Sexuals: Is This Okay?

[Starlit Sky]

In my time spent lurking I've read more than once for some (probably most) of you who are sexual that physical contact is still much better than nothing at all, even if it's not sex--and that makes sense. My question is for possible ways to compromise--and, of course, there are all different ways to compromise, la la la. I know!

For you, as an individual--because I realize that everyone is going to be different--would it be better or worse to do things that are "sexual in nature" rather than nothing at all? For example, if you and your partner were both into bondage (or spanking, or blow-jobs/hand-jobs, or pain, or whatever), would you find it unpleasant to fool around with that if you knew that there wouldn't be any sex? Would you feel like you were being "led along?" Or do you think you would prefer this kind of thing (if, of course, sex isn't going to happen--which I'm sure would be the ideal thing)?

I hope that this made sense. It's like four in the morning and I'm still up. ^_^

[colorsinlight]

**May be slightly sexually graphic**

well... it depends on what your definition of sex is. personally, anything that involves stimulating genitals or orgasms is sex, by my definition. so that would cover blow jobs and hand jobs.

about kink: i have done my share of kink, and that is a highly sexual act for a lot of people, even if no orgasms happened and no genitals were touched. there is definitely an exchange of sexual energy there. and there are people who can orgasm through impact play for example, without any actual genital stimulation. so it is sexual.

so...that stuff really depends on the person. there are people who that is their thing, they want to get spanked and for them that constitutes sex. there have been times i spanked someone in bondage, and for them that was sex, but for me was not sex. so...

it depends on the individual. i am guessing that it would also depend on how riled up/sexually excited that they would become by that activity, whether they would end up needing a release. if it is kink, and you are the dominant, of course you can always order them to/allow them to pleasure themselves at the end. problem solved. which for them, would constitute sex. (if that wasn't an issue for you, them getting off by themselves.)

some people would probably want an orgasm after something like kink and some people wouldn't.

[Telecaster68]

It'll be different for everyone, but I don't really buy this idea that PIV is the only thing that counts as sex and everything else is just the supporting act. Sometimes I really need it, sometimes I don't, and BJs, hand jobs or whatever are at least as good. It's more about the desire and the closeness that leads up to whatever brings me to orgasm. If the engagement and enthusiasm from my partner is there, the mechanics are less important.

But there are times when I really really want PIV, just as there are times when I really really want a BJ or hand job or whatever. I'd hate to never have PIV again. There's a particular intense intimacy from being inside your lover and the physical closeness of all of their body, and how you're both getting off together, giving and receiving physical and emotional pleasure, that is like nothing else.

[tkadlubo]

Everything gets much easier and clearer when you broaden the definition of 'sex' to include activities other than vaginal penetration with a penis.

[colorsinlight]

Everything gets much easier and clearer when you broaden the definition of 'sex' to include activities other than vaginal penetration with a penis.

this exactly. after i started having same-sex relationships and also started doing kink, i found that there are many other definitions of sex. "PIV sex" is a very limited idea.

[Starlit Sky]

(TMI)

(I had to look up what PIV stands for, whoops.)

Ooh, I never said that sex is vaginal penetration with a penis--but then, I didn't define it, so I guess that's fair enough. I've never felt the need to I suppose, but to me sex is penetration, but not necessarily from a penis, and not necessarily in a vagina (I suppose that a blow-job is penetration, huh? ooh, and I don't think of fingering as sex. hmm).

It'll be different for everyone, but I don't really buy this idea that PIV is the only thing that counts as sex and everything else is just the supporting act. Sometimes I really need it, sometimes I don't, and BJs, hand jobs or whatever are at least as good. It's more about the desire and the closeness that leads up to whatever brings me to orgasm. If the engagement and enthusiasm from my partner is there, the mechanics are less important.

But there are times when I really really want PIV, just as there are times when I really really want a BJ or hand job or whatever. I'd hate to never have PIV again. There's a particular intense intimacy from being inside your lover and the physical closeness of all of their body, and how you're both getting off together, giving and receiving physical and emotional pleasure, that is like nothing else.

It's actually this exact idea (of the intimacy) that's made me wonder about this in the first place. I am personally far more interested in some things which I consider to be sexual, but not sex. Not to the point where I would actively seek it out, and not to the point where I'd really be willing to do any of it every day, but I feel like it'd be my favorite compromising method (as far as trying to be closer goes, I mean). Mostly because I know that I am not going to want to have penetrative sex, and this is the next best thing that I can personally offer--at least at this time.

(I would also be okay--and even prefer, if they would be comfortable with it--for my partner to have sex with someone else. However, that really doesn't do anything at all for the desired closeness.)

I'm not at all surprised that you say you wouldn't want to have PIV ever again. I didn't think that would be the case--I mean, I really don't assume that doing everything but penetrative sex would totally abolish the hurt/frustration/whatever of not having penetrative sex. But, as I said before, it's the closest thing I've got to offer for the time being.

[Guest]

I've never been in a relationship, sexual or otherwise, but I would probably find doing sexual things without actually going into sex frustrating because it would leave me with unresolved arousal. But if hand-jobs, or perhaps even mutual masturbation (a personal kink of mine) was okay, I could see being fine with that.

[Telecaster68]

I'm not at all surprised that you say you wouldn't want to have PIV ever again.

If you're referring to me, is that a typo? I said I wouldn't want not to have PIV ever again.

For me, if the non-PIV stuff was done with love and engagement then there would be almost no hurt in the equation. The hurt part, for sexuals, is about their partner's lack of desire for them, and that's the same regardless of the actual mechanics. But there's a whole lot less hurt when we get our heads round the concept that for asexuals, it's not personal. For the 99% of the people who are sexual, sex is about the most personal thing possible, so it's massive leap to accept that for some people it's just... not. And even when we rationally get our heads round, we still feel the absence of what for us is the most intense, intimate way of giving and receiving love, and have to talk ourselves out of that feeling. Pretty much daily. Well, I do, anyway.

So there's still that bit of hurt, and grieving something we crave, but that's on us to deal with. And a partner who's happy enough with nonPIV activity helps hugely, as does other non-physical affection, because it's demonstrating we're not repulsive and they don't hate us.

[The Stranger]

What you ask is really individual. There are guys who won't even bother dating a girl if she isn't ok with sex, and by sex I mean penetration. Then there are sexuals who will be OK with no sex or maybe not frequent sex, as long as there is some form of assisted orgasms. Whether it's a hand job, allowing being rubbed against, etc. What will not work is cuddling that does not end in orgasm.

[Telecaster68]

"What will not work is cuddling that does not end in orgasm."

Well not if it's pitched as a substitute for sex. Cuddles as cuddles are fine, but not sex.

[Starlit Sky]

I'm not at all surprised that you say you wouldn't want to have PIV ever again.

If you're referring to me, is that a typo? I said I wouldn't want not to have PIV ever again.

For me, if the non-PIV stuff was done with love and engagement then there would be almost no hurt in the equation. The hurt part, for sexuals, is about their partner's lack of desire for them, and that's the same regardless of the actual mechanics. But there's a whole lot less hurt when we get our heads round the concept that for asexuals, it's not personal. For the 99% of the people who are sexual, sex is about the most personal thing possible, so it's massive leap to accept that for some people it's just... not. And even when we rationally get our heads round, we still feel the absence of what for us is the most intense, intimate way of giving and receiving love, and have to talk ourselves out of that feeling. Pretty much daily. Well, I do, anyway.

So there's still that bit of hurt, and grieving something we crave, but that's on us to deal with. And a partner who's happy enough with nonPIV activity helps hugely, as does other non-physical affection, because it's demonstrating we're not repulsive and they don't hate us.

Ack yes I'm sorry, that is a typo. I did figure that there would be some days you'd be in the mood for one thing, and other days when you'd be in the mood for another. :) I just know that at this time I'm not ready to have penetrative sex, whereas I am okay with doing other things. Personally I wouldn't be offended (I'd be relieved) if a guy would have sex with someone else, so long as I know who they are and when they were doing it. Unfortunately, I know that that wouldn't satisfy the want and need for intimacy, so I'd hope that doing other things would be the next best thing.

What you ask is really individual. There are guys who won't even bother dating a girl if she isn't ok with sex, and by sex I mean penetration. Then there are sexuals who will be OK with no sex or maybe not frequent sex, as long as there is some form of assisted orgasms. Whether it's a hand job, allowing being rubbed against, etc. What will not work is cuddling that does not end in orgasm.

Yep, it is very individual! That's why I said in my original post, "For you, as an individual--because I realize that everyone is going to be different [...]." I'm well-aware that there are guys that wouldn't be okay with having sex (and, like you, I'm thinking of penetration), and then there are others who would be okay with it (more likely that they wouldn't be "okay" so much as "willing to deal" without much sex, but whatever). I was mostly wanting to get an idea from the sexuals on here because, hey, if that would be okay with some of y'all then it can logically be assumed that it could be okay with other people. :)

In any case, I also talked about bondage, S&M, spanking, hand-jobs, and blow-jobs . . . I hope you can tell I don't think of cuddling as sexual anything. Most aces, as far as I'm aware, don't associate cuddling with something that ends with orgasm. I know I don't. ^_^ I love it, but I would never assume that that alone would be enough for a sexual partner. (And in any case, if my partner wanted to orgasm every time we cuddled that would be a huge downer. I cuddle too much for that.)

[Telecaster68]

"I would never assume that that alone would be enough for a sexual partner"

It does get suggested by others though, or at least that sexual partners should be happy with that, if it's all an sexual partner feels able to offer.

[Starlit Sky]

"I would never assume that that alone would be enough for a sexual partner"

It does get suggested by others though, or at least that sexual partners should be happy with that, if it's all an sexual partner feels able to offer.

I've noticed that that gets thrown around a good bit, but I disagree. I believe that, when it comes to sex, people really should only do what they are ready for . . . but I also think that it's important to take the other person's feelings into account. For example, if I was dating someone who wanted sex right this very second then no, that wouldn't happen, but I wouldn't just say, "Oh, let's cuddle! That's just as good, right? No? Well it should be!" (Which, I'll joke with my friends that it should be--but that is only joking.) I don't like the idea that cuddles should be everything for everyone, as it's very much like saying that sex should be everything for everyone.

[Telecaster68]

The bit about taking the other person's feelings into account was what Stranger was driving at, I think, and the fairly common implication by asexuals that sexuals who aren't happy about just cuddles are somehow 'entitled', which in turn implies they should suck it up, and smile while they do. It's far from all asexuals, but many just don't see how the 'suck it up' element is a direct flip of sexuals saying asexuals should just grin and bear it.

Probably best to drop this line of the discussion now, as from previous experience, I will now get called entitled, coercive and codependent.

[Starlit Sky]

Well, I wouldn't say that makes you entitled. :P When a sexual person is dating someone, they naturally expect that sex will, at some point (and usually sooner rather than months or years down the road), happen. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not the case for me, of course, but I acknowledge that arguably most people feel that sex is the biggest and best way to express love. When I am dating someone, I expect to be able to connect on an emotional level and a crap-ton of physical affection, because that's how I roll. It's only normal for someone who's not asexual to expect sex in a relationship.

To continue on that thought, I wouldn't say it's wrong at all if someone refused to date an asexual. If sex is that important to them--and by that I mean that they know they'd require sex the normal amount of times, or even more--then I would say they're correct not to date them. It'd be hypocritical of me to say that that'd make a sexual person entitled, anyway. Above I said I expect to be able to cuddle if I am in a relationship. I understand and respect that not everyone likes cuddling, but I know I have to have it and I know that I'm not going to settle for anything less than that, which means I'm not going to date anyone who says that they don't like to be touched too much. I don't think that somehow makes me entitled, either haha

[Tarfeather]

To continue on that thought, I wouldn't say it's wrong at all if someone refused to date an asexual. If sex is that important to them--and by that I mean that they know they'd require sex the normal amount of times, or even more--then I would say they're correct not to date them. It'd be hypocritical of me to say that that'd make a sexual person entitled, anyway. Above I said I expect to be able to cuddle if I am in a relationship. I understand and respect that not everyone likes cuddling, but I know I have to have it and I know that I'm not going to settle for anything less than that, which means I'm not going to date anyone who says that they don't like to be touched too much. I don't think that somehow makes me entitled, either haha

But that's exactly it. You wouldn't date a person who doesn't like cuddles and complain how selfish they are that they won't cuddle with you, right? Well, some sexuals here have done that, and that's where the idea of entitlement comes from.

Nobody is saying that refusing to date someone is somehow "entitled". What's bothersome is the idea that someone is obligated to sacrifice for your happiness. I think sacrificing for someone else's happiness is a great way to express love; However, if it's an obligation or contract, I wouldn't call that love.

[Lixt]

Nobody is saying that refusing to date someone is somehow "entitled". What's bothersome is the idea that someone is obligated to sacrifice for your happiness.

This. I will always remind people that leaving is a good option, and never call someone selfish for it, in fact I find people who stay and ask of their partner to change way more selfish. If you stay in a relationship even if your partner made clear something in particular will never happen or not enough for you, that's your choice and any amount of sucking up is on you.

Also, entitlement isn't always a bad thing. There is good, healthy entitlement (having a basic amount of self-worth) and then there's gross entitlement. Sexual (partnered) entitlement is always gross, because it treads on someone else's choices, rights, individuality.

You have the right to have sex. You still got hands, you can buy toys, or leave the relationship and begin a new sexual relationship. But you never have the right to have sex with whoever you want. Even if that person is your partner, spouse, etc. An asexual partner is never preventing you to have sex, even partnered. Because you can leave, anytime. They may however prevent you to have sex with them in particular, and there's nothing you can do about it.

I feel entitled to a few things. Things I think are absolutely healthy, like I need to be sure my partner is acknowledging that what I do is totally up to me, and that I could have not done it, or that I may stop doing it and that it's in nobody's but my hands.

I feel entitled to a show of gratitude for favours I go out of my way to give, I call it respect. It doesn't need to be flamboyant, a smile is enough, a word even better. But if I don't get it, I won't make a scene and order a thank you, I don't have the right to force it. I'll just take note that our values are very different, and it's not a person I want to spend to much time and/or energy giving favours to.

[Telecaster68]

To continue on that thought, I wouldn't say it's wrong at all if someone refused to date an asexual. If sex is that important to them--and by that I mean that they know they'd require sex the normal amount of times, or even more--then I would say they're correct not to date them. It'd be hypocritical of me to say that that'd make a sexual person entitled, anyway. Above I said I expect to be able to cuddle if I am in a relationship. I understand and respect that not everyone likes cuddling, but I know I have to have it and I know that I'm not going to settle for anything less than that, which means I'm not going to date anyone who says that they don't like to be touched too much. I don't think that somehow makes me entitled, either haha

But that's exactly it. You wouldn't date a person who doesn't like cuddles and complain how selfish they are that they won't cuddle with you, right? Well, some sexuals here have done that, and that's where the idea of entitlement comes from.

Nobody is saying that refusing to date someone is somehow "entitled". What's bothersome is the idea that someone is obligated to sacrifice for your happiness. I think sacrificing for someone else's happiness is a great way to express love; However, if it's an obligation or contract, I wouldn't call that love.

Sigh.

The lack of cuddles isn't the point. It's the point blank refusal to even countenance doing something purely because your partner likes it and it's not actually going to traumatise you. I do think people in a relationship are entitled to expect their partner to make some sacrifices for things that they really care about - again, as long as it's not actually traumatic - not just sex, and that cuts both ways. Of course gratitude is in order, and there's no real sanction if the sacrifice isn't made.

I don't see what a relationship would actually consist of if two people are no more willing to help each other than any random off the street. Could you explain this point please?

[Tarfeather]

I don't see what a relationship would actually consist of if two people are no more willing to help each other than any random off the street. Could you explain this point please?

There is no causal relationship between not being obligated to do something, and not doing it. See, I get your point. My girlfriend is actually questioning of our "relationship" status because of her own unwillingness / inability to consistently show me love and affection. But we're still very close, we're still sensual, we still kiss. So maybe that just makes us "friends with benefits"? I wouldn't know. But what we call it is largely irrelevant. What matters first is that the other is not obligated to do anything, and then you can decide whether you want to call it a "relationship" with the amount of things they're willing to do voluntarily.

[levelskid]

See this is why I have trouble fathoming a mixed relationship. It just seems like two contradictory forces are trying to make sense. It feels that whatever the couple decides to do one would have power over the other, and shame is heaped on the one who can't take it. The only way I could see that working is A. The asexual is at least cool with sex B. The sexual is cool with celibacy C. Pick any little compromise the two could live with. I don't have much experience in the relationship field, but I believe in choices. It's no better to force a sexual to be celibate as it is to force (coerce) an asexual to have sex. Just as an asexual doesn't owe sex, a sexual doesn't owe them a relationship. People should be happy not miserable. Seeing mixed relationships working out warms my heart, relatively speaking because I find lovey dovey stuff pretty icky and tiresome, but seeing a relationship that's trying its best not to fail or to make some point is hard to hear about.

[Tarfeather]

See this is why I have trouble fathoming a mixed relationship. It just seems like two contradictory forces are trying to make sense. It feels that whatever the couple decides to do one would have power over the other, and shame is heaped on the one who can't take it. The only way I could see that working is A. The asexual is at least cool with sex B. The sexual is cool with celibacy C. Pick any little compromise the two could live with. I don't have much experience in the relationship field, but I believe in choices. It's no better to force a sexual to be celibate as it is to force (coerce) an asexual to have sex. Just as an asexual doesn't owe sex, a sexual doesn't owe them a relationship. People should be happy not miserable. Seeing mixed relationships working out warms my heart, relatively speaking because I find lovey dovey stuff pretty icky and tiresome, but seeing a relationship that's trying its best not to fail or to make some point is hard to hear about.

It'll work a lot better when it's not monogamous. In that case, there's indeed literally nothing the sexual is "missing out on", even if the asexual decides not to have sex.

[Telecaster68]

The sexual is missing out on the extra dimension having sex specifically with your partner brings.

And by relationship, I don't just mean a partner relationship. I'm including friends, family, colleagues, whoever. Expectations, in the sense of probabilities rather than obligations, of how people act, and how someone who says they're your friend should act are what makes them meaningful. If someone hits me in the face repeatedly and I say 'it's okay, it would be entitled of me to expect a friend not to keep hitting me in the face', then what on earth is a friendship?

There's a basic expectation of 'not being hit in the face' included in friendship, wouldn't you agree?

[Busrider]

Extremely complicated question, depending entirely on the individual participants... - Sorry about being not very helpful, but: I am sure there are a lot of folks for whom PIV in the dark sex isn't the ultimate desire, although they might end in a relationship offering that. - Those folks might seek a kink partner they 'll never penetrate (or feel inside) on the side and be balanced and happy. Others might be able to live just with and for that.

I don't know statistics and guess the existing ones aren't necessarily exact. What I seem to know: folks have a hard time confessing their fetishes and turn ons. And partners (even in a sexual relationship) don't always understand what the surrounding details might mean to the other.

So as a bottom line: Somebody never ever participating in vanilla sex might be able to float the boat for some. - Its just harder to find a matching partner and might take more effort to please them.

[Starlit Sky]

To continue on that thought, I wouldn't say it's wrong at all if someone refused to date an asexual. If sex is that important to them--and by that I mean that they know they'd require sex the normal amount of times, or even more--then I would say they're correct not to date them. It'd be hypocritical of me to say that that'd make a sexual person entitled, anyway. Above I said I expect to be able to cuddle if I am in a relationship. I understand and respect that not everyone likes cuddling, but I know I have to have it and I know that I'm not going to settle for anything less than that, which means I'm not going to date anyone who says that they don't like to be touched too much. I don't think that somehow makes me entitled, either haha

But that's exactly it. You wouldn't date a person who doesn't like cuddles and complain how selfish they are that they won't cuddle with you, right? Well, some sexuals here have done that, and that's where the idea of entitlement comes from.

Nobody is saying that refusing to date someone is somehow "entitled". What's bothersome is the idea that someone is obligated to sacrifice for your happiness. I think sacrificing for someone else's happiness is a great way to express love; However, if it's an obligation or contract, I wouldn't call that love.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I totally understand what you're trying to say . . . I wouldn't call a sexual selfish if they didn't want to be in a sexless relationship, nor would I call a sexual selfish if they were upset by a lack of sex if they were dating an asexual. Yes, I do know that there are asexuals who would disagree with me, but they are them and I am me. Anyway, like Telecaster said, my point wasn't so much to do with cuddles (or even sex) as it is that partners should do what makes the other person happy, at least every now and then, so long as it isn't too horrible for them.

[closetPonyfan]

Two things on my mind that may be relevant. Firstly, telecaster mentioned being portrayed as codependent. Is that necessarily a bad think? I know I couldn't go a whole month w/o my wife. I'm absolutely dependent on her for emotional stability/support at times. I thought marriage was all about agreeing to lean on/be there for each other?

Second TMI

The other day my wife an I were cuddling in bed and got to a point where I thought we were going to have sex, even to the point that we got into position, and then she just kinda shrugged and changed her mind. So I climbed off rolled over and went to sleep.

But wtf. That is something I think most sexuals wouldn't be OK with. I've been feeling really hurt, frustrated, and angry for the last few days (since then). I mean, I don't want to hold it against her. I knows she's been having anxiety attacks for the last couple weeks, and when she pulls the plug, so be it. But GDI how am I supposed to be OK? What is the right way to handle that? Now I understand if two sexual partners get interrupted, and that sucks FOR BOTH OF THEM but this feels like I'm the only one struggling here. She's completely oblivious to any problem that might have caused. Just last night she said; "you put the up with me so well" all the while I'm thinking, I'd really like to be flipping tables and throwing chairs right now.

/sigh

Sorry I need to vent. Also to be in therapy but I keep putting that off.

[Starlit Sky]

Two things on my mind that may be relevant. Firstly, telecaster mentioned being portrayed as codependent. Is that necessarily a bad think? I know I couldn't go a whole month w/o my wife. I'm absolutely dependent on her for emotional stability/support at times. I thought marriage was all about agreeing to lean on/be there for each other?

Second TMI

The other day my wife an I were cuddling in bed and got to a point where I thought we were going to have sex, even to the point that we got into position, and then she just kinda shrugged and changed her mind. So I climbed off rolled over and went to sleep.

But wtf. That is something I think most sexuals wouldn't be OK with. I've been feeling really hurt, frustrated, and angry for the last few days (since then). I mean, I don't want to hold it against her. I knows she's been having anxiety attacks for the last couple weeks, and when she pulls the plug, so be it. But GDI how am I supposed to be OK? What is the right way to handle that? Now I understand if two sexual partners get interrupted, and that sucks FOR BOTH OF THEM but this feels like I'm the only one struggling here. She's completely oblivious to any problem that might have caused. Just last night she said; "you put the up with me so well" all the while I'm thinking, I'd really like to be flipping tables and throwing chairs right now.

/sigh

Sorry I need to vent. Also to be in therapy but I keep putting that off.

This is something I'm afraid of. For me it isn't so much that I'm oblivious to the problem of not having sex, but I can be oblivious to certain situations. For example, my friend and I were cuddling once, and he got in the position for sex. In my head I understood what that position was for, but I didn't think that he was in it for that reason (I guess I thought it was more cuddles or something????). So, of course, when things got a little bit "more" and I realized what was going on . . .

Then again, that was before I realized that people can get turned-on by cuddling. Maybe I won't accidentally lead someone on next time I'm in a situation like that.

Anyway, I don't think it's strange that you feel like you're the only person who is bothered by the lack of sex in the relationship. If I was in a relationship with someone who is sexual, then I'd be bothered by a lack of sex, too--though that would be more about being concerned about how the were taking it, I guess. I do know many asexuals who kind of think of things in that way as well. As in, not bothered by the lack of sex so much as what the other person is/might be going through due to the lack of sex. And of course, people express this concern in different ways. If she is bothered then it won't be in the same way, but are you positively certain that she doesn't see the problem in it? If it turns out that she does see the problem, then that might help you a little bit, because even if she's not responding the same way because of the problem, she's still bothered by it too, and then you're both bothered by it.

It's 1:30. I hope I make sense.

Oh! And for what Telecaster said regarding codependency--I don't think that he meant that being dependent on your partner is a bad thing. There's a difference between being dependent on someone every now and then and being a codependent. :)

[closetPonyfan]

I think your post(s) are very well thought out, insightful, and make sense just fine. My wife and I have since discussed that specific event and she did notice how it bothered me, and she felt bad about it, which triggered her anxiety, but there was really nothing she could have done. And I reassured her that she shouldn't feel guilty at all, and that I was sorry for taking things in that direction prematurely for that situation. Etc, etc. We talked about it and things are much better (as they often are when you communicate rather than brooding by yourself or on a forum post.lol

[Starlit Sky]

That last bit made me laugh. XD Yes indeed, I reckon communication does help out better than ranting on forum thingies! ^_^ I'm glad that the two of you talked and that you do seem to be doing a bit better than before. :)

[closetPonyfan]

@telecaster and Starlit

A new development in our relationship is the result of that same talk, under the thread: The Polyamorous Solution.

[Telecaster68]

@Starlit

There's a difference between being dependent on someone every now and then and being a codependent.

I'd characterise a healthy relationship as interdependent. 'Codependent' means, very specifically, enabling your partner's pathologically unhealthy behaviour.

@Pony

Yeah, I saw. I may well comment.