Hi guys, Is it possible to have a homoromantic & asexual relationship? Because so far, I have only heard of heteroromantic asexual couples. I'm not sure if there are homoromantic asexual couples. Also, I have a concern whether such a relationship will have challenges due to the lack of sexual intimacy. Because I have read that sexual intimacy is one of the factors that strengthen relationships. This thread is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings. Its just that I want to learn and understand more about asexual relationships.
Well asexuals can have any kind of romantic interests or even don't have them (aromantic), for my knowledge, the big majorieties of asexual people are heteroromantic, indeed, aromantic and panromantic. It's quite uncommon to find homoromantic asexuals.
You have your homoromantic asexual here Im single, so I may not be able to offer any personal insights for your understanding of asexual relationships Being asexual itself is a spectrum; some are sex-repulsed (like me!), others are demisexual (theyre fine with doing it once an emotional bond is formed), and some are okay with having sex in order for procreation or to please their partners. So being asexual does not necessarily means that emotional intimacy is comprimised. Also, an asexual partner can still want to cuddle, kiss, hug with their special someone, its just that sex isnt in the picture.
She's right, i'm sex repulsed and an panromantic asexual myself, watching porn even gives me nausea. Dx
Sex is a natural & the most beautiful experiences we can have as human beings. Any inability to have sex, is surely due to internal psychological shadows. How else, if it were not for sex. would you have been created?
Inappropriate comment for this forum. What you're saying is true, but only applies toward heterosexual relationships. Most of us are not going to be creating biological children through sex, so the logic should not matter on a LGBT forum.
Well, i'm an sex repulsed panromantic asexual, and i don't have any emotional problems and i had a normal childhood. Sex gross me to the point i have nauseas. Sometimes i wonder if my asexuality is related to the fact of me being trans* , but i'm capable of falling in love and enjoying all kinds of contact but sex, i'm ok with erotica. I also never masturbated before and yeah, i have libido and fantasies still.
Asexuals are not broken, if that is what you are implying. Sure, there are some which have been assaulted before and hence developed disgust for sexual intercourse. But this doesnt apply to me. Also, most (and dare I say, all) of your claims are just merely viewpoints shrouded ingnorance and not facts. People can still be created from IVF, and there are test tube babies too, so to say that one can only procreate through sex is a really narrow minded view.
What makes the physical act of having sex the most beautiful experience exactly? So much evil happens as a result of some people's seemingly uncontrolable sexual needs. That is not to say that sex between loving partners is not a beautiful act. Intimacy is indeed beautiful but sex is not the only way to be intimate with a partner. Love is not dependent on the sexual connection between two people. Beauty comes from caring about others, helping them, seeing through their eyes and loving them for who they are. There are truly beautiful experiences such as holding a niece or nephew and seeing their joy and hearing their laughter, walking in nature and seeing the sun go down and the world around you fill with the deep red of the sun setting behind clouds. Just because a person is asexual, it doesn't mean that they can't love and experience the world's beauty fully, many of us simply don't really find sex to be that appealing. It can, after all, be a very uncomfortable experience if you don't feel aroused or have any real need for it. If sex is so beautiful, how come straight or gay people find sex with the opposite sex so undesirable and usually something that is the last thing they would ever want to do. This is true even if they love their partner. How hard is it to imagine that someone might feel the same way towards both men and women as homo/heterosexual people feel towards those they aren't attracted to.
I've never been in a relationship of any sort, and while I don't see it ever happening (due more to the fact I'm unloveable/unfriendable than being somewhere in asexual/demisexual) But for the sake of things... if I was to be in a relationship, I see a romantic-asexual relationship as being pretty much ideal...I'd still want the cuddle/kiss/hug/love parts (ideally being longterm / monogamous) but pass on sexual stuff.
Having a positive, beautiful sex, in a deeply loving relationship, is not easy, or common. Anyone who's had any other kind of sex, knows at some level, whether conscious of it or not, that they've merely taken the lid off, of what could be a deeply loving & erotic experience. Sex is a many layered experience, times 2 - including the life experience, emotional maturity, & capacity for intimate depth. There are many many many many things that interfere with sex being a beautiful experience. Yet being the body experience of love, & how most of us were created, there's nothing else like it in this human incarnation. ---------- Post added 2nd Jul 2016 at 11:53 PM ---------- Ok, how do you explain lgbtq people having children?
I think it's definitely possible to be in a homoromantic relationship while being asexual. You may have a slightly more limited number of potential dates, but I'm sure in this huge world, there's definitely someone who will be willing to be in such a relationship with you. I don't think sex is the most important thing in a relationship. Commitment, trust and communication are definitely much, much more important. You won't have to worry about sexual intimacy if you date another asexual. On the other hand, you may want to work out a compromise if you happen to be dating a non-asexual. I'm can't give you that much advice on this front, but I've heard that it works for some people, and hopefully it does for you. I disagree. There are so many problems with this post. 1) How is sex the most beautiful thing anyone can experience? First, beauty is subjective. Second, sex is nothing without respect, trust and communication. Would you call rutting and fucking beautiful? I wouldn't. Sex is beautiful in the context of a safe, sane and consensual relationship but beyond that, it's nothing, and can even be the most damaging experience in a person's life. 2) I thought we were far enough into visibility to establish that asexuality is not an inability to have sex, but apparently we're not. And shitting on other people's sexual orientations is still a common thing in an LGBTQ+ forum, isn't it? Here it is again: Asexuality does not mean an inability to have sex. It just means a lack of sexual attraction towards anyone. Some asexuals can and do have sex, other asexuals prefer not to have sex. Hell, some non-asexual people don't like sex too, and they don't have it. 3) Apart from the acephobia, you sound extremely ableist. Some people may not be asexual, but are unable to have sex due to some biological dysfunction. Other people may have had traumatic experiences. When you called sex "natural", you implied that people who were unable to have sex for any reason were unnatural. That is rude and disrespectful. A physical or mental disability to have sex, of all things, does not make a person unnatural. A victim of sexual abuse with PTSD is not "unnatural". A diabetic who has experienced damage to blood vessels and nerves and is unable to have sex is sure as hell not "unnatural". Please watch your words. 4) Sex does not create babies, you donut. Creating a baby goes roughly like this: - Sperm fertilizes egg and forms a zygote - The zygote undergoes mitosis and cell specialization, eventually forms a fetus, aka a baby. Did you know you can do that by artificial insemination and not sex? Did you know birds don't have sex to make little baby birds? Did you know sex isn't a step in lizard baby-making? I wish to God people would stop using biology as an argument against asexuality. You can't win, and it makes you look dumb.
Aside from bisexual people, GAY people don't have children through sex. That's the point. They either adopt, use sperm donation, surrogacy, or IVF. If they do choose to have sex to make children, they do not love and are not attracted to the other party. It's only for reproduction without feelings. So It's obviously not a beautiful experience to them, to us sex with the opposite sex feels no different than taking a shit.
Loli21: "Aside from bisexual people, GAY people don't have children through sex. That's the point. They either adopt, use sperm donation, surrogacy, or IVF. If they do choose to have sex to make children, they do not love and are not attracted to the other party. It's only for reproduction without feelings. So It's obviously not a beautiful experience to them, to us sex with the opposite sex feels no different than taking a shit." There's a lot of assumptions in your post that are not factual or true. I'm not going to go into them, because this thread has taken on a really nasty tone … which has nothing to do with the positive aspects of relationships that all of us cherish. :
All I'm saying is that this thread started out being acephobic, saying people need to have sex or something is wrong with them. Now you are being homophobic by saying that sex is beautiful because of reproduction and/or hinting that gay people should be sleeping with the opposite sex? Correct me if I'm wrong (Because how else would this be relevant to sex and reproduction)? I am not asexual or dislike sex. But I am a lesbian and I am constantly told that I need the right guy, I need to learn to fuck men, and that my sexual experiences aren't real or don't count unless a man is involved. I can relate to asexuals because hearing that is hurtful. And furthermore, I don't even agree with it. I see nothing beautiful, real, or special about sex with men. To me it feels no different than masturbation...I don't hate men, but sexually I view them as walking dildos that talk way too much. For sex that has meaning and intimacy, I have women.
I read a bit of your past posts and it seems that you are in a process of reevaluating your perception of sex and working on build up a narrative about how beautiful sex can be when it revolves around intimacy. I do respect your change of perception and your need to reexamine your life and experiences. Too many people view sex as nothing more than a physical act and a need and by doing so miss the most meaningful element of the act of having sex: Strengthening your intimate connection with your partner through the vulnerability inherent in the sexual act. However, this thread was never really about the beauty of sexual intimacy. It was started by a person who is asexual and consequently doesn't rely on the physical act of sex to form such an intimate bond with their partner. Yet they still want to find a partner and are afraid that not having sex with have a negative impact on their ability to find such a partner. The thing is, people don't need sex to be intimate with a partner and having sex does not inherently make a relationship more intimate. Think about it, in the past you felt frustration that sexual encounters with men weren't focused on the mind only on the bodily needs. Sex for these men is not about intimacy but about fulfilling a need, a form of addiction which is close to a person's need to eat. I am 35 and have never felt such a need, sex to me was always incomprehensible because it felt so empty. I learned over the years that it does serve an important purpose for most people but I simply didn't have the same needs. I filled my need for intimacy in different ways: by listening to someone, talking to them, understanding who they are and seeing through their eyes, hugging them and being there for them when they are in distress or are sad. I don't feel some longing for intimacy because it is so easy for me to connect deeply and emotionally with those that I love, I find intimacy everywhere and I allow myself to be vulnerable with others that i care about. Over time I realized that being trans has had a serious impact on my ability to form an identity and that might be one of the reasons why I was unable to visualize myself in a relationship. Yet, despite this, I don't feel that lack of intimacy is a real problem for me, in fact, I am moving out so I can have some space, because I respond so strongly to others, I feel their life, what they are thinking and live through them. That's at the very heart of intimacy and I am overwhelmed with this feeling of always being so strongly connected to everyone around me. Can I ask you something, have you ever experienced the intimate connection that you describe here? Are you in such a relationship now and how would you feel if things become habitual, you lose the intense spark of life that lies at the heart of your description of the sexual act? I know that the passion and love dies away over time as things become habitual and people constantly need to work on their relationship to regain the same level of intimacy that they felt at the start. Relationships are about compromise and sacrifice, about giving your life to your partner and not expecting anything in return. What are you really searching for in a relationship? (*hug*)
BeingDude, please just understand that you are under the false pretense that you're speaking from a position of universal truth, while it's really just your own subjective values - which basically no here here appreciate, by the way - that you're espousing. That sex is oh, so great, and beautiful and whatever, is not true or false, it's simply your personal, subjective opinion. There is nothing factual or universal about it. Plus you're arguing against simple truth, facts, just by saying they're false without explaining why. And like Eris said, asexuality isn't something broken. It's an orientation, like straight, gay, and bi, sometimes called "the fourth sexuality". Asexuals can live happy, fulfilling lives without sexual attraction. If you are unable to understand that, then educate yourself or keep your ignorance to yourself, please.
OK, first, there's some real misinformation being presented here. First, asexuality absolutely exists and, if we are talking about the widely used definition, is a hardwired sexual orientation that is no different in its hardwiring from hetero or homosexuality. As such, asexuality (according to this definition) is not a psychological problem any more than homosexuality is a psychological problem. It's a normal, albeit rare, sexual orientation. That said, there is another definition of asexuality promoted by a tiny fringe group. This other unrecognized definition is difficult to pin down because it is not rooted in anything measurable, quantifiable, or scientific; you ask 10 people what the unrecognized definition means, and you'll get 10 different sets of criteria. Among those who are in the group that meets the unrecognized definition of asexuality, according to the limited and flawed research, about 60% of that population also has depression, anxiety, or another mental health condition that directly causes a suppression of sexual arousal and attraction. So, while these people may feel no sexual attraction, they aren't asexual using the hardwired, widely accepted definition, any more than someone who has the flu and feels decidedly unsexual is an asexual person. Most of these people will find that if they address the co-occurring disorder and get it under control, that their sexual arousal and attraction will re-emerge. This isn't the case for the hardwired asexuals. And that's why it's really important that we explore this possibility, rule out other issues that could be contributing to the lack of sexual arousal/attraction before settling on a label that will box one in and prevent the possibility of having a rich and fulfilling relationship with another person. Then, as far as the whole romantic vs sexual orientation, there's no credible research or study in the field, nor much of anyone credible in the clinical field that recognizes a separation between romantic and sexual orientation. When we do see people describing this separation, most commonly, they are people who are in the process of coming out and it becomes a part of the "bargaining" stage. In prior years, people in this stage referred to themselves as bisexual (Not to say there aren't people who are genuinely bisexual), but using the "heterosexual/homoromantic" label seems to be the label du jour during the bargaining phase these days. So there is actually a label for people who feel a strong connection to someone, but have no desire to have sex with them. It's called "friendship", and a lot of people don't seem to understand that one can have a deep, emotionally intimate and vulnerable connection with someone that is simply friendship. But this is actually quite common, and for whatever reason, it's been a trend in the past few years to mislabel emotionally intimate connection and friendship as "romantic relationship." But to say that one cannot have a meaningful, deep relationship without sex... is simply not true.
