You don't mention why they wouldn't be able to have sex. sorry but /thread.Gasaraki said:Let's say you meet an asexual guy/girl who is heteromantic/homoromantic (Depending on your gender/sexual orientation). The two of you get along great and develop feelings for each other, do you think you could engage in a long term relationship with someone even if the two of you will probably never have sex?
Are you from SRK?Gasaraki said:Let's say you meet an asexual guy/girl who is heteromantic/homoromantic (Depending on your gender/sexual orientation). The two of you get along great and develop feelings for each other, do you think you could engage in a long term relationship with someone even if the two of you will probably never have sex?
I'm a little confused by this, does this mean you don't get any arousal at all or passion for others? Don't mean to pry, I've just never met someone I know that doesn't have these common feelings.Monkfish Acc. said:I AM an asexual person.
I see that working out better for me than dating anyone else.
I would totally go and do that if I wasn't also aromantic.
wouldnt go as far as to say its a sexual thing, but i agree though, why "date" when you could just be friends anyway, difference between my closest female friends and girls ive been with is just the physical part. i kinda understand asexuality, i dont understand asexual dating at allFoolKiller said:No. Dating for me is a sexual thing. Otherwise, it's called friendship.
it took mister asexual himself 5 pages to reply, i am amazed hahaJulianking93 said:Well, I currently am dating an asexual, so there's that.
A relationship doesn't hinge on sexual activity. It's about how well you get on with that person and how much you love them.
Basing a relationship entirely on sex is just ridiculous.
Sex is nice in a relationship, but it can ruin things just as easily.
Simply put, if you love someone, it doesn't matter how much or how little you have sex.
Odd that I'm currently listening to a song called Love Addict right now which only talks about fucking >.>
I absolutely agree with you and also identify as bisexual, or perhaps pansexual myself. All of those masculine and feminine traits only seem like that because people associate "masculine" things with men, and "feminine" things with girls. Sexuality is incredibly complex and beautiful, and orientation labels and other labels only try to make communication simpler. Some labels get into more detail, like I guess I would be considered more hetereosexual then homosexual, but almost more homoromantic then hetereomantic. But then again, that shit fluctuates all of the time and I still don't really know anything about myself.Eldarion said:I just don't think that way. I believe that femininity and masculinity are traits independent of your actual gender. So a more feminine male or a more masculine female isn't strange to me. Its just varying levels of individuality. Same goes for sexual orientation, everyone is attracted to the human form it just varies how much attraction goes to what traits. I don't understand the need for such black and white labels. It oversimplifies a very complicated subject.
Not to disrespect your stance on the matter, but I have always thought of myself relatively equally attracted to certain male and female partners. That didn't rule out anything else in the slightest. I thought that was just bisexual. Have I using the wrong label for myself in the context of those labels?
Er, I get platonically attracted to people sometimes. It's different, though. I don't really want to have sex with them or get into a relationship or anything, it's just sort of like an innocent crush. Think of it as a bit like what a child would have, only with less hair pulling and namecalling.Chainsaws_of_War_2 said:I'm a little confused by this, does this mean you don't get any arousal at all or passion for others? Don't mean to pry, I've just never met someone I know that doesn't have these common feelings.