song against sex


Day 10: What does marriage mean to you?

I think marriage is one way to love a person. It’s a piece of paper, but a pretty damn significant piece of paper for quite a lot of people. It shouldn’t be used to exclude some people, and it shouldn’t be used to uphold domination of one sex over another. It shouldn’t be promoted as everyone’s ultimate goal, and it shouldn’t be considered immune to honest examination.

If I ever decide to marry, it goes without saying that my marriage will be sexless…but it will still be loving. Rather like that commercial for the New York Times Weekender. Plenty of space and time to continue being ourselves, and when we were together, it’d be because that’s where we wanted to be.

You can read the full challenge here on Fuck Yeah LGBT. :)



“Asexual Dating Vs. Just Friends – Defining the Difference to a Sexual World”
April 8, 2010, 1:12 am
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

Asking sexual people to understand asexual dating resembles asking fish to understand breathing air: after amazing mental contortions, ultimate rejection. Sexual thinking insists asexual dating equals Just Friends. By that logic, sexual romantic relationships equal Friends with Benefits, an equivalence sexual people reject. That is, similarities in physical expression provide thin cover for vast differences in other key relationship factors, as in asexual dating vs. Just Friends.

Factors common to good relationships, according to Crookes & Baur in Our Sexuality, include trust, togetherness, expressiveness, staying power, security, laughter, support, physical affection, personal growth, and respect. Sexual dating encompasses more than sexual intimacy, as asexual dating encompasses more than avoiding it. Convincing sexual minds to view relationships sex-neutrally differentiates asexual dating from Just Friends based on these factors.

Trust: Asexual dating requires a level of trust far exceeding Just Friends. Asexuals desire partners with whom to share themselves completely, while tolerating lower levels of trustworthiness amongst Just Friends. Sharing something as ‘weird’ as not desiring sex necessitates ultimate trust in asexual dating.

Togetherness: Asexual dating stems from a wish to pair up; to be part of a socially accepted duo. Just Friends find this almost impossible, lacking the necessary exclusivity.

Expressiveness: Asexual dating renders partners freer to express their needs, wants, and desires to each other. Just Friends reserve full expressiveness for romantic partners.

Staying Power: Just Friends cannot match asexual dating in terms of staying power simply due to their less exclusive nature. Staying power requires commitment levels which Just Friends reserve for romantic relationships; in asexual dating, this is the romantic relationship

Support: Mutual support offers assurance someone’s on your side. Asexual dating fosters this more than other relationship types due to society’s lack of acceptance and the cultural message that something is ‘wrong’ with not desiring sex.

Physical Affection: Note that Crooks & Baur did not phrase it “sexual intimacy”. Asexual dating often includes physical affection such as cuddling, massages, handholding, and other non-sexual touch. Though sex is universally undesired, many in asexual dating situations find non-sexual touch fulfilling.

Personal Growth: While Just Friends allows multiple relationships diluting the effect, asexual dating’s typically limited to one. Each partner benefits from the other’s undivided attention, facilitating the personal growth of both.

Laughter, Security, and Respect: All relationships require equivalent levels of each. Whether sexual dating, asexual dating, or Just Friends, people must respect boundaries and avoid taking each other for granted; must feel the relationship will last; and must use humor to keep perspective.

So, is sexuality so all-powerful it defines relationships single-handedly? Equating asexual dating with Just Friends demeans emotional factors solely in favor of physical acts. Naming asexual dating “Just Friends” is pejorative. It translates: “less important simply because it lacks sex.” Consequently, Just Friends is an inaccurate assessment of asexual partners’ importance to one another. Sexual intimacy fails as the sole deciding factor in a romantic relationship’s legitimacy.

Resources:

Relationship Factors, University of San Diego

The Top Ten Responses to Asexuality, Asexual Visibility & Education Network

Crooks, R. & Baur, K. (2005) Our Sexuality. 9th edition, Wadsworth.

[viaby Judith Culpepper]

Well, that’s just lovely and all, but personally I don’t think it’s complicated enough to warrant an article like this. (That’s not to say it isn’t needed!) Why wouldn’t we be able to fall in love or experience romantic attraction?