Why Asexual Relationships Matter Part 1: Sex Drive

[AVENguy]

Hey all, here are a host of complicated thoughts I've been having recently that I thought would interest you all. I've split it into three parts, both because it'll be more digestible and because I can see the threads about them going in very different directions. Enjoy....

If the asexual community has been able to illustrate one thing, it is the overwhelming extent to which sexuality is ingrained into our society. To even mention the possibility of people living happily without sexuality garnished us wave after wave of prime-time coverage from across the Western world. And no wonder, examples of people living happy, fulfilled lives without sexuality are utterly nonexistent in our culture. The message, screaming from Viagra ads and Cosmo, is that everyone needs sex to be happy.

The key word there is need. Chocolate ice cream is a great way to be happy, some people may even need it to be happy, but it is not considered a requirement for happiness. People not craving chocolate ice cream are not proscribed medication to treat the problem, even if we need chocolate ice cream ourselves we can easily envision someone who does not. Yet for some reason sexuality is different. Asexuality is seen by a significant portion of people as a near impossibility. Why?

There is no evidence to support the idea that people cannot be happy without sex. While sex can certainly make people happy it is far from the only way to make people happy. One commonly held theory, based somewhat loosely on Freud, is that most people possess a sex drive, and will remain unhappy unless that drive is fulfilled. This instinctual need, much like the instinctual need for food, increases gradually over time until it is satiated. This theory possesses a number of holes, chief among them is that it is very difficult to demonstrate what exactly sex drive is a drive for.

Let us examine a hypothetical sexual person. If she experiences hunger all she has to do is eat food. Anything chemically capable of nurturing her body, will satiate the drive to eat, even food that she does not like will do the job in a pinch. Her sex drive is, unfortunately, much more complicated. Though sex drive is allegedly satiated by orgasm, she reports that the most time and resource-efficient means to achieve orgasm (masturbation) does not fully satiate this sex drive. She requires a partner. If she was starving she would be glad to eat anything she could get her hands on, but even in a state of advanced sexual frustration she will remain extremely picky, often limiting herself to partners of a certain gender, age, and social demographic. If she were starving she would be able to eat whenever food was put in front of her, but she is able to engage in and derive benefit from sex only under very special conditions. She must be psychologically prepared, or “turned on”, in order for the sex to be pleasurable and satiate her drive. Even small changes in the surrounding context (an uncomfortable power dynamic in the relationship where the sex is taking place) can suddenly “turn her off,” rendering the sex uninteresting (even uncomfortable) and eliminating it’s impact on her sex drive.

To make matters even more complicated, the actual act that she is driven to perform, what she defines as “sex”, may differ entirely from what other people’s sex drives compel them to perform. Most modern sexologists are hard-pressed to even define what “sex” IS, and fall back to a definition which is circular. (Sexuality encompasses all pleasurable activity which involve sexual arousal, and sexual arousal is the process which the body undergoes when engaging in sexual activity.)

The fact is that people never desire raw, unadulterated sex, they desire sex in particular contexts. Whether the context comes in the form of a type of relationship, a power dynamic (such as dominance), a particular gender of partner or a particular activity the person who will have sex with anyone in any context exists purely in hyperbole. Thus what sexual people need to be happy is not just sex, it is the contexts in which that sex takes place. A piece of bread can nourish your body whether you eat it in a four star restaurant or a hovel, whether it is prepared by a four star chef or covered in dirt. Comparatively, sex requires very specific conditions.

One of the most basic and most common of these conditions is a partner. Very few people report being satisfied SOLELY by sex without a partner (and, interestingly enough, a significant portion of these people identify as asexual.) Whether it has lasted 20 years or 20 minutes, the sexuality that most people care about takes place in the context of a relationship. These relationships, in whatever form they occur, are a prerequisite for sexual satisfaction. Even someone just trying to get laid will go to a specific environment with a specific set of partners to choose from, and engage in short but highly intricate process to select a partner, and then engage in an activity overburdened with personal and social meaning. All sex is social. Sexual people don’t just need sex to be happy, they need sexual relationships. Sex outside of a relationship, ie masturbation, is seen as almost valueless and often requires fantasization about sex in a relationship to even take place. Upon closer examination, “sex drive” is a drive for sexual relationships, not just sex.

This realization complicates things substantially. Sex is relatively straightforward, just a couple of juices squirming their way around the body. A relationship, even one that lasts 20 minutes, is significantly more complicated. There are systems of communication, power structures, social expectations, scripts, even things as elaborate as gender. Often short-term sexual relationships will also take place in environments (clubs, bathhouses, etc) painstakingly designed and constructed for that purpose. It becomes difficult to distinguish where desire for sex itself ends and desire for the context of that sex begins. Sexual desire is not simply a desire for the exchange of fluids, it is a desire to engage in a highly contextualized social action, like saying a word or giving somebody money. Sex is desirable and pleasurable not just because of the juices but because it accomplishes things.

[edited to fix a typo]

[jakendy]

Well, you should really ..I mean REALLY post this things somewhere in the main page.. Not only that I agree with all of the points, but I also have to say you made a very logical explanation and the best proof that asexuality isn't just a 'fab' ..it's as real and true as the fact that the sex drive isn't something necessary ..or sine qua non in one's life. Well, we all know that lack of sex doesn't make us unhappy (on the contrary I would say) , but

the world should know it to..so if an interview or anything like it will come up, I suggest you use this post AVENGuy with all my..asexual heart.. this is the best answer to any 'disagreement' coming from the 'I don't believe this' sexuals ;)

Furthermore, I saw another point of view on what actually makes the sex drive so necessary..and I think that was named 'the need for sexual relationships' , so thanks for bringing that up, now I have a more clear view on what sex drive is really supposed to be...and also that the lack of it's not unnatural or damaging.

[Vicious Trollop]

I think you make an incredibly important distinction here. It goes a long way toward clarifying why some asexuals desire and enjoy masturbation.

Among asexuals, I feel like I probably have a pretty high sex drive. But I'm able to take care of my own needs. I have zero drive to have my needs met by another person. The idea is abhorrent to me. I don't know how to relate to people with my body: that is, I don't understand hugs in the same way I don't understand sex, though I have learned to perform them meaningfully. I'm basically self-contained, bodily. My relationships manifest themselves in different ways.

It's not a fear of being touched; it's actually not understanding, and certainly not desiring, touch.

Good work. On to the next one! :)

[AVENguy]

*blush* they like it!

Jake: I'm gonna refrain from referring to much to this stuff in the main site and in interviews for the time being unless I need it to make an argument. It's my own little view of things, not one that's held by the broader AVEN community, and I'm not out to use my position as webmaster/posterchild to prop it up as that. All I'm out to do right now is create discussion here about some of the stuff I found during my adventures in theoryland, becuase it seems like it's a part of the "big picture" of what's going on here.

VT: Masturbation isn't something that gets talked about alot on the forums, but I've been trying to refine an interesting point for my discussions with sexologists. If- as they tend to think- modern sexuality is mostly about genital pleasure than the more efficiently and directly someone pursues genital pleasure the more "sexual" they should be. Since masturbation is the most efficient means of pursueing genital pleasure, people who only masturbate should be commonly viewed as the most sexual people in society. They should feel like and identify as the most sexual people in society, they should be at the center of celebrations of sexual pleasure. We're not. The fact that so many people who only masturbate identify as (and therefore are) asexual indicates that modern sexuality is about something very different...

[KAGU143]

I think you have some interesting points, although I'm not sure that the analogy with eating works in precisely the way you are using it. It DOES correspond in some interesting ways, though. What do you think of this?

(You can use it or laugh at it ... I don't mind.)

Appetite = sexual desire (drive)

Hunger = sexual arousal

Starvation = physical sexual frustration, ie: persistent, uncomfortable arousal

Appetite = a desire for a specific kind of food or meal

Sexual desire = a desire for a specific kind of sexual relationship

If you look at these comparisons you can see how similar the two drives really are.

A person who is starving will eat anything to temporarily stop the pain.

A person who is hungry will eat things they don't really like if nothing better is available, but they will reject things they despise.

A person with an appetite will be choosy, and may reject what they first thought they wanted if it proves to be "tainted" in some way. Some will like sweets, others will like meat or vegetables. But, put a bug in it and most people would reject even their favorite.

A person with sexual frustration may have to resort to masturbation to temporarily stop the discomfort.

A person with sexual arousal may temporarily satisfy it with a casual sexual relationship, but they won't be totally fulfilled.

A person with sexual desire will continue to investigate different relationships until a fulfilling one is found.

A person who lacks an appetite will be perfectly content eating a bland pelleted form of "Nutritionally Complete Human Chow" as they need it.

A person who lacks a sex drive will be perfectly content with masturbation or nocturnal emmisions as required for good health.

I hope this makes sense to other people. It sounded good in my head, but that doesn't really mean much.

I think you are really on to something with your basic premise.

-Greybird

[Chronicler]

Excellent points made; I particularly liked the eating analogy (and Greybird's extension was equally well presented as well).

I'm basically...and I'll probably go carbon-copying here, but I won't try to...deviate off of VT's, who took the words right out of my mouth. Fulfilling my own sexual needs, which I do know I seem to be quite capable of (that is, I do have a relatively high sex drive), makes me happiest. That seems to be my own personal space. Not only would I not replicate that with another person, I just couldn't. Most people say that masturbation is secondary to sex. While I don't think ranking the acts are necessary, I just don't find the need for sex. The other one works just fine, and I don't really feel sexual attraction toward people as it is.

Wasn't planning to ramble that much, but this great starter post has sparked equally great discussion (as evidenced). Off to the other parts!

[Vicious Trollop]

Yeah, yeah -- now Chronicler, you've made me think of more things I have to say on the subject :) -- that's the thing, I don't think I can be as sexually fulfilled through sex with another person. I'm doing fine on that front. As to the bonding aspect of sex, which people say I'm missing out on, I don't think I can experience those things through sex, but I can through other aspects of a relationship.

Some people equate sex and love.

Some people see them as a Venn diagram, overlapping sometimes but able to exist separately.

In my personal experience, they are absolutely separate. I could never find both with another person.

It's all part of the mind/body disconnect I feel generally.

[jakendy]

A person who lacks a sex drive will be perfectly content with masturbation or nocturnal emmisions as required for good health.

Seeing this (liked the appetite idea ;)) and also reading Chronicler's post I am starting to get a little bit worried, because I never felt any need whatsoever

to mstbate or any other kind of way to release the sexual tension..I never had one to begin with (sexual tension that is)..so do you think that this is not healthy? :? 'cause I would really want to know ..and maybe find a way to solve the problem..

Ok AvenGuy :D it's up to you what do you do with your theory , but I am starting to believe it's not a wrong one..oh, so you're the webmaster around here XD lovely job ;)

[KAGU143]

A person who lacks a sex drive will be perfectly content with masturbation or nocturnal emmisions as required for good health.

Seeing this (liked the appetite idea ;)) and also reading Chronicler's post I am starting to get a little bit worried, because I never felt any need whatsoever

to mstbate or any other kind of way to release the sexual tension..I never had one to begin with (sexual tension that is)..so do you think that this is not healthy? :? 'cause I would really want to know ..and maybe find a way to solve the problem..

I think that having no interest whatsoever might fall into the same category as having no appetite whatsoever, but failing to eat will have relatively immediate, negative effects, whereas the effects of failing to have sexual release are not as consistent or easy to measure.

No analogy is perfect, unfortunately.

-Greybird

[jakendy]

Oh, I see ..well, I shall see how it turns out in the future. Thank you, Greybird.

[AVENguy]

The sex-is-hunger metaphore still makes me all squirmy. Here's why:

First and foremost, it implies that regular sex is as necessary as regular food to be happy and healthy. You body has an innate, unavoidable needs for food, regardless of whether you experience hunger. Alot of people out there use the "sex is like hunger" metaphore, and it leads them to assume that asexual people are "starving" (I've seen this pop up in the press.) The idea that bad, unnamed things will happen to you if you don't have sex has some far-reaching implications for sexual people.

How do we keep ourselves from starving? We have to acquire food. To acquire food we have to do work, which can be done either "morally" or "immorally." There is no point at which we are working too hard or suffering too much for our food, because without it we'll die. Once we have acquired food we stockpile it and basically ignore it until it is time to eat. We gather around the few people with which we share this precious resource, prepare it and chow down. It's NICE if it tastes good, but worrying about taste is ultimately a luxury that not everyone can afford.

How do we "acquire" sex? By acquiring relationships where it can take place. This makes these relationships (and only these relationships) a vital commodity. We acquire them by earning social capital, "shopping" for as valuable a relationship as we can afford, and purchasing it so that we can have it around to stop us from starving and, maybe, because it will taste good.

The result is a system focused on objectified sex, ownership, and survival rather than communication, pleasure and fulfillment. (I realize that this is a half-completed thought, still working on it..)

[Shorthaired Lawyer]

Hallo AvenGuy

I just wanted to say that I find your three recent essays on asexuality extremely eloquent, intelligent and creative! A fantastic contribution to this forum!

[Dixie]

AVENguy and Greybird, both very well said. :) I am impressed by this analogy. I was planning to use it when I come out to my family, just in case I get pestered, and now thanks to you guys, I can say it with more confidence than before. :D yay!

[OmenHorse]

Very late to reply, but this reminded me of something we talked about in a psych class on hormones and behaviour (naturally a lot about sex)

The textbook states that humans are pretty much the only species with multiple positions for sex, even among primates. Pretty much every primate species has one position for sex.

The text says that the primary exception to this is bonobos, a primate species very closely related to humans, who share approxmiately 98% of their genes with humans. (98% gene homology.. I think that's the same thing). Bonobos have been seen to use multiple sexual positions (yes, like humans though I doubt think they use quite as many), and it notes that bonobos use sex to resolve a wider range of social conflicts.

Given how closely related humans are with bonobos, and the similarity in diversity of sexual positions, there might be some similarities in the use of sex for resolving social conflicts. I have no idea what sort of social conflicts bonobos use sex to resolve, or how much similarity there might be as the text doesn't go into any detail, but the idea seems to fit a lot with what you're saying.