Jump to content

A different reaction


Lord Jade Cross

Recommended Posts

Lord Jade Cross

Thought Id share this because Im somewhat confused at my reaction.

After a conversation I had were social behavioral ideals and sex was involved, I began to ponder how much of a possibility it would be for me to function within a sexual scenario. Contraty to jumping into a repulsed state or trying to focus away from it, I seriously considered the possibility. This lead me to feeling a knot in my stomach which lasted for a bit. Would this be considered a reaction of adversion or as I was told once that continuous exposure to something leads to its desensitization, a more acceptable reaction to sex/ideals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing inherently 'unacceptable' to being repulsed by sex I guess, but it's probably going to make life easier if you're not...

I know some asexuals try the reducing aversion by repeatedly, gently trying the thing they're averse to. Sometimes it works, sometimes not, apparently. I guess it's all down whether new neural pathways can be established, or maybe stuff you'd always imagined would be awful just turns out to be okay when you try it, or wasn't at all what you thought it would be (like your reaction in that thread about what sex actually involves the other day). It must be hard to gauge what you're just getting used to, and what's never going to change though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call that aversion (there isn't really any way to know other than how you know you feel), but anxiety, certainly. Pretty normal for everyone, especially those who have no sexual experience.

Exposure can either lead to desensitization or to repulsion (and even possibly phobia). All depends on how you handle exposure. It can be very good or very bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

The one where it was mentioned that people did things like cuddling and kissing instead of it being a strict intercourse activity? Or the one where I mentioned that so far, every attempt at non partnered sex had only produced dissapointing results?

So far the exposure (not partnered but still) to sex has left me with either adversion/repulsion or dissapointment. You could say that despite my reactions, I have tried giving it a fair shot. My current position on the matter is in part due to all the negative feedbacks Ive gotten (and still get because get a guy talking about how hot some girl he met was and then shifting the conversation to me with "know what Im saying" and if I get caught off guard or generally feel like I cannot or should not play along with the social "guy code", its instantly going to generate the looks/comments of disbelief and/or anger. This has also happened with women) from people because of my disinterest or incapacity to get what they mean at the level they mean it (because ideologically its really an easy math exercise) but also in part due to not finding results as they are described. Because if I found that the results are close to it, I could logically deduce that its a matter of broadening the bridge. But so far there is no bridge. At best its like looking over a cliff with a big sign before it that says "Dont even think about it" because at my current position, sex seems like something I would undoubtedly regret if I tried it.

My idea of a partnered exposure would require someone who would be ok with starting 100 times and having to stop 99.9% of them simply because if I feel even remotely uncomfortable, I will shut down or freak out, or both. Which in logical terms is a rather slim if not non existant possibility. So mathematically and ideologically speaking, it seems to be a 0/100 chance of this happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I meant the former thread - the one which you said had complete changed your perception of what sex entailed.

For sexuals, partnered sex is whole qualitively different thing from 'unpartnered' sex. It's not trainer wheels sex. It might be that you find that difference is key... I somehow think that's unlikely though, especially if you have any kind of social anxiety as sex is obviously quite a few notches up from ordinary social interaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

Well, yes and no. Social anxiety for me would be to be put in a situation I dont want to be a part of: being coerced or forced to a party, gathering, etc. But generally speaking, no I dont have social anxiety because Im introverted so social gatherings are not something I seek and therefore not something I get hung up on because theres an unmet motivation or desire.

If you mean that thread, of course seeing people talk here about different things that were not strictly intercourse, well its kind of a shock because you never hear those kinds of things in the outside world; or at least in every sex talk, Ive had the unfortunate luck to get mixed in, Ive never heard people say that they cuddle or make jokes or do anything in sex that isnt intercourse. In fact noone ever says that sex is "Fun". Its always that its "hot", "anyone whos normal is into sex", "cant live without it", type of statements; everything that falls under the "you gotfa fuck" ideal. And as a rule of numbers and statistics, if 1 person says it, then they are considered an exeption. When two people say it, it earns or causes dissonance of sorts. Three or more, something is up and you should look into it. But people have never (outside here of course) said that.

I have to differ somewhat on your statement of unpartnered sex not being training wheels for sex. To my understanding, if you dont even get any satisfaction from solo sex (if it can be called as such) or dont feel comfortable with yourself or the idea, then sex is not likely to change that. Or at least I dont belive in the magical transformation that people state saying that when you try it, you'll like it.

Theres way too many people assuming that their experience on sex (or anything for that matter) will be the same experience everyone will have. I cant even wrap my head around the contradictory statement of sex being innate and at the same time saying that its different for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

A knot in your stomach still sounds like a negative reaction, but I guess you're saying it's a milder negative reaction than you usually have. I don't think there is much reason to try to have sex since you sound pretty averse to the whole idea. If you are repulsed to the extent that it interferes with your daily life you might want to work on that. For example, if you are severely upset by mild sexual content on television, in advertising, or in normal conversations between sexuals you may want to try desensitization for that. Some posters on this site have anxiety that prevents necessary medical exams and treatments. I would definitely recommend getting help if it's that serious. But if it's just that you don't want to have sex yourself that's no big deal, especially if you're single.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross
Sex doesn't interfere to a severe degree, provided of course it isn't pushed. Two sexuals for example can talk all they want on sex, and generally there will be some discomfort to me but as long as Im not included or worse yet (practically) interrogated like it has tended to happen, then we're cool. Same with other areas.
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Well, sex is one on one for most people, so if you can cope with that it's not an instant bust. It does need a willingness to make yourself open and vulnerable though.

2. Sex is what you make it. If you and your partner want to make it about laughing and talking rather than the po-faced Hollywood version, that works too. There's an old film (the first by Richard Curtis actually) called The Tall Guy which is funny and sweet and closer to any sex I've had than, say, Basic Instinct.

3. Clearly mileages vary, but as someone who's actually had sex with someone else, I do know it's very different to masturbation, and not in a training wheels way. That's why sexuals don't find it much of a substitute for sex with someone else, and there are also quite a lot of sexuals who aren't comfortable with masturbation but do have sex. I'm not proposing it as a cure all, or even necessarily likely to be a revelation, and certainly not 'you can't know if you like sex if you haven't tried it' but masturbation isn't really 'practice' for sex with someone else, any more than blow jobs are practice for PIV.

As for the 'innate' point - hunger is innate but we all have different appetites and food preferences.

ETA:

Here's an analogy. Hitting a tennis ball against a wall is similar to playing a tennis match because it involves a racquet hitting a ball. But after a while it's boring and repetitive. Playing against someone else is a far richer experience because you're taking their actions into account, and a well-matched opponent will make for a great game. (The analogy falls down a bit because with sex, the other person can help your game too...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

Vulnerability isnt particularly an exciting concept to me. I tend to not be too trusting and people have yet to convince me otherwise.

The problem so far is that when anyone talks about sex, its that same po-faced Hollywood version of it. Granted I cant realistically match you experience for experience for the obvious reasons. So on that I cant argue. Same with the third point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I get the impression you're far from the only asexual who's not particularly comfortable with that level of intimacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross
It isnt exactly very reassuring after having been throughout life being picked on and judged for it. I dont think you have to be an asexual to not feel comfortable with intimacy. Pretty sure even sexuals would feel uncomfortable if they were picked on for their particular sex preferences if they differ from the percieved norm and they get picked on and judged for it
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in no way to justify other people's child attitudes, and of course reactions feed off each other, but being attacked over your asexuality must mean it came before you were attacked over it, so the attacks can't have caused it. Just being logical...

I'm not though saying either way round is cause and effect, I meant no more than what I said. It makes sense to me that any kind of anxiety about social interactions could well affect sexual proclivities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

I think you know what I mean here.

Whether you call it asexual, non sexual, broken, freak, disinterested or anything that includes or depicts a person who isnt active or seeking to become active and doesnt have that initial or innate urge (to not confuse it with celibacy and to which btw, yes hunger is innate and it differs for everyone but what I say is that people treat that hunger to only be satisfied with 1 food so you cant say in logical terms that its the same for everyone and yet differs at the same time) will recieve a negative feedback from the local groups of people where sex is norm and you are indirectly breaking code with the norm just for being different; so people resolve that if they cant change you, they will ridicule you.

And after being ridiculed for so long for something that should only be each persons personal business, (and that really is no real problem. The problem is that people think its a problem and feel self entitled to fix, whether by trying to force it or essentially doubting the existance of a person) you will not exactly trust people much less be open to being vulnerable to them (since you have to become involved with someone from the group of people in the general sense). Id like to see anyone who has been picked on and ridiculed, especially in the area of sex to be 100% willing to try with no restrictions or second doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree and I didn't mean to be invalidating or anything. I guess I was taking it as read that by the time you get to the point of being in a sexual situation with someone, you'd have a substantial amount of trust in them already. They wouldn't be part of the crowd, or at least they'd have shown themselves not to be one of the ones ridiculing you.

I don't agree that sex is equivalent to 'one food'. There are many variants of activity and attitude to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

Exactly, sex is not an equivalent of just 1. From some of the recent posts, I have seen different aspects of it from anything thats not strictyl PiV to the people who participate in sex questioning why does it seem that the default action is to go PiV.

That part I get, its only that in the outside world, very rarely, unless its a subject of deep discussion, people will not look at those other aspects, they will not question why the default action is PiV and they certainly wont regard sex as fun (again, in a general sense). Im not trying to invalidate what your saying either, just that it becomes much more difficult to understand it from the outside world.

Yes, prior to being in any sexual situation, a person would have to have shown and generated a substantial amount of trust for me to feel comfortable with them. I dont know how it works for others but at least to me, that would have to be the MO for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross
Had another knot incident recently. This one didnt come with full force as the last time, but there was some discomfort nonetheless. It subsided much quicker too. I dont know if it will ever reach a point to which I dont react this way, but Im hoping that the frequency of it diminishes. It certainly would help, particularly when conversations of it break out at work, like recently.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...