Poll: Would you date an asexual person?

[Hectix777]

The Asari are asexual right? Yeah, I could go into a long term relationship with an immortal blue chick from space, and I'll be able to say,"FIRSTIES!!!," after doing what nerds have dreamed of doing ever since Star Trek aired. Giggedy-giggedy-giggedy-giggedy-goo!

No they are not asexual, they are monogendered meaning they only come out with boobs and female look. There is nothing else

What's the difference between asexual and monogendered?

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

Hey I have a question for you:

Ok say you liked someone very much as a person, in a romantic sort-of way (Basically everything a normal relationship contains subtract the sexual parts)

Ok then, would you be willing to allow said person to sleep with whomever they wish for physical release, under the condition that the emotional fidelity is intact?

Or would you be willing to go so far as to have sex with that person to meet their physical needs, knowing full-well that you won't enjoy the act in itself?

This won't ever be a problem for me. But let's go ahead and be hypothetical here.

I'm not incapable of or outright disgusted by sex. It just doesn't interest me in the slightest.
I GUESS I'd be willing to do it, if I they wanted to. It'd be like a huge chore, but relationships are not without sacrifice.

Sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity are pretty much synonymous with most people, so I wouldn't be able to just sort of sit by while whoever I'm with goes around screwing people. It'd feel like the relationship is belittled somehow.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

For how I think of love, yeah. I ultimately love my friends to only a slightly lesser extent than those I romantically love. I tell the same stories, I ask the same questions, I get to know them just as well. I wouldn't estrange myself of them just for their desire not to have sex. I'll still discuss intimacy and sex with them, or with them around, just as I would with anyone I'm close enough to. Would I date them, though...probably not, no. At least, not romantically. They would get the invite if it were a group date, or the competition date. It sounds like having a really great friend, the one you don't sleep with, but still trust enough to tell everything to. Sure, why wouldn't I have one of those?

 

[trooper6]

You are missing the point entirely and are still arguing with a straw man. No one is arguing for you to give up your sexuality, you might want to read some of my other posts in this thread as I did touch on that already. I have said, and I quote "Different people are going to need different things in a relationship." What I want to argue against is the mistaken belief that a relationship without sex is just friendship when it is not necessarily so for everyone. Period. Full stop. What you want or do not want in a relationship is of no concern to me or my arguments.

I do find it fascinating that you think that I'm out to force asexuality on the rest of the world though. And I would question as to why some sexuals feel threatened by asexuals when all we want is the acknowledgment of our existence as a legitimate orientation.

You are the one arguing with a straw man. I have never dismissed your asexuality as an illegitimate orientation.
I also don't think that you are trying to force asexuality on the world. However, a monogamous asexual person who entered into a relationship with me would be forcing their asexuality on me--because I would not be able to have sex with anyone else, or with them. That would not be acceptable to me, which is why I wouldn't date an asexual person.

Now, let me be very clear: FOR ME (not for you), a relationship without sexual desire is a friendship. That is not the case for you and more power to you. You are free to define your relationships as you will. But for me, a relationship without sexual desire is a friendship, or a familial relationship, not a romantic one. Just as I won't impose my definition on you, don't impose your definition on me.

 

[nunqual]

Nope. Can't have a relationship without intimacy and eventually sex. It would just be a close friendship, at best.

 

[Baneat]

Hey I have a question for you:

Ok say you liked someone very much as a person, in a romantic sort-of way (Basically everything a normal relationship contains subtract the sexual parts)

Ok then, would you be willing to allow said person to sleep with whomever they wish for physical release, under the condition that the emotional fidelity is intact?

Or would you be willing to go so far as to have sex with that person to meet their physical needs, knowing full-well that you won't enjoy the act in itself?

This won't ever be a problem for me. But let's go ahead and be hypothetical here.

I'm not incapable of or outright disgusted by sex. It just doesn't interest me in the slightest.
I GUESS I'd be willing to do it, if I they wanted to. It'd be like a huge chore, but relationships are not without sacrifice.

Sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity are pretty much synonymous with most people, so I wouldn't be able to just sort of sit by while whoever I'm with goes around screwing people. It'd feel like the relationship is belittled somehow.

OK so say it was you, and me, since you wouldn't be able to compromise on the physical need part, I would have to say no to the poll, since I would have to compromise on enjoying sex (No fun when the partner's not into it, may as well buy a flesh-doll for all it's worth) which is probably too much of a compromise.

I don't feel they're synonymous in the slightest, I'd have much more issue with a relationship where the partner's emotionally cheating than physically, deceit is the main thing I abhorr.

Any asexuals who would have no problem with allowing their life-partner or w.e the hell you'd call it have sex with others to meet a physical need here?

 

[AngloDoom]

Honestly, the idea of asexuality is incredibly alien to me. I've read through several of the comments on this topic, looks at links, done a little research and such, and my mind still finds it hard to grasp.

I mean, part of me isn't convinced, yet I want to accept this because I'd rather be open to the idea., but it's a bit like someone turning around to me and saying they see dogs as cats.

To answer the question, I'm not sure at all! It's all so confusing!

 

[Lucifron]

I would honestly. Sex isn't all that matters in a relationship. I won't not date someone due to them not wanting to have sex. That's rather selfish in my book.

Was your post just strangely worded, or did you just say that you should sympathy-date asexual people on their terms because it's selfish to wish to satisfy one of your strongest biological needs?

Not to be rude but I think it was misread. I didn't say anything about dating them out of sympathy. All I said was that I would date someone that's asexual. Also by definition to join in a relationship being driven by sex, while yes sexual attraction is what starts it, and not being able to have sex makes it a deal breaker, is to me selfish. Relationships are about companionship and having romantic feelings for another. Sex is just a physical act.

Not rude at all.
I suppose it depends on how you value sex. It can be anything from the ultimate expression of love to completely uninteresting. As for sex being a deal-breaker, well, we are all selfish when choosing our partners, and we won't choose people who are lacking in features that we value, be that sexual lust or appreciated of Anne Rice novels. Well, when we get out of our desperate teens, anyway.

 

[Antitonic]

Any asexuals who would have no problem with allowing their life-partner or w.e the hell you'd call it have sex with others to meet a physical need here?

Hi, how's it going?

In this theoretical relationship, I'd understand that they wouldn't be getting what they wanted, so I'd encourage them to seek solace elsewhere.

However, as an aromantic asexual, I don't feel the need to be that close to people anyway. So yeah, there's that.

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

OK so say it was you, and me, since you wouldn't be able to compromise on the physical need part, I would have to say no to the poll, since I would have to compromise on enjoying sex (No fun when the partner's not into it, may as well buy a flesh-doll for all it's worth) which is probably too much of a compromise.

I don't feel they're synonymous in the slightest, I'd have much more issue with a relationship where the partner's emotionally cheating than physically, deceit is the main thing I abhorr.

Any asexuals who would have no problem with allowing their life-partner or w.e the hell you'd call it have sex with others to meet a physical need here?

Okay, so you know, it's not like asexuals are lacking nerve endings and shit. We can FEEL everything, we're not dead from the waist down. To quote Greyfox earlier in this thread, we're asexual, not stones.

It's not an unpleasureable experience, from what I hear, it's just not SO FUCKING AMAZING and sought out like a basic need. I don't think asexual people would just be lying there like corpses. It'd still be an intimate moment and like having any other sexual partner, you'd just always have to be the instigator.

This is going off of what other people say here, by the way, so forgive me if I'm wrong, other asexuals.

 

[Baneat]

Any asexuals who would have no problem with allowing their life-partner or w.e the hell you'd call it have sex with others to meet a physical need here?

Hi, how's it going?

In this theoretical relationship, I'd understand that they wouldn't be getting what they wanted, so I'd encourage them to seek solace elsewhere.

However, as an aromantic asexual, I don't feel the need to be that close to people anyway. So yeah, there's that.

Yo-

As a bisexual pro-romantic (eh? doesn't matter), I can only project my own ideas into asexuals, which is of course a terrible way to do things.

My question is: would all asexuals have a problem with this? I don't personally have a problem with multiple sexual partners in romantic relationships, as long as the deciding vote was given to the non-sleeping-around partner, and they are fully clued in as to what's going on.

So, I need real asexuals up in dis tread, cause I'm intrigued to know if all asexuals would conclude the same way as you and monkfish (ie won't compromise physical to maintain the emotional), or follow my lines of reasoning.

Oh monkfish I apologize for the expression in that post, I realised it was a little clumsy and could convey that message - it was not intended.

 

[Yoshemo]

I already dated two asexual guys. One for a few months, the other for just over a year. Surprisingly, we broke up for non-sexual problems

 

[Lizmichi]

I would honestly. Sex isn't all that matters in a relationship. I won't not date someone due to them not wanting to have sex. That's rather selfish in my book.

Was your post just strangely worded, or did you just say that you should sympathy-date asexual people on their terms because it's selfish to wish to satisfy one of your strongest biological needs?

Not to be rude but I think it was misread. I didn't say anything about dating them out of sympathy. All I said was that I would date someone that's asexual. Also by definition to join in a relationship being driven by sex, while yes sexual attraction is what starts it, and not being able to have sex makes it a deal breaker, is to me selfish. Relationships are about companionship and having romantic feelings for another. Sex is just a physical act.

Not rude at all.
I suppose it depends on how you value sex. It can be anything from the ultimate expression of love to completely uninteresting. As for sex being a deal-breaker, well, we are all selfish when choosing our partners, and we won't choose people who are lacking in features that we value, be that sexual lust or appreciated of Anne Rice novels. Well, when we get out of our desperate teens, anyway.

I can agree with that. For me sex is the ultimate expression of love yet, oddly enough, I crave sex maybe more then the average person. Could have something to do with my sexuality, after all bisexuals I believe have a higher sex drive.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

Aye, I would. If they kept me happy and I could do the same for them, the lack of sex wouldn't be a huge issue.

 

[Hap2]

You are missing the point entirely and are still arguing with a straw man. No one is arguing for you to give up your sexuality, you might want to read some of my other posts in this thread as I did touch on that already. I have said, and I quote "Different people are going to need different things in a relationship." What I want to argue against is the mistaken belief that a relationship without sex is just friendship when it is not necessarily so for everyone. Period. Full stop. What you want or do not want in a relationship is of no concern to me or my arguments.

I do find it fascinating that you think that I'm out to force asexuality on the rest of the world though. And I would question as to why some sexuals feel threatened by asexuals when all we want is the acknowledgment of our existence as a legitimate orientation.

You are the one arguing with a straw man. I have never dismissed your asexuality as an illegitimate orientation.
I also don't think that you are trying to force asexuality on the world. However, a monogamous asexual person who entered into a relationship with me would be forcing their asexuality on me--because I would not be able to have sex with anyone else, or with them. That would not be acceptable to me, which is why I wouldn't date an asexual person.

Now, let me be very clear: FOR ME (not for you), a relationship without sexual desire is a friendship. That is not the case for you and more power to you. You are free to define your relationships as you will. But for me, a relationship without sexual desire is a friendship, or a familial relationship, not a romantic one. Just as I won't impose my definition on you, don't impose your definition on me.

I have no idea what you are arguing against because whatever it is you think I am arguing for is definitely not the case. You've taken some random aspects of my statements out of context and have blown them into some distortion for whatever inadequacy you are feeling about the topic. How many times do I have to say it, no one is arguing for imposing anything on you, I'm not, and no one else is, it is all in your head. I don't know who you are arguing with, but it sure as heck isn't with anything I've actually argued for. I have never argued for imposing one's own relationship necessities onto others. I have argued against it.

Taking one of my posts out of context in a misrepresentation of what I was actually stating is a straw man argument. That bit you quoted about compromise was to do with a completely different issue. That post was reacting to the idea that asexuality was a dislike for sex, whereas I was trying to show that that is not the case. It had nothing to do with "imposing a definition" on you or anyone else. I would kindly ask you to stop with the straw man arguments, because they don't accomplish anything. If you want to argue, fine, come up with an actual reason to do so, but don't go pushing some false representation of my words onto some issue of yours you have with me or in arguments where it doesn't belong. It's rude, not to mention it reflects badly on your ability to comprehend and understand.

 

[Taunta]

No. I don't think it's shallow to say that sex is a huge part of a relationship, and being that intimate with your partner brings your closeness to a whole new level. I don't see it working, it would be just "close friends".

That and personally, I have a very high sex drive, so I could see myself going crazy if I was with someone who didn't.

 

[Hectix777]

The Asari are asexual right? Yeah, I could go into a long term relationship with an immortal blue chick from space, and I'll be able to say,"FIRSTIES!!!," after doing what nerds have dreamed of doing ever since Star Trek aired. Giggedy-giggedy-giggedy-giggedy-goo!

No they are not asexual, they are monogendered meaning they only come out with boobs and female look. There is nothing else

What's the difference between asexual and monogendered?

mono-gendered are only 1 gender and WANT sex. They are interested in sex. Asexuals have no interest in sex, they dont care or want it or need it

Oh (walks away)

 

[Stuberfinn88]

yeah... no. Trying to have a serious relationship with someone who is biologically or emotionally unable to do just that doesn't make sense, asexuals don't want or have the need for a real relationship, they lack that drive to strive for sex, about the only thing that would come from it would be to be friends, which doesnt require the aspect of what asexuals lack, the only other way would be to try and get some sort of financial or legal help from the aspect of forming a fake relationship.

 

[thehorror2]

As a romantic with little to no actual sex drive (who may in fact be asexual himself), this situation works out perfectly. She's uncomfortable with it, I never feel the need to push the issue as long as there's some emotional and physical intimacy involved. When I was dating a non-asexual girl, I was always the one turning her down for sex and it helped kill the relationship.

So, yeah...

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

Nope. The physical part of a relationship is every part as important as the emotional.