Poll: Would you date an asexual person?

[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.

 

[Antitonic]

Spoiler: Snip

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.

There's the thing, would all sexual couples be alright with open relationships? Everyone is different, so I can only respond with my experiences and/or feelings. I dare not presume to talk for others.

As I said: personally, I wouldn't feel close enough to anyone (excluding obvious familiarial ties) to be considered "in a relationship". BUT if I ever did, I think I'd be alright with them seeking a sexual partner outside of the relationship. Obviously, I can't say for sure, not being in that situation, but I can hazard a pretty good guess.

 

[minuialear]

I wasn't saying that [A] is selfish to do but is perfectly okay. What I was getting at was the idea that, presuming an existing relationship, either side saying that "Because I am this way, then you must also be this way regardless of your own desires on the subject" is selfish.

Then why didn't you just say that, rather than making a snarky comment about how teh asexuals want to force us sexual people to be asexuals when we enter relationships with them?

To use non-sexual analogies, I am a vegan for ethical reasons therefor you must be a vegan for ethical reasons as well. I am Jewish, therefor you must also be Jewish. I am left handed, therefor you must also be left handed. Admittedly these are sloppy comparisons largely because unlike the sexuality issue, they aren't a core component of the assumed relationship.

All of these examples assume that one party is forcing a lifestyle on another...thus by implication you're saying someone is inherently going to force their sexual lifestyle on his/her partner, which just isn't always the case. If you're going to claim you're not trying to make biased blanket statements about people, then stop using analogies that imply just that.

 

[Jamous]

I genuinely have no clue.

 

[Baneat]

Spoiler: Snip

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.

There's the thing, would all sexual couples be alright with open relationships? Everyone is different, so I can only respond with my experiences and/or feelings. I dare not presume to talk for others.

As I said: personally, I wouldn't feel close enough to anyone (excluding obvious familiarial ties) to be considered "in a relationship". BUT if I ever did, I think I'd be alright with them seeking a sexual partner outside of the relationship. Obviously, I can't say for sure, not being in that situation, but I can hazard a pretty good guess.

Actually truth be told, if an asexual wants a romantic relationship and doesn't put out for the partner (provided they're not asexual)

I think this is just about the only practical solution, it's certainly the only scenario I would accept, hence my poll choice is not "dependant on the person" (Depending on their open-ness to compromise a component of me they don't even want).

 

[Sneeze]

I'd date them sure, it might not work out in the long run but I'm not going to say no at the first hurdle, we how it would work out I guess.

 

[Cpu46]

Well seeing as I am mostly an asexual person that would work quite well for me. More time for simple cuddling and other more constructive activities, like cooking or discussing the meaning of life!

 

[dslatch]

yep i'm one of the few teens who can honestly say sex is very low priority in my life...

 

[KarlMonster]

... The candor and openness you have shown is much more convincing, to me, than the "ah needs me some poon" provided by others (whom I am not addressing). ...

So needing poon isn't a legitimate answer?

Certainly it is an answer, but (for my purposes - if you'll indulge me?) 'legitimacy' ought to be weighted by the reflexivity of that answer. Certainly there is reflexivity on both sides. Yet there are more iterations of 'that' idea couched in language that seems dismissive of the topic.

 

[SturmDolch]

Would there be any physical contact? Or is it a strictly platonic relationship?

What's the difference between that and having a friendship, then?

I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm genuinely curious.

 

[bdcjacko]

... The candor and openness you have shown is much more convincing, to me, than the "ah needs me some poon" provided by others (whom I am not addressing). ...

So needing poon isn't a legitimate answer?

Certainly it is an answer, but (for my purposes - if you'll indulge me?) 'legitimacy' ought to be weighted by the reflexivity of that answer. Certainly there is reflexivity on both sides. Yet there are more iterations of 'that' idea couched in language that seems dismissive of the topic.

I understand that there is a wide range of people with low sexual appetites and asexual people. And I repect their non-desires. But I don't think you understand how good poon feels to us with high sexual appitites. Also speaking from experience, I was already in a low sex marriage and there is no way I would do that gain. And I don't care what brand or label or reason the relationship would have low to no sex, I ain't doing it again. Further more I rather be single and be able to jerk off like a free man than be in a relationship where my desires are not being met.

I explain all of this not to say your way is wrong my way is right because I do know what works for some doesn't work for others. That and I really need some poon. Go luck in find what makes you happy though.

 

[DP155ToneZone]

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

See, that just baffles me. Asexual people, statistically, should form a tiny percent of the population.

0.1% I think it is.

I'm not calling you a liar, just remarking on how strange it is.

 

[Verp]

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

See, that just baffles me. Asexual people, statistically, should form a tiny percent of the population.

0.1% I think it is.

I'm not calling you a liar, just remarking on how strange it is.

I'm not sure where you're getting the number from but the estimates I've seen have stated that about 1% of the human population, 4% at the very most, are asexual. That's 1-4 people in 100, which is still rare, but not THAT rare. The often-cited "ram experiment" where the sexual behaviour of rams was observed also came up with about 1% of the rams being asexual (not interested in mating with either sex, unaffected by forms of medication, in good health).

I've heard about theories which suggest that non-hetero orientation could be partially be a side product of a "hyper fertility" gene, because on average the siblings of homosexuals have more children. In my family's case that would make sense, because in my family asexuality seems to be unusually common but those of my kin who have children tend to go for five kids or more.

 

[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

See, that just baffles me. Asexual people, statistically, should form a tiny percent of the population.

0.1% I think it is.

I'm not calling you a liar, just remarking on how strange it is.

Its actually 1-5% so its not that crazy. At least you know they love you for you and not the sex

 

[Antitonic]

Would there be any physical contact? Or is it a strictly platonic relationship?

What's the difference between that and having a friendship, then?

I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm genuinely curious.

Depends on the person. Some have sex, some only go as far as cuddling, and some don't like any form of contact whatsoever.

EDIT: There's more people than would fit into those three areas. I just chose those as examples.

 

[trooper6]

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

See, that just baffles me. Asexual people, statistically, should form a tiny percent of the population.

0.1% I think it is.

I'm not calling you a liar, just remarking on how strange it is.

Its actually 1-5% so its not that crazy. At least you know they love you for you and not the sex

Not necessarily. I once dated a woman who was not very interested in sex...but that didn't mean she loved me for me. Actually, she was an emotional vampire who just used me for emotional support. She drained me dry, giving nothing back.

 

[Naheal]

Not everyone needs sex for intimacy. Strange, I know.

That said, I don't really "date" anymore. I rather like being just "me," especially after my last significant other. My friends and I are close enough to where it wouldn't make a difference, though.