possibly asexual? lesbian relationship and compromises etc

[WhenSummersGone]

. Some asexuals do want a relationship, at least that's what I'm seeing on this site, and not just a friendship or opened relationship.

What a person wants varies and the value of each type of relationship depends on the person. But, there is never any harm in discussing options. Opening up a relationship should not be done if EITHER party is not on board with the idea - as in, thinks it's a good idea, won't be hurt and wants to actually do it and not just do it because they feel it's the only option beyond breaking up. Some people don't even think about it though until it's brought up, so no harm in discussing each others feelings and interests in each option.

I agree, everyone is different. I just wanted to point out that it's not always successful to get someone on the same page as you if they have different views. I would like a partner to be into me as much as I would be into them so opened relationships don't work for everyone. It's not even always sex related but how you view relationships in general.

[Guest]

Obviously communication is important and talking over options is a good thing.

The suggestion that I see a lot on AVEN, as voiced above by Starry (and Starry I love you and mean no offense here), is that sexuals should remain living with their asexual ex-partner and have a primary relationship with them, but also have primary or secondary relationships that include sex and romance with other people, but do not live with those romantic partners.

This situation is suggested all the time on here. But what kind of suggestion is that?! If a sexual falls in love with, and discovers incompatibility with an asexual, suddenly we have to live with them forever and relegate any future lovers to a side relationship? If it was any other issue but asexuality (finances, cheating, idealogical mismatch, etc), people would break up, move out, and move on. But for some reason when asexuality is introduced, the "move on" phase of relationships is considered inappropriate. I don't get that. Very, very few relationships last forever. For most people, aside from one or two friends or a spouse, family are the only lifetime relationships. Most people experience several break ups and heartbreak during their lives and that's ok... good, even. I think most of us would agree that no matter how hard the break up, we're glad we're not still languishing with our first loves.

Moving on is good, its natural, its healthy. Lord knows I can't have a houseful of exes just because the idea of "forever love" is poetic. Poetic or not, it's not functional or healthy. Moving on is important. Plus, its not really fair to the new partner to say "sorry, I fell in love with Jane first, and I know it didn't work out but rather than moving on, we're going to live together forever so you and I can never live together. Hope you're ok with that!"

Finally, let's look at it in terms of sexual orientation. If a woman was living with and in love with a guy who came out as gay, why would they stay living together and keep their new lovers on the side? Wouldn't everyone suggest that they 1) acknowledge a mismatch, 2) break up, and 3) remain friends? Why would it be any different if the mismatched orientation was asexual instead of gay?

It absolutely occurs to about 99.9% of people that they don't have to live together. It's insulting to keep saying that the only reason people cohabitate with their partners is because it's never occurred to them not to. It occurs to almost everyone, I promise. Do a poll if you want and ask people if they made a conscious decision to move in together or if it was forced on them, or happened subconsciously without any actual, conscious thought. I guarantee that people made the conscious decision, and I bet many of us have even said "no" on occasion to cohabitation requests. It is not an automatic occurrence.

The reason we cohabitate is because we want to. Because we want to be together, and share our lives, and because we're together so much anyway that it would be a waste of money to have two places... which, BTW, is when most people move in together.

People don't spend all their free time together because they live together. They live together because they were already spending all their time together, and paying for an empty place is stupid.

EDIT: All of this is in reference to the ending of a monogamous relationship. Breaking up but failing to move on isn't what polyamory is, and I don't want to seem anti-polyamory. I'm very pro-polyamory, but that's not what this is.

[Guest]

The suggestion that I see a lot on AVEN, as voiced above by Starry (and Starry I love you and mean no offense here), is that sexuals should remain living with their asexual ex-partner and have a primary relationship with them, but also have primary or secondary relationships that include sex and romance with other people, but do not live with those romantic partners.

I actually think it's more of a "can" (as in, it can't hurt to consciously consider the option instead of dismissing it right away) than a "should". I've seen Starry agree too often with my own view that any reason is a good enough reason to break up over, to see it as a should-suggestion.

EDIT: All of this is in reference to the ending of a monogamous relationship. Breaking up but failing to move on isn't what polyamory is, and I don't want to seem anti-polyamory. I'm very pro-polyamory, but that's not what this is.

Yup. And seeing as I, personally, don't even understand/can't relate why folks enter mono-ships in the first place (I sure know I wouldn't ever put up with it... monogamy/exclusivity is near the top of my list of immediate dealbreakers), I don't have much to add to the rest of what you've said... I leave that to folks who actually "get" monogamy. It does seem like you raise some valid points there.

[Notte stellata]

Skulls: No offense taken, and I love many of your posts too. :)

If people want to "completely" break up and move on, I have no objections. I definitely don't think a sexual *should* keep living with their asexual ex-partner. I only made that suggestion because people in unfulfilling mixed relationships often say things like "I'm miserable without sex, but I love my partner very much, we're best friends and excellent life partners!" So if they don't want to lose the friendship and life partnership but do want to have a good sex life, separating partnership and romantic-sexual relationship can be an option. I do realize it takes a special mindset to do this though. Like open relationship, it's an option, not something everyone has to do.

Believe me, I'm one of the last people to say relationships should last forever. :P But I do have a fluid view on love and relationships. I believe when some components of a relationship aren't working well, people don't have to throw the whole relationship away; instead, they can continue the relationship based on the good parts (maybe "redefine" the relationship as well...I don't care about the labels), and fulfill their other needs elsewhere (of course for monogamists there's a limit to this). I also believe when a romantic relationship ends, love doesn't have to end or fade, because nonromantic love can be as significant as romantic love. Again, not everyone sees things this way, but it's possible.