because I thought she didn't trust me; I was just confused as to why sex was even relevant in the first place. For me, it sounded about as strange as if she'd said something like, "I would prefer you not go to the bathroom by yourself, even though I know you're not going to drink the soap." Sure, I can see why drinking soap might not be such a good idea, but why on Earth would I ever do that? Why would that even be a thought that would come to your mind at all?

 

A few years later, it happened again when I had my mom read a story I'd written where some teenage characters had boyfriends/girlfriends, and she got really weird about it and started talking about how 'dating is the precursor to marriage/sex' and...I was just hopelessly confused. I was so confused I didn't even know how to explain how I was confused. All I knew was that my concept of romantic love was light years away from what she was talking about, and I had no idea how to communicate to her what I was feeling. (I wrote her a letter and described as best I could; it's weird to go back and read that letter now that I know I'm asexual and everything is so much clearer.)

 

I was also deeply bothered when learning about the four different Greek words for love. They had FOUR different words for different kinds of love, and yet they used the SAME word for romantic love as sexual love??? Yeah, for a while before I found the asexual community, I was pretty close to losing my mind.

 

Even today, though, I still find myself baffled at how these two concepts are blurred together by society. I guess maybe that's because I'm an Ace of Hearts and am practically obsessed with romance, while sex is one of the most boring subjects in the world to me. I mean, I've always understood they're connected in the sense that married couples have sex in order to have kids, but as far as sex/sexual attraction being a part of the relationship itself? Again, even though I now know mentally that most relationships work that way, I still don't understand it. I don't see the connection at all. (I don't want to seem as though I'm invalidating anyone who does view sex as an important part of their relationships, so please forgive me if it comes across that way. I'm not great at competently expressing myself without ending up ranting.)

 

So, I guess what I'm wondering is: has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone else find it strange that society conflates these two concepts as if they're the same thing? I guess this is mostly a question for romantic aces since we're the most likely to distinguish the two, but anyone's insight would be much appreciated.

 

And don't even get me STARTED on kissing! XD

[Rynn]

Yes, and also how the word 'intimacy' is used as a euphemism for sex. At first I thought 'oh huh, funny, the word intimacy has two completely unrelated meanings, that could be an awkward mix-up.'

 

But yeah, when I came out to a couple of friends as a romantic ace, they'd ask me 'but how would you have a romantic non-sexual relationship,' and all I knew to say was 'well it's just a romantic relationship minus the sex.' They couldn't understand that concept. How do I explain what a romantic relationship without sex is? It's too obvious. I don't understand what they don't understand about that. 🤔

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Laurann said:

I don't understand what they don't understand about that. 

"So... a friendship you mean?" -Them

 

>_<

[Rhyn Corinn]

29 minutes ago, Laurann said:

But yeah, when I came out to a couple of friends as a romantic ace, they'd ask me 'but how would you have a romantic non-sexual relationship,' and all I knew to say was 'well it's just a romantic relationship minus the sex.' They couldn't understand that concept. How do I explain what a romantic relationship without sex is? It's too obvious. I don't understand what they don't understand about that. 🤔

I know! It's like, regular people aren't asked to define romantic love, so why should anyone expect me to? 

[Ennis]

I don't get it either but I think we just have to accept that for most people out there sex and romance belong together.

 

44 minutes ago, United Pizza 149 said:

Does anyone else find it strange that society conflates these two concepts as if they're the same thing?

No, because it is the same thing for them.

[Guest]

OHHHH I know, blame hollywood and media!

[Guest]

Because its not just black and white. It has a lot of grey area to. Basically what @CBC said. 

 

Sex is just another form of affection as well.

[Expedition]

It's not created by 'the media', 'society', or whatever. (And if it was, the media, society, or whatever aren't abstractions. They're a bunch of people doing things). It's the other way round - the media, society, etc. are reflecting the concerns of people.

 

 

[Lord Jade Cross]

1 hour ago, CBC said:

I think that's a really good point and it makes me wonder why it's so difficult for some aces (definitely not all) to understand. At its most basic, it really is just that -- a form of pleasurable affection. Surely that's not difficult to grasp? And then by the very nature of the actions involved in sex, it's clearly an incredibly vulnerable form of "pleasurable affection". Vulnerability is emotionally loaded as hell, thus being comfortable with vulnerability requires trusting someone with those emotions. It's basically a no-brainer to me why it's considered the ultimate form of intimacy. It isn't just physical (but the part that is physical, like the emotional component, is intense). Or at least it isn't just physical for me, so that's why sex where the emotional/interpersonal connection isn't working right kinda feels like shit. Or at least lacking. It feels... sad and hollow.

Traitor ace to the rescue! Just kidding. Been watching old Batman movies

 

I think we need to remember that for as many sexual as there are, the idea that Sex = ultimate and closest form of affection as opposed to "Just" another form of affection has been, and still is heavily ingrained and beaten over the head of people.

 

And as you said, often one accompanies the other. But this particular distinction is not as heavily focused on as the Romance = sex or vice versa that we still get nowadays, making the distinction even more blurry.

 

And for many aces who cannot identify with wanting to shag, especially if there's romance involved, it's not all that hard to see how this can create an infinite loop of doubt when "I love you" does not equal "I want to fuck you" and "I want to fuck you" especially where casual sex is involved, does not mean "I love you"

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Low End Things]

53 minutes ago, CBC said:

it makes me wonder why it's so difficult for some aces (definitely not all) to understand. At its most basic, it really is just that -- a form of pleasurable affection.

Here's a hot take: I think many aces, especially those new to the identity, do understand it but choose to ignore that understanding to fit with the label. If you partake in any form of society and/or culture for any length of time, you'd have to actively block these messages out of your mind to not get them. I used to be like this for various reasons but once you learn to put yourself in others' shoes it's very hard to not "get it".

 

That, or there are just far more sex-repulsed aces than you'd think. But that doesn't seem accurate.

[Rhyn Corinn]

30 minutes ago, CBC said:

I think that's a really good point and it makes me wonder why it's so difficult for some aces (definitely not all) to understand. At its most basic, it really is just that -- a form of pleasurable affection. Surely that's not difficult to grasp? And then by the very nature of the actions involved in sex, it's clearly an incredibly vulnerable form of "pleasurable affection". Vulnerability is emotionally loaded as hell, thus being comfortable with vulnerability requires trusting someone with those emotions. It's basically a no-brainer to me why it's considered the ultimate form of intimacy. It isn't just physical (but the part that is physical, like the emotional component, is intense). Or at least it isn't just physical for me, so that's why sex where the emotional/interpersonal connection isn't working right kinda feels like shit. Or at least lacking. It feels... sad and hollow.

No, it's not difficult to grasp. While it doesn't come naturally to me as a way of expressing/feeling affection, I understand that, like anything else, different people express/feel affection in different ways. Like, for instance, how a lot of people really like the taste of eggs, whereas for me I can't even stand the smell. XD

 

I guess the main thing I don't get is why so many people don't seem to understand the concept of romantic feelings without sexual feelings at all. Like @Phoenix the II said, it's annoying when people think romance without sex is synonymous with just really strong friendship. (Not that I have anything against strong friendships; those are really great too and often don't get as much attention as they deserve!)

 

Sexual attraction/desire is not any more foreign to me than any other difference of opinion (again, like how some people like eggs and I don't). It's just difficult for me because I feel like the idea of romance without sex is significantly harder for a lot of people to understand than, say, wanting a fast food breakfast without eggs. It's not that I can't understand someone having different feelings than mine, I'm just frustrated with the assumption that 'if you want romance, you MUST also want sex.'

[Low End Things]

I think when someone has something fundamental about them that is different from everyone else around them, and said person wants to fit in with their peers, they're forced to learn about and analyze that specific thing over and over until they develop a deep understanding of it. And when you have such an understanding of said thing, tied to your personal experience, it seems innate and obvious to see it in your way. But in the process of understanding this thing, we forget that we delved into the topic because most people around us don't think about this thing at all, they just "feel" it intuitively and never have to stop and think about it. Better yet, that idea of not having to stop and think is reinforced by the rest of society so why would they ever need to think about it?

 

And yeah, it sucks because for us it makes perfect sense. But such is the world we live in. At least for now.

[Expedition]

How about this for an analogy for the 'romance without sex' thing.

 

Friendship without conversation. For most people, friendship includes conversations - sometimes deep, other times just fun, sometimes maintenance. Friendships aren't just about the conversation, and you could just about conceive of a friendship without conversation, somehow, kinda, but without it.... you'd feel the lack, wouldn't you? Would it still be a friendship? Or more like companionship?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CBC said:

I think that's a really good point and it makes me wonder why it's so difficult for some aces (definitely not all) to understand. At its most basic, it really is just that -- a form of pleasurable affection. Surely that's not difficult to grasp? And then by the very nature of the actions involved in sex, it's clearly an incredibly vulnerable form of "pleasurable affection". Vulnerability is emotionally loaded as hell, thus being comfortable with vulnerability requires trusting someone with those emotions. It's basically a no-brainer to me why it's considered the ultimate form of intimacy. It isn't just physical (but the part that is physical, like the emotional component, is intense). Or at least it isn't just physical for me, so that's why sex where the emotional/interpersonal connection isn't working right kinda feels like shit. Or at least lacking. It feels... sad and hollow.

I honestly do not know.... they get hugs, holding hands, kissing and cuddling but yet sex just ... yeah idk. I see sex as something very intimate and can hold a lot to what you showing to a person doesnt matter if its for your own pleasure of a one night stand or someone you love its still intimacy. 

It is the ultimate form of intimacy. You are literally baring yourself to another.

[Expedition]

Maybe to them, it's like waxing lyrical about the emotional closeness brought on by having a dump together, or something like that...

[Expedition]

... and then I can go off on one about how solo shitting is purely a cultural construct, Romans used to have shared bogs, 'some' people (about 3, but that's still 'some' so it's clearly a Thing) get off on rubbing poo over each other, etc. in order to demonstrate absolutely nothing is ever innate.

 

I think I'm becoming one with AVEN.

[Acing It]

Though I accept it exists and it's real, I never understood why a date would end up with sex and that would be a good thing. #ace moment I suppose 😄

[Expedition]

Just cue up a couple of episodes of Top Gear and pass me Lady Chatterley. I'll be fine.

[Guest]

You do your thing..

We do ours..

[Rynn]

19 minutes ago, CBC said:

That's the thing that I'll admit I find a little personally hurtful when some people go on about it being this base, animalistic thing to look down upon. At its most anti-sexual, that line of thinking comes across as "sexuals are gross" or like it makes someone stupid for caring about such things. How am I not supposed to find that painful to hear? I don't think I'm a gross person, I don't think I'm stupid. Wanting sex is no more gross or stupid to me than talking about my emotions or sharing something I love with another person -- which are actually some of the most deeply meaningful things I can do in terms of human interaction.

I don't know if that post was in reaction to my post about initially being confused by the conflation of intimacy and sex, but I'd like you to know that I don't think of sexual people as gross or animalistic at all, and never have. I just had not linked the two concepts right away.

It was more of a comment on my own dumb ace brain not understanding that link right away because it was too ace for that shit. Now I do understand the link, on a rational level, though still not on an intuitive level. Intimacy to me had always meant emotional intimacy, as in, sharing secrets and talking about emotions. I hadn't considered physical intimacy at all. The two concepts are just so different to me that I hadn't made that link right away. I did not mean to say anything negative about sexual people.

 

Same here:

2 hours ago, CBC said:

At its most basic, it really is just that -- a form of pleasurable affection. Surely that's not difficult to grasp?

Yes, on a rational level, not difficult to grasp. On an intuitive level, I can't grasp wanting to have sex at all. The activity itself doesn't make sense to me. If I wasn't repulsed (which I am, deeply, though only when it involves me), I'd still feel like I was playing a role I wasn't cut out for, pretending to be enjoying something that I don't enjoy, and I'd just rather be doing other stuff.

 

1 hour ago, CBC said:

Or there's the the "hot take" that some self-identified aces have something else going on that they aren't addressing, and don't connect to sexuality and understand its role in human connection precisely because that something else isn't being addressed.

Would you mind explaining that^

[Rhyn Corinn]

7 minutes ago, CBC said:

Yep.

 

That's the thing that I'll admit I find a little personally hurtful when some people go on about it being this base, animalistic thing to look down upon. At its most anti-sexual, that line of thinking comes across as "sexuals are gross" or like it makes someone stupid for caring about such things. How am I not supposed to find that painful to hear? I don't think I'm a gross person, I don't think I'm stupid. Wanting sex is no more gross or stupid to me than talking about my emotions or sharing something I love with another person -- which are actually some of the most deeply meaningful things I can do in terms of human interaction.

 

Plus I can do a very good job on my own telling myself that I'm a piece of shit and do so fairly regularly, so when I come across statements like that, they don't help. I'm mature and rational enough to dismiss them, but there's still a strong sense of... maybe just don't spout off about thing you don't understand and make assumptions about people based on what are actually important and not at all shallow parts of who they are.

I wholeheartedly agree; it makes me angry when people (particularly other aces) look down on sexuals as if they're 'less pure' or something dumb like that. Especially because it reflects VERY poorly on the asexual community and encourages conflict instead of understanding. I guess there are probably some asexuals who are just misinformed, because had it not been for me listening in on a conversation between two of my siblings (both heterosexual) a few years ago, I probably wouldn't have realized how special and important sex is to most people, simply because it's not something I inherently understand. Exactly why it's a bad idea to make assumptions about people in any scenario when you don't fully understand.

 

Plus, my sister (who is also basically my best friend) is 100% heterosexual and, from discussions we've had about these subjects, I can tell there's nothing shallow about her feelings. Sure, like @Laurann said, I'll never understand it on an intuitive level, but that doesn't mean I can't understand it on a rational level and accept her for who she is, just like she accepts me for who I am.

[Rhyn Corinn]

2 minutes ago, CBC said:

^^ I'd 'like' that post multiple times if I could. Thank you.

You're welcome!

[Rhyn Corinn]

2 minutes ago, CBC said:

And perhaps it sounds weird, but to me there's actually something very 'pure' about sex. Not in a moralistic way. In an emotionally and physically intimate human experience way.

No, doesn't sound weird at all. While I don't have the desire myself, I completely agree.

[BeakLove]

3 hours ago, United Pizza 149 said:

guess the main thing I don't get is why so many people don't seem to understand the concept of romantic feelings without sexual feelings at all. Like @Phoenix the II said, it's annoying when people think romance without sex is synonymous with just really strong friendship. (Not that I have anything against strong friendships; those are really great too and often don't get as much attention as they deserve!)

It would help if there was a coherent concept of "romantic attraction" ever advanced. But your question is fair so I'll take a crack at it.

 

Many people have mentioned the word "intimacy", and I think that is the nub of it. But, of course, there are many ways in which you can be intimate with someone, so I suppose from an asexual point of view it bears asking why such undue precedence seems to be given the sex. I think the best way to think about it is to first specify what intimacy really is: it's a search for connection. In a romantic partner, we seek out a person with whom we can maximise that connection, that is have maximal intimacy. For example, we seek out someone with whom we can have large social intimacy, quite literally this person becomes your family, the closest possible relation. We wish to have intellectually and emotional intimacy, to be able to share secrets and thoughts freely and unguarded. We wish to have romantic intimacy through gestures and a commitment to a shared future. And yes, we also wish to have physical intimacy, to share touch and affection and to share one space. 

 

In a sense, to be truly intimate is to stand naked in front of someone; not just physically, but with one's mind and soul too, and have them accept you, and you them. In reality, of course, no one is completely intimate with anyone else. We all have our hang ups, our insecurities, and our boundaries.

 

But each boundary you place diminishes the depth and breadth that your relationship can have. If you place a boundary like not having any kind of sexual relationship with someone, you are chopping out a large well of potential intimacy. And you cannot just "top it up" in other areas, anymore than great sex can make up for having nothing in common or a lack of commitment. Indeed, a lack of physical intimacy probably will close doors to intimacy in other areas. All these things spill into each other. Great sex can lead to great conversations can lead to wanting to introduce someone to family and friends, and so on. Sex is a very useful shortcut to unlocking the possibility of further connection, because it feels good, it's easy, and it's inherently vulnerable.

 

Does all this mean it's impossible to have a strong connection to someone for whom you have no sexual interest? No. People obviously have friends. But we expect far less from friends. In a romantic context, where we are seeking out someone with whom we can share the most intimacy, for the vast majority of people who do have sexual feelings, it is hard to feel like you're really connected if one of the big ways in which trust, vulnerability, and intimacy can be expressed is closed off by the other person. No matter how much someone may say "it's not you, it's me", one is still going to feel a little rejected. Like they're not good enough. That there is something the other person is keeping from them. Romance is an all-encompassing, possessive, fantastical force. It is quite literally a total and all-consuming positive delusion about another person. It is a wish for enmeshment with them, for oneness. Sex is a representation of same. There is not really a non-sexual equivalent of lustfully entwining yourself with someone. 

 

Personally, I think romantic feelings do have some kind of physical or sexual component underlying them. My experience reading about asexual romantics here on AVEN tells me that often their preference is gendered (which means on some level they're responding to the sex characteristics of their beloved), and they describe their romantic feelings in terms of "sensual" activities: cuddling, touching, caressing, making out, bathing naked, kissing, etc. To me it reads like a sexual-lite. A distaste for literal genital interaction to be sure, but still being driven by underlying erotic component. There's my two cents!

[Lord Jade Cross]

I can understand, at least intellectually, a fee of the things bring said. But I'm afraid that the moment physical interaction is on the equation, out goes anything I could personally comprehend. 

[Lord Jade Cross]

Suppose for a moment that it didn't. That I could say something like, I don't care for relationshisps but I want sex, how would the dynamic change?

[Rhyn Corinn]

3 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Personally, I think romantic feelings do have some kind of physical or sexual component underlying them. My experience reading about asexual romantics here on AVEN tells me that often their preference is gendered (which means on some level they're responding to the sex characteristics of their beloved), and they describe their romantic feelings in terms of "sensual" activities: cuddling, touching, caressing, making out, bathing naked, kissing, etc. To me it reads like a sexual-lite. A distaste for literal genital interaction to be sure, but still being driven by underlying erotic component.

I can't speak for all romantic aces, but as for me personally...ah, I'd say it fits me maybe 50%?

 

Again, I'm describing exclusively my own experience, so I may be the unusual one here. I am heteroromantic, so the gender preference part is true. I honestly can't say whether that's physical, emotional, or anything else, but it is accurate. 

 

As for 'sensual' activities, well...that's where it gets a little complicated. If we're assuming the word sensual means, in this case, any kind of physical affection, I can definitely relate to some of that. (Also this is mostly theoretical since I've never actually been in a relationship before.) Cuddling, for sure, makes sense to me. The one time my crush hugged me, about a year ago, was probably one of the happiest three seconds of my life.  

 

Kissing is kind of a weird one for me; until last April, I apparently didn't even know what kissing was. I know everyone will probably think I'm ridiculous for thinking this, but until then I'd always thought most kissing was just...literally touching lips. My sister (again, she is my source of info) had to explain to me that kissing involves moving your lips too, and honestly...I don't really get it. I understand it's what most people like, but to me it just doesn't click. To be clear, I guess I knew that 'making out' involved more than just touching lips, but that kind of kissing never made sense to me either, and I just assumed that 'regular' kissing was different. Guess not. The idea of kissing by simply touching lips for, like, no longer than three seconds, is still of interest to me, but I think I'm only interested in a completely non-physical way. Like, I don't see myself getting any pleasure from the sensation itself, but I like the idea because to me it represents a symbol of romantic affection, similar to how things like handshakes or fist bumps etc. symbolize friendship. It would likely be something I wouldn't be at all interested in carrying on longer than a brief moment, and probably would be exclusive to special 'romantic' moments, and thus wouldn't be a regular activity. (Though again, as I have never been in a relationship, a lot of this is speculation.)

 

I think the main way my experience differs from what you described is that I wouldn't consider my own romantic feelings to be 'erotic,' simply because the concept of romance is not at all a turn on for me. So much so, in fact, that I have actually been able to stop/reverse arousal by thinking about my feelings for my crush. Now, this doesn't at all mean I'm not interested in romance as it's very much the opposite. It's just that that interest, while very significant in my mind, is not connected with arousal. (And I do still experience arousal, just not in regards to romantic feelings.)

 

What does all this mean? I honestly don't know, but that's the way my brain works apparently. I don't know whether or not my experiences are like or unlike those of other romantic aces, though I'd be interested to know what everyone else thinks. Am I unusual?

[Lord Jade Cross]

3 hours ago, CBC said:

(but definitely not necessarily).

How come?

[Lord Jade Cross]

8 minutes ago, CBC said:

Well all you said in your hypothetical was "I don't care for relationships", but you didn't say why. If it was because you couldn't feel interested in anyone romantically but still wanted sex, you'd be aro but not ace. If it was because you didn't want to be partnered up for pretty much any reason imaginable, even though you still developed romantic feelings for others, then you'd just be a romantic and sexual person who preferred to be single.

Fair enough

[Rynn]

 

14 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Personally, I think romantic feelings do have some kind of physical or sexual component underlying them. My experience reading about asexual romantics here on AVEN tells me that often their preference is gendered (which means on some level they're responding to the sex characteristics of their beloved), and they describe their romantic feelings in terms of "sensual" activities: cuddling, touching, caressing, making out, bathing naked, kissing, etc. To me it reads like a sexual-lite. A distaste for literal genital interaction to be sure, but still being driven by underlying erotic component. There's my two cents!

Welp this is pretty much 100% off for me personally, though obviously I can't speak for other aces.

I want comfy, warm, cozy. The minute a partner were to feel anything erotic or sexual-lite about a non-sexual activity such as cuddling, I'd need it to stop. I'd feel a fundamental disconnect with them. The cuddling is meant to be a way to connect, and if we're on completely different wavelengths about what it means, we're not connecting, and it'd just feel wrong.

I'd honestly feel a little bit betrayed, like 'I though you understood that this is not how I worked, and now you're trying to sneak it back in? You're seeing me for something that I'm not, asking me to play a role that I don't know how to play and that I don't want to play. I don't want this.'

 

Same with the kissing thing, not interested in that. Kissing is culturally constructed as 'the' way to express romantic affection. I've watched enough movies to buy into that on some level. I want romantic affection, so that's why in very, very rare cases (it's happened once in my lifetime), a chaste kiss as a means to express that affection sounds appealing to me. Once the affection is expressed however, I lose all interest in the actual act of kissing.

Again, back to feeling out of my depth, like 'I don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish. I'm supposed to do it only when I enjoy it, but I don't enjoy it, but I'm supposed to enjoy it. Should I pretend? Oh no what am I doing I'm a fraud. Why does this come naturally to people? Can we please just stop and go back to doing something I understand. This isn't me.'

 

 

14 hours ago, BeakLove said:

In a sense, to be truly intimate is to stand naked in front of someone; not just physically, but with one's mind and soul too, and have them accept you, and you them.

 

14 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Romance is an all-encompassing, possessive, fantastical force. It is quite literally a total and all-consuming positive delusion about another person. It is a wish for enmeshment with them, for oneness. Sex is a representation of same. There is not really a non-sexual equivalent of lustfully entwining yourself with someone. 

When sexual folks explain this kind of stuff it always feels a little bit like religious people explaining their relationship to God to me (as a lifelong atheist who just does not get it). As if you guys have your own vocabulary that I just cannot comprehend. One-ness with another person? Baring one's soul to them in lustful entwinement? I just.. what does that even mean? How would rubbing bits together accomplish any of that?

I don't doubt that you feel all of those emotions, don't get me wrong, I just can't understand it.

 

Sex, to me, would be the perfect opposite of intimacy (and that's not just because I'd probably have to dissociate to get through it). How could someone accept me for who I am if they wanted to have sex with me? Them wanting that from me is them seeing what they want to see in me, and not them seeing what I am. I'd feel ignored, steamrolled over, rejected, certainly not accepted.

 

(Also romance being all-encompassingly possessive sounds pretty scary to me. No thanks. People are individuals, they don't become one, and you can't own anyone.)

 

14 hours ago, BeakLove said:

But each boundary you place diminishes the depth and breadth that your relationship can have. If you place a boundary like not having any kind of sexual relationship with someone, you are chopping out a large well of potential intimacy.

 

14 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Does all this mean it's impossible to have a strong connection to someone for whom you have no sexual interest? No. People obviously have friends. But we expect far less from friends.

You know you can't truly be one with another being, and share ultimate intimacy with them, until you regularly pick each other's noses. If you set a boundary on that, can you ever call the relationship between the two of you more than just friends? You can't make up for that lack of intimacy in other areas. How could you ever have a romantic relationship with someone that does not involve picking each other's noses? You know it's okay to call that just friends, that's a strong connection too, and we expect far less from them, so that's okay.

 

I'm sorry, there's a fundamental difference between us here. I don't expect you @BeakLove to really understand my perspective, just like I don't understand yours, but my romantic attraction to people is not just platonic. I am not less intimate with partners just because my type of intimacy is not your type of intimacy. I don't have to abide by sexual standards of intimacy.

And I am also not sexual-lite: just like you, except a little lesser.

We're just different.