#dx dates

Like...don't you 💥like💥 your partner? Isn't it thrilling when they dress up nicely or do something fun with their hair? How can you look at them having fun or trying something new and not feel at least a little warm and fuzzy inside?

We had a ceilidh into the night, and our guests got to try a little circle dancing from my side of the world, too. I was pretty glad that I had got a (thankfully second hand, for a steal!) reception dress, because we danced a lot that evening. I can't wait for the photos to come back - we've had a few photos in from family and friends, though rather anniyingly whilst people take a TON of photos of you at the wedding, most people feel a bit shy to send you their photos as you have an actual photographer. And whilst on a realistic level, I'm not losing my surname, I did enjoy the "Mr and Dr [hisname] cards we've received.

Currently sorting through our wedding photos, which came early, as I'd like to make an album for us and family. It's not just that the phoyographers charge £££ for it, but I'd rather pock my faves than have someone else pick theirs. BUUUT that does mean sorting through more than 950 photos to whittle them down. The running theme seems to be "how are my eyes closed in half the photos, and my face derpy in the other half!" and "Gosh DxDude looks cute in all these photos, i can't possibly choose"

Technically the bands weren't flat, they were shaped into the profile we wanted for the rings, but hey.

There's something just... outdated about the way we traditionally think about commitment in relationships. Take the way people use whether someone is wearing a wedding or engagement ring as a sign for whether they can approach someone. Firstly, even if someone is 100% single, there's no guarantee that they are interested in dating, would want to date you, or are happy to be approached right now. But also, not every person in a committed relationship is wearing a ring. People shouldn't have to be married or engaged for their relationship to be respected. But equally, women shouldn't have to buy fake engagement or wedding rings to try to avoid harrassment by men who don't respect the word 'no'. There are plenty of people in relationships who aren't engaged or married - perhaps they intend to be, or perhaps they don't see marriage as something necessary for their relationship. and I find it rather insulting because it suggests that until someone has a ring on, they arent' really in a committed relationship and they might as well be 'fair game'. How about we don't assume anyone is single or interested, and we take time to respectfully get to know people a bit before we assume they want us? There's a lot more that can be said about some men assuming that every woman is available and interested- ideally we'd want a lot to change in how people interact with strangers. I know that some peopel (usually men) complain about not being able to talk to women in public. But like... it's not your divine right to go up to everyone and hit on them regardless of whether they are receptive of your interest. Women don't just exist as NPCs in your life story, and they deserve to go about their lives without a constant stream of sexual harrassment from strangers. Likewise the way some people celebrate bachelorette parties as a "last chance to have fun before you marry" - i.e. a "last night of freedom" where strippers or having sex with sex workers (or randoms) is considered fair game - at least, by one party in the relationship. Needless to say, if both parties in the relationship are OK with the above, then it's not a problem. But it's often a problem because no, both parties are NOT OK with a little external sex just before the wedding. It's just... your last night of freedom isn't the night before you get married - it was the night before whenever you decided to commit to exclusively dating your current partner. I'm engaged, but the idea that something 'wouldn't count' right now because we're not hitched would be pretty laughable. So whilst I'm behind celebrating that a good friend is getting married, I don't believe in seeing it as a desperate send off and an end to freedom. Any freedoms you may 'lose' in marriage (like the freedom to sleep with anyone) are things you've agreed to long before then. Maybe it made sense back when people didn't really date, and marriage followed a very brief and chaste courtship - because people's lives really did change after marriage when it meant they moved out of their parents' house, lived with their partner, had sex for the first time, and likely had kids not long after. In those circumstances, the night before your wedding was the end of an era. But now? For most couples? Not much changes. It's also insulting to the marriage the couple are trying to build - the implication being that after you get married, your life is essentially over and you're 'tied' to one person. This is a choice people are making - if they are looking at their wedding with dread, they shouldn't be getting married! Or the notion that God forbid! you only get to sleep with one person! I never got the drama over this. I mean most people really aren't having a ton of sex even when they are single, and if they've been happy with whatever they share with their partner through the relationship, then marriage really doesn't change anything. If you decide to get married, marriage is just signing up to more of what you're already getting. It doesn't change your partner or make them better.

I would want to have that conversation before you get VERY far in (like, obviously before you agree to be in a relationship/exclusive) because you don't want to catch feels or get very involved with someone who has very different relationship priorities than you. It's not just about 'leading people on' but about protecting yourself. I'll warn you that some people might be pushy about sex, but the right kind of person is never pushy! I would say that for your own safety I would explain that you are asexual and what you are currently OK with, with someone you are dating BEFORE you go to their place (and if you're face to face, make sure it's a public place and you feel comfortable), so you can get an idea for if they are respectful of your boundaries before you decide whether to go back to theirs at some point. People SHOULD respect if you don't ever want sex, and if you don't experience attraction the same way they do. After all, even allosexual and alloromantic people express their feelings in very diffrerent ways - some are effusive, some are very affectionate, some are quiet or less demonstrative, or show their feelings through different ways. You still have every right to look for a relationship with someone in whatever way is meaningful for you, if you choose. Now, let's talk about sex. Most couples have at least a small degree of mismatch - it's rare for people to end up with someone who wants sex EXCTLY when they do, exactly as often. It seems that a lot of relationship drama in longterm relationships is about large mismatches -e.g. one person doesn't want to have sex for months, the other wants to every day. In situations where there's a massive difference in what both need to make them happy, it's impossible to compromise and make both happy, and those people are incompatible. The truth is that even allosexual people have a huge spectrum when it comes to sex. Some people have naturally low libidos and despite feeling attraction may be perfectly happy to have sex rarely. Even what is 'rare' is objective. The average is somewhere between twice a week to once every couple of weeks - but having more or less sex than that isn't wrong. Even if you know you don't want sex and may never want sex, you're still valid and you have every right to look for a relationship that is right for you! There may be a lot of people out there with pretty low libidos who would actually be much happier in a relationship with an ace person than with a partner with a high libido! There are other people who are more than happy to have sex fairly regularly but also for whom it's not hugely important, or who are happy to go without for long periods of time, or who are happy to please themselves - lots of potential people who could understand your perspective and your needs and for whom accomomdating what you need wouldn't mean them giving up anything that's important or necessary to them. Plus there's a growing number of people out there who are ace themselves and would be stoked to be with another ace person! Some people on the other hand want to have sex very often (the most I've heard of is multiple times every day, I gotta wonder how they get anything else done!), or for whom sex is VERY important in a relationship. There will be people you wouldn't be compatible with because sex is just much more important to them than to you. But that's true for everyone! Even as someone who is reasonably allosexual/alloromantic I would still be incompatible with people who had a very different libido - and that's true for everyone. Some people will say it's not for them - but that would be true no matter who you were or what your situation was. I'm fairly sure I must be some people's idea of a worst date, and someone else's idea of a dream date. But ultimately, you only need to find one person who wants to be with you. What you want is a bit different to what 'most' people want, but everyone's looking for someone who suits them - you're ultimately not doing anything different than the rest.

Screenshot from Twitter, in which twitter user sgtdgmby shares a screenshot of a creepy exchange they had from somoene on tinder. Fortunately they made clear that they wouldn't stand for his behaviour. What worries me is people thinking this is "just him being up front about his boundaries". No, because these aren't normal or healthy boundaries. In an actual relationship, it's common for people to have boundaries around for example, monogamy, and what degree of contact with people (including sex workers) counts as cheating. It might be reasonable for someone to say "I'm not comfortable with a partner going to strip clubs/having sex with other people" and they may also have discussions about where they both draw the line. There's nothing inherently wrong with stating you aren't comfortable with your partner having sexual/romantic contact with other people - if you have both agreed to be monogamous. But this ISN'T a relationship. This man wants a potential tinder date to commit to dating him exclusively before he's even met them (or even had a phone call) because he's insecure and angry about the idea that even an anonymous tinder date he's not met may have other options. And he's insecure that he may not be able to compete with that. And people like this exist - I used to see profiles that stated they absolutely needed any woman they talked to to only be exclusively messaging them. Now, online dating can be intimidating, and it's not uncommon to be ghosted, or meet someone and find it's not going to go anywhere. But you just have to keep trying - the answer isn't to try to manipulate people into agreeing to be with you before they've even met you. Like, sure, if you meet and hit it off, it's fine to discuss exclusivity whenever you are both happy. I've had friends agree to exclusivity after date 1 - albeit that usually ended up being with people who were much clingier than normal, which is why I think it's best not to rush into that decision. I'd consider it a red flag, though if someone wants to be exclusive before they even know you. Exclusivity is an agreement that you've found someone you like enough to focus on getting to know them; why would anyone commit before they've even met? It absolutely brings up concerns that this person is very insecure, very needy or very controlling. There's a high chance that someone like this is going to present you with a bunch of extreme boundaries for the rest of your relationship. There's an entire spectrum of boundaries. However, that's not to say all of them are reasonable! For example, many people are fine with boundaries like "no sex with other people including sex workers" or "please go low/no contact with your ex who keeps trying to make moves on you because they are undermining our relationship", whereas boundaries like "I don't want my partner to have any friends of the opposite sex, or any contact with people of that gender" and "you're not even allowed to masturbate because that's cheating" are a lot more extreme, and would be seen as controlling by others. Don't let someone persuade you that an unreasonable request is OK just because they pretend that it's a request and not an order. There's a huge difference between someone saying "look, let's have a varied and rich life together that involves others, but put each other first and make sure we are both comfortable" and "Only I may fulfil your social needs, you cannot even look at another person, don't even think about interacting with others AT ALL, I am ALL you need.

Though one of the good side effects of going FB official was that the random overly familiar and overly interested "HEYYY what you been up to?" messages from dudes I only politely knew from work have ceased. LOL *OK, yes, I know it IS technically big news, and people who want to splash it all over every social media profile are perfectly valid. We're just low key people trying to navigate "I'm happy and this is important to me" without having to plaster it in front of the face of every person we know...