a bit of a false dichotomy, i think. one of these groups is largely seen as invalid or ‘broken’ and needing to change themselves to adhere to societal expectations of what is and is not a relationship. hint: it is not sexual people.
also, there is more nuance to it than what you have presented. i think the problem partly lies in the fact that sexual people might go into a relationship with an asexual expecting to be able to change them, or that it’s a phase, or that if they ‘respect’ it for so long then they will eventually get sex as their due, or just plain hope to be the exception—and that’s the problem: that is the predominant expectation, not that the sexual individual give up sex indefinitely and just automatically is okay with that. they do not go into the relationship accepting their partner’s asexuality at face value. which is hardly respectful of their identity.
another problem is that asexuals having sex to please their partner is not horrible, no, but it is a decidedly personal decision. just because you are asexual does not mean you lack a libido. but it varies from person to person, as anything else. and when it is expected, or hoped for, that they would automatically bend to accommodate their sexual partner, because they are the ‘deviant’, they might feel pressured to perform rather than out of a genuine sense of wanting to do this for their partner. and that is unfair and a horrible thing.
plus, it’s just pretty gross in general that people see it as such a relief that an asexual can choose to have sex for their partner’s sake, like oh thank god, they can choose to be normal.
basically: what’s unfair is that the onus to change and perform is always on the individual who does not present according to prevailing societal norms. if a sexual individual is entering or thinking of entering a relationship with an asexual individual, they must be willing to respect however their partner defines their identity. and as with any potentially dissonant situation in a relationship, a common ground that both parties are comfortable with has to be found, whatever that might be.
so, yeah. i think it’s fair that an asexual’s identity and personal definition be respected and they are not automatically expected to be the one to have to sacrifice for ‘the good of the team.’ that, to me, is much more vital and a necessary paradigm shift for society. even if that means, gasp, sexual people might not get their precious sex.
and if the sexual person can’t accept that, then they really have no business being in a relationship with an asexual.
general disclaimer that i myself am not asexual and anything in this post is pure conjecture and my own observation/deduction.
i s2g whenever maria doyle kennedy opens her mouth it’s either to give us a profound tidbit of articulate wisdom or to say something completely inappropriate and hilarious there is no in between
#i have bunch of poorly made midi songs on my laptop because theyre hilarious
in honor of the revival of early-2000s internet culture, i’d like to suggest
- introducing “pwn” back into our collective vocabularies
- posting old limewired songs that have inserts of bill clinton saying “i did not have sexual relations with that woman”
- MIDI files for autoplay, featuring hit songs like Evanescence’s “Bring Me To Life” and Linkin Park’s “In The End”
- neopets forum wars
- those e-cards with weird 3D gifs like this
I wish I wasn’t white so my opinion would be valid on this site
things i used to laugh at
- actual jokes
things i laugh at now
- yard sard
I’m in an underage girl’s car . broom broom.