Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The average woman very likely would not but there are asexual women or those who are seeking romance and/or intimacy without sex. Look up AVEN forum (are we allowed to post links to other forums? anyway...) and you can see there is a community of asexuals or people in or seeking asexual relationships. There are also specific dating websites on the topic with women and men both participating. Not sure if the OP was asking for a friend or just being hypothetical, but there is a small portion of the population that would be interested.
Glad to see that some people understand this (or are at least willing to try). As difficult as it may be to believe - not having sex is just as important to an asexual as having sex is to a sexual person. However, not having sex does not mean platonic or friendship only as many other posters blindly assume. We still want love and to be in love - just no sex.
Glad to see that some people understand this (or are at least willing to try). As difficult as it may be to believe - not having sex is just as important to an asexual as having sex is to a sexual person. However, not having sex does not mean platonic or friendship only as many other posters blindly assume. We still want love and to be in love - just no sex.
I don't blindly assume that not having sex means a platonic relationship or friendship only to other people - only that that is what it would mean to me. To me, I cannot separate sex from being in love. I could have sex with someone with out being in love but I could not be in love with someone with out having sex with them. But that is why I am NOT asexual. I am fully aware that asexual people do not need or want to have sex. This is also why I think that asexual people are probably not going to be very compatible with people who are not asexual. Just like I would not be compatible with a lesbian or a gay man since I am a heterosexual woman. Sexuality has a lot to do with who you end up with. If you are asexual - you are probably going to end up with another asexual.
I don't blindly assume that not having sex means a platonic relationship or friendship only to other people - only that that is what it would mean to me. To me, I cannot separate sex from being in love. I could have sex with someone with out being in love but I could not be in love with someone with out having sex with them. But that is why I am NOT asexual. I am fully aware that asexual people do not need or want to have sex. This is also why I think that asexual people are probably not going to be very compatible with people who are not asexual. Just like I would not be compatible with a lesbian or a gay man since I am a heterosexual woman. Sexuality has a lot to do with who you end up with. If you are asexual - you are probably going to end up with another asexual.
I didn't mean you specifically. It is amazing tho how many cannot rise above their black and white thinking of no sex = friends only and they apply that to all people. Anyway,I agree that asexuals and sexuals do not (and never will) make a good match. However, it still seems that all the guys who don't want sex end up marrying horny women (and vice versa). If people would be honest about their sex drive (or lack thereof) beforehand most, if not all, sexual compatibility problems could be avoided. I wish more asexual men would admit it.
I checked out an asexual/celibate dating site. I didn't join, but they let you browse without joining.
One of the people on the site said they used to have sex in past relationships, but they're looking for a celibate relationship. Their reason was if you're in a sexual relationship, you only learn to love someone in a way that leads to sex. In a celibate relationship, you learn to love someone for who they are.
I checked out an asexual/celibate dating site. I didn't join, but they let you browse without joining.
One of the people on the site said they used to have sex in past relationships, but they're looking for a celibate relationship. Their reason was if you're in a sexual relationship, you only learn to love someone in a way that leads to sex. In a celibate relationship, you learn to love someone for who they are.
That's just BS. If you are a sexual person - you want to have sex. If you are asexual, you don't. It's as simple as that. I'm more in love with my husband everyday. I love him for who he is. I don't only love him in a way that leads to sex.
Have sex - don't have sex. Doesn't matter as long as you are with someone who you are compatible with.
Only about 3% of people stay celibate for their whole life. When it comes to dating, don't you think the odds are stacked against you if you're asexual?
Some people might say it's not right to withhold sex from someone just because you don't want it.
But using that logic, it's not right to deny someone a relationship just because they don't want sex and you do.
What if 2 people are perfectly compatible in every other way except for one small difference...one of them wants sex and one doesn't
Some people might say "Asexual people have options. They should find another asexual person."
But confining someone to 3% of the population isn't exactly giving them options. You'd be more likely to find a white person in China
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Good luck with that though!
