Why not just date the same sex?

Page 6 of 9 [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

23 Jan 2012, 3:44 pm

Not everyone believes in soulmates.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Matt62
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,230

23 Jan 2012, 3:47 pm

Its not even about sex, with me, actually. I want someone who is not the same as me. OK, this is hard to put to words..
A person who completes me, but who is different. I need a female's empathy & effection. Nothing males do DOES that. Though Girly girls still bug me a bit. I like Tomboys because they tend to be more adventurous & open. Girly guys frankly, freak me out. And no offense to Cross dressers but that can almost panic me. I think that is my ASD talking. I don't like false appearences.

Sincerely,
Matt



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,858
Location: Stendec

23 Jan 2012, 3:47 pm

That's the problem, y'see ... the term "Soul Mate" means different things to different people. Some say it means the One Person Chosen By God For You, while other people claim that it means the one person you get along with without any hassles whatsoever. Still others say that a "Soul Mate" is a person whose soul is so compatible with yours that the two of you form a complet whole when together.

To me, the term "Soul Mate" is just one more romantic fantasy buzz-phrase.



Daemonic-Jackal
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 581
Location: Salford, United Kingdom

23 Jan 2012, 4:17 pm

Ai_Ling wrote:
Daemonic-Jackal wrote:
Ai_Ling wrote:
So I was talking to my friend the other day and she said in a long term relationship, you need someone to be like a best friend, who understands you and you can share your life with. You need to be able to be friends with your partner. So I was thinking, a lot of people want someone who they have similar interests, values, things in common, and are kinda like them. Well of course you don't want them to be a mirror image of you. So I was thinking, why not just date someone of the same sex. Why are we so focused on heterosexuality? Sure we can still find someone of the opposite sex too but wouldn't people have a higher chance at finding there soul mates if they dated the same sex too?


Because I like breasts and vagina, and don't like the idea of giving fellatio & receiving anal penetration. What people do in their personal lives is completely up to them, but as far as I'm concerned it's women I'm attracted to, it isn't rocket science.

I can't tell if you are being serious with this question or inadvertently insulting other peoples intelligence. Or both.


I was being serious. I guess I didn't articulate myself in a correct manner. My psych and I were talking about the concept of a soulmate. And she said it didn't have to be a romantic partner. I guess were talking about the concept of someone to share your life with, someone who gets you and understands you. Now days, its wrapped up in this "one" person concept. I doesn't have to be someone who you need to be sexually attracted to. I was talking an emotional bond. Cause if sex isnt there, I think the relationship has a better chance of survival then if the emotional aspect is not there.


I'd like to meet your psych, think I'd have some fun messing with their mind.

I understand now that you mean well and can see what you're saying and know that there are some lonely guys on here but suggesting they go down the Brokeback Mountain route really isn't the answer.


_________________
"Every cripple has his own way of walking. " ? Brendan Behan

http://www.facebook.com/YentonianCarlos


nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,623
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in capitalistic military dictatorship called USA

23 Jan 2012, 4:23 pm

Matt62 wrote:
Its not even about sex, with me, actually. I want someone who is not the same as me. OK, this is hard to put to words..
A person who completes me, but who is different. I need a female's empathy & effection. Nothing males do DOES that. Though Girly girls still bug me a bit. I like Tomboys because they tend to be more adventurous & open. Girly guys frankly, freak me out. And no offense to Cross dressers but that can almost panic me. I think that is my ASD talking. I don't like false appearences.

Sincerely,
Matt

I get what your saying. Stuff in bold applies to me


_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
~King Of The Hill


"Hear all, trust nothing"
~Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition #190
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition


The-Raven
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Apr 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 762

23 Jan 2012, 4:32 pm

I have not dated women as Ive not met any lesbians with enough in common with me except Wendy Lawson and she has a partner lol

I would be very open to a relationship with a woman, despite not being attracted to her, as I think its not that important and Ive had several relationships with men that I was not attracted to and it was not better or worse than the relationships which had a lot of attraction.

I think sharing similar goals and values is more important for compatibility than sexual attraction.

But I think, despite it opening up the potential numbers, it would not make a difference for me as my personality is one which is not suited to relationships and is one women would equally find too difficult (just as men do).



Matt62
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,230

24 Jan 2012, 11:53 am

The Raven,

I think that is more common in females. Something about being (bilogically) the default sex, means their gender attraction is usually more fluid than a males.
This is from some stuff I read. It seems true, but may be an oversimplification.
And I didn't mean any offense to gays or crossdressers. I just react badly to surprises, & I've met a few female impersonator's that could get Academy awards! LOL.

Sincerely,
Matt



diniesaur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 758
Location: in the Ministry of Silly Walks

24 Jan 2012, 2:50 pm

I agree with you to an extent, OP. I don't see why people have to be sexually atttacted to each other to form romantic relationships. I've only found six males attractive, and I haven't tried to date any of them (nor will I ever try to date any of them), but that doesn't mean I haven't had crushes on males. (With a male body suddenly a lot more males become attractive to me.) I also dated and even had sex with my ex for about three years before he tried to kill me, and he was pretty ugly! I understand that sexuality isn't a choice, but I don't understand why sexuality has anything to do with forming long term romantic relationships.

And for all you people who said that males don't give empathy and affection, you're DEAD wrong. I think that the problem is a lot of the males who don't are hiding it. I believe this because I am in daily contact with a lot of males who are extremely affectionate and empathetic. What's more, they're mostly gay and bisexual--the exact sort of males you would be dating if you followed the OP's approach!

My problem with the OP's suggestion is that sex is not always the same as gender. My body is female with higher than normal testosterone, but I'm pretty sure my gender usually leans torwards male. I have very little in common with most females. Your suggestion is faulty for people like me. I would prefer dating whoever I feel like, whether male or female.

Another problem is that I don't see how being soulmates correlates with having similar interests--maybe values, but not interests.



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

24 Jan 2012, 3:28 pm

diniesaur wrote:
I agree with you to an extent, OP. I don't see why people have to be sexually atttacted to each other to form romantic relationships.


Conversely, I don't understand how one can call a relationship "romantic" unless there's a sexual component. I think it's just personal needs and semantics we're disagreeing on, here. For me, intense friendship = intense friendship. Intense friendship + sex = romantic relationship.

Oh, and I guess I should add that for me, sexual attraction is a necessary prerequisite for sex.



Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland

24 Jan 2012, 3:33 pm

mv wrote:
diniesaur wrote:
I agree with you to an extent, OP. I don't see why people have to be sexually atttacted to each other to form romantic relationships.


Conversely, I don't understand how one can call a relationship "romantic" unless there's a sexual component. I think it's just personal needs and semantics we're disagreeing on, here. For me, intense friendship = intense friendship. Intense friendship + sex = romantic relationship.

Oh, and I guess I should add that for me, sexual attraction is a necessary prerequisite for sex.

In some cases, and usually after many years, a romantic relationship reverts back to being just an intense friendship. I may or may not be speaking from experience. :wink:


_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley


mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

24 Jan 2012, 3:39 pm

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
mv wrote:
diniesaur wrote:
I agree with you to an extent, OP. I don't see why people have to be sexually atttacted to each other to form romantic relationships.


Conversely, I don't understand how one can call a relationship "romantic" unless there's a sexual component. I think it's just personal needs and semantics we're disagreeing on, here. For me, intense friendship = intense friendship. Intense friendship + sex = romantic relationship.

Oh, and I guess I should add that for me, sexual attraction is a necessary prerequisite for sex.

In some cases, and usually after many years, a romantic relationship reverts back to being just an intense friendship. I may or may not be speaking from experience. :wink:


But would you still call it a romantic relationship? I sure wouldn't! I would call that a former romantic relationship.



Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland

24 Jan 2012, 3:48 pm

mv wrote:
Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
mv wrote:
diniesaur wrote:
I agree with you to an extent, OP. I don't see why people have to be sexually atttacted to each other to form romantic relationships.


Conversely, I don't understand how one can call a relationship "romantic" unless there's a sexual component. I think it's just personal needs and semantics we're disagreeing on, here. For me, intense friendship = intense friendship. Intense friendship + sex = romantic relationship.

Oh, and I guess I should add that for me, sexual attraction is a necessary prerequisite for sex.

In some cases, and usually after many years, a romantic relationship reverts back to being just an intense friendship. I may or may not be speaking from experience. :wink:


But would you still call it a romantic relationship? I sure wouldn't! I would call that a former romantic relationship.

Yes, I would still call it romantic. I'm pretty certain my parents come into that category and they are still very much in love. I wouldn't call it just an intense friendship.


_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley


nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,623
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in capitalistic military dictatorship called USA

24 Jan 2012, 5:17 pm

diniesaur wrote:
I agree with you to an extent, OP. I don't see why people have to be sexually atttacted to each other to form romantic relationships. I've only found six males attractive, and I haven't tried to date any of them (nor will I ever try to date any of them), but that doesn't mean I haven't had crushes on males. (With a male body suddenly a lot more males become attractive to me.) I also dated and even had sex with my ex for about three years before he tried to kill me, and he was pretty ugly! I understand that sexuality isn't a choice, but I don't understand why sexuality has anything to do with forming long term romantic relationships.

And for all you people who said that males don't give empathy and affection, you're DEAD wrong. I think that the problem is a lot of the males who don't are hiding it. I believe this because I am in daily contact with a lot of males who are extremely affectionate and empathetic. What's more, they're mostly gay and bisexual--the exact sort of males you would be dating if you followed the OP's approach!

I do NOT need sexual or any kind of attraction at all for a romantic relationship because i become attracted as I get closer to the woman.

Gays & bisexuals who are interested in me are looking for sex & a guy getting a hard-on while we're cuddling would really freak me out


_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
~King Of The Hill


"Hear all, trust nothing"
~Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition #190
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition


Comp_Geek_573
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 699

25 Jan 2012, 7:21 pm

Sometimes I wish I were bisexual. Then I could go after both men and women on the autism spectrum. Instead I only have women to work with, and since autistic men outnumber autistic women 3 to 1, that means a two-in-three chance of having to settle for someone more neurotypical - and learn some NT ways however unfair I might find them.

Oh well, at least the odds in autism aren't quite as horrible as they are in the computer science major. That's more like 15 to 1!! The woman I end up marrying will almost certainly be in a different discipline. My first girlfriend, in fact, was.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 98 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 103 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
AQ: 33


Zinnel
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 405
Location: Missouri, USA

26 Jan 2012, 12:37 am

if dating the same sex would make it all easier

then i would hav just gotn a sex change years ago, after all i would be technically dating the same sex :wink:


_________________
keep an open mind but not so open your brain falls out


MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

26 Jan 2012, 1:10 am

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Ai_Ling wrote:
ehh what about all you aspie guys who can't get laid anyways...just trying to suggest an alternative


And what of the aspie females that can't get laid?

Honestly, 'just go gay' is not a viable solution.


Bingo. Different strokes for different folks. I guess what people are trying to say here is if there's no sexual component then why call it romance? I have nothing against exploring one's sexuality but if a person is not attracted to that person then why bother? But to play devil's advocate I do think we still in a world where same sex relationship give society the ick factor, why I don't know.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan