Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhantom
My link proves the point that no sex ruins relationships. To a funny extent. You ignored it.
If sex is not important to someone, that someone is an asexual. We're not talking about them. We're talking about what we, the posters, are. Majority is sexual, if not all. So your point is invalid. We cannot mantain a healthy relationship without sex because we require sex in a relationship.
Those who don't are asexual, and you're talking about this, while we've asked you a hundred of times to not. You still do.
in b4 closure of endless thread~
|
I'm sorry if you thought I was ignoring you. I was simply reading the articles. I didn't get the idea that "no sex ruins relationships," however - most certainly not from the first one, as it was about an affair. From the second article, I didn't have the idea that the relationship had been ruined because the woman is simply concerned about her husband. She hasn't said that she wants a divorce from him.
So, if someone is not in the majority of a group, then they're invalid? People who are interested in same-sex relationships are 10% of the population. Are they invalid as well? Are asexuals not human beings, and so don't deserve to be counted in with the fact that not all humans need to have sex to have a healthy relationship? Or is it simply that you want to take away one of my points? And, what about people who CAN'T have sex, as I've asked before? Are they invalid as well?