Feel free to promote this community wherever you like.
Since this is a very quiet community (and since I'm mod now and don't really have an excuse to be shy anymore), I'll put something I've been wondering about out for discussion. Do you think a romantic relationship without not only sex but sexual attraction can work? Does romance require sexual attraction, even if it's never acted on (in the sense that it's simply not possible to be in love with or have a crush on someone without being attracted to them)? What if only one partner (or up to n - 1 partners, for a system of n people) lacks that attraction?
Personally, I've tended to vacillate on this. Yes, I'm one of those nerdy sorts that gets crushes on book characters and (occasionally) people I barely know online, but that's not the same as falling for someone you actually know, or are face-to-face with in the flesh. And yes, I've known of other people who say they're asexual and in love, but I've tended to be dubious. Many of them seem to just not be attracted to people because they've got low sex drives; I assumed that enough attraction was left in spite of that, though, to create romantic interest. And others-- well, they're not sexual. If being in love requires sexual attraction, then an asexual person is not going to be able to experience romantic love in the first place, and so can't say that they're in love but not sexually attracted. The common wisdom, even among the experts I've seen, seems to be that romance is an outgrowth of sexual attraction -- you can't have the former without the latter -- and I've not been entirely willing to totally reject that. This study (assuming the article is an accurate representation of it) has me rethinking that, however. If the results are repeated, and turn out to mean the same things the article says they mean, it's certainly a hopeful development for someone like me, who wants romance but just isn't attracted to people.