Re: How much to disclose in OLD [split from Rants]

[nearly_takuan]

Well, now I know I should have left that off my profile.

[Werel]

Well, now I know I should have left that off my profile.

Because now Azazel won't want to date you?

[nearly_takuan]

Well, now I know I should have left that off my profile.

Because now Azazel won't want to date you?

In a way, yeah. Azazel's got more of an understanding of our position than most, I think. I don't know if that specific person talked about "compromise" or not, but in any case he's seeing a fundamental incompatibility before they've really met. Maybe there is one, I dunno. Not saying it's not a good reason, just, if that's how others are likely to see me too, I'm better off not bringing it up at all, playing along, and "closet"-squatting.

That message is phrased as well as it can be. Definitely better than just changing your mind without explanation or being a no-show.

[reboot]

But is it not better to get that fundamental incompatibility out in the open before developing any personal connection rather than waiting until later? The outcome will be the same, but the emotional and time investment will be saved, right? A person who wants an active sexual relationship is going to be a bad fit for someone who is asexual or demisexual, I would think? Or am I totally off base?

[Barretts_Salt]

But is it not better to get that fundamental incompatibility out in the open before developing any personal connection rather than waiting until later? The outcome will be the same, but the emotional and time investment will be saved, right?

Certainly that's what I've always thought.

Besides, what if someone who is far more compatible and all that good stuff comes along while you're trying valiantly to make a non-starter of a relationship work?

[nearly_takuan]

But is it not better to get that fundamental incompatibility out in the open before developing any personal connection rather than waiting until later? The outcome will be the same, but the emotional and time investment will be saved, right? A person who wants an active sexual relationship is going to be a bad fit for someone who is asexual or demisexual, I would think? Or am I totally off base?

That depends on whether the incompatibility is real or perceived. Does the sexual person not want to date anyone who isn't motivated by the sex act itself? Does the sexual person require a partner who is always an enthusiastic and frequent participant? Or does the sexual person just want to have sex with a partner with X frequency and assume an ace wouldn't be okay with that? (X seems to vary as much between aces as it does between "allos".)

It also depends on whether I even bring it up "later" or just continue the charade forever.

So mentioning it up-front might actually be a mistake. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but apparently bisexual people often act as though they're exclusively hetero- or homosexual just in case the person they're attracted to is "grossed out" by the idea that they might be attracted to the other sex as well. It isn't so uncommon to have to choose between being open about your orientation/identity and having a reasonable chance at a close relationship with someone else. Either way, you get one good thing and one bad thing and the bad thing is forever.

Anecdotally, most of the asexual-sexual relationships I've seen described happened before either party knew what "asexual" meant. And in every case there's compromise. Asexual-asexual relationships are sometimes built as much on the fact that two asexual people happened to be "out" in the same room at the same time as on anything they do or don't have in common. So I have to wonder how much importance I should really place on "compatibility" anyway.

Certainly that's what I've always thought.

Besides, what if someone who is far more compatible and all that good stuff comes along while you're trying valiantly to make a non-starter of a relationship work?

Chance the person I'm trying to date is sexual and therefore presumably an automatic "non-starter": >96%
Chance someone more compatible will ever come along: Insufficient data for meaningful answer
Chance any person will actually agree to go on a date: Insufficient data for meaningful answer

Yeah I dunno how to evaluate your hypothetical rationally so I'm shooting in the dark no matter what I do. Haven't hit a target yet, so I might as well try firing in the opposite direction for a while.

[reboot]

True, it depends on what the person is looking for and you are right that there are a whole lot of assumptions dumped on the term "asexual" that may make people take a pass on people who might actually be compatible.

I think I was seeing it through my own filter where I am primarily looking for a sexual partner, not a romantic or companionship one, so I would like to know someone was asexual or demisexual right off the bat because it would be a bad match.

[reboot]

Have you considered polyamory, Nearly? Sexual poly people would be much more open to a relationship with an asexual for obvious reasons.

EDIT: Wisp's post retrieved from rants. What I get for trying to split threads on my phone!

[nearly_takuan]

True, it depends on what the person is looking for and you are right that there are a whole lot of assumptions dumped on the term "asexual" that may make people take a pass on people who might actually be compatible.

I think I was seeing it through my own filter where I am primarily looking for a sexual partner, not a romantic or companionship one, so I would like to know someone was asexual or demisexual right off the bat because it would be a bad match.

Yeah, there are definitely cases where that part of a person's identity does create a fundamental incompatibility. I just wonder if it might not be better to lie about it anyway until I know for sure if that's the case. ETA: Well, for me, that is. It's definitely a waste of time for hypothetical-you.

Have you considered polyamory, Nearly? Sexual poly people would be much more open to a relationship with an asexual for obvious reasons.

I'm actually not sure what they'd get out of it. I also kind of feel even weirder about asking out a group of people all at once, if that makes sense. (Yeah, I dump unfair assumptions on labels too. Yay, stigma!) It's a thought, though.

---

I didn't want this to make Azazel second-guess his decision or anything (only occurred to me after the fact that that might happen—I've been stupid lately). It just made me think again about whether that might be the explanation behind some fraction of unexplained no-shows and silent rejections. And if it is, then telling the truth might have been a mistake after all.

[reboot]

I tend to think outright lying is a bad call because it would bother me if I was lied to. Nondisclosure, as in not bringing up the topic until it is relevant seems the better way to go.

Oh, and with poly people, you are not necessarily dating everyone your partner is dating. It just means that there can be multiple partners, so the person you are dating might be getting her sexual needs met elsewhere and her romantic ones with you. Maybe something to consider

[The Wisp]

I've done my fair share of reading on poly, and there are quite a few poly asexuals. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "ask a group out", but poly dating is generally one-on-one. It's just that everybody knows everybody else is dating other people. You could still find a primary to live with and/or have kids with if you want that, too.

A sexual poly person could get a lot out of a relationship with an asexual: emotional intimacy, caring, non-sexual physical affection, etc. And then they could go and have sex with their other boyfriend! So many poly people wouldn't be giving much or anything up to date an asexual. I'm sure some poly people still wouldn't want to date an asexual because they would find the lack of sex with any individual romantic partner frustrating, but over all it does seem to be a community more friendly to asexual dating.

[Enail]

Since you're open to having a sexual relationship, whether it's best to disclose up front might depend more on how you feel about the identity aspect - do you prefer to date someone who has some understanding of asexuality (which is not yet a terribly mainstream concept, I think) and who will get to know the ways you identify yourself as part of you, or are you okay with someone who doesn't necessarily get asexuality per se and just sort of has a general idea you're not that into the sex part of things? Either one is reasonable, but it might affect how that person would fit into your life, depending on how much interest you have in ace topics like activism and identity or how much you see yourself as part of a community.

I do have to say that I don't really you have to announce it upfront, but I don't think actually lying in a 'pre-sex discussion' kind of situation is okay - to some people, discovering that their sex partner had only been having sex to please them or was agreeable rather than actively interested, would be quite hurtful even if they might be up for that kind of relationship if they knew.

[eselle28]

Disclosure is an interesting question that I think touches lots of people when it comes to dating. On one hand, I meet more people when I don't mention various things about me that may be off-putting to others (in my case, atheism and being childfree are the things that tend to scare dates away). On the other, I tend to go on dates with more compatible men and spare myself judgment when I do disclose

In this particular case, I'd say it's up to you. One option that hasn't been mentioned is disclosing with a description of relationships you might be interested in without using "asexual." Sometimes when there's a very clear image attached to a label and you don't quite meet that image, using descriptions might be more helpful. I've never encountered a version of that for asexuality, but I'm generally pretty averse to dating any of single fathers, religious people, and inexperienced people, but ended up going out with a guy who talked about his bright, interesting 16-year-old and another guy who briefly but sort of meaningfully mentioned that he recently left the Church of Latter-day Saints.

[nearly_takuan]

Interesting. For some reason I was under the impression that the other people in the poly set would have to approve me seeing that person.

Since you're open to having a sexual relationship, whether it's best to disclose up front might depend more on how you feel about the identity aspect - do you prefer to date someone who has some understanding of asexuality (which is not yet a terribly mainstream concept, I think) and who will get to know the ways you identify yourself as part of you, or are you okay with someone who doesn't necessarily get asexuality per se and just sort of has a general idea you're not that into the sex part of things? Either one is reasonable, but it might affect how that person would fit into your life, depending on how much interest you have in ace topics like activism and identity or how much you see yourself as part of a community.

I'm pretty selfish as far as AVEN/social justice goes; I'll generally pass along cool LGBT*QA propaganda to friends and family (saying as little about my own investment as I can get away with), but I'm not yet ready to start promoting visibility with the news media or answering questions in public. I'd sacrifice what little activism I do participate in without hesitation if I thought it would help some other area of my life. I'm really not very altruistic.

That said, I think the type of person I'd be most likely to get along with would have the genuine open-minded curiosity to eventually develop some surface-level understanding of asexuality and other "social justice" concerns, whether they start with it or not. Which is to say it'd have to at least be possible to talk them out of thinking of me as a maladjusted little shit.

I do have to say that I don't really you have to announce it upfront, but I don't think actually lying in a 'pre-sex discussion' kind of situation is okay - to some people, discovering that their sex partner had only been having sex to please them or was agreeable rather than actively interested, would be quite hurtful even if they might be up for that kind of relationship if they knew.

True; I wasn't seriously considering going around singing about how much I love having sex. Non-disclosure still feels like a significant deception, though, because statistically it'd be even safer to assume that a given person is sexual than that they have herpes. Knowing that they've made an incorrect assumption, and not telling them until the last minute... is that really that much fairer to them? Does the fact that they'd just make a different incorrect assumption if I told them the truth earlier justify that kind of behavior?

Was I correct that this is how trans*, bi, and other atypical identities deal with this sort of thing, or have I just been misled by what is so far a somewhat limited amount of reading?

[WJMorris3]

I've always disclosed on my online dating profiles that I'm ace; I'm starting to suspect that's my problem. :/

[Barretts_Salt]

I do have to say that I don't really you have to announce it upfront, but I don't think actually lying in a 'pre-sex discussion' kind of situation is okay - to some people, discovering that their sex partner had only been having sex to please them or was agreeable rather than actively interested, would be quite hurtful even if they might be up for that kind of relationship if they knew.

Yes.  I would feel wounded, rejected, and undesirable.  So I find out as soon as possible what type of interest is being shown.  No pussyfooting around:)

[Lemminkainen]

Was I correct that this is how trans*, bi, and other atypical identities deal with this sort of thing, or have I just been misled by what is so far a somewhat limited amount of reading?

I clicked the link to the forum post, and I, uh... wish that I hadn't now.

I'm a bisexual guy, but I was always open about my sexuality with people who I wanted to go out with-- I mentioned it on my okCupid profile and brought it up on first dates with people I met in other contexts.

Interestingly, it was only rarely a problem for me-- probably because not being biphobic overlapped really heavily with other things I wanted in a partner (intelligence, progressiveness, comfort with sexuality, etc.). I suspect that these things might not correlate as strongly with being asexuality-friendly, though, so your disclosure problem is more complicated.

[nearly_takuan]

I clicked the link to the forum post, and I, uh... wish that I hadn't now.

Oops. Sorry. Didn't TW any of that. Yeah, general random internet forums I find from general web searches are...not nice places.

I'm a bisexual guy, but I was always open about my sexuality with people who I wanted to go out with-- I mentioned it on my okCupid profile and brought it up on first dates with people I met in other contexts.

Interestingly, it was only rarely a problem for me-- probably because not being biphobic overlapped really heavily with other things I wanted in a partner (intelligence, progressiveness, comfort with sexuality, etc.).  I suspect that these things might not correlate as strongly with being asexuality-friendly, though, so your disclosure problem is more complicated.

Funny you should mention that, 'cause I was just reading this thing that pretty well describes the types of people sites like OKCupid think I'm supposed to be compatible with, too. tl;dr: On one hand, ostensibly open-minded creative intellectual liberal types who also happen to have certain kinks and sexual attitudes that are likely to make a non-platonic relationship difficult. On the other, socially conservative religious types who are actually just really bad matches in pretty much every way.

Also interesting: AVEN's survey this year shows that asexual spaces (where the great majority of responders are assumed to have found and answered the survey) bring in proportionally a lot of women and LGBT*Q+ and sex-positive persons (demographics), but we don't necessarily feel welcome in their spaces (see 4.3). I'd be curious to see the demographics of just people identifying as some form of asexual, but the community as a whole appears to be largely agnostic/atheist, politically liberal/progressive, and white. I was surprised how many asexual responders said they would not change their orientation if they could.

Perhaps Dan Savage is right after all, and we should just keep to our own. I'm not the type who likes to travel a lot, though.

[azazel]

Well, now I know I should have left that off my profile.

Because now Azazel won't want to date you?

In a way, yeah. Azazel's got more of an understanding of our position than most, I think. I don't know if that specific person talked about "compromise" or not, but in any case he's seeing a fundamental incompatibility before they've really met. Maybe there is one, I dunno. Not saying it's not a good reason, just, if that's how others are likely to see me too, I'm better off not bringing it up at all, playing along, and "closet"-squatting.

That message is phrased as well as it can be. Definitely better than just changing your mind without explanation or being a no-show.

I'm sorry for hurting your feelings by proxy nearly I can explain my reasoning, but I'm not sure it will make you feel any better, so preemptive apologies if it doesn't.

She send the initial (and only) message, including this bit:

I’m a cis woman. I’m also asexual. You said in your message that you aren’t ace; if you’re not open to possibly dating an ace person please feel free to let me know, that would be OK. I’m really new to realising I’m ace and so I’m not yet really sure what it would mean for potential relationships, but I’m just mentioning it here for honesty/openness reasons

Which means that we both have no experience with relationships, and moreover we both have no experience navigating the issues that asexuality poses for relationships.

I frankly don't see that working. I think we'd end up in a situation where either I have no sex (which, although my libido seems to be low I'm unwilling to do), or I unwittingly pressure her into doing stuff she doesn't want to (which obviously I also don't want to do, but as I am a man and she is woman, let's face it, it'd be terrifyingly easy to accidentally do).

In fact, I would be so afraid of scenario two, that I'd most certainly end up with scenario 1.

And I'm not really in the position to try it out, see where it goes, because then I reinforce the thought that if you approach a man he says yes but only because he can't find anything better.

I knew I'd hurt her by rejecting her over this, but it seemed preferable over hurting her more in the future.

[nearly_takuan]

I'm sorry for hurting your feelings by proxy nearly I can explain my reasoning, but I'm not sure it will make you feel any better, so preemptive apologies if it doesn't.

She send the initial (and only) message, including this bit:

I’m a cis woman. I’m also asexual. You said in your message that you aren’t ace; if you’re not open to possibly dating an ace person please feel free to let me know, that would be OK. I’m really new to realising I’m ace and so I’m not yet really sure what it would mean for potential relationships, but I’m just mentioning it here for honesty/openness reasons  

Which means that we both have no experience with relationships, and moreover we both have no experience navigating the issues that asexuality poses for relationships.

I frankly don't see that working. I think we'd end up in a situation where either I have no sex (which, although my libido seems to be low I'm unwilling to do), or I unwittingly pressure her into doing stuff she doesn't want to (which obviously I also don't want to do, but as I am a man and she is woman, let's face it, it'd be terrifyingly easy to accidentally do).

In fact, I would be so afraid of scenario two, that I'd most certainly end up with scenario 1.

And I'm not really in the position to try it out, see where it goes, because then I reinforce the thought that if you approach a man he says yes but only because he can't find anything better.

I knew I'd hurt her by rejecting her over this, but it seemed preferable over hurting her more in the future.

I don't think my feelings were really hurt, but I appreciate the concern. Mostly, your post just got me to look one more time at something and make a different set of assumptions than before*. The "insights" gained may seem kind of negative/bleak, but that's just kind of how I am anyway.

I figured you had good reasons anyway, but the added context does make it even clearer.

And yeah, definitely see your point re: the unwanted scenarios. Oddly enough, I have similar anxieties about what comes next if I should start dating a sexual woman—will she expect me to detect when she desires sexual activity and initiate on that? Would we both just waste a bunch of time waiting for the topic to come up, and then have it turn out way after the fact that she wants someone who is, as Enail put it, actively interested, not just agreeable? But in my case, I guess I have the luxury/advantage of not crossing that bridge until I get anywhere near it. Most of the advice-columns and such seem to advocate the third date or so as the sweet-spot for that sort of thing (on my end), with the exception of Dan Savage but I'm beginning to see why other aces hate him too.

*I don't think I can word this to completely match what I'm thinking of, but it kind of flipped a switch from "maybe the more open-minded types would be willing to try, or even interested in, the idea of dating an ace and seeing what that's like," to "even an intelligent and well-informed individual with a good attitude could have their reasons for not wanting to consider it". I still don't know if I'm entirely comfortable with the ethical implications of the alternative, but I think if I knew that telling someone my orientation had made them change their mind about dating me, I would definitely feel like I had made a mistake by saying anything. (Again, though, you didn't do anything wrong; I'm just extrapolating to my own squids.)

[readertorider]

I'm not the type who likes to travel a lot, though.

[Disclaimer: I'm not particularly well informed about dating or asexuality, but:] Would there be any value in starting your relationship as a LDR? Having Skype dates and chat discussions and stuff instead of the usual meat space meet-ups? There's a set of people who like to meet up asap in any potential relationship, but usually those people want to check that they are sexually attracted to the person, so that may not be an issue? If you are long enough distance I don't think there would be much travel since it is so expensive/time consuming and it might greatly increase the number of people in your pool so to speak. Of course, if you don't want a LDR anyway it really doesn't matter.

Regarding the profile bit--can you link where you say you're ace to a comic/blurb/something to a description you identify with? That way at least you know you are at least in the same book when/if it comes up.

[nearly_takuan]

I'm not the type who likes to travel a lot, though.

[Disclaimer: I'm not particularly well informed about dating or asexuality, but:] Would there be any value in starting your relationship as a LDR? Having Skype dates and chat discussions and stuff instead of the usual meat space meet-ups? There's a set of people who like to meet up asap in any potential relationship, but usually those people want to check that they are sexually attracted to the person, so that may not be an issue? If you are long enough distance I don't think there would be much travel since it is so expensive/time consuming and it might greatly increase the number of people in your pool so to speak. Of course, if you don't want a LDR anyway it really doesn't matter.

Oh, interesting. I'd never thought of it that way. And now I'm kind of curious as to why this didn't seem to come up much as a suggested solution on AVEN. (There's a checkbox for it somewhere on Acebook, but the convoluted presentation of the site and its ghost-town population made me mostly forget it existed.)

Like the polyamory idea, I'm not really sure whether I'd be comfortable or happy with that kind of arrangement, and my first impulse is to assume I wouldn't, but I don't really have a way of knowing yet so it's definitely worth trying (or thinking about in the mean time).

(Not sure if it was what you meant, but what I was originally getting at with "travel" was that there are so few female heteroromantic asexuals that in order to meet one I'd probably have to move around in other states or countries and talk to a vast quantity of people...which is part of why finding a compatible sexual person at least seems like it would be easier. But I'm glad it drew out this kind of suggestion, too!)

Regarding the profile bit--can you link where you say you're ace to a comic/blurb/something to a description you identify with? That way at least you know you are at least in the same book when/if it comes up.

Maybe. The phone app doesn't work well with embedded HTML, though, and I worry that reading additional content from a link (even if it's short and/or presented in an entertaining way) might already be asking too much from someone who's just browsing or looking for something to add to their response to whatever I sent them. I imagine at that point most people (especially women who already got a bunch more messages while they were skimming my profile) would just decide it's not worth the time/effort to figure it out, and skip to the next one.

[Izmuth]

I tend to think outright lying is a bad call because it would bother me if I was lied to. Nondisclosure, as in not bringing up the topic until it is relevant seems the better way to go.

Continuing in this vein, what if nót outright lying isn't safe?

Taking myself as an example, what if someone notices me acting non-ordinarily to a situation because of my sexuality and asks what's up with that?

I thínk I can explain to someone what I am, what I'm most certainly not and how what I am will affect our life together, but that person would have to be open minded and willing to listen what I'm saying, while if I confide in the wrong person... well, I don't want to think about that.

[Mel]

Re: the original topic--I tend to agree with others that it's best to get potential major incompatibilities out in the open early on, to save time, emotional investment, etc., and that it isn't fair to a partner to outright lie to them about your feelings. But I also agree that every relationship includes compromise and that people are likely to see a term like "asexual" and make a decision based on that without considering possible consequences.

What I think it might help to realize is that some (most?) people who make that immediate decision are probably not doing it because they're lazy or don't care enough about finding out what compromises you'd be open to but because they're actually trying to be respectful of you. To the average person, I'd imagine that the term "asexual" without any further clarification indicates "this is a person who doesn't want to have sex," much like if a guy says, "I'm gay," the average person will assume he only wants to date men. Obviously there is variation in what any given person using a term is interested in and open to doing. But I know for me, I would feel I was being presumptuous and insensitive if I asked someone who had labeled themselves as asexual whether they were open to doing some sexual things. That would feel like asking a gay guy if he might be open to trying to date a woman, or, say, a man asking a woman who's mentioned in her profile that she doesn't want kids if she'd consider it as long as they got a nanny to do all the childcare, or something like that. There are gay men who date occasional women (but still consider themselves gay rather than bi); there are probably women who don't want kids but would accept it with the right guy as long as they didn't have to do much mothering; it isn't a problem of not recognizing the possibility but not wanting to act as if you don't care about the person's stated preferences.

And with something like a lack of sexual desire, you also run into the issue azazel talks about--we're in a society where thankfully enthusiastic consent is becoming increasingly seen as an ideal standard, but that also means that people are aware of coercion, and asking someone who's expressing that they don't have sexual desire if they'd still get physical with you may feel a lot like pressuring someone who's already said "No."

So I think for someone in a nuanced position, whenever you bring up the general idea of being asexual--whether in a profile or during an early date or whatever--you're best off explaining some of those nuances at the same time to indicate what sort of compromises are on the table. What level of physical relationship do you actually enjoy?*  (e.g., Do you enjoy hugging? Kissing?)  Do you think you'd emotionally enjoy being sexually active with a partner, getting to provide something they enjoy, even if you're not going to physically enjoy it?  What would you not really be into at all but willing to do for your partner's sake now and then; what would you never want to do at all? What level of detail you go into would depend on the context and how comfortable you are with the person you're talking to, but I do think people would be more open to discussing compromises rather than making snap judgments that way.

snip

IMHO, this is a totally different situation. I do think ideally you'd want to find a romantic partner who you could trust enough to be open with, who could be a real team with you in helping you deal with your concerns rather than shaming you for them. But I don't think this is something a person needs to know early on, because it has nothing to do with how you're going to relate to them. If you're honest about what you're looking for in a partner and how you feel about that person once you're dating, it really doesn't matter what other feelings you have, especially since you have no intention of acting on them. I think you'd be well within ethical bounds to hold off on discussing this with someone until you were sure you could trust them and were safe with them.


*Or think you would enjoy, if you don't have the experience to know for sure.

[readertorider]

Maybe. The phone app doesn't work well with embedded HTML, though, and I worry that reading additional content from a link (even if it's short and/or presented in an entertaining way) might already be asking too much from someone who's just browsing or looking for something to add to their response to whatever I sent them. I imagine at that point most people (especially women who already got a bunch more messages while they were skimming my profile) would just decide it's not worth the time/effort to figure it out, and skip to the next one.

My impression in general is that if something is listed on an OLD profile it's expected that someone contacting them to arrange a date will be accepting of that something, and someone accepting a date will bring it up if that something is a potential problem for them. Religion/kids/poly/pets/moving-to Alaska-in-3-years/whatever, I think there's an expectation that if people start dating anything listed on a profile won't become a problem later on. I don't think everything works out this way--minds/circumstances/feelings change and Me+3yrs likely has a very different conception of what moving to Alaska in 2017 means than current me--but there is pressure to either say "yes" in an informed way, possibly with qualification, or say no.

To bring this back to asexuality--My impression is that a non insignificant number of people think asexual = "my emotions are controlled by logic" or "I don't want physical closeness" just because they never thought about the concept before and media characters who don't actively show an interest in sex follow a (TOS) Spock/Sheldon/Sherlock model. Since your profile largely contradicts this (you're looking to meet people in a romantic context) people reading it might google and be overwhelmed by information (Wikipedia has "Because there is significant variation among people who identify as asexual, asexuality can encompass broad definitions" as it's first sentence under "Definitions"). I think by including one link that describes how you view asexuality you have a chance to explain your own nuances (like Mel said) without it overwhelming the profile, but obviously YMMV.

[Sponsored content]