Asexuality in general

@Loni Jay No, it cannot be healthy. One party would essentially be requiring the other to be uncomfortable for the rest of their lives. Healthy relationships don't do that. Like I said, you wouldn't except a lesbian to have sex with a man for the rest of her life.

@Unknowing I don't know what you just described but it's not asexuality. No one's calling you a barbarian for having sex. We just think you're a little weird.

I actually made a term for this kind of issue: the Lover's dilemma

Essentially, it involves two people, we'll call them Alice and Bob, both of whom are in love with each other. and being in love, they are both willing to put the other's needs above their own.

now, Alice desires an activity which will cause Bob a level of discomfort if in acted. however, not engaging the activity would cause Alice an equal level of discomfort.

since both parties are in love with each other, both would chose to make the other party satisfied at their discomfort, but the scenario is limited in one person must have their needs placed above their love. hence, the dilemma.

I know its a pretty simple dilemma, but I never saw anyone put that into words before. also, its pretty obviously applicable to a asexual-allosexual relationship

EDIT: except, a lesbian would, by definition, not love a man, hence have 0 reason to have sex with one. an asexual woman can still love a man, while not wanting to have sex with him, which (if the man is allosexual), lead right back to the above mentioned dilemma.

edited 31st Dec '17 11:06:35 AM by Jetyl

From what I understand a lesbian could enter a relashionship with a man before she realized she's a lesbian, and fall in love with him while she still thinks she's straight.

She would then quickly fall out of love as it becomes appearent that the relashionship makes her unhappy. Same with aces.

The point is you will fall out of love with a person pretty quickly if they are doing something to you that hurts you. Unconditional love does not exist between people.

edited 31st Dec '17 11:24:19 AM by ScotieRw

if a woman legitimately falls in love with a man, then I don't think she is exclusively gyno-romantic (romantically attracted to femininity). her romantic orientation would be at least bi-romantic/pan-romantic, regardless of her sexual orientation. which again, can easily fall into the Lovers Dilemma when their are conflicts. she cares for the man, loves him, but does not want sex with him.

as for a closeted/unaware lesbian woman dating a man, I usually hear the term compulsory heterosexuality thrown around in regards to that action. that she didn't really love him/was doing what she though she was supposed to be doing. I'll admit I am not an expert to how people act when they don't have a solid grasp of their orientation, but in general, that's what I hear.

also, again, there is more than just sex in a relationship. for some people, dealing with Lovers dilemma regarding sex can be enough to break a relationship, and that's fine. But for others, not so much. its not a universal thing. An asexual-allosexual relationship is not inherently doomed, just one that requires a lot of communication, and for the couple to agree upon a solution to the present Lover's Dilemma.

I am kind of curious about how common heterosexual/homoromantic is. There's a lot of people out there who are (ostensibly) straight, but their deepest, closest relationship is with someone else of the same sex. But it wouldn't even occur to lots of people because of the assumption that romantic and sexual attraction are exactly the same thing.

Because once you realize that sexual attraction and romantic attraction might not be connected to each other, that opens a ton of possibilities. (Albeit, some nonstandard ones.)

I don't know how romantic orientation works honestly let's just focus on the aforementioned point I was trying to make about incompatible orientations.

There is more to a relationship to sex, yes, but sex is an unnegotionable part of it. Professional marriage councilors will tell you that. Like every list of marriage advice ever written by a guy with a degree will talk about how important sex is to a relationship in regards to allosexuals. I personally don't understand the importance, but I'm going to trust the professionals on this one.

The idea that a relationship between an asexual person and an allosexual person is doomed to fail is ridiculous.

Putting aside that there's asexual people who don't mind, or even enjoy sex, and simply lack an interest in it, it shouldn't be impossible to create an arrangement that accommodates both parties. Either by the allosexual person abstaining from sex, or seeking sexual pleasure through other means besides their asexual partner (making sure, of course, that the asexual person has consented to them doing so).

I'm not saying it would definitely work, because that's no better than saying it definitely won't work. As Jetyl said, communication is absolutely key. Both parties should have a serious, open discussion and come to an understanding as to whether their relationship will be able to work or not.

the level of negotiability of sex is also, not universal. it differs from person to person.

for me, a sex-repulsed asexual, its not very negotiable. but for a sex-indifferent asexual, its much more negotiable.

and that doesn't just have to be on the asexual side. allosexual people are not a monolith, and have very widely differing takes on how vital a sex is to their relationship.

basically, its a spectrum, and a lot of it needs to be dealt on a case by case basis.

edited 31st Dec '17 12:48:57 PM by Jetyl

Enjoying sex means you're gray sexual, not asexual. That kind of relationship can work. That's a confusing topic though and not what the person who brought the issue up is describing. We were referring to an pure asexual who takes displeasure in sex.

Allosexuals need sex. It's biology. This is stuff doctors talk about. The other option is an open relationship. I don't know how those work.

We're starting to get into stuff I have knowledge about. I think I'm going to have to step out of the conversation.

Edit: You guys don't seem to put much empathis on gray sexuality as much as I do. What is your opinion on that matter?

edited 31st Dec '17 12:56:26 PM by ScotieRw

I might be in that category, I'm not sure. (I identify as homoromantic/asexual.) I've just never had sex. I'm not repulsed or anything, but I'm mostly just intellectually curious. I wouldn't be surprised if my reaction was either "eh, I didn't like that very much" or "that was okay I guess." Might be wrong though.

edited 31st Dec '17 12:59:01 PM by Zendervai

The standard definition of gray-asexual is someone who only occasionally experiences sexual attraction, not a person who doesn't experience sexual attraction but nevertheless enjoys the physical act of sex. Asexual people can enjoy sex. I have a friend who is asexual but also enjoys sexual relationships.

However, more importantly than the literal definition, you're gray-asexual if you identify as gray-asexual. If you identify as asexual more than gray-asexual, then that's what you are.

Actually yes. Asexual sometimes means someone who has a sex drive...but just isn't attracted to anyone.

I have always defined graysexual as you enjoy sex and maybe masturbate, you just don't get turned on that easily while asexual is you've not interest in anything sexual whatsoever.

Also I'm sorry but that mindset is kind of bullshit. You could be sexually attracted to men but identify as lesbian that doesn't change the fact you're straight.

That may be how you define the terms, but it's reductive to try and forcibly apply those definitions to other people on the ace spectrum. As I said, I have a friend who enjoys sex and has engaged in sexual activities. I'm repulsed by sex and anything sexual. We both identify as asexual, we both fit the definition of asexual as 'people who don't experience sexual attraction', and we're both well within our right to identify as asexual.

The ace spectrum is large and oftentimes confusing. There's a lot of gray area (if 'gray-asexual' wasn't a tip off to that ), perhaps even more so than some other orientations. It may be inaccurate for a straight person to identify as lesbian, but there's more leeway when it comes to being asexual, being gray-ace, being demi, even without taking romantic orientations into consideration. It's more important to find a label that you feel comfortable with than forcibly aligning yourself with a 'you're [a] and [b], therefore you are definitely without question [x]' checklist.

It's also because asexuality (and sexual orientations in general) are so multi-faceted and often confusing that saying 'this relationship between an ace and a non-ace will definitely work out/definitely not work out' is, imo, wrong.

Also, you probably didn't mean it, but 'being a girl attracted to guys' doesn't automatically equate to being straight. Bi/Pan people exist.

asexuality describes the desire to have sex and sexual attraction, not the enjoyment of sex. asexual can be repulsed, indifferent, and even enjoy it, all without wanting it, per say.

Grey-Ace describes someone who does experience sexual desire and attraction, but at a very minimal and/or infrequent amount.

I'm getting the impression from you guys that I don't know anything and should probably go to the doctor.

And I did not mean that. As you can tell by the fact I did not desribe the girl as being attracted to both men and women but rather only to men.

I'm asexual: no sex in umm... (does some counting) twenty? years. Didn't hate it; don't miss it... Not particularly keen to seek it out, but not overly worried should it crop up again. If it keeps a relationship I want alive and kicking, I'd try to bang twice a day and deal with the physical fall-out... if doable (I have CFS — that will always be a factor above and beyond anything else) . <shrugs> I'd only get exercise out of it, but I guess the cardio is worth it if paced properly?

Asexual doesn't just mean "can't stand the thought of sex". I don't get the whole point (and never will — do kind of understand sex to some extent, but really don't get masturbation, since it's up there with trying to surprise-tickle yourself in the sheer pointlessness department in my book), but I'm not such a total doof that grumbling about doing it to somebody I like who does is high on the agenda.

Don't get the point of trying to define whatever greysexual is supposed to be, since it seems to differ from person to person.

Lavender is a fine colour.

Nobody NEEDS sex.

I have yet to hear of anybody who literally died or became seriously ill because they wanted to have sex and then couldn't. Just because sexual desires are a natural part of many people's life, it doesn't mean they need to have those desires met by having sex with another person, in the same way that you need to have hunger met by eating. You can substitute other things for sex; you can't substitute anything for a need.

Might seem like semantics, but I think it's important to make that distinction. Otherwise, you'd be entitled to coerce other people to sleep with you, since after all you need it, and refusing to sleep with you is depriving you of your needs.

edited 31st Dec '17 10:30:34 PM by LoniJay

Unless I'm missing something, nobody was trying to argue that people are entitled to sex or whatever.

edited 1st Jan '18 12:10:40 AM by Draghinazzo

No, nobody here was arguing that.

I just think it's the logical next step from saying that sex is a 'need' for all non-asexual people, and if that need isn't being met the relationship is always unhealthy no matter what the participants might say.

For some people, not having enough/any sex might indeed be enough to make the relationship unhealthy, because they aren't happy. That's fine. That's one of the reasons my last/only relationship ended. Not anybody's fault, just one of those things. I just don't think you can extend that to all people in relationships with asexual people.

I remember something a series said onces, I think was everwood or something like that.

"When sex is good, is like 5% of the relationships, when sex is bad, it becomes 95%"

while is true that people can live without sex, is not a simple thing of "down have and is fine" since people want it, and can be unhealthy not have if you want it, funny thing is that once people have sex or can have in a healthy way it suddenly become irrelevant again.

"allosexual people are not a monolith, and have very widely differing takes on how vital a sex is to their relationship."

case in point here: I have being thinking about make sex a negociable thing with my girlfriend(that was before knowing she didnt enjoy sex) and I drop be because know she didnt feel anything is kinda a huge turn off and that is because sexuality is tie with desirability, knowing someone dosent desire you is....off.

" No one's calling you a barbarian for having sex. We just think you're a little weird. "

Im taking about sexual repulse asexual, just look the page before this one, there was a trope who consider cuting the genitals to cut the whole thing.

Also for you asexual....what was your first clue about your sexual nature? because in my girlfriend case, my first clue was in a comic she is making(she draw and think the concepts, I help her writing) and the MC(who look and act a lot like her, being almost a self insert) is asexual, It was a weird choice at first but in retrospective it made sense.

edited 3rd Jan '18 11:07:37 PM by unknowing

When everybody around you starts acting weirder than normal about the opposite sex, and you really don't react the same ways, you start picking the hint up that something about you is weird.

No real daydreams about boy bands, no swooning over actors, no dressing Barbie up in skimpies to do the dirty with Ken unless as a joke... I had to pretend all that (and did a poor job). I never was all that interested in pictures of semi-naked guys; I preferred talking to them in clothes, thanks. When I finally realised this, I felt silly for trying to pretend for so long.

And, I never was interested in semi-naked girls, either. Just a bit less interested than in the boys.

In general, yeah, realising that other people are talking about and feeling something that you just don't. That happened for me as young as like... 11, 12? But I didn't actually ID as asexual until I was 25.

As a teen/early twenties person, some clues were: Once I learned asexuality existed, I became very interested in characters who were ace, despite not quite wanting to put the label on myself.

Another confirmation was taking it for granted that most depictions of sexual desire or romantic stuff in media was exaggeration for effect or poetic licence (fireworks, crashing tidal waves of emotion, etc)... then speaking to someone who was puzzled by this and claimed that, no, it really was like that for them most of the time.

Hit me at about the same age. Teachers, parents and others kept telling me how these surges of emotional attachment and puppydog horniness would be confusing at first, but I'd learn to adjust. My inevitable internal reaction? "What surges? Sure, I get angry, confused and stupidly happy at odd times, but what is this rest they bang on about?"

edited 4th Jan '18 4:11:39 AM by Euodiachloris

I think I just got mine confused with that deeply embarrassing in hindsight "I'm Not Like Other Girls, other people my age are just silly and immature, unlike me" mentality that some geeky/introverted people fall into.