I Don't Color in the Lines
So I’ve put more thought into the aspects of my own sexual and social identity and here’s what I’ve come up with.
1. Although I am definitely and firmly asexual, I am capable of sexual activity in the right circumstances. These circumstances are highly hypothetical, specific, and unlikely ever to happen but not impossible. If it ended up that my full-time, primary, cohabiting relationship was with a sexual person who loved me in a sexual way and who needed some amount of sexual activity in order to be happy, then I could compromise to one degree or another. Not out of sexual attraction or personal desire, but out of love and consideration for that person. And, obviously, for the preservation of the relationship. But this is absolutely the only situation in which I would compromise, and only for this one person. Before making this compromise, I would have to feel fully secure in the lifelong commitment aspect of the relationship. Even if we had sex, my love for this person would not be any more sexual or erotic in nature than it would be without the sex, because despite my actions, my orientation is and always will be asexuality. To be an asexual means to not experience sexual attraction to other people; it says nothing about actions. If a homosexual has sex with a person of the opposite gender for some reason other than attraction (say the homosexual is living a lie and not out of the closet), does that mean he or she is suddenly not homosexual? Of course not. I know some people would want to jump on me and say, “Well, you’re not asexual then, if you would have sex.” But like I said, it wouldn’t be out of attraction.
My ideal, of course, is to have a primary commitment with someone who is happy to be with me and yet not have sex. But if the person I'm supposed to be with primarily does need sex to be happy and to have the most succesful relationship with me possible, I'm not stupid enough to throw everything away just because I'd rather not have sex. In any other situation, it would be unacceptable to me, but if it's done out of and for the sake of love, then it isn't beyond me any more then taking a bullet for someone I love.
2. Even if I were a sexual person, I would never have sex in any other situation besides long-term commitment. (When I say long-term commitment, I mean lifelong and the kind that happens in mature adulthood. And said relationship would definitely have to last at least 5 years before I would consider it long-term or potentially permanent.) I won’t say marriage because it’s not about a ceremony or a legal document, just the commitment. I don’t care what the rest of the world does or doesn’t do sexually, that’s their business, but personally - I would not feel comfortable doing sexual things in anything less than an established, serious, long-term relationship. And really, for points I will list in a moment, that would really be one relationship, the one that would be permanent. Why is this? Because the way I view sex is: it’s something sacred. Or it should be sacred. It should be meaningful; it should be done as an expression of genuine love, etc. It’s a form of intimacy, and like all the other forms, it’s not something that should just be thrown around with anyone and everyone. I’m not saying other people are bad for having casual sex or having sex with everyone they ever date, but for me, sex is a privilege. It’s a gift. And therefore, it requires these serious circumstances. Exclusivity adds value. That’s true of anything, and to me, especially of sex. If I were going to give myself sexually to another human being, to trust that part of myself to someone else who has the potential to be destructive with it, then I would never ever feel comfortable doing it with anyone other than the person I already gave everything else in my life to.
3. If I were a sexual person, I would never ever get sexually involved with anyone I was seriously nonsexually attached to, unless I had reason to think we would actually have a lasting, committed relationship as sexual partners. Why? Because it is absolutely insane to throw away a gratifying, intimate nonsexual relationship that would probably last forever otherwise, just to have a short-term erotic/sexual relationship. It’s basic cost-benefit analysis. Plus, since I wouldn’t have sex in a pre-commitment relationship anyway, then it would really make no sense to sacrifice the original nonsexual, nonerotic relationship for short-term making out. If we’re adults and we’re old enough that commitment is feasible and we think we’re right for each other in that sense, okay. But otherwise, I guess I’d be the type to become erotically involved with strangers rather than people I already love. Those nonerotic love relationships would be just as sacred to me if I were a sexual as they are now, so - forget fucking with them. Literally and metaphorically.
But just to be contradictory, if my primary commited partner WERE to be someone with whom I had a sexual relationship, then it would obviously be someone with whom I was first nonsexually and nonerotically intimate with. It would go kinda like this: me and Jo (man or woman) know each other and love each other in a nonsexual and nonerotic way. Time passes, our relationship deepens and progresses, and one way or another -- organically -- it becomes clear that me and Jo should stay together because there's no one else around who is more right for either one of us than each other. We decide we're going to make this commitment, to move in together and to commit to each other for the rest of our lives, and then Jo says "Marie, you know I'm a sexual person and I'm in love with you but now in a sexual way. I don't want to be with anyone else, but I don't think I could be happy without sex." At which point, I would be okay with saying, "All right. We're in this for good, so let's draw up a compromise."
4. If I were a sexual person, I would never want to marry. I would want a permanent commitment, whether sexual or nonsexual, but there’s something about legal marriage that turns me off. Half the time, it’s bullshit, as the divorce rates show. And like I said, to me it’s the commitment that matters, not the wrapping paper. I couldn’t stand to be a part of some lame wedding, which is almost always a ridiculous and inexcusable financial sacrifice. I don’t need a priest or the government to validate any of my relationships, no matter what their nature. I’m smart enough to know a marriage certificate is not a security blanket. I don’t need to announce to the world that I’m in a commitment with someone or for other people to give their blessing. So really, I find no point in traditional marriage. If other people need it, cool. But if it were me, the only thing I would need is an agreement between my partner and myself. That’s all that really matters in the end, anyway.
5. If I were a sexual person, I would be one of those who doesn’t actually date or get into erotic romances except for that one random one that ends up being permanent. No way in hell could I traditionally date, even if I wasn’t having sex. Why? Because emotionally, I would never be in any condition to accept the reality of traditional dating. I don’t do temporary. When I emotionally attach myself to someone, it’s forever and it’s with such intensity that to have that relationship end (whether it’s sexual or nonsexual) - would destroy me. To go through that over and over and over again would be absolutely intolerable.
I wouldn’t be the crazy girlfriend who threatens to kill herself if you leave. I would be the girlfriend who actually DOES.
I’m an extremist. Hitting middle ground and staying there almost never happens. Maybe that’s unhealthy, but I can’t help it, as far as I’m concerned.
So if I were a sexual person not having sex, then my erotic relationships would be all about emotion, pretty much like all the nonerotic relationships I’m in right now. Only difference between the two would be making out. I would invest myself completely in my boyfriend or girlfriend, no matter what, and to then be thrown away for whatever reason, after only a few months or even a year or two, would fuck me up so deeply I would never be happy or sober or stable.
This is why God made me asexual, I’m positive. I have a natural affinity for depression, I am naturally hypersensitive and only within the last few years managed to tone that hypersensitivity down, I do NOT know how to cope well with emotional pain, and I am wildly emotionally passionate. All of these things in combination, plus my unquenchable desire for suicide, would have probably resulted in my death as a teenager if I were a traditional sexual. Fuck knows I was suicidal and depressed enough as a middle schooler and high schooler, and that was WITHOUT dating.
I have to give sexual people props for going through serial dating with emotional attachment. That shit is crazy; I couldn’t handle it. I have no idea how you guys do it. Not all sexual people date traditionally or get emotionally involved, but the ones who do: dude. You have emotional balls.
6. Even if I were a sexual person, I would not be one of those people who expect to find an adult, primary commitment in the form of a sexual relationship. I started thinking about and developing a passion for alternative relationships years before I thought about my own sexual orientation or even knew what the hell asexuality was. I started reading and writing about all these nonsexual nonerotic romantic relationships when I was a child who still assumed I would end up married because “everyone” did that. And at some point, still as a precursor to my discovery of asexuality and consideration of my own, I had begun to consider finding happiness in one of these alternative relationships.
So I’m pretty sure if I were a sexual person, I would still desire the same alternative relationships I desire now, and I would be happy with either a nonsexual or sexual primary commitment.
7. If I were a sexual person, I still wouldn’t necessarily want children. Likewise, I’m not opposed to children as an asexual just because of my orientation. I have a damn long list, well-thought out in my opinion, why having kids is a bad idea in g eneral. For me, besides that list of reasons, being a parent just isn’t compatible with the lifestyle I want. If that weren’t true, I would probably consider having children, though being an asexual, if I found myself in the appropriate circumstances. Said circumstances would be: a stable long term commitment with someone, a reliable father figure if my primary partner was a woman, and obviously a long, serious discussion with all involved parties about the choice.
My policy on parenting in general is: it’s the most fucking serious decision any human being could possibly make, and if you aren’t going to be awesome at it, you shouldn’t fucking do it. Being a sexually functional human doesn’t qualify you all by itself. I personally could never do it unless I knew I was prepared to take it as seriously as it deserves to be taken and to bust ass in order to be as close to perfect as possible. Not to mention, ready to accept all the changes in the other areas of my life having children would create.
If I were to have children as I am, which I sure as hell don’t plan on or particularly want but hypothetically speaking, then really, it could happen any possible way. If my primary relationship was nonsexual with a man or a woman (or sexual with a woman, for that matter), then we would either adopt or conceive artificially. If my partner were a woman, I’m guessing I would be the one to carry, but I wouldn’t be opposed to either one of us doing it. If my partner were a man with whom I had a sexual relationship, then we would obviously do it the natural way.
8. If my primary commitment were with a sexual person who needed sex, I would definitely hand it over as an alternative to polyamory. I couldn’t be comfortable in a polyamorous situation. For those of you who don’t know what that is, it’s a consensual set of relationships in which there’s person overlap. Person A is with Person B but also with Person C. Or even more than 3 sometimes but usually only 3. Some asexuals who are in primary relationships with sexuals have this set-up, where the sexual partner goes outside of the relationship for sex with another sexual. It works for some people, but after thinking about it, I couldn’t put myself in that situation. There’s too much risk of the sexual person preferring the lover over the asexual person because of the sex and of the sexual person developing an emotional attachment to the lover instead of keeping it to just sex. And I’m an emotionally jealous person, with anyone and everyone I love.
Some sexual people have very low libidos and would have no problem with becoming celibate, but otherwise, I think it’d be unfair for an asexual to ask a sexual person to abstain from sex forever. About as unfair for a sexual person to demand sex from an asexual who is uncomfortable with it.
Basically, it’s all about being on the same page. Two people who don’t need sex from each other: awesome. Two people who are okay with sex from each other: cool. But if one wants sex and the other doesn’t, either person changing solely to please the other is going to result in failure.
If it were me relenting on sex, I'd do it to make my companion happy and to solidify the relationship, yes, but both those things would also obviously make me happy. Otherwise, I wouldn't compromise. Some asexuals condemn this kind of compromise, saying it can't last, eventually the asexual will get worn down by the sex, etc. I think that's totally valid and often true, which is why for me -- I'd have to be sure down to my bone marrow that my companion, if sexual, was going to stick around for good.
1. Although I am definitely and firmly asexual, I am capable of sexual activity in the right circumstances. These circumstances are highly hypothetical, specific, and unlikely ever to happen but not impossible. If it ended up that my full-time, primary, cohabiting relationship was with a sexual person who loved me in a sexual way and who needed some amount of sexual activity in order to be happy, then I could compromise to one degree or another. Not out of sexual attraction or personal desire, but out of love and consideration for that person. And, obviously, for the preservation of the relationship. But this is absolutely the only situation in which I would compromise, and only for this one person. Before making this compromise, I would have to feel fully secure in the lifelong commitment aspect of the relationship. Even if we had sex, my love for this person would not be any more sexual or erotic in nature than it would be without the sex, because despite my actions, my orientation is and always will be asexuality. To be an asexual means to not experience sexual attraction to other people; it says nothing about actions. If a homosexual has sex with a person of the opposite gender for some reason other than attraction (say the homosexual is living a lie and not out of the closet), does that mean he or she is suddenly not homosexual? Of course not. I know some people would want to jump on me and say, “Well, you’re not asexual then, if you would have sex.” But like I said, it wouldn’t be out of attraction.
My ideal, of course, is to have a primary commitment with someone who is happy to be with me and yet not have sex. But if the person I'm supposed to be with primarily does need sex to be happy and to have the most succesful relationship with me possible, I'm not stupid enough to throw everything away just because I'd rather not have sex. In any other situation, it would be unacceptable to me, but if it's done out of and for the sake of love, then it isn't beyond me any more then taking a bullet for someone I love.
2. Even if I were a sexual person, I would never have sex in any other situation besides long-term commitment. (When I say long-term commitment, I mean lifelong and the kind that happens in mature adulthood. And said relationship would definitely have to last at least 5 years before I would consider it long-term or potentially permanent.) I won’t say marriage because it’s not about a ceremony or a legal document, just the commitment. I don’t care what the rest of the world does or doesn’t do sexually, that’s their business, but personally - I would not feel comfortable doing sexual things in anything less than an established, serious, long-term relationship. And really, for points I will list in a moment, that would really be one relationship, the one that would be permanent. Why is this? Because the way I view sex is: it’s something sacred. Or it should be sacred. It should be meaningful; it should be done as an expression of genuine love, etc. It’s a form of intimacy, and like all the other forms, it’s not something that should just be thrown around with anyone and everyone. I’m not saying other people are bad for having casual sex or having sex with everyone they ever date, but for me, sex is a privilege. It’s a gift. And therefore, it requires these serious circumstances. Exclusivity adds value. That’s true of anything, and to me, especially of sex. If I were going to give myself sexually to another human being, to trust that part of myself to someone else who has the potential to be destructive with it, then I would never ever feel comfortable doing it with anyone other than the person I already gave everything else in my life to.
3. If I were a sexual person, I would never ever get sexually involved with anyone I was seriously nonsexually attached to, unless I had reason to think we would actually have a lasting, committed relationship as sexual partners. Why? Because it is absolutely insane to throw away a gratifying, intimate nonsexual relationship that would probably last forever otherwise, just to have a short-term erotic/sexual relationship. It’s basic cost-benefit analysis. Plus, since I wouldn’t have sex in a pre-commitment relationship anyway, then it would really make no sense to sacrifice the original nonsexual, nonerotic relationship for short-term making out. If we’re adults and we’re old enough that commitment is feasible and we think we’re right for each other in that sense, okay. But otherwise, I guess I’d be the type to become erotically involved with strangers rather than people I already love. Those nonerotic love relationships would be just as sacred to me if I were a sexual as they are now, so - forget fucking with them. Literally and metaphorically.
But just to be contradictory, if my primary commited partner WERE to be someone with whom I had a sexual relationship, then it would obviously be someone with whom I was first nonsexually and nonerotically intimate with. It would go kinda like this: me and Jo (man or woman) know each other and love each other in a nonsexual and nonerotic way. Time passes, our relationship deepens and progresses, and one way or another -- organically -- it becomes clear that me and Jo should stay together because there's no one else around who is more right for either one of us than each other. We decide we're going to make this commitment, to move in together and to commit to each other for the rest of our lives, and then Jo says "Marie, you know I'm a sexual person and I'm in love with you but now in a sexual way. I don't want to be with anyone else, but I don't think I could be happy without sex." At which point, I would be okay with saying, "All right. We're in this for good, so let's draw up a compromise."
4. If I were a sexual person, I would never want to marry. I would want a permanent commitment, whether sexual or nonsexual, but there’s something about legal marriage that turns me off. Half the time, it’s bullshit, as the divorce rates show. And like I said, to me it’s the commitment that matters, not the wrapping paper. I couldn’t stand to be a part of some lame wedding, which is almost always a ridiculous and inexcusable financial sacrifice. I don’t need a priest or the government to validate any of my relationships, no matter what their nature. I’m smart enough to know a marriage certificate is not a security blanket. I don’t need to announce to the world that I’m in a commitment with someone or for other people to give their blessing. So really, I find no point in traditional marriage. If other people need it, cool. But if it were me, the only thing I would need is an agreement between my partner and myself. That’s all that really matters in the end, anyway.
5. If I were a sexual person, I would be one of those who doesn’t actually date or get into erotic romances except for that one random one that ends up being permanent. No way in hell could I traditionally date, even if I wasn’t having sex. Why? Because emotionally, I would never be in any condition to accept the reality of traditional dating. I don’t do temporary. When I emotionally attach myself to someone, it’s forever and it’s with such intensity that to have that relationship end (whether it’s sexual or nonsexual) - would destroy me. To go through that over and over and over again would be absolutely intolerable.
I wouldn’t be the crazy girlfriend who threatens to kill herself if you leave. I would be the girlfriend who actually DOES.
I’m an extremist. Hitting middle ground and staying there almost never happens. Maybe that’s unhealthy, but I can’t help it, as far as I’m concerned.
So if I were a sexual person not having sex, then my erotic relationships would be all about emotion, pretty much like all the nonerotic relationships I’m in right now. Only difference between the two would be making out. I would invest myself completely in my boyfriend or girlfriend, no matter what, and to then be thrown away for whatever reason, after only a few months or even a year or two, would fuck me up so deeply I would never be happy or sober or stable.
This is why God made me asexual, I’m positive. I have a natural affinity for depression, I am naturally hypersensitive and only within the last few years managed to tone that hypersensitivity down, I do NOT know how to cope well with emotional pain, and I am wildly emotionally passionate. All of these things in combination, plus my unquenchable desire for suicide, would have probably resulted in my death as a teenager if I were a traditional sexual. Fuck knows I was suicidal and depressed enough as a middle schooler and high schooler, and that was WITHOUT dating.
I have to give sexual people props for going through serial dating with emotional attachment. That shit is crazy; I couldn’t handle it. I have no idea how you guys do it. Not all sexual people date traditionally or get emotionally involved, but the ones who do: dude. You have emotional balls.
6. Even if I were a sexual person, I would not be one of those people who expect to find an adult, primary commitment in the form of a sexual relationship. I started thinking about and developing a passion for alternative relationships years before I thought about my own sexual orientation or even knew what the hell asexuality was. I started reading and writing about all these nonsexual nonerotic romantic relationships when I was a child who still assumed I would end up married because “everyone” did that. And at some point, still as a precursor to my discovery of asexuality and consideration of my own, I had begun to consider finding happiness in one of these alternative relationships.
So I’m pretty sure if I were a sexual person, I would still desire the same alternative relationships I desire now, and I would be happy with either a nonsexual or sexual primary commitment.
7. If I were a sexual person, I still wouldn’t necessarily want children. Likewise, I’m not opposed to children as an asexual just because of my orientation. I have a damn long list, well-thought out in my opinion, why having kids is a bad idea in g eneral. For me, besides that list of reasons, being a parent just isn’t compatible with the lifestyle I want. If that weren’t true, I would probably consider having children, though being an asexual, if I found myself in the appropriate circumstances. Said circumstances would be: a stable long term commitment with someone, a reliable father figure if my primary partner was a woman, and obviously a long, serious discussion with all involved parties about the choice.
My policy on parenting in general is: it’s the most fucking serious decision any human being could possibly make, and if you aren’t going to be awesome at it, you shouldn’t fucking do it. Being a sexually functional human doesn’t qualify you all by itself. I personally could never do it unless I knew I was prepared to take it as seriously as it deserves to be taken and to bust ass in order to be as close to perfect as possible. Not to mention, ready to accept all the changes in the other areas of my life having children would create.
If I were to have children as I am, which I sure as hell don’t plan on or particularly want but hypothetically speaking, then really, it could happen any possible way. If my primary relationship was nonsexual with a man or a woman (or sexual with a woman, for that matter), then we would either adopt or conceive artificially. If my partner were a woman, I’m guessing I would be the one to carry, but I wouldn’t be opposed to either one of us doing it. If my partner were a man with whom I had a sexual relationship, then we would obviously do it the natural way.
8. If my primary commitment were with a sexual person who needed sex, I would definitely hand it over as an alternative to polyamory. I couldn’t be comfortable in a polyamorous situation. For those of you who don’t know what that is, it’s a consensual set of relationships in which there’s person overlap. Person A is with Person B but also with Person C. Or even more than 3 sometimes but usually only 3. Some asexuals who are in primary relationships with sexuals have this set-up, where the sexual partner goes outside of the relationship for sex with another sexual. It works for some people, but after thinking about it, I couldn’t put myself in that situation. There’s too much risk of the sexual person preferring the lover over the asexual person because of the sex and of the sexual person developing an emotional attachment to the lover instead of keeping it to just sex. And I’m an emotionally jealous person, with anyone and everyone I love.
Some sexual people have very low libidos and would have no problem with becoming celibate, but otherwise, I think it’d be unfair for an asexual to ask a sexual person to abstain from sex forever. About as unfair for a sexual person to demand sex from an asexual who is uncomfortable with it.
Basically, it’s all about being on the same page. Two people who don’t need sex from each other: awesome. Two people who are okay with sex from each other: cool. But if one wants sex and the other doesn’t, either person changing solely to please the other is going to result in failure.
If it were me relenting on sex, I'd do it to make my companion happy and to solidify the relationship, yes, but both those things would also obviously make me happy. Otherwise, I wouldn't compromise. Some asexuals condemn this kind of compromise, saying it can't last, eventually the asexual will get worn down by the sex, etc. I think that's totally valid and often true, which is why for me -- I'd have to be sure down to my bone marrow that my companion, if sexual, was going to stick around for good.