What Asexual Relationships Do Well
Part 2 of a Series on Asexual Relationship Formation and Maintenance
If Part 1 focused on why dating can be difficult for asexual individuals, this part shifts the focus.
Because stopping at “challenge” gives an incomplete picture.
In my research on asexual relationship formation and maintenance, something else became clear: while relationship formation is often challenge-dominant, relationship maintenance tells a different story. Not an idealized one—but a more nuanced one.
In many cases, asexual relationships don’t just work. They work differently.
And in some ways, they work better.
Relationships Without Autopilot
Most relationships are built on a set of assumptions that go largely unspoken.
You spend time together. You become exclusive. Physical intimacy increases. Sex becomes part of the relationship. These steps are often treated as natural progressions—things that happen without needing much discussion.
But when those assumptions don’t apply, something changes.
Asexual relationships often can’t rely on that kind of autopilot. There isn’t a default script to fall back on. And because of that, partners are more likely to have explicit conversations about what they want their relationship to look like.
Not eventually. Early.
What does intimacy mean here?
What are we comfortable with?
What does closeness look like for each of us?
These aren’t side conversations. They become central.
“Maintenance processes were characterized by intentional communication and the active co-construction of relational norms, rather than reliance on assumed scripts.”
Communication Isn’t Optional—It’s Foundational
In many allonormative relationships, communication about intimacy is often reactive. It happens when something goes wrong—when expectations don’t match, when needs aren’t met, when conflict arises.
In asexual relationships, that model doesn’t hold up well.
Instead, communication becomes proactive. It’s built into the structure of the relationship itself. Partners are often required to articulate their needs, boundaries, and expectations in ways that other relationships can sometimes avoid.
This includes:
What types of physical intimacy feel comfortable
How affection is expressed
How partners understand desire, attraction, and connection
What compromises are possible—and which are not
“Clear and ongoing communication emerged as a central mechanism through which partners negotiated intimacy, boundaries, and expectations.”
This level of communication isn’t always easy. But it does something important: it reduces ambiguity.
And when ambiguity is reduced, so is the likelihood of silent misalignment.
Intimacy Gets Redefined
One of the most consistent patterns in my research is that asexual relationships often expand what counts as intimacy.
If sex is not the central organizing feature of the relationship, other forms of connection take on greater importance. Emotional closeness, shared activities, intellectual connection, physical affection (in non-sexual forms), and mutual care all become more visible as core components of intimacy.
“Intimacy was frequently redefined beyond sexual behavior, with emphasis placed on emotional closeness, shared experiences, and alternative forms of physical and relational connection.”
This reframing aligns with broader conceptualizations of erotics and intimacy. Audre Lorde (1978/2017) positions the erotic not as synonymous with sex, but as a source of embodied knowledge, connection, and depth. Building from this, Ela Przybylo (2019) critiques the ways Western frameworks collapse intimacy into sexuality, limiting how relationships are understood.
This doesn’t mean these forms of intimacy are absent in other relationships. But they are often secondary—something that coexists with, or is overshadowed by, sexual connection.
In asexual relationships, they are often primary.
Boundaries Are Clearer—Because They Have to Be
Boundaries exist in all relationships. But they are not always clearly expressed.
In many cases, people rely on assumptions—what is “normal,” what is expected, what doesn’t need to be said.
Asexual relationships disrupt that.
Because expectations around sex are no longer assumed, boundaries have to be explicitly negotiated. This includes not only what is off-limits, but what is desired, what is flexible, and what is essential.
As a result, partners often develop:
Stronger awareness of their own needs
Greater clarity in expressing those needs
Increased respect for each other’s boundaries
“Participants described boundary-setting as both necessary and beneficial, contributing to increased relational clarity and mutual respect.”
This doesn’t eliminate conflict. But it changes how conflict is navigated.
Flexibility Becomes a Strength
One of the more overlooked strengths in asexual relationships is flexibility.
Without a single, dominant model of what a relationship should look like, partners often co-create structures that work for them. This might include:
Different forms of physical intimacy
Non-traditional relationship timelines
Explicit negotiation of needs in mixed-orientation relationships
Alternative ways of expressing commitment and care
This flexibility is not about lowering standards. It’s about redefining them.
And in many cases, that leads to relationships that are more tailored, rather than more constrained.
This Isn’t About Idealizing Asexual Relationships
It would be easy to read this and assume that asexual relationships are somehow “better.”
That’s not the point.
Asexual relationships still involve conflict, mismatch, negotiation, and, at times, incompatibility—especially in mixed-orientation relationships where partners may have different needs around sex and intimacy.
What this research shows is something more specific:
When relationships are not built on assumed scripts, they require more intentional construction.
And that intentionality can create strengths that are often less visible in relationships that rely on default expectations.
What This Tells Us About Relationships More Broadly
This isn’t just about asexual relationships.
It’s about what happens when we remove the assumption that sex is the defining feature of intimacy.
When that assumption is removed, other aspects of relationships become more visible:
Communication
Emotional attunement
Boundary-setting
Intentionality
These are not “alternative” relationship skills. They are foundational ones.
Asexual relationships don’t invent these dynamics. They make them harder to ignore.
In the next post, I’ll focus on one of the more complex areas within this research: navigating mixed-orientation relationships, including how partners negotiate differences in sexual desire, expectations, and meaning-making around intimacy.
References
Audre Lorde (1978). Uses of the erotic: The erotic as power. Crossing Press.
Audre Lorde (2017). Your silence will not protect you: Essays. Silver Press.
Hall, D. L., Randall, A. K., Boyles, J., & Miller, N. A. (2026; Manuscript in Preparation). Coloring Outside of the Lines: A Systematic Literature Review of Intimate Relationship Formation and Maintenance Featuring an Asexual Partner (Manuscript in preparation).
Higginbottom, B. (2024). The nuances of intimacy: Asexual perspectives and experiences with dating and relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(5), 1899–1914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02846-0
Przybylo (2019). Asexual erotics: Intimate readings of compulsory sexuality. The Ohio State University Press.
Rothblum, E. D., Krueger, E. A., Kittle, K. R., & Meyer, I. H. (2020). Asexual and non-asexual respondents from a U.S. population-based study of sexual minorities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(2), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01485-0
Vares, T. (2018). “My asexuality is not a phase”: Asexual identities and intimate relationships. Sexualities, 21(4), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460717709096
