The user started dating a girl they met through an app, and things seemed to be progressing positively after a few dates.
The relationship reached a turning point when the topic of sex arose, and the user discovered his date was asexual. Because sexual intimacy is essential to the user’s definition of a romantic relationship, he decided they were incompatible long-term and ended things, leading to his current doubt about how harshly he delivered the final message.
AITAH for telling the girl I was seeing to put her sexual preference in her bio if she doesn’t want to be rejected?
As relationship therapist Esther Perel notes, ‘Intimacy is not the same as attachment. Intimacy is about connection and vulnerability; attachment is about security and knowing what to expect.’ This situation highlights a clash between the OP’s expectation of sexual intimacy as a prerequisite for romantic connection and the date’s different needs.
The OP was correct in recognizing the incompatibility and ending the relationship promptly; this respects both parties’ time. However, the subsequent language used—’bait and switch,’ ’emotional blackmail,’ and accusations of deception—escalates the conflict unnecessarily. While the OP feels misled, asexual individuals are not obligated to lead with their orientation, especially early on, as it is a core component of their identity, not merely a preference to be listed like a hobby. Applying terms like ’emotional blackmail’ dismisses the date’s genuine identity and vulnerability in sharing that information, even if it was late in the process.
The OP’s actions in ending the relationship were appropriate based on their needs. The constructive recommendation is to retract the inflammatory language. A better approach moving forward when facing such disclosures is to communicate needs clearly without assigning moral blame. If a fundamental incompatibility arises, one can state, ‘I respect your orientation, but because sexual intimacy is necessary for my long-term romantic happiness, I cannot continue this specific relationship.’ This addresses the incompatibility without attacking the other person’s character.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The original poster (OP) made a clear decision based on a fundamental incompatibility regarding sexual needs, ending the relationship respectfully before proceeding further. However, the OP feels conflicted because they subsequently accused the other person of dishonesty and ’emotional blackmail’ for not disclosing her asexuality upfront.
The core question is whether the OP was justified in criticizing the manner in which the date handled her profile disclosure, or if calling it ‘bait and switch’ and ’emotional blackmail’ was an overly harsh reaction to a fundamental difference in sexual orientation. Should the OP apologize for the harshness of the final comments?
