Poll: Would you date an asexual person?

[Sporky111]

No, I really couldn't do it. Sex is a very important part of a relationship for me and I wouldn't be able to fully commit to someone without it.

 

[StevieG]

Can't have sex when you're deployed, so sure, it'd be great to know there's someone who's in it for the intellectual stimulation, not simply a physical thing, and they won't cheat while you're off on the line.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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?

Nope, I want to have kids of my own some day, and I'm not having some test-tube baby because the girl thinks sex is icky.

I don't know what all asexuals think, but the ones I have heard on the Net, they tend not to like or want to have kids.

 

[thylasos]

Got to say, as well, this sounds like it's just a friendship which would make it impossible for me to fuck anyone.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

For the right person I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot. My libido isn't exactly huge, so I don't really need sex on a regular basis. However, my asexual partner would have to understand that I may need to release sexual tension every now and again, even if it's by myself. Also, I think this would be an interesting beginning point for an open relationship, since I would only be seeking something that I couldn't get from my partner.

 

[Lissa-QUON]

Wow, all the folks on here who seem to think a relationship = sex. Just wow.

Anyway as per the question, I don't really know. I might. I've not dated much though so I really don't know what I want out of a relationship. But if I get along with them amazingly well sure.

Also from my understanding of asexuals, its not that they are incapable of sex, it's just not something that drives them.

I've heard that in romantic relationships they can/might/will have intercourse and might even enjoy it. If it's important to their significant other they'll try to fulfill that need.

 

[PhiMuLady]

No No and No... I am about to end it with someone that I have been dating for some time now and he is asexual (I only just became aware LONG story). I am truly in a very sad mood I believe I might love him, but I long for a intimate moment I have tried not to think about it I really have. I find myself looking at others and flirting with others, so I am ending it before I hurt him or me any more.

 

[superbatranger]

I guess it could work out. It just depends on my feelings for the other person, and their feelings for me. But, with that said, I'm not entirely sure how long the relationship would last.

 

[Daveman]

tbh I think I couldn't love somebody who doesn't love me physically as well as mentally. I mean I have loads of friends who I get on amazingly with, but they're all men, so I remain single. Regardless of gender or sexuality, if they don't fancy me we'll only be best friends at best. To me, sex defines intimacy, same reason I'm against abstinence.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I AM an asexual person.

Can you elaborate? To my knowledge it isn't technically possible to be text-book asexual, meaning reproduces without a partner and the child only inherits the single parent's genes.

So I take it you didn't pay attention to the subject matter of this thread at all.
We're talking about the nonsexual kind of asexual. Not the textbook biological definition.

That's nice but then you guys might wanna work on your terminology... as that's a completely false use of the term. Also, yes, I did stop reading to post that before reading farther into the post.

No. It isn't.

A = lacking; without + sexual

A word can have multiple meanings, you know. It's okay. There's no law against it.

Well, okay, feel free to change the meaning of a word whenever you please-

Oh, in my haste to nag and nitpick I forgot to respond to the OP!

I might, considering I was satisfied with how things were going, no sex might be hard though. We might work something out though

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I don't think I'd be able to date someone exclusively if that someone didn't find me sexually attractive. She'd be asexual, I wouldn't be. I'd want to be physically intimate with her... and even if she obliged, she wouldn't get anything out of it. That wouldn't be fulfilling sex for me. What I really enjoy about sex is making that other person feel good, in a very intimate way. I get a lot of my satisfaction from that. Otherwise, I'd just be audience.

 

[Hap2]

I wonder how many people who claim to be "asexual" actually are? Like those kids who go through that confused stage, and claim to be bi sexual/gay, when really they are just confused by the fact that they can actually show appreciation for attractive people of the same sex? I've also noticed (on this site, and in real life) a LOT of "asexual" people seem to be nerds and suchlike.

I just want to throw this out there, that having bad/no sexual experiences, or having a deep resentment of attractive people, doesn't necessarily make you asexual...

Disclaimer: I'm not pointing out any individual, or anyone specifically on this thread or site. Just interested in the actual number of asexual people. Someone earlier said that 1% of the population was asexual, and I'm certain that's a vast exaggeration.

How many asexual people have you actually talked to? Asexuals are as human and as diverse in their interests as everyone else and you might want to do a bit of research before generalizing and stereotyping us into a derogatory category. You might want to go to the AVEN forum itself, it's one of the larger places for asexuals to chat and debate on the web. I happen to be an artist, a philosopher, an avid weightlifter and cyclist, and absolutely nuts about my project car.

Asexuality is lack of sexual attraction, nothing more nothing less. I know I am asexual from my experiences and intuitive feelings, I have never felt sexually attracted to anyone, including a person I fell in love with, there was never a thought nor a desire to ever "jump her bones" so to speak.

The 1% estimation is based on a very old study called the Kinsey report (old enough that it was old when George Bataille talked about it). Obviously it is not going to be an even distribution throughout the population, as some areas will have more asexuals, with some having less, there's no real efficient way to determine the actual number right now. Some people are even indifferent about their lack of sexual attraction to anyone that they don't notice it unless the conception of asexuality as an orientation is introduced to them, so they might not identify as asexual.

A few. Not many because it's not something that people generally bring up in conversation. It was more of an observation of the people who "claim" to be, and the people who actually are. I'm prepared to believe that a lot of people confused with their sexual orientation might relate to asexuality, but not actually be asexual. I wasn't making a derogatory comment about those who actually are asexual, more a comment on how those who feel socially rejected (such as "nerds") may claim to be, but not actually be.

I can understand that, but its also understandable why a person who has zero interest in sex can be alienated by a culture that is often saturated with it. People don't like being faced with the unknown for a long time, it's one of our natural instincts to often avoid it if we can, so I can understand why some would adopt a label like 'asexual' or 'bisexual' in order to find some level of comfort and belonging. I don't really hold it against them though.

Perhaps. But I'm aromantic, so I'll probably never know.

I've seen this term being bandied around, so I looked it up. It showed on Wikipedia like this:

Spoiler: Definitions of terms regarding romance among asexuals

Asexuals, while typically lacking in sexual desire for either sex, may engage in purely emotional romantic relationships.[19][20][21] Terms concerning this:
aromantic: lack of romantic attraction towards anyone of any gender
biromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of either gender
heteroromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of the opposite gender
homoromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of the same gender
panromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of any gender or lack of gender
transromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of variant or ambiguous gender
polyromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of more than one gender or sex but without implying, as biromantic does, that there are only two genders or sexes

Does that make you asexual as well, or not?

Romantic attraction and sexual attraction are never necessarily the same. I am a hetero romantic asexual, hence, I am romantically attracted to the opposite gender (I do indeed 'fall in love', for the layman). Aromantic people do not become romantically attracted to any gender, often their relationships stay fairly platonic. It is quite possible to have homoromantic heterosexuals or hetero romantic homosexuals (which could account for some people who identify as bisexual, and even aromantic sexual people as well. It really depends on the person, human sexuality and gender are very diverse. Many people often use their own combination of romantic attraction and sexual attraction as the norm (hence all the people believing arelationship requires sex as well as love when it doesn't have to be the case). Why they do that is a whole other bag of worms with metaphysical and psychological implications that I don't want to get into right now (suffice to say it would require a lot of writing and I'm busy with essays on Hegel and Foucault right now).

Ah, good ol' Michel Foucault. I don't envy you, glad my essay writing days are long over. This wasn't directed at you, so your reply did nothing to enlighten me. I was asking is he was asexual, because I'm interested if sexually active beings were defining themselves as aromantic. Purely because it seems like a cop out way of explaining that they're a dick. With asexuals, I can easily understand this predicament. With sexually active people... not so much.

I'll be glad when I'm done too, though I find Foucault quite interesting.

That was the issue I was trying to address, but I doubt you'll find many people labeling themselves with a romantic orientation. As I've said, most people don't see a difference between their romantic orientation and their sexual orientation. Most aren't going to notice unless you introduce the concept to them. Anyhow, most people can't use being aromantic as an excuse for their actions. Most aromantics I've come across aren't sociopathic, they simply don't make that same emotional connection we call 'love'. This would be a lot easier if there was someone here that was aromantic to explain what they feel. Or check the AVEN Wiki, that'd be easier than me flailing around lol.

tl;dr (most of it)

So you can honestly tell me you've never looked at a person and thought "I'd tap that"?

Indeed. I believe I mentioned that I did fall in love once and I can honestly say that the emotional connection I felt had nothing to do with sexual attraction. In fact, it more or less sneaked up on me, with a person I had no prior interest in outside of our friendship. The most intimate thing I ever wanted to do with them was hug them. Having to sever that connection I had felt was one of the most emotionally trying aspects of my life, as anyone who has gone through it can tell you, heartbreak sure isn't fun.

I could tell you who is aesthetically appealing and all, as I am an artist and that's part of the job lol, but half the time I never understand what most people consider 'hot'.

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

No. It isn't.

A = lacking; without + sexual

A word can have multiple meanings, you know. It's okay. There's no law against it.

Well, okay, feel free to change the meaning of a word whenever you please-

No. God damn it.
Look. I just described to you the EXACT DEFINITION of the word. Technically, it's used MORE correctly in the nonsexual sense.
The biological sense is correct, sure, but it isn't a full description. "Asexual", in its most literal form, has absolutely no mention of reproducing without the help of a partner. Just no sex.

It's not changing the meaning of anything, it's using it literally.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

A = lacking; without + sexual

A word can have multiple meanings, you know. It's okay. There's no law against it.

Well, okay, feel free to change the meaning of a word whenever you please-

Oh, in my haste to nag and nitpick I forgot to respond to the OP!

I might, considering I was satisfied with how things were going, no sex might be hard though. We might work something out though

Asexuality, in human beings, is recognized for denoting a person who is uninterested in sex. This thread all but specifies that while the romantic partner is physically male or female, there is no interest in sex. Nobody here is jumping between meanings of words whenever it simply suits them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asexual

Different usages of words are not always false. All words are made up. If you want to make sure people don't jump around with meanings, stipulate when you introduce the term in an argument. "Asexuality, here understood as being unaffected by sexuality" or "asexuality, here understood as lacking sex organs."

 

[joshuaayt]

If I've developed feelings for the person, you'd better bet I'll stick with them- assuming they are mutual. Sex doesn't have to be the climax of a relationship.

 

[Hap2]

No. It isn't.

A = lacking; without + sexual

A word can have multiple meanings, you know. It's okay. There's no law against it.

Well, okay, feel free to change the meaning of a word whenever you please-

No. God damn it.
Look. I just described to you the EXACT DEFINITION of the word. Technically, it's used MORE correctly in the nonsexual sense.
The biological sense is correct, sure, but it isn't a full description. "Asexual", in its most literal form, has absolutely no mention of reproducing without the help of a partner. Just no sex.

It's not changing the meaning of anything, it's using it literally.

I wouldn't bother, the word works for us and it's been used for years in a different context from the one bushwacker2k is using. What matters here is the context, not the literal definition, plenty of words in language transgress from their original use and meaning. It's no big deal.

 

[Screamarie]

Though not asexual, I generally find sexual acts disgusting, noisy, and gross. Of course that could be because I am still a virgin...

**checks Screamarie's profile** Ah. Girl, you gotta get on that.

And sure, sex is certainly disgusting, noisy, and gross. The endorphine highs you get off the orgasms, though, make it all worthwhile.

Having a skilled (and note, I said skilled) partner makes the orgasms way better than anything you can achieve by yourself. Trust me, it's worth all the ick in the world. Plus, you can always shower afterwards if you're feeling really gross.

Lol while I appreciate your concern, I'm waiting to have sex until I meet someone I believe is worth it.

Beyond that I'm antisocial and extremely shy so I generally find the idea of intimate relationships on the level of nightmarish so I wouldn't be surprised if it never happens.

 

[thedailylunatic]

Danger, Will Robinson, DANGER! Asexual people shouldn't be dating people who aren't asexual. If they are, the relationship should be open. END OF STORY.

 

[D Moness]

Wow, all the folks on here who seem to think a relationship = sex. Just wow.

Yeah won't most people that reply like that be really disappointed when the truth hit them.

like someone said before love isn't the same as sex and sex isn't the same as love.
You could love someone without ever having sex with that person. You can also have sex with someone you do not love/care for(see : prostitutes).
Also people have sex with others they are not in a relationship with(so called fuck buddies).

Honestly for me i would rather find a romantic relationship then a sexual one. The idea of having sex really doesn't do it for me so to speak.

 

[Nightfire3230]

I AM an...

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.

...shit. I'll have to phrase that differently then...

Well, it's complicated. I may just have a really, really, really low sex drive, I'm not sure. Can you be asexual if you have fetishes?

You know, I'm actually not sure.
The AVEN wiki claims some asexual people masturbate for release. Not being one of said people, I never actually understood what they masturbated to.

Asexuality is primarily a lack of desire for the act of sex. You can be attracted to people or what have you, if usually in a sort of platonic way, so I don't see why having any weird kinks would make you non-asexual.

I know this guy at my school, he doesn't really like sex. Even if were watching movies in our class that has mild nudity, he'll cover his eyes or look away. Maybe asexual people don't like nudity.