@99: Many romantic asexuals like to kiss, touch, cuddle, be close to in a way that usually is too close for just friendship, spend a lot of alone time, with their partner(s). You can have intimacy without having sex.

@100: It wouldn't be the case for a sexual person, but for an asexual, it can be very true, and Dan doesn't take that into consideration. An asexual will sometimes be willing to sacrifice some of their comfort and intimacy to have sex, something they might find awkward or even gross, and makes them feel less romantically connected to their partner(s).

@101: "An asexual will sometimes be willing to sacrifice some of their comfort and intimacy to have sex, something they might find awkward or even gross, and makes them feel less romantically connected to their partner(s)."

What if this sentence were tweaked to read " A [gay man] will sometimes be willing to sacrifice some of their comfort and intimacy to have sex [with a woman], something they might find awkward or even gross, and makes them feel less romantically connected." Wouldn't that seem ridiculous?

Asexuals want to have their innate sexual orientation to be respected as such. I am happy to grant that. But in return, asexuals need to realize that those with a different orientation, i.e. sexuals, may not want to be in a romantic relationship with them. That doesn't make the sexuals shallow, or incapable of "real" intimacy or romance. It just means that sexuals want to be in relationships with people who have the same orientation.

I keep seeing the word "accommodate" being used as the necessary way to satisfy one's more sexual partner. How sexy is that? I've been a once-or-twice-a-day woman for several decades, and I was married to a twice-a-year guy. He "accommodated my needs" every once in awhile, and I'm telling you, that's exactly what it felt like. I was supposed to feel grateful. And now that I'm all done with him, I'm ready to jump the bones of the first man I encounter. I hope he's maximally sexual.

@103 KinkyA: You rock. I personally could never live in a relationship under such conditions, but my hat is off to you that you would offer to open up your marriage (apparently not needed, though).

As to your handle...KinkyA...well, there's always tomorrow.

@102:"But in return, asexuals need to realize that those with a different orientation, i.e. sexuals, may not want to be in a romantic relationship with them. That doesn't make the sexuals shallow, or incapable of "real" intimacy or romance. It just means that sexuals want to be in relationships with people who have the same orientation."
I think you mean /some/ or /most/ sexuals may not want to be in a romantic relationship with them. On an asexuality forum that I frequent, there are some sexuals who are dating/married to asexuals, and asexuals who are dating/married to sexuals, and their relationships seem to be working. Obviously, such a relationship isn't for everyone. If you have a hetero- or bi/panromantic homosexual (it does happen, guys! Romantic and sexual orientation aren't always the same!) and woman who is sexually attracted to men, their relationship is in no way ridiculous or impossible. Of course, it all is highly dependent on the individuals, and is, as I've stated before, not for everyone.
In no way do I think sexuals are shallow and I have no clue where the hell you got that idea. I know that sexuals are perfectly capable of intimacy and romance. They just want sex as well.

@104: If you don't want to be in a relationship with somebody who is less sexual than you are, then by all means, don't enter into one! I don't think it's shallow or stupid, and even if I did, it shouldn't matter what I think about your relationships. It's all a matter of preference and what the exact needs on both sides are.

thanks, avast2006. Glad my metaphor made sense to someone!

deltameequalszero, you make some good points. Yes, a relationship can work between a sexual person and a-sexual person. But it should only work between two honest people.

The problem most people have is the situation where the asexual person doesn't inform their new partner about their asexuality. There are a lot of relationships that start off with the asexual person grudgingly engaging in sex, or give bs reasons as to why they can't have sex (I don't feel well as opposed to I never have any sexual desire, sorry). After they 'secure' the relationship, they choke off sex altogether, and make the other person feel guilty about it. This type of relationship is the one people get upset about not two people happily, honestly figuring out how to reconcile different sex drives. Tricking someone into being in a relationship with you, and not informing them that you have vastly atypical expectations about said relationship would consist of...that is kinda evil.

@107: Any good relationship can only work between two honest people. Lying about/leaving out important information of any type in a relationship means the relationship isn't going to work, or at least won't work well.

@108, yes, but the point is that there are many asexuals here arguing that they have to deceive sexual people into a relationship because it's so hard to find another asexual person, and that sex doesn't really matter anyway, so they shouldn't be mad. That's effed up.

I also think that asking someone to give up their sexuality is a terrible thing to do to someone, and that asexual people should NOT date people with regular to high libidos, out of compassion for that person, and that they SHOULD stick to minimally sexual people, and be open about their sexuality from the beginning. Does it suck? Probably, but you know what it sucks less than? Being sexually frustrated for the rest of your life.

@109: I didn't see any comments where an ace was trying to deceive a sexual into a relationship, but I admit that I haven't read the whole page completely. I think that if the sexual person is okay with giving up some sex, it's their call, and that everyone else should just step back and not criticize. There is no thing that anyone should or shouldn't do. IT'S ALL PERSONAL PREFERENCE. NOBODY SHOULD CRITICIZE THAT EITHER WAY. How many times do I have to say it? Nobody's forcing a highly sexual person to give up sex, as far as I know. If they realize such a relationship isn't for them, they can leave, simple as that. It's like saying that a Christian and a Jew should never date or that an Aussie and a Canadian should never date. It's obnoxiously nosy. Why should you care? If two people are in love and they can make their relationship work and they're both happy, why the hell should it matter what they are?!?!?!?? Seriously. You stick to your relationships and let other people stick to theirs.

@110: It isn't as simple as that. There are a number of dynamics at work beyond simply minding your own business if you aren't involved.

First, there is the simple fact that for many people being sexual carries a great deal of emotional bonding. If you are being sexual with someone other than your life partner, you run a risk of bonding with that person, and leaving the partner. The partner at risk may not like that prospect, and not want to have an open relationship.

Second there are societal expectations against both sleeping around and against leaving a partner who is less sexual than you. The person doing either of these is often regarded as selfish. It is unfair to rope someone into a relationship and then make them deal with either of these. (Or for that matter, getting sex elsewhere, falling in love with that person, and then having to deal with breaking up with the asexual.)

The only appropriate thing to do is to disclose frankly and early, before anyone has invested a lot of themselves into a relationship that is going to proceed to turn sour. And yes, that necessarily means that the asexual person may get dumped a lot earlier and more often, unless they make an effort to date asexuals, rather than trying to date into a pool of people with whom they are fundamentally incompatible.

I brought a tissue, but I didn't even get hard.

@112: Like I said, if you don't want to deal with it, don't get involved in that kind of situation.
You=/=everyone. Some people don't bond emotionally over sex. Some people are okay with their partners bonding with multiple people. You seriously need to understand that. The relationship is not "going to turn sour". The people aren't "fundamentally incompatible". I hope you realize one day how offensive statements like that are. Just because many times, an asexual/sexual relationship won't work, it doesn't mean it's impossible or requires that somebody will get hurt or will be unhappy. It's like saying that just because some white people would have racial/ethnic issues if they tried to date a black person, interracial couples as a whole can never work. You can't generalize when it comes to relationships, because romance and sexuality are super complex, and generalizations can be really hurtful, especially when they're directed towards groups that are already oppressed and marginalized.

At one point in time there were societal expectations that looked down upon people having sex before marriage or dating people of other races or ethnicities. Should those things have been continued just because society said they were good? If people don't break the bonds of societal expectations, social change will never happen. If somebody didn't stand up for their love and date outside of what society found acceptable, homosexuality would never be accepted, and neither would interracial relationships. Like I said, it's all up to the individual's preferences and comfort levels, and I definitely support being up front with any potential partners about sexuality, but to say it can't ever work and that people shouldn't even attempt it is pretty damn closed-minded and offensive.

115: Where did I say it can't ever work? What I did say is that the only reasonable way to expect it to work is to communicate early. Otherwise you are hoping that the unspoken expectations of both parties will just line up. Given that one of you loves sex and one of you thinks "meh," that's a pretty stupid thing to hope for.

The relationship IS going to turn sour IF you just go in with eyes and mouth clamped firmly shut, and wait for one partner, typically the maximally sexual one, to start wondering what the hell is going on and get incrementally more dissatisfied. To prevent that, communicate. As far as I can tell, you and I agree on this. I'm just pointing out the context in which I used the phrase "go sour."

I also said that even with communicating early, asexuals can expect to get dumped a lot by sexuals, because sexuals, ya know, kind of...like sex. There is indeed a fundamental disconnect there, and a lot of people aren't going to want to deal with it, when there are easier alternatives out there. Some will. A lot won't.

Stop putting words like "impossible" and "everyone" in my mouth. I didn't use either of them. I used words like "for many people" and "may" and "often." Not "everyone." Keep that up and I will start questioning your reading comprehension.

116:
"a relationship that is going to proceed to turn sour."
"rather than trying to date into a pool of people with whom they are fundamentally incompatible."

You seem to imply that all ace/sexual relationships /will/ turn sour, and that asexuals and sexuals are always going to be incompatible. You may not have used the words "Everyone" or "impossible", but there are places where you left out important words like "most" or "many". In that last paragraph of yours in #112 you spoke generally without making any sort of exemptions or using terms that imply that it's all just a trend and not in any way absolute law or constant.

@ Deltameequalszero
Let me give you my example. So these asexual women get into a relationship with their sexual husbands, reluctantly have sex with them until they have children, and during their marriage have successfully browbeat their husbands into 'not bothering them for sex'. Now they're on this board congratualating each other for not having to 'put up with that' anymore, and isn't it sooo annoying how much they used to bother them?

Doesn't that husband have the right to feel betrayed, tricked, and cheated? Their wives put up with sex at first, pretended to enjoy it until they secured their husbands, and then cut all sex off. The husbands loved them, and tried to compromise, but ended up compromising and compromising untl they no longer get sex at all. What do you say to them? Leave your wife of several years and your children? Great solution. These women are fucking evil if you ask me.

118: If the husband knew that the relationship would be that way from the beginning and was okay with it, then no, he doesn't have the right to feel betrayed, tricked, or cheated. If the wife never told him and the not having sex started to become more and more common as the relationship progressed, he should feel cheated and tricked. I don't support not being honest with your partner, end of story. In no way do I support women (or men or people of other genders) who get into relationships with people without telling their partners that they really are asexual/of a sexual orientation that doesn't make them sexually attracted to their partner. If you read my posts, you'd see that.
I'm talking about the relationships out there in which two people are open and honest with each other about everything, including sexual attraction, one person is asexual and one is sexual and they're both aware of this, they're both okay with it, and they find a solution to the difference in sexual orientations that both of them are happy with. That's not cruel. That's what makes two people happy. That can work. It's not for everyone, but it's definitely not impossible.

117: So, I specifically didn't use the intensifiers/maximals that you are inferring and therefore accusing me of, and I did specifically use the qualifiers,, just not often enough or in the right places to satisfy you.

I "may" think you are an idiot.

119 The people in healthy open relationships with lots of communication don't write to Dan.
Yes, your hypothetical situation sounds great. I'm talking about all the real ones I know that don't, and I think that moral asexuals should distance themselves from these awful people asap.

It's definitely conceivable, a priori, that an unscrupulous asexual might deceive a sexual person into a relationship in order to meet their own selfish needs.

But that said, why are we centering ALL of our debate on the subject around that particular scenario? It's like the "ticking time-bomb" argument in favour of torture - it's almost never actually happened and is not something reasonable on which to base our general policy towards torture.

Likewise, I'd like to know how many of you actually KNOW OF an asexual person; a friend of a friend for example. How many of you have actually MET one? SEEN one? Had one deceive you into a relationship? When does this actually happen? My guess is that it's probably about as likely as getting struck by f***ing lightning.

It's unfair to hinge this entire debate around the hypothetical deceptive asexual, because it's not a realistic expectation to have of any asexual. As it's been pointed out here before, asexuals are EXTREMELY rare, and unless you're trying to suggest that sociopathic or sadistic behaviour is somehow dramatically overrepresented within the asexual community, than the problem has to be rare; much rarer, in fact, than an asexual person, which is EXREMELY rare.

Yes, an asexual should disclose their orientation before or during the first or second date. To argue against that would be absurd. But, having skimmed almost this entire page, it seems no one EVER made that particular argument. So what I'm suggesting here, in the end, is that the obsession with this particular scenario which has dominated the debate here betrays an underlying, visceral desire to berate or discredit asexuality itself, by use of this straw man argument.