Why does society conflate romance and sex?

[BeakLove]

16 hours ago, Laurann said:

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.

It's all right. Thanks for the reply. This is probably going to end up being a case of agree to disagree, but I'm happy to clarify my reasoning all the same.

 

Quote

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 think basically everyone would say they cuddle for the warmth and comfort, to be fair.

 

The class of activities I described in my post, that many asexuals reference, all involve some form of intimate body contact:

 

Quote

 cuddling, touching, caressing, making out, bathing naked, kissing, etc.

We are not talking here about a handshake, a peck on the cheek, or a brief, well-spaced hug. I think it would be fair to offer that most people, probably including yourself, would not participate in those actions with anyone. My point was many (romantic) asexuals would only participate in these with a partner, and for most, that partner needs to be a given sex and given aesthetic appeal. It seems clear to me that there has to be some level of physical attraction present to engage in an intimate physical activity; even if that physical attraction stems more from an emotional connection, than an immediate reaction to their aesthetics. 

 

I obviously can't tell you how to interpret any given activity. And I certainly accept some of these things can be done in explicitly non-sexual and non-romantic contexts. But in a romantic context, where the pull factor is a partner to whom there is a romantic connection I think the physical desires, even if never explicitly sexual, have a sexual predicate. I accept we won't agree on this one, but this is a good point to address your second point of objection over the vagueness of how sexuality relates to love. The notion of "romantic connection" certainly begs explanation here at the very least.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

I think part of the problem is that "romance" is poorly-defined. Both in general, and even on this place. It makes it hard to have a conversation about the difference between romance and sex when we probably don't agree on what romance is. I accept that "lustful entwinement" is not the most helpful phrase. For clarity then, I'll set out a specific definition that I hope avoids the esoteric tendency that often manifests on this place:

• Romantic feelings involve romanticising the object of affection: that is idealisation, and a positive delusion.
• Romantic feelings involve a desire for connection, enmeshment, to be "with" the beloved. 

I think these statements capture what people are getting at when they use superlatives and mystical, religious sounding phrases. But we shouldn't be surprised that it is described in the fantastical terms of a religion; it is, ultimately, a fantasy. But that doesn't make the feeling worthless or useless. The naive form of this type of attachment is a crush. A feeling of complete devotion based on nothing but one's own idea of what they wish the other to be. But imagine if, in full knowledge of another person, knowing and understanding and being frustrated by all of their flaws, you could still feel this way about them. You could still feel that in some way they are perfect and wonderful. Many "romances" are killed off when knowledge is acquired: you have little in common, they don't look like how you imagined, they have annoying habits, etc. That is what makes the "genuine" romance such a treasured thing. 

 

So what does sex have to do with the above? After all one can certainly have sex without feeling anything described. And there is nothing in my definition of romance which explicitly references sex. The simple answer is that we're socially conditioned to think of sex as important and essential for a romantic relationship and that "romance" is often just a thin wrapper around carnal sexual urges. That's not untrue, but it's not the whole picture either. The view I would take is to assess the definition again: the romantic desire is to know and be connected with the beloved as much as possible. I do, therefore, think romance is inherently greedy; it is a total lust for another person. That manifests as trying to find and maximise intimacy across all its domains: the social intimacy of being family, the commitment to a shared future, the emotional intimacy of shared minds and souls (read: "feelings"), and the physical intimacy of shared space and bodies. As I said in the last post, I do not think these intimacies are interchangeable and I do not think a lack of, say, commitment, can be "topped up" by having some notional level of extra physical intimacy, for example.

 

To chop out the prospect of any kind of sexual connection is to shut down a large portion of intimacy. How we use our bodies, how we occupy space, how we smell, how we feel, how we respond to touch, how we experience pleasure and pain is as much as part of "us" as a human as our secrets, hobbies, and opinions. There is no non-erotic equivalent to wrapping your legs around someone and getting as close as possible. Romance is not about sex, but it is inherently sexual. Not because sex is the most important part but because physically connecting with someone is as important as making a commitment to them, sharing a life, having an emotional connection, and being a family. I don't think you can slice any of the components about, personally. Exploring someone's body cannot be substituted with exploring their mind, and vice versa. This leads neatly enough onto your last objection, over my conception of intimacy. But first an aside to address one small node of agreement:

 

Quote

(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.)

I actually agree that romance as defined here is scary-sounding. But romance in reality often plays out in scary ways; we've all seen the stories of creepy stalkerish crushes. We've read the tales of people literally ending their own lives when they could not have their beloved. If it weren't such a potent force, we would not see so many lives shaped by heartbreak. Falling in love, in the abstract, is probably a terrible idea. Giving yourself away to someone, to give them the tools to break you is a horrifically stupid thing to do. Unless a very specific set of circumstances play out, it'll probably ultimately end with upset or embarrassment. But we don't get to choose who we fall for. We can only hope that we get the happy ending. And when the ending is happy... it is very happy indeed. 

 

Quote

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 understand your objection here. But it's important to note that I did not suggest that perfect intimacy is required for a relationship to be romantic. I stated that that is the romantic ideal, but we all fall some distance short of it. We do have boundaries and hang ups. But what I've attempted to do is define broad strokes of intimacy that I do think are required for something to be a lasting romantic connection. That is one that meets the definition I gave above. I think a romantic connection entails commitment, I think it entails emotional intimacy - the sharing of secrets, thoughts, the sharing of a life together e.g. living together, physical intimacy, and becoming socially connected (seen as "together"/family). I am making a value claim here. I am suggesting that romantic relationships require all of these properties to be present, and I am also saying that relationships which lack any of these elements are "lesser" than ones which possess them. I do not think that's an unfair suggestion. It is plainly "better" in some sense to have a relationship with someone where you have trust enough to share secrets than one where you don't. Likewise, it is plainly "better" to have a relationship where exploration of each other's bodies is allowed over a frigid one where touch is discouraged. I understand it's contentious on here to claim any relationships as better or worse than any others.

 

But I am plainly stating the truth here: there is a reason why the "significant other" is the most important relation.

 

I accept there's an inherent unfairness here. People's capacity for intimacy in their relationships is limited by their own inhibitions (and the availability of partners of course). But to restate the point, if you start cutting out large chunks of the ways in which humans can connect, you will get less intimate relationships. The point about friendships was to suggest that big portions of this notional intimacy space being missing is not as deleterious as it is for a romantic relationship, as the expectation is that a friend is a much less intimate relation, anyway. 

 

There is nothing wrong with preferring less intimate relationships, either. I think some of the people on here who talk about being aromantic or wanting a "QPR" are looking for a bit of companionship, but not the intertwining of lives or necessarily living situations, nor the sexual and emotional dependency. I can respect that totally. But when you're talking about a romantic relationship, if you strip out these things in what sense is it "romantic", anymore? 

 

Quote

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. 

If nothing else, it'd be interesting to hear how you define "platonic" and "romantic attraction". I suspect it does not align with my take on it. 

 

 

[AceMissBehaving]

8 hours ago, BeakLove said:

I am suggesting that romantic relationships require all of these properties to be present, and I am also saying that relationships which lack any of these elements are "lesser" than ones which possess them. I do not think that's an unfair suggestion. It is plainly "better" in some sense to have a relationship with someone where you have trust enough to share secrets than one where you don't. Likewise, it is plainly "better" to have a relationship where exploration of each other's bodies is allowed over a frigid one where touch is discouraged. I understand it's contentious on here to claim any relationships as better or worse than any others

have to disagree. I don’t believe there is a universal hierarchy of intimacy. Some people value the physical as a higher priority, some emotional, some what I’ve seen described as “spiritual” intimacy (which isn’t so much about religion but could also be a lining up of moral, ethical compasses and goals) different people weight different forms differently. No one is inherently better than the other.

 

For me, a highly physical relationship is less intimate than one you would describe as physically limited. This is because in order to be sexual, it has to pull intimacy out of the  “spiritual” bucket, as it requires me to sacrifice a part of who I am. Now it’s true that with a sexual partner, sticking to my physical limitations means pulling from their “spiritual” bucket, and denying a part of who they are

 

However, with an asexual partner there is equilibrium. The physical buckets and spiritual buckets are full, because we both want the same thing, and nothing is being taken from one to compromise on the other.

 

If I were to view some relationships better than others, it would be based on equilibrium, because that is where a unit can pull together and best honour each other’s person.

 

*side note. I do personally take offense at the use of the word frigid here. 

 

Quote

 

[Guest]

On 3/13/2020 at 12:40 AM, 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.

That... sounds pretty toxic...

 

You can't rely on one person to be your all... It's totally unreasonable to expect this of your partner too.

 

You need others, to stay in your own reality, "becoming one" sets you up for a fantasy world.

[Tomatonpine]

On 3/12/2020 at 9:14 PM, GatsbyGirl said:

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.

But is it though? It sounds a little restrictive to say that sex is the "ultimate form of intimacy". Super restrictive actually. The whole problem with coupling sex and romance together is that people will never truly learn that they don't always go together. They don't have to go together at all.

[Lord Jade Cross]

To me, relationships are toxic,not in the sense of the root ideal (theories always work to perfection); so much as their executions, which would introduce the concept of human error into the equation.

 

At least, comparatively, I hear 1 good relationship comment/remark for about every 10+ bad ones. Then there's the whole 50% of marriages ending up in divorces thing. Might be something that's inflated (after all statistics are easily manipulated) but it becomes so recurrent to hear all the negative remarks that it makes it seem like those statistics are accurate

 

 

[Guest]

The ultimate form of intimacy is playing anime jRPG's together on the couch and cuddling with cats on your lap.

[Philip027]

Quote

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".

Many people suck at this, though.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tomatonpine said:

But is it though? It sounds a little restrictive to say that sex is the "ultimate form of intimacy". Super restrictive actually. The whole problem with coupling sex and romance together is that people will never truly learn that they don't always go together. They don't have to go together at all.

Look for everyone it’s going to be different obviously but honestly being butt naked in front of someone and showing a side nobody really sees seems kinda ultimate. 
 

sex and romance don’t have to go together but people like it when they do cause they like the idea they not just animals and we have more meaning to our actions. 
 

a lot of people know they don’t always go together. 

[BeakLove]

7 hours ago, AceMissBehaving said:

have to disagree. I don’t believe there is a universal hierarchy of intimacy. Some people value the physical as a higher priority, some emotional, some what I’ve seen described as “spiritual” intimacy (which isn’t so much about religion but could also be a lining up of moral, ethical compasses and goals) different people weight different forms differently. No one is inherently better than the other.

Hi there. My argument isn't that physical intimacy is more important than all else. I think that all the ways in which you can be intimate with another person are important, especially in a romantic relationship where you are seeking the best possible (or most complete) connection you can have with another person. But I do not think that these aspects of intimacy are "tradeable". A lack of commitment cannot be substituted with more sex, for example. My particular description of intimacy is of course a personal opinion but I think it broadly covers all the ways in which we seek to be connected with each other: we want the social intimacy of being family - a shared kinship, we want the commitment intimacy of a shared future, we want the intimacy of a shared life, we want emotional intimacy - to share secrets and our deepest thoughts, and of course we want physical intimacy to share space and bodies. I do not believe it's particularly reaching to say that were you in a relationship with someone and they did not wish to introduce you to their loved ones, they did not wish to commit to the future of the relationship, they did not wish to live together and they did not wish to tell you their personal history, you would feel there was a lack of intimacy. Even if just one of those aspects was largely missing, it'd be fair to say the relationship is "missing" something. So I don't see what's controversial about suggesting that a deficit of physical intimacy also means the relationship lacks.

 

Quote

For me, a highly physical relationship is less intimate than one you would describe as physically limited. This is because in order to be sexual, it has to pull intimacy out of the  “spiritual” bucket, as it requires me to sacrifice a part of who I am. Now it’s true that with a sexual partner, sticking to my physical limitations means pulling from their “spiritual” bucket, and denying a part of who they are

Any relationship that is going to grow and be successful in the long-term, is going to involve coming up against boundaries and in some cases those boundaries will have to be broken if the relationship is to advance, and that might take things to uncomfortable places. Please do not read that as a suggestion that one should just submit to the whims of another; far from. Everyone has the unilateral right to say "no". Everyone is entitled to their boundaries. But not all boundaries are born equal, being fussed about picking one's nose is not the same as having an outright hostility to say, sex, or commitment. My argument is precisely that that sort of boundary, while one is well within their rights to have, carves out an enormous slice of the intimacy cake. The process of developing intimacy is quite literally tearing down boundaries. It is becoming comfortable with being exposed and vulnerable to another.

 

Let us take a non-sexual example. Sue and John have a committed relationship and a healthy sex life, but John finds it hard to open up. For whatever combination of reasons, be it bullying as a child, or a parent who never listened, he does not talk about his feelings, his personal history, or his struggles, even to Sue. John might have internalised this as part of his personality at this point ("I don't really talk about myself."). Perhaps this is a functional relationship, but there is undeniably a large chunk of potential intimacy missing here. I don't think anyone could accuse a loving partner, or even a good friend, of being abusive if given sufficient tenderness, they prod at that boundary now and then to try and get John to open up. There may well be a temporary damage done to the relationship; a diminishing of trust. It is, in a sense, not "respecting" who John is. Perhaps John truly is fundamentally incapable of having an intimate connection on that level. But should the door wedge open, the benefit may be greater intimacy for the couple, and a new way of expressing his humanity for John. 

 

Quote

If I were to view some relationships better than others, it would be based on equilibrium, because that is where a unit can pull together and best honour each other’s person.

Mutuality is important, and a lack of it destroys relationships. But mutually agreeing to be tennis partners is not as intimate as an emotionally resplendent, physically tactile, committed long-term relationship, you'd surely have to concede? My claim is pretty simple, relationships with more intimacy are "better" (in the round) than ones that have less. A romantic relationship ought be a context where the fullest possible range of human connection can be explored. And this is indeed what most everyone seeks.

 

6 hours ago, Phoenix the II said:

That... sounds pretty toxic...

 

You can't rely on one person to be your all... It's totally unreasonable to expect this of your partner too.

 

You need others, to stay in your own reality, "becoming one" sets you up for a fantasy world.

A romance isn't a pragmatic business arrangement. Most fail and many end up ending in very destructive ways. But a positive delusion doesn't mean that you don't live in the real world. Quite the opposite, it is that in spite of the real world of which you are well aware, the real person with their flaws, warts, irritations with whom you are intimately acquainted, you can still feel that love for them. That you still mythologise the relationship, and see them as your ideal. That is incredibly beautiful. Romance is about wanting to give yourself to the other person, and the possessiveness stems from a genuine unerring love. A mutual romance is far from toxic. "Toxic" is something like some of these trendy new polyamorous relationships where one person farms out their emotional and physical requirements to a set of people on a calendar and pretends it's love. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, BeakLove said:

and the possessiveness stems from a genuine unerring love.

Reallly... please don't put possessiveness and love in one sentence... 

 

Ugh.

[Zagadka]

Honestly, because for most people, it does. Not all, by far, but most people enjoy the conflation. I recognize that, even if I don't understand it.

[BeakLove]

15 minutes ago, Phoenix the II said:

Reallly... please don't put possessiveness and love in one sentence... 

 

Ugh.

We're naturally possessive about things we care about. I am referring to the feeling of possessiveness here, by the way. I'm not condoning acting in a controlling way. A mother is naturally possessive of her children. But that doesn't mean she has any right to prevent them from living their lives as they see fit. "Negative" feelings can be just as potent and valid a signifier of love and care as "positive" ones. Personally I'd find it bizarre if someone claimed to love someone else but had never felt a smidgen of jealousy or possessiveness. 

[AceMissBehaving]

4 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Hi there. My argument isn't that physical intimacy is more important than all else. I think that all the ways in which you can be intimate with another person are important, especially in a romantic relationship where you are seeking the best possible (or most complete) connection you can have with another person. But I do not think that these aspects of intimacy are "tradeable". A lack of commitment cannot be substituted with more sex, for example. My particular description of intimacy is of course a personal opinion but I think it broadly covers all the ways in which we seek to be connected with each other: we want the social intimacy of being family - a shared kinship, we want the commitment intimacy of a shared future, we want the intimacy of a shared life, we want emotional intimacy - to share secrets and our deepest thoughts, and of course we want physical intimacy to share space and bodies.

Even that I would say isn’t universally true. It’s only true if the other person would miss it. If the other person isn’t interested in those things either, then I wouldn’t consider the relationship ”less than” if it’s what both people want.  People could have deliberately short lived, but intensely intimate relationships. 

 

And I honestly do not feel that the “sharing bodies” part has to be as important as you make it out to be. I get that for most sexual people it is. But take drive and preference out of the equation, I don’t believe we necessarily learn that much about each other through sex. It’s fair to say that a relationship without it is “less than” for you, but people are varied and I do not believe for a single moment, that there is a universal hierarchy to rate relationships by, and I’ll be honest, to say a sexual relationship is universally better than other types of relationships is to me problematic. 

 

Quote

Any relationship that is going to grow and be successful in the long-term, is going to involve coming up against boundaries and in some cases those boundaries will have to be broken if the relationship is to advance, and that might take things to uncomfortable places. Please do not read that as a suggestion that one should just submit to the whims of another; far from. Everyone has the unilateral right to say "no". Everyone is entitled to their boundaries. But not all boundaries are born equal, being fussed about picking one's nose is not the same as having an outright hostility to say, sex, or commitment. My argument is precisely that that sort of boundary, while one is well within their rights to have, carves out an enormous slice of the intimacy cake. The process of developing intimacy is quite literally tearing down boundaries. It is becoming comfortable with being exposed and vulnerable to another.

As an asexual person I have had sex with my partners to make them happy. The boundary was torn down, and instead of feeling connected and intimate, it made the relationship in many ways more distant, because I do not connect to people sexually. It isn’t setting up a boundary to not experience sexual attraction, desire, or to not find any kind of connection through sex. It is however intimate to be able to frankly share this truth with a partner, and have them love, accept, and happily reaffirm their commitment to the future you are building with them. 

 

Quote

Mutuality is important, and a lack of it destroys relationships. But mutually agreeing to be tennis partners is not as intimate as an emotionally resplendent, physically tactile, committed long-term relationship, you'd surely have to concede?

And? Are tennis partners who screw as intimate as an emotionally resplendent, physically tactile, committed long-term relationship?

Quote

My claim is pretty simple, relationships with more intimacy are "better" (in the round) than ones that have less. A romantic relationship ought be a context where the fullest possible range of human connection can be explored. And this is indeed what most everyone seeks.

But you assuming universal values. I explore my  fullest possible range of human connection. To say that you are capable of better relationships than me is arrogant and insulting. 

 

Quote

A romance isn't a pragmatic business arrangement. Most fail and many end up ending in very destructive ways. But a positive delusion doesn't mean that you don't live in the real world. Quite the opposite, it is that in spite of the real world of which you are well aware, the real person with their flaws, warts, irritations with whom you are intimately acquainted, you can still feel that love for them. That you still mythologise the relationship, and see them as your ideal. That is incredibly beautiful. Romance is about wanting to give yourself to the other person, and the possessiveness stems from a genuine unerring love. A mutual romance is far from toxic.

I do not experience a “positive delusion” about my partner. I see him in exactly as

he is. I do not mythologize my relationship, and I do not feel possessive.

 

My partner is someone I care about deeply, and commit to supporting through thick and thin. He is someone I know I can rely on, and and someone I feel entirely at ease with. 

Quote

 

 "Toxic" is something like some of these trendy new polyamorous relationships where one person farms out their emotional and physical requirements to a set of people on a calendar and pretends it's love. 

Again that is very much your opinion. I have a polyamorous relationship with my husband. I recognize that because I am not a sexual person, there are things I can not give him. I am invested in his happiness, so I was happy to take on what is potentially a huge risk to my security, to make sure he does not have to compromise a side of himself I do not share. That is a level of vulnerability way beyond physical touch.

[Rhyn Corinn]

38 minutes ago, AceMissBehaving said:

And I honestly do not feel that the “sharing bodies” part has to be as important as you make it out to be. I get that for most sexual people it is. But take drive and preference out of the equation, I don’t believe we necessarily learn that much about each other through sex. It’s fair to say that a relationship without it is “less than” for you, but people are varied and I do not believe for a single moment, that there is a universal hierarchy to rate relationships by, and I’ll be honest, to say a sexual relationship is universally better than other types of relationships is to me problematic. 

Very well said. I've been meaning to reply to this thread for a while, but I couldn't think of the right words to express what I was feeling. I think you touched on exactly what I was thinking; not everyone looks for the same things in a relationship. And for me personally, I wouldn't feel closer or more 'intimate' with someone by having sex with them, as sexuality just isn't part of how I express myself. I can agree with the principle that more 'intimacy' is better than less, but for asexuals like myself, sex doesn't add anything. (I say this as a virgin, but you don't have to experience sex to know you don't want it.)

 

I understand that for most people, sex is a part of expressing romantic feelings, but that doesn't mean you can't have romance without it. A sexual person likely would feel the relationship was less 'intimate' without sex, but in my case, I wouldn't be missing anything by not doing it. 

[BeakLove]

22 hours ago, AceMissBehaving said:

Even that I would say isn’t universally true. It’s only true if the other person would miss it. If the other person isn’t interested in those things either, then I wouldn’t consider the relationship ”less than” if it’s what both people want.  People could have deliberately short lived, but intensely intimate relationships. 

You raise a fair point here. But there is no way of talking about relationships without appealing to some kind of universal evaluation. 

 

Quote

But you assuming universal values. I explore my  fullest possible range of human connection. To say that you are capable of better relationships than me is arrogant and insulting. 

But your range of human connection isn't the fullest possible range. Nor is mine for that matter. Unless you had two perfectly compatible people with no hangs up or boundaries, the capacity for experiencing these intimacies and expressing them, and a suitable ethical framework, you are not going to get that. But in a romantic partner we seek the closest possible approximation. It may seem unfair to compare relationships in this way, but is it really any fairer to consider everything equivalent or to defer completely to subjective assessment? If I considered myself a-emotional, and a-committal, would it be fair to suggest that my relationship is as intimate as the one you have described with your husband, where you have shared a deep emotional truth and are so committed that you have taken the enormous risk of opening your marriage for the sake of someone else's happiness. I might retort that it's the closest possible relationship I can experience, and that I require nothing more. But a healthy relationship (one with well-understood and mutual expectations) is not necessarily a close one. 

 

As for a "deliberately short-lived, but intense" relationship it's hard to imagine what that looks like other than a passionate fling or some kind of romantic crush. I wouldn't hasten to call them particularly intimate though.

 

Quote

And I honestly do not feel that the “sharing bodies” part has to be as important as you make it out to be. I get that for most sexual people it is. But take drive and preference out of the equation, I don’t believe we necessarily learn that much about each other through sex. It’s fair to say that a relationship without it is “less than” for you, but people are varied and I do not believe for a single moment, that there is a universal hierarchy to rate relationships by, and I’ll be honest, to say a sexual relationship is universally better than other types of relationships is to me problematic. 

I don't think sexual relationships are universally better than non-sexual ones, because you can easily have sex with someone with whom you have little other connection. I know others have said sex is the ultimate form of human intimacy. I don't share that view. And I'm not asexual. I enjoy sex and think having a sexual dimension is highly desirable, but I think a warm spoon is more intimate than a handjob, say. I just think that physical intimacy - the sharing of bodies and space - is a large part of the "range of human connection". We are physical beings, we exist physically, and our reactions to pleasure and pain, how we move, and our willingness to have someone near us communicate things that sometimes words don't quite capture. I think it's worth re-calling what sparked off this bit of the thread:

 

Quote

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!

I opined here that a lot of "sensual" activities - the affectionate touching - are semi-sexual or pseudo-sexual in nature. I don't think that's an unfair observation. If you are making full body contact, if you are making out (!!), then you're a lot closer to having sex than a handshake. But I think the actual intimacy comes from the contact, the touch, the trust and the acceptance. Once you are comfortable sharing space to that extent, the exact activity you are doing I don't think matters as much, after all even sexual people don't like every particular thing you can do with your genitals. Is it more intimate to be okay with one-off episodes of sex after which you immediately feel the need to cover up and recover your personal space, or to be okay generally sharing that space, even being naked around each other, but perhaps with little desire for sexual activity? I would say the latter. But in practice, that sort of comfort with sharing personal space generally either has a sexual predicate or will slip into some kind of sexual activity. Why? Because (a) the class of people with whom you have that comfort are people you also are comfortable having sex with, (b) sex by its nature forces the close contact and nudity, (c) sex (for most people, I stress) is easy, fun and makes us feel good, so why not do it? 

 

I accept this explanation still essentially reduces to saying that given two otherwise identical relationships, one with a sexual/sensual/physical/erotic (whatever word you want to use they all bleed into each other), is more intimate than one without it. I also accept I'm saying that a relationship in which romantic feelings play a part isn't "truly" non-sexual. I doubt our opinions will converge on these points. But I appreciate the responses even if we disagree. 

[Rhyn Corinn]

2 hours ago, BeakLove said:

I opined here that a lot of "sensual" activities - the affectionate touching - are semi-sexual or pseudo-sexual in nature. I don't think that's an unfair observation. If you are making full body contact, if you are making out (!!), then you're a lot closer to having sex than a handshake. But I think the actual intimacy comes from the contact, the touch, the trust and the acceptance. Once you are comfortable sharing space to that extent, the exact activity you are doing I don't think matters as much, after all even sexual people don't like every particular thing you can do with your genitals. Is it more intimate to be okay with one-off episodes of sex after which you immediately feel the need to cover up and recover your personal space, or to be okay generally sharing that space, even being naked around each other, but perhaps with little desire for sexual activity? I would say the latter. But in practice, that sort of comfort with sharing personal space generally either has a sexual predicate or will slip into some kind of sexual activity. Why? Because (a) the class of people with whom you have that comfort are people you also are comfortable having sex with, (b) sex by its nature forces the close contact and nudity, (c) sex (for most people, I stress) is easy, fun and makes us feel good, so why not do it? 

 

I accept this explanation still essentially reduces to saying that given two otherwise identical relationships, one with a sexual/sensual/physical/erotic (whatever word you want to use they all bleed into each other), is more intimate than one without it. I also accept I'm saying that a relationship in which romantic feelings play a part isn't "truly" non-sexual. I doubt our opinions will converge on these points. But I appreciate the responses even if we disagree. 

Again, intimacy is different for everyone. Like I stated earlier, sex wouldn't do anything to make me feel a deeper connection with someone, now matter how much I tried it. That isn't the way I express romantic feelings, and it isn't how I feel them either. And I'm sorry, but I don't need to take my clothes off around someone to feel closer to them. Maybe it's that way for some people, but to me it's neutral. I understand that when two people are sexually attracted to each other, it would make a difference. But I don't get excited by seeing another person (of any gender) naked. If I felt anything at all, it would just be slight awkwardness due to the fact that people generally wear clothes in public. But there's no inherent reaction for me.

 

(And if we're considering aesthetic attraction, I'd almost certainly be more aesthetically attracted to someone with clothes. But that's just my personal preference.)

 

I realize I cannot speak for all romantic asexuals. There are so many variations in romantic attraction and the way we experience romantic feelings, and I'm not denying that some (I don't know what percentage) would feel romantic attraction in an 'erotic' way. I am not one of those people. I very much experience arousal, and I very much do not experience it in regards to romantic feelings. Again, this is specifically my own experience and is not true for all romantic aces, but romantic feelings for me are a definite turn-off. And I like romantic feelings. I've been interested (some might say obsessed) in the idea of romance for quite some time now. I actually want most of the same things as the 'stereotypical' person: dating, marriage, kids, etc. I just don't want sex. I don't feel the need for it. And feeling aroused doesn't make me want it, either. Whereas a sexual person would feel a 'barrier' between them and their partner with a lack of sex, I don't. I don't need sex to feel close to someone. 

 

I'm not trying to invalidate anyone who does feel the need for sex; we all have different needs and it's every person's right to feel whatever needs they have. I am simply pointing out that just because one person's relationship might fall short of its potential without sex, that doesn't have to be true for everyone. A non-sexual relationship between two people who don't feel the need for sex anyway can be just as intimate as a sexual one between two people who do share that need for sex. That was more or less my entire point when I created this thread: that romance doesn't always need sex to be romance.

[paninispades]

On 3/12/2020 at 12:15 PM, United Pizza 149 said:

"I would prefer you not be in a closed room with someone, even though I know you're not having sex or anything..." 

This is literallly my mom. I am aroace and she doesn't know, but even if she did, I would most likely get this response. It's just too much sometimes because she makes sex and romance about a lot of things. She sexualizes my relationships and things I do in my free time. She thinks that I am sending pictures and all that crap when in reality I am just playing Call of Duty and trying to not die for x time. I can't even tell her about most of my friends because she will sexualize everything and sing that stupid kissing in a tree song (it has happened before and my dad joined in). I totally agree with you and yeah, they are. Sex and romance are associated in our society a little too much and it's pretty annoying. 

[BeakLove]

On 3/16/2020 at 3:54 AM, United Pizza 149 said:

A non-sexual relationship between two people who don't feel the need for sex anyway can be just as intimate as a sexual one between two people who do share that need for sex. That was more or less my entire point when I created this thread: that romance doesn't always need sex to be romance.

I don't think we're going to agree but your thread sparked an interesting discussion none-the-less. My opinion remains that it is reasonable to compare relationships and assert that given two otherwise equal relationships, one with sexual intimacy is necessarily more intimate than one without, in the same way that a relationship with deep conversation is more intimate than one without. How useful that is as a general statement is debatable, given you are rarely ever comparing two relationships which differ only by sexual content. 

 

Regardless, I don't believe one's capability to engage in an inactivity or their "need" for a particular form of intimacy changes that basic equation. You or I would be perfectly entitled to state that our relationship with someone based on mutual trust, shared history, and deep understanding of one another, is likely more intimate than one which lacks these qualities, regardless of whether someone else asserted that they were not necessary to them. This may surprise you to hear but there are lots of sexual relationships I don't think are particularly intimate, and there are friendships out there far more intimate than many relationships purport to be. But sex, physicality, sensuality, eroticism... whatever you want to call the concept broadly, is a large part of most people's make up. We are physical beings and we live physically, too. I do think romantic feelings imply that.

 

On 4/2/2020 at 7:41 AM, paninispades said:

Sex and romance are associated in our society a little too much and it's pretty annoying. 

Sex and romance's antecedents have always been associated.  

[Rhyn Corinn]

19 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Regardless, I don't believe one's capability to engage in an inactivity or their "need" for a particular form of intimacy changes that basic equation.

Yes, this is where I disagree. There is no universal standard for relationships. They are nothing more or less than what they mean to the individuals in them. Intimacy cannot be measured objectively, because it is part of human emotions, and every person is different. I seriously doubt I'm explaining this well, but my conviction remains the same.

 

19 hours ago, BeakLove said:

We are physical beings and we live physically, too. I do think romantic feelings imply that.

Again, not everyone's romantic feelings are necessarily 'physical'. 

[ConfusedTeen.]

I find that society these days is very over sexualised for completely no reason whatsoever (in my opinion). For example one day I was watching tv and I saw a car ad and and I was like ‘cool, a car’ then all of a sudden for no reason at all there’s just some chick in a bikini washing the car and I’m here thinking ‘hold up, wait, weren’t you trying to sell a car? Are you trying to sell swim wear now or something what is going on this is so irrelevant’. 

 

I think a lot of people now adays just assume that when your in a relationship it means like, involving intercourse and whatnot even though that isn’t necessarily the case. I don’t get how people can understand the idea of ‘causal sex (like not being in a relationship and having sex)’ but they cant understand being in a relationship without sex, It makes no sense (to me anyways). 

 

Society as a whole has become less conservative. Like in the old days there was like ‘ankle porn’ or something like someone’s ankle was like the most scandalous thing in the world but nowadays you see like people in underwear on a big billboard for a company like ‘BONDS’ and stuff and apparently it ‘adds to the drama’ or something if there’s multiple sex scenes in a movie or (I don’t really get that bit?).

 

So because a lot of people in our society are more comfortable with the idea of sex or whatever you kind of just see it a lot more so most people just expect everyone to want it or something cause it’s everywhere? We live in a highly sexualised era and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing like, for me, I’d rather live today and wear shorts and a T-shirt than have to wear 50 items of clothing (especially in the summer, that would get really hot) but I definitely get that it’s really annoying sometimes because it seems like everyone’s talking about it and it kind of feels like it being pressured onto you (at least that’s what I think) and that side of it sucks. 👍 

[AshenPhoenix]

The two are inherently linked in society throughout much of history because for many people who are sexual, the two are very linked. Sex is a very intimate thing. And intimacy tends to bring about feelings of romance or love because you are being so close with a person on so many levels. You're allowing someone to do things with and to you you wouldn't allow 99% of the population to do. And there's a certain level of connection that comes with that. Even for people who routinely have more casual encounters (where the goal is explicitly to avoid romantic feelings while satisfying physical needs or wants), it can be very difficult and a fine line to tread.

 

Ironically, I personally believe that unlike what many have said, this is actually on a downturn in today's hypersexualized society. There is an extremely increasing movement to separate feelings of lust, love, intimacy, and physicality into their own categories. Which you then kinda tell people you're with "I want X, Y, and Z from this, I'm avoiding A, B, C". At least in my experience.