Jump to content

Should Sexual People Want Sex?


Zargos

Recommended Posts

Agreed! What we think we can do and what we can actually do... two very different things, and the younger you are, the less aware of that fact you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think this is likely to be a long term relationship then it is absolutely necessary to have a full and frank discussion about who you are and why you feel the way you do. You have nothing to lose because if he is saying this expecting things to change for you he needs to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect if you've never felt sexual desire for someone, it's very hard to understand that it's no more a cultural influence than feeling hungry is.

Culture can have a lot of influence over what we prefer in a diet, when we eat, and how much we want to eat though. It doesn't cause hunger, but it can have a big influence on how people perceive eating. This doesn't seem like a great analogy because your body doesn't shut down from lack of sex like it does from lack of food.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, just behaviour and choices.

It doesn't create lack of hunger either, but it may make you eat even when you don't want to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

But if you're actually hungry, the hunger doesn't disappear just because you don't pass any restaurants.

Unless you're demihungry, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being sexual means you want to have sex or would prefer to have sex. It doesn't necessarily mean you would become distressed without sex. Therefore, I suppose there could be two categories of sexuals, those who rely on sex for emotional satisfaction, and those who just want it because they think it's fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is denying the hungry person's need to eat. Perhaps they shouldn't share dinner with someone who doesn't get hungry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although there is a TV programme called Supersize vs Superskinny in the UK where each swaps diet for a period of time and one usually loses weight while the other puts it on. Whatever compromise is right for the couple, or not methinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

"It doesn't necessarily mean you would become distressed without sex. "

Do you honestly think there are many sexuals who would view the prospect of never having sex again with perfect equanimity?

"No one is denying the hungry person's need to eat."

The point of the analogy was whether sexuals wanted sex mostly because of cultural expectations, which is like saying people only get hungry because they see a restaurant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
andreas1033

Of course being asexual we cannot speak for sexuals.

But i would guess, there is all sorts of triggers for all sorts of peoples. Sexuals will have there peaks and lows, and all sorts of things may trigger those responses.

So equating one persons need with another, is probably wrong. Everyone is a unique person, with there own unique amount of drive, or lack there of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OutsideObserver

No one is denying the hungry person's need to eat. Perhaps they shouldn't share dinner with someone who doesn't get hungry.

Lurking on AVEN for a couple of years has basically left me with this conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It doesn't necessarily mean you would become distressed without sex. "

Do you honestly think there are many sexuals who would view the prospect of never having sex again with perfect equanimity?

Pretty much anyone with responsive desire, which supposedly is common among women.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Plenty of people with responsive desire would be appalled by the idea of never having sex again. They just don't know how to get into the mood of wanting it *now*. Otherwise it's the same as asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
With a mindset of "we're not going to end up together anyway" how can you possibly intend to have a long term relationship? Not only would that be extremely pessimistic, but it would be setting our relationship up to fail and assuming that a break up is unavoidable.

Sorry, I heard about self fulfilling prophecies and stuff but: A starting relationship is between two maybe 25% defined variables and exposed to random external shit happening. - All intentions aside, I'd still prefer to call it an adventure. We don't know tomorrow's challenge, but we can be confident to do the right thing.

How much we are wagering how consciously is a question of personal taste. I'd love to know divorce cost and be confident I can pay my share if needed before I marry. - YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

Dont take me wrong but even if it was the case that the guy is sexual, are we saying that humans are incapable of living a life outside of what an urge commands them?

of course they can live in denial of their urges. but a relationship isn't a jail cell, it is a choice. humans will naturally choose to end relationships that make them unhappy, and seek relationships that make them happy. so in order for a sexual person to be ok in a sexless relationship, there needs to be something about the relationship that matters more to them than sex. by the nature of orientation, sexual and romantic compatibility is more important than other things. otherwise we wouldn't be so obsessed with figuring out orientation based off of romance and sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My ex said the same thing, but deep down I think he said that because a)he was in the lust stage and thought he could handle anything b)he thought through time and therapy I would change and things would sort themselves out c) he tended to be overly overoptimistic and be in a bit in denial (but I can be like this too).

Can't prove it, but I suspect this was the case. It was a short lived relationship so I couldn't prove that he would change his thoughts on being fine with not having sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

You guys are young and, no offense, but you're not going to end up together anyway. Because you're young. So have fun and do your thing, and be open to parting ways when that time comes.

When you say we're not going to end up together anyway, do you mean it won't last? I don't see the point going into a relationship without the intention of it being long term. I don't think our age defines the length of time our relationship will survive. I understand what you mean, because obviously young people are generally less experienced than older people who have lived more, but I still think this should not mean that our relationship is short-lived and relatively meaningless in the scheme of things.

your relationship is critically important because if you aren't dating now you'll be just as inexperienced now when you do start dating. I fear dating because I've never done it. I wish I had dated in high school and dated much more than I did in college.

of course there is purpose in dating for serious now for you. there is a slim chance that things will turn out you are still together as an adult.

but... yeah, relationships before a person is 20 are not a big deal if they end. you will feel heartbroken when they end. but then you will find another person, and your brain is designed to re-fall in love with that person, and for that heartbreak feeling to fade over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OutsideObserver

Dont take me wrong but even if it was the case that the guy is sexual, are we saying that humans are incapable of living a life outside of what an urge commands them?

of course they can live in denial of their urges. but a relationship isn't a jail cell, it is a choice. humans will naturally choose to end relationships that make them unhappy, and seek relationships that make them happy. so in order for a sexual person to be ok in a sexless relationship, there needs to be something about the relationship that matters more to them than sex. by the nature of orientation, sexual and romantic compatibility is more important than other things. otherwise we wouldn't be so obsessed with figuring out orientation based off of romance and sex.

I wish I had a way to like your post more.

When asexuals say things like "Sex isn't a need. You can live with out it if you try hard enough!" my unspoken response is always "Why would I want to try?"

To which the response is typically a lot of unpacked thoughts regarding "mind over matter" and a lot of other silly ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
andreas1033

I wish I had a way to like your post more.

When asexuals say things like "Sex isn't a need. You can live with out it if you try hard enough!" my unspoken response is always "Why would I want to try?"

To which the response is typically a lot of unpacked thoughts regarding "mind over matter" and a lot of other silly ideas.

I agree. People whom say such things, do not understand how strong urges can be. Its ok for us asexuals to not want sex, but to sexuals, they have sex for a number of reasons, and there body is telling them they need it for a reason.

So i agree, for very sexual people, blocking that urge will be very hard, ie to stop being sexually stimulated.

You are the way you are, and if a person is stimulated alot in sexual terms, i am sure they find it very difficult, to control those urges, whether they are male or female. Especially when they are drunk or what have you, i doubt very sexual people can restrain themselves very well in that condition.

While asexuals whom are like us, being drunk had no effect. But for sexuals(especially very active sexuals), probably when most sexuals lose there inhibitions, sexual drives are hard to stop, as the triggers are easily stimulated in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

Dont take me wrong but even if it was the case that the guy is sexual, are we saying that humans are incapable of living a life outside of what an urge commands them?

of course they can live in denial of their urges. but a relationship isn't a jail cell, it is a choice. humans will naturally choose to end relationships that make them unhappy, and seek relationships that make them happy. so in order for a sexual person to be ok in a sexless relationship, there needs to be something about the relationship that matters more to them than sex. by the nature of orientation, sexual and romantic compatibility is more important than other things. otherwise we wouldn't be so obsessed with figuring out orientation based off of romance and sex.

I wish I had a way to like your post more.

When asexuals say things like "Sex isn't a need. You can live with out it if you try hard enough!" my unspoken response is always "Why would I want to try?"

To which the response is typically a lot of unpacked thoughts regarding "mind over matter" and a lot of other silly ideas.

To be fair, while asexuals may not understand the extent of sexual desires, when we try to understand it, we are met with contradictory statements. If we say that sexuals seem to think of nothing but sex, we recieve the reaction "we are not, we value other aspects too" and when we say "so why are other things not valued over sex" the response is "we cant live without it" so its not like there isnt an effort being made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Try an analogy: a car is more than its engine, but an engine is vital to its carness.

Relationships are more than sex, but for sexuals, sex is vital to its relationshipness.

'Necessary but not sufficient' being the idea here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont take me wrong but even if it was the case that the guy is sexual, are we saying that humans are incapable of living a life outside of what an urge commands them?

of course they can live in denial of their urges. but a relationship isn't a jail cell, it is a choice. humans will naturally choose to end relationships that make them unhappy, and seek relationships that make them happy. so in order for a sexual person to be ok in a sexless relationship, there needs to be something about the relationship that matters more to them than sex. by the nature of orientation, sexual and romantic compatibility is more important than other things. otherwise we wouldn't be so obsessed with figuring out orientation based off of romance and sex.

I wish I had a way to like your post more.

When asexuals say things like "Sex isn't a need. You can live with out it if you try hard enough!" my unspoken response is always "Why would I want to try?"

To which the response is typically a lot of unpacked thoughts regarding "mind over matter" and a lot of other silly ideas.

To be fair, while asexuals may not understand the extent of sexual desires, when we try to understand it, we are met with contradictory statements. If we say that sexuals seem to think of nothing but sex, we recieve the reaction "we are not, we value other aspects too" and when we say "so why are other things not valued over sex" the response is "we cant live without it" so its not like there isnt an effort being made.

Those statements aren't contradictory. :/

Link to post
Share on other sites
OutsideObserver
To be fair, while asexuals may not understand the extent of sexual desires, when we try to understand it, we are met with contradictory statements. If we say that sexuals seem to think of nothing but sex, we recieve the reaction "we are not, we value other aspects too" and when we say "so why are other things not valued over sex" the response is "we cant live without it" so its not like there isnt an effort being made.

A lot of that, from my perception, comes from a stubborn tendency of human beings in general to think everything in human experience must be binary. If sexuals can't be happy without sex, it must rule their every thought at all times. If sexuals feel like they value other things as much, or even slightly more than, sex, then sex must be this optional thing that sexuals only refuse to give up as part of some sinister agenda to deny poor asexuals of the relationships they want.

Add to that the fact that the most appropriate analogy we can use to explain it to you: "It's like food or air, it really only rules over your thoughts when you aren't getting enough of it", instantly causes some people on AVEN to immediately go berserk. ("NO ITS NOT YOU CAN LIVE WITHOUT SEX BUT YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT AIR!!!!!!!11!!!!) it makes the conversation really hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross
To be fair, while asexuals may not understand the extent of sexual desires, when we try to understand it, we are met with contradictory statements. If we say that sexuals seem to think of nothing but sex, we recieve the reaction "we are not, we value other aspects too" and when we say "so why are other things not valued over sex" the response is "we cant live without it" so its not like there isnt an effort being made.

A lot of that, from my perception, comes from a stubborn tendency of human beings in general to think everything in human experience must be binary. If sexuals can't be happy without sex, it must rule their every thought at all times. If sexuals feel like they value other things as much, or even slightly more than, sex, then sex must be this optional thing that sexuals only refuse to give up as part of some sinister agenda to deny poor asexuals of the relationships they want.

Add to that the fact that the most appropriate analogy we can use to explain it to you: "It's like food or air, it really only rules over your thoughts when you aren't getting enough of it", instantly causes some people on AVEN to immediately go berserk. ("NO ITS NOT YOU CAN LIVE WITHOUT SEX BUT YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT AIR!!!!!!!11!!!!) it makes the conversation really hard.

Doesnt this go both ways as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

Dont take me wrong but even if it was the case that the guy is sexual, are we saying that humans are incapable of living a life outside of what an urge commands them?

of course they can live in denial of their urges. but a relationship isn't a jail cell, it is a choice. humans will naturally choose to end relationships that make them unhappy, and seek relationships that make them happy. so in order for a sexual person to be ok in a sexless relationship, there needs to be something about the relationship that matters more to them than sex. by the nature of orientation, sexual and romantic compatibility is more important than other things. otherwise we wouldn't be so obsessed with figuring out orientation based off of romance and sex.

I wish I had a way to like your post more.

When asexuals say things like "Sex isn't a need. You can live with out it if you try hard enough!" my unspoken response is always "Why would I want to try?"

To which the response is typically a lot of unpacked thoughts regarding "mind over matter" and a lot of other silly ideas.

To be fair, while asexuals may not understand the extent of sexual desires, when we try to understand it, we are met with contradictory statements. If we say that sexuals seem to think of nothing but sex, we recieve the reaction "we are not, we value other aspects too" and when we say "so why are other things not valued over sex" the response is "we cant live without it" so its not like there isnt an effort being made.

Those statements aren't contradictory. :/

I'll keep the car analogy Telecaster made but I would like an added explanation as to why they arent contradictory

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

In what way?

Sex is vital. So is conversation, so are shared values, so is a shared sense of humour, etc etc. Sex isn't more important than them, but it is *just* as important. I really don't see there's a contradiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross
Isnt one of the explanations that because the vast majority of people experience or require sex not only in their relationships but in their daily lives, that it must be something everyone needs? Leading to sexuals not being able to comprehend the lack of desire and speculating that some outside factor is to blame?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Well, on tumblr. But even sexuals who haven't heard of asexuality will be aware there are people who just don't want sex.

I still don't see where this contradiction is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...