Would you be okay with letting your significant other seek sex elsewhere?

[Slizzy26]

Faelights, ArcanineHuggles and I were discussing whether this option in a relationship would be considered viable by the majority of AVEN. When answering, please assume you were in a committed relationship and actively did not want to have sex (as opposed to being indifferent to it or doing it for your partner's pleasure.) Please answer the poll question, but if there was another option you would prefer, I would be interested to hear about that in the comments, too!

This is a good question. I would definitely undertstand that my partner has sexual needs that I may not be able to fulfill. However, if they are with me knowing in advance that I cannot fulfill their sexual desires, they should have no reason to seek sex outside of the relationship. They knew I wouldn't have sex with them, and they still wanted to be with me. If they can't handle the relationship, I would rather they break up with me than to openly cheat on me.

[Winston Marrs]

Absolutely not. I am aggressively protective of people I care about and I feel it would a severe intrusion upon me and my relationship to be dealt with, with extreme prejudice.

[Blood Angel]

I would rather give it a go at doing sex however much I dislike it or feel uncomfortable as a sign of my love for a significant other than let her go with somebody else. The way I see it is, if they are very sexually inclined then they are more likely to develop a deeper connection with another person, I'd be nothing more than a friend.

[knout]

"Yes, I would be absolutely fine with that" but the significant other probably wouldn't be fine with doing it themselves

[Bob32]

I voted with the second one but I am aromantic so....

[Hayley]

I'm kind of inbetween the first two.

Logically I would be very happy with that arrangement - sex has absolutely no emotional attachment in my mind - but I do know that for my SO sex and romantic feelings are very much intertwined, so I doubt I would be comfortable with him having sex with someone else.

[abandoned account]

I was actually considering this arrangement before I realized I didn't want a boyfriend anyway.

[DracoBorealis]

Well, to be honest, no. That's one of the many reasons I don't want nor ever have wanted a relationship. I have a feeling I'd be ridiculously jealous, even though I would refuse to compromize, but I don't want to make anyone into a monk (so to speak) against their will either.

[(Nightlight)]

I would not be okay with it whatsoever.

[zoidberger]

No. I'm a jealous person, plus I essentially internalize anything that my SO would seek elsewhere as a shortcoming on my part... For better or worse really.

[141822]

I didn't vote because my answer depends. Are they just going to one person for sex? Or are they going to a different person each time? Is it just sex with this person, or are they spending time together? Generally, if I'm having sex with my partner, and it was a matter of us not having sex often enough, then no, I would not be okay with my partner having sex elsewhere. If my partner and I are not having sex, then I would be fine with them having sex with someone else. Obviously we would discuss this, and there would be boundaries we both agree on regarding who they would sleep with, how often, etc.

[Syatten]

Definitely not <_< Precisely because I'd be concerned that they would develop a deeper emotional connection with the person they're having sex with. For sexuals, sex is very important, I can't believe that my SO would be able to have sex with another person without any kind of feelings. This option in a relationship is actually lewd, using another person just for sex... I don't like it at all.

Maybe masturbation could be the solution? Sexuals can masturbate to satisfy their sexual needs. And I could also try to satisfy my SO myself, even thought I'd probably fail miserably. Man, this is complicated, but absolutely no sex elsewhere.

[CrazyCatLover]

It would depend so much on the individual person. My wasband, for example, could not have sex without falling in love. So I wouldn't be okay with him seeking elsewhere. However, I've dated other people who were perfectly capable of having casual sex without an emotional attachment. Those people I would be just fine with them seeking sex elsewhere (I was never in a serious relationship with any of these people though). I have a friend who says he can only have sex with someone he doesn't love. We joke that we'd be an ideal match if we were actually interested in each other romantically. So my answer is that it depends on my SO (didn't vote).

[Kestin]

Assuming I weren't aromantic: I see absolutely no reason why not. Sex and romance are completely separate things. Although if someone is sex-crazed enough to be unable to go without it, I probably wouldn't want anything to do with them anyway.

[Waterbottle20]

25 people are not thinking this through.

[Novalia]

In a perfect world, I'd only date other romantic asexuals in the future, so the answer would be no but also wouldn't matter.

Realistically, if the partner was sexual... I guess I'd have to really think about if I was comfortable with them seeking sex elsewhere. It doesn't seem fair on either person with either answer, though. It's not necessarily fair to ask a sexual to abstain, but it could be emotional torment for the asexual to think their partner is seeking anything elsewhere.

It's definitely never going to be a black and white situation. My heart says absolutely NO, it's not okay. But reality... well, that's a different story perhaps.

[Daray]

I said "Yes" because I'm leaning towards that way, but it's really a "Depends on the situation" answer (like everything else I think about. ugh.) Because I would not want the person to go to have relations of any kind with someone they've already developed feelings for, because that's just cheating - no question.

HOWEVER, my mind aparently being very weird today, I did not interpret the question to have that as the possible alternative. If my SO would prefer (to put it a certain way) a place where physical relationships are not expected to spark or be a result of an emotional or mental connection, I'll probably be okay with that.

I think I would just want to keep the right SO around, sexual or not, and I don't want that kind of pressure on our relationship. That's how I see it anyways. Ideally though, as many others have said here, I would be with another asexual so it would not be an issue to begin with.

[guitar sunshine]

As long as they still love me and i am their primary partner, i see no problem with them finding other ways to fufill heir sexual needs

[guitar sunshine]

Communication and open-ness is key here. I don't need to know all the details, but this should not be a secret thing. As a SO they should be truthful and open about the fact that they are being intimate with another person. All parties must approve, sort of like polyamory. Now that's something that makes sense to me.

[oneofthesun]

I voted yes. If your partner feels obligated to put you above all others, they don't really love you. Conventional relationships are contractual - I give you X in exchange for Y. Love shouldn't work like that IMO.

[PiF]

even more so as asexuals ..the trust of a partner that wants to go elsewhere is a trust broken

and without sex..once the trust has gone..then either you do not care enough about your partner to be honest and end it ..or..you do care a bit..but more about having your cake and eat it

how must a partner feel when you fancy others and do not even hide it.. you probably said at some time that you love that person more than life itself..how does making them now feel like shit and of no worth show love?

if you feel another is what you need..move on..do not bring down your partner ..they didn't change..you did

[Karl Viktor]

I've had that arrangement in two relationships I have been in. The way I see it, if the person I'm together with wants to have sex in order to be as happy as I am without it, then I wouldn't want to stop them. The fact that these "open relationships" or whatever you want to call them have ended with break ups, even though painful, as they always are, have just served as proof that the person in question wouldn't have been able to spend a lifetime (which is what I want) with an asexual anyway. Better to end it sooner rather than later.

[Samael]

Assuming I weren't aromantic: I see absolutely no reason why not. Sex and romance are completely separate things. Although if someone is sex-crazed enough to be unable to go without it, I probably wouldn't want anything to do with them anyway.

This sums it up pretty well in my opinion. Then again, it's considered "normal" to be sex-crazed enough to not be able to go without it. Celibacy might require mental strenght for a sexual person, but it requires no strenght whatsoever for an asexual person. Perhaps we just can't understand how hard it may be for a sexual to abstain? As I've come to understand it, more often than not "love" for sexuals means the presence of both romantic and sexual commitment. Asexuals just see the distinction between them more easily due to the disconnected nature of the sexual component.

Or so I might imagine. Of course, as an aromantic it's all guesswork from my part. Dissecting the brains of people is just too much fun :D

[League Girl]

Yes I would. That would keep sex away from me.

[Starr]

Since I can't vote for 2 options. Yes I would be ok with it but I would be a tad bit scared they end up loving that person and leaving me.

[killer-jumper]

I voted 'Yes, I'd be absolutely fine with that.'

Because I would be! Sex isn't something I'm interested in, and if my S.O. is, well...it's like letting them go out fishing or something with somebody else, and staying home to read and drink hot chocolate. I wouldn't be afraid they and their sexual partners would bond with their fishing buddy even if they were fish-obsessed, because fish isn't the only facet to them.

Beginning to think I have taken this fish analogy too far, but you get my point :P

[GirlDreamer]

even more so as asexuals ..the trust of a partner that wants to go elsewhere is a trust broken

and without sex..once the trust has gone..then either you do not care enough about your partner to be honest and end it ..or..you do care a bit..but more about having your cake and eat it

how must a partner feel when you fancy others and do not even hide it.. you probably said at some time that you love that person more than life itself..how does making them now feel like shit and of no worth show love?

if you feel another is what you need..move on..do not bring down your partner ..they didn't change..you did

I totally agree with this.

I voted no, because I know I could not deal with my SO getting sex elsewhere. The reason I know this is because a while ago, my boyfriend was supposed to go to a different city to meet up with a friend. This was a girl, and they'd talked about sharing a hotel room to save money. The only problem was that they couldn't be sure they would get separate beds. Long story short, I can't describe how relieved I was when he chose to not go through with it because he might have had to share a bed with another girl. And besides, my bf is demisexual, so if he went for sex elsewhere, I would be pretty sure he would have had to have feelings for that person.

[tk218]

Hell to the no!

[Caius]

I voted yes I would be fine...

I've really only had two relationships, one was a long distance thing when I was 17 and before I realized that I was asexual... so that one doesn't really count...

the other lasted maybe 1.5-2yrs, and by this stage I knew I wasn't interested... I did have sex with that partner I think twice, half to make him happy and half to see if having sex would change my opinion on it (it didn't...)

but I'd said to the guy that I really wasn't interested in sex, and that if he felt the need to get his satisfaction elsewhere that was fine... I expected honesty from him, without all the details, and I don't think he actually ended up going to anyone else... I know he wasn't asexual but I think he just had lower drives than most... he did tell me a few times hey I'm going to catch up with an ex that I still get along with, and things might happen, are you cool with that? and I'd always reply with go for your life LOL...

I still get along pretty well with him even though we're not together anymore, nothing was ever really "official" with us, like we never said to anyone yeah we're together, it just sort of happened, and then ended when we got booted out of the rental place we were in as the landlords wanted to sell it... we both ended up finding separate accommodation...

the first guy broke things off with me because I wasn't interested in sex... things were fine when we first met, then he went home to his own country... I went for a holiday a few months later and when I got over there he couldn't keep his hands off me and just wanted sex... sigh :/

nowadays I'm just not interested in a relationship at all.... I just want a mate I can hang out on the couch with, have a few drinks and watch movies with lots of explosions in them LOL... but if I did happen to end up in another I'm sure I'd probably tell my partner they were welcome to fulfill their sexual needs with someone else, because I just don't want sex again, ever....

sorry for the long post, bored at work......

[oneofthesun]

I voted 'Yes, I'd be absolutely fine with that.'

Because I would be! Sex isn't something I'm interested in, and if my S.O. is, well...it's like letting them go out fishing or something with somebody else, and staying home to read and drink hot chocolate. I wouldn't be afraid they and their sexual partners would bond with their fishing buddy even if they were fish-obsessed, because fish isn't the only facet to them.

Beginning to think I have taken this fish analogy too far, but you get my point :P

LOL yeah. And if they do bond with their fishing partner more than me, well then it just wasn't meant to be was it? I just don't believe in the concept of trying to own people.