having sex to keep a sexual

[SithLord]

1 hour ago, vega57 said:

If you re-read my post I also did NOT say that ALL sexuals or ALL asexuals. 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1655402/this-is-the-amount-of-sex-the-average-person-has-in-a-year/

 

http://www.mensfitness.com/women/sex-tips/average-american-has-sex-exactly-many-times-year

 

 

I never wrote that *I* think that twice a week should be the norm.  I'm going by statistics, and statistically, it is the 'average' or the 'norm. 

 

I've been a member of several 'relationship' forums/chat rooms over the past 20 years.  The subject of sex is a hot subject and most of the posters/participants have often quoted that having coupled sex twice a week is a national average. 

 

Probably not.  But like I wrote earlier, sexuals most often want sex frequently and consistently for the rest of their lives.  What many sexuals don't seem to understand is that each person's libido/desires can vary throughout their lifetime.  Even a sexuals' desire for sex can change at some point in their lives.  I've read/heard many stories from sexuals who claimed to once LOVE sex, couldn't get enough in their 20s and 30s.  And when they hit their 40s, their libido (and desire) took a nosedive.  Physically, they were fine.  They simply lost their 'taste' for it.  And, in some of those cases, they couldn't care less.  Yet, they confessed to having bragged about how much sex they were having and how they'll "never change". 

 

Until they did. 

 

If you really want to understand sexuals, I'd suggest you browse a few sexual forums.  They're definitely an eye-opener. 

 

Sorry if I offended you, I just meant that I've never heard twice a week being the average.  Apparently I'm just around a bunch of sexuals with low libidos.  

[SithLord]

6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Sith

 

Obviously every couple is different, and it varies over time, but the broadbrush figures from Kinsey are that couples in their twenties average 2-3 times a week, 30s are 1-2 a week and 40s are 5-6 times a month. It tails off less predictably after that, but many couples have sex into their 70s and beyond. So a couple of times a week is a perfectly reasonable figure to pick as a general ballpark.  

Yeah I did a bit of research and realized Vega wasn't wrong.  Once again it was my personal experience getting in the way of me thinking more worldly.  None of the sexuals I personally know seem to have sex more than once a week, so I generalized and made a bad assumption.

[vega57]

48 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

Sorry if I offended you, I just meant that I've never heard twice a week being the average.  Apparently I'm just around a bunch of sexuals with low libidos.  

No worries.  No offense taken. 

[vega57]

3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

So you're saying sexuals don't understand desire sexual for sex waxes and wanes? 

Sometimes, yes, sometimes, no.  Depends on who you're dealing with and how much sexual knowledge they have. 

 

I think the OP asked a very important question that needs to be addressed...and actually has been addressed. 

 

Shere HIte asked a similar question to thousands of women:  Have you ever been afraid to say 'no' to sex?

 

A resounding number of women said 'yes'; they were, in fact, afraid to say 'no' to sex for fear of losing their partner's affection, 'love' and economic support (among other things).  They were afraid to lose the rest of the relationship if they didn't have sex with their partners, and their fears were supported by other research; that many people will lose the 'relationship' if they turn down sex "too often" (whatever that means). 

 

But even though Shere Hite asked women this question, the same question can be asked of men.  Are some men afraid of saying 'no' to sex? 

 

Of course they are.  After all, sex is "supposed" to be what "men" live for.  If they don't, they're not exactly embraced by society. 

 

The desire for (partnered) sex can wax and wane in a sexuals life.  But the distance between one sexual encounter to the next can be extreme.  A couple can screw like rabbits for a few years, and after a few kids, it can dwindle down to nothing or next to nothing.  It's usually at that time that the HIGHER 'driven' sexual becomes frustrated, expecting sex on a 'regular' basis (no matter what) that cause discomfort.  Lots of times, the lesser 'driven' person is advised to 'seek help' for their 'ailment'.  Meanwhile, perhaps what has happen is nature's way of saying, "You've had the kids.  You've had enough". 

 

The pressure to have constant 'regular' sex until we die, is upon both genders. 

[Telecaster68]

I'd think most adults understand that things like illness, energy levels, pregnancy, stress and age affect desire for sex., surely? Sexuals will have noticed their own tendencies, for a start, though people react differently - some people react to stress by getting more horny, not less, for example. 

 

You're right that men are likely to be lower libido too. The Reddit sub DeadBedrooms has about 40% women with higher libido than their partners.

 

When sex dwindles, there are two things that generally pain the higher libido partner apart from the lack of sexual acts. Firstly they've had one of the defining criteria of a marriage-style relationship unilaterally changed on them (it's equivalent to your partner saying 'I've had enough of talking, so we're done, and don't talk to anyone else either'); and secondly, we're lacking the emotional closeness that we get from sex. 

 

Generally the counselling isn't about raising the lower libido per se, but resolving the relationship conflicts from the different levels of libido. If the lower libido person is fine with their libido, it can often seem to their partner they don't care enough about the relationship or the partner to address those relationship issues. You'll know from other forums that they often have to be persuaded to address the issues. If they do care, then frequently they want their libido back too. 

 

There are some higher libido partners who want partners to merely acquiesce, no matter what. But most want to be desired. They want that shared experience. 

[vega57]

9 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

I'd think most adults understand that things like illness, energy levels, pregnancy, stress and age affect desire for sex., surely? Sexuals will have noticed their own tendencies, for a start, though people react differently - some people react to stress by getting more horny, not less, for example. 

People in general aren't as emotionally mature as they could be.  Many see the world as they are instead of as it is.  If their libido/desire for their partner is constant, they expect their partner's libido/desire to be constant.  I read a heartbreaking story about a man's wife who had cancer in her late 30's, and all the man could do was to complain about how she didn't have much energy to have sex with him anymore.  He was debating about leaving her (because life's too short), and there were others on the forum who were supporting his decision to leave. 

 

Quote

You're right that men are likely to be lower libido too. The Reddit sub DeadBedrooms has about 40% women with higher libido than their partners.

This seems to be a recent discovery/development.  I'm glad that it's getting more attention these days! 

 

Quote

When sex dwindles, there are two things that generally pain the higher libido partner apart from the lack of sexual acts. Firstly they've had one of the defining criteria of a marriage-style relationship unilaterally changed on them (it's equivalent to your partner saying 'I've had enough of talking, so we're done, and don't talk to anyone else either'); and secondly, we're lacking the emotional closeness that we get from sex. 

If anyone makes an obviously changeable aspect a "defining" aspect, I think they're in for a huge disappointment.  It would be like marrying someone because I love the color of their hair.  Hair color changes in most people.  I would be foolish to believe that my partner's hair color is going to stay the same color for the rest of his life.  Yet, some people believe that.  Of course, people have the ability to dye their hair.  But why do they have to?  If they like their gray hair, even if it's a bit premature, why do they have to change it? 

 

Why would it be any different with sex? 

 

I don't believe that the problem is that he or she 'changed' sexually; the problem is that the partner had unrealistic expectations that he or she wouldn't change. 

 

As for the emotional aspect that sex can yield for some people, I can understand how they can feel emotionally close to someone through sex.  But...if it becomes the ONLY way or the "BEST" way that someone can feel emotionally close to someone, I think they're putting all their emotional "eggs" into one basket...which is kind of dangerous.   

 

Quote

 

Generally the counselling isn't about raising the lower libido per se, but resolving the relationship conflicts from the different levels of libido. If the lower libido person is fine with their libido, it can often seem to their partner they don't care enough about the relationship or the partner to address those relationship issues. You'll know from other forums that they often have to be persuaded to address the issues. If they do care, then frequently they want their libido back too. 

And to the lower libido partner, it often seems like sex is the ONLY aspect of the relationship the higher libido partner cares about...especially if the higher libido partner has threatened to leave, have and affair, etc. 

Quote

There are some higher libido partners who want partners to merely acquiesce, no matter what.

Yes, you're right.  And that's a horrible experience for the lower libido partner. 

Quote

But most want to be desired. They want that shared experience. 

They want to be sexually desired.  Why can't or won't they want to be desired in other ways besides sex? 

[Telecaster68]

 

Quote

 

People in general aren't as emotionally mature as they could be. 

 

 

My experience is that they’re not as oblivious as you seem to be painting them, either. Do you think you may have a tendency to conflate ‘emotionally mature’ with ‘not seeing sex as important’?

Quote

Many see the world as they are instead of as it is.  If their libido desire for their partner is constant, they expect their partner's libido/desire to be constant. 

The posts that I’ve seen aren’t so much about it being constant, as not evaporating entirely a couple of years into a relationship. The reason they expect this not to happen is that it mostly *doesn’t* happen, and humans, quite reasonably, based expectations on what normally happens.

 

Quote

If anyone makes an obviously changeable aspect a "defining" aspect, I think they're in for a huge disappointment.  It would be like marrying someone because I love the color of their hair.  Hair color changes in most people.  I would be foolish to believe that my partner's hair color is going to stay the same color for the rest of his life.  

It’s to do with the degree of change. Kinsey stats show (roughly, on average) that couples in their twenties have sex 2-3 times a week; in the 30s it’s more like 1-2 a week; in the 40s it’s 5-6 a month, and then it tails off but there’s frequently *some* sexual activity in the 70s.

 

What frequently happens in mixed relationships is that after a couple of years or so, sexual frequency just drops off a cliff. These are relationships involving maybe one percent of the population, so by definition, they’re not the norm.

 

Believing your relationship is going to be one of the ‘one percent’ would be foolish, not the other way round.

 

Quote

 

I don't believe that the problem is that he or she 'changed' sexually; the problem is that the partner had unrealistic expectations that he or she wouldn't change. 

 

They had expectations they wouldn’t change as much as they did, and since most people don’t change in that way, there’s nothing unrealistic about those expectations.

 

Quote

 

As for the emotional aspect that sex can yield for some people, I can understand how they can feel emotionally close to someone through sex.  But...if it becomes the ONLY way or the "BEST" way that someone can feel emotionally close to someone, I think they're putting all their emotional "eggs" into one basket...which is kind of dangerous.   

 

It’s (almost, there are always edge cases) never the ONLY way. Maybe it’s not even the best, but it is unique and important for most sexuals.

 

An engine isn’t the only, or best, bit of a car, but for most people, a car with no engine makes little sense. Similarly with sex in a relationship.

 

As to it being dangerous... relationships are inherently emotionally dangerous, with potentially huge benefits as well as losses. That’s why people need trust in order to let themselves feel vulnerable. I’m increasingly thinking that for many asexuals, they’re so anxious about that risk it that it overwhelms the pleasures of intimacy (in its true sense) - hence aromanticism, generally not touching at all, being so common.

 

Quote

to the lower libido partner, it often seems like sex is the ONLY aspect of the relationship the higher libido partner cares about...especially if the higher libido partner has threatened to leave, have and affair, etc. 

If sex was all they cared about, they’d have just left, and not wanted to work on it.

 

Can you at understand how the failure to even address something that’s making their partner very unhappy can seem uncaring? Over and over in that situation, the attitude is ‘well, you can always leave’ - in other words, no compromise, so sex is just as much a dealbreaker for asexuals as you’re saying it is for sexuals.

 

I can see why asexuals/lower libido partners see talk of leaving/affairs as threats. But from a sexual/higher libido partner perspective, we’re spelling out natural consequences of the loss of closeness and intimacy that develops over the longer term from not having a sexual relationship with someone. This isn’t toddlers throwing a tantrum over not being allowed ice cream, this is someone saying ‘if you walk into that busy road, you might well get run over’. Morality aside, few people would be surprised that someone had an affair because their partner has decided they're no longer willing to have sex with them.

 

Obviously, we have a choice over whether we leave, have an affair whatever, and I’m sure you’d see it as ‘just sex’. But either way - it’s not ‘just sex’ to either partner. If it was ‘just sex’ to the asexual/lower libido partner, why not have 'just sex' to make their partner happy? 

 

Quote

They want to be sexually desired.  Why can't or won't they want to be desired in other ways besides sex? 

They do, and often are. But see the care engine analogy above.

[JDP]

6 hours ago, vega57 said:

People in general aren't as emotionally mature as they could be.  Many see the world as they are instead of as it is.  If their libido/desire for their partner is constant, they expect their partner's libido/desire to be constant.  I read a heartbreaking story about a man's wife who had cancer in her late 30's, and all the man could do was to complain about how she didn't have much energy to have sex with him anymore.  He was debating about leaving her (because life's too short), and there were others on the forum who were supporting his decision to leave. 

I have seen that on one of the other boards. The prevailing attitude is to ascribe blame to anyone whose sexual desire is deemed inadequate. They even coined a term to describe the low-desire partner: refuser.  Heaven forfend the presence of one such person in their midst, attempting to defend low or absent desire.

[JDP]

6 hours ago, vega57 said:

This seems to be a recent discovery/development.  I'm glad that it's getting more attention these days! 

Not me. The attention focused on low-desire males is universally negative. There isn't a scintilla of understanding or sympathy out there, particularly from females.

[JDP]

6 hours ago, vega57 said:

I can understand how they can feel emotionally close to someone through sex.  But...if it becomes the ONLY way or the "BEST" way that someone can feel emotionally close to someone, I think they're putting all their emotional "eggs" into one basket...which is kind of dangerous.

People who marry don't think that far ahead when they say "I do." They can't imagine sex ever stopping. I'm guessing that doesn't change even with pre-marital counseling, which is what some people do before they tie the knot.

[JDP]

2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

If it was ‘just sex’ to the asexual/lower libido partner, why not have 'just sex' to make their partner happy?

From having talked to many sexual women about this, it isn't sex the aggrieved partner wants, but desire, and desire is outside of either partner's control.

 

I doubt there are many who see sex without desire as fulfilling and worthy of having. Even sexual men want to feel desirable.

 

[Telecaster68]

4 hours ago, asexjoe said:

From having talked to many sexual women about this, it isn't sex the aggrieved partner wants, but desire, and desire is outside of either partner's control.

 

I doubt there are many who see sex without desire as fulfilling and worthy of having. Even sexual men want to feel desirable.

 

I agree. I was making the point in the context of Vega's view that sexuals put would rather break up than compromise on sex, and this meant it was all they valued in a relationship. Asexuals are also willing to break up a relationship over it, so by that logic, all they value in a relationship is not having sex.

[vega57]

5 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

 

My experience is that they’re not as oblivious as you seem to be painting them, either. Do you think you may have a tendency to conflate ‘emotionally mature’ with ‘not seeing sex as important’?

Not at all. 

 

Quote

The posts that I’ve seen aren’t so much about it being constant, as not evaporating entirely a couple of years into a relationship. The reason they expect this not to happen is that it mostly *doesn’t* happen, and humans, quite reasonably, based expectations on what normally happens.

It happens often enough to gain the attention of the health/mental health profession, who addresses this issue on a daily basis. 

 

From WebMD.: 

 

Quote

Loss of sexual desire, known in medical terms as hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), is the most common form of sexual dysfunction among women of all ages. A recent study showed that nearly one-third of  women aged 18 to 59 suffer from a lost interest in sex, and it's not all in their heads.

 

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/loss-of-sexual-desire-in-women#1

 

Other studies have put that estimate as high as over HALF.  I'd say that's pretty significant. 

We also need to understand that people have sex for various reasons.  Just because a person is doing it doesn't mean that they want to do it.  A female partner, for example, may not particularly like sex, but she'll do it out of fear of losing the relationship...which is a very real fear. 

 

Quote

It’s to do with the degree of change. Kinsey stats show (roughly, on average) that couples in their twenties have sex 2-3 times a week; in the 30s it’s more like 1-2 a week; in the 40s it’s 5-6 a month, and then it tails off but there’s frequently *some* sexual activity in the 70s.

 

Quote

What frequently happens in mixed relationships is that after a couple of years or so, sexual frequency just drops off a cliff. These are relationships involving maybe one percent of the population, so by definition, they’re not the norm.

One percent?  After what I quoted above from WebMD, it seems to be much higher than one percent. 

Let me ask you a question, Tele.  If you knew ahead of time that a woman was going to have sex with you because she feared that if she didn't she'd 'lose' you , would you still have sex with her? 

 

Quote

They had expectations they wouldn’t change as much as they did, and since most people don’t change in that way, there’s nothing unrealistic about those expectations.

It's that belief that gets people into trouble.  There are too many surveys and stats out there to show otherwise.   

 

Quote

An engine isn’t the only, or best, bit of a car, but for most people, a car with no engine makes little sense. Similarly with sex in a relationship.

I understand that's how many sexuals think. 

 

Quote

As to it being dangerous... relationships are inherently emotionally dangerous, with potentially huge benefits as well as losses. That’s why people need trust in order to let themselves feel vulnerable. I’m increasingly thinking that for many asexuals, they’re so anxious about that risk it that it overwhelms the pleasures of intimacy (in its true sense) - hence aromanticism, generally not touching at all, being so common.

It has little to do with feeling "vulnerable";  it's simply not seeing sex as an avenue to express themselves in an intimate relationship.  An asexual can be attracted to someone on other levels, but not experience sexual attraction.  And yes, some asexuals do have sex, but that's--once again--to preserve the relationship and to please their partner.  Not sure if any studies have been done on asexuals who have done this until "death", but I suspect that more people have done this than we want to believe.   

 

Quote

If sex was all they cared about, they’d have just left, and not wanted to work on it.

Ending a long-term relationship (LTR)/marriage  isn't that easy.  Many times, young kids are involved and there would be a significant change in economics.  People stay in unhappy relationships all the time for their own personal reasons.  So while they still might care about sex, they may also begin to resent their partner because of the lack of sex.  Plus, they're not adverse to having an affair in order to get their "needs" met.

 

Quote

Can you at understand how the failure to even address something that’s making their partner very unhappy can seem uncaring? Over and over in that situation, the attitude is ‘well, you can always leave’ - in other words, no compromise, so sex is just as much a dealbreaker for asexuals as you’re saying it is for sexuals.

Yes, I DO understand that.  But I don't think the solution is to cause EITHER party to be unhappy (compromise will STILL cause one party to remain dissatisfied).  Unless the solution is a win-win for BOTH people, it should be "no deal". 

 

And yes, sex can be a 'deal breaker' for some sexuals and asexuals alike.  They're just approaching the subject from opposite points of view. 

 

Quote

I can see why asexuals/lower libido partners see talk of leaving/affairs as threats. But from a sexual/higher libido partner perspective, we’re spelling out natural consequences of the loss of closeness and intimacy that develops over the longer term from not having a sexual relationship with someone. This isn’t toddlers throwing a tantrum over not being allowed ice cream, thi,s is someone saying ‘if you walk into that busy road, you might well get run over’. Morality aside, few people would be surprised that someone had an affair because their partner has decided they're no longer willing to have sex with them.

People don't usually have affairs because they want "closeness and intimacy" that sex can provide.  They do it because they want sex PERIOD.  In another survey, over 60% of the men who had affairs reported that they were "happy" with their sex lives with their wives.  They simply wanted more sex and 'variety'. 

 

Quote

Obviously, we have a choice over whether we leave, have an affair whatever, and I’m sure you’d see it as ‘just sex’. But either way - it’s not ‘just sex’ to either partner. If it was ‘just sex’ to the asexual/lower libido partner, why not have 'just sex' to make their partner happy? 

Gee, I dunno.  If you absolutely hated snails, and your partner loved them, would you eat them to make your partner happy?  Might work for a short time, but that's about it. 

 

[JDP]

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

I agree. I was making the point in the context of Vega's view that sexuals put would rather break up than compromise on sex, and this meant it was all they valued in a relationship. Asexuals are also willing to break up a relationship over it, so by that logic, all they value in a relationship is not having sex.

It's not the same logic. An asexual doesn't want to be raped. That goes for male asexuals too. Sex without consent is sex without consent.

[vega57]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I agree. I was making the point in the context of Vega's view that sexuals put would rather break up than compromise on sex, and this meant it was all they valued in a relationship. Asexuals are also willing to break up a relationship over it, so by that logic, all they value in a relationship is not having sex.

No, Tele.  What they value is the rest of the relationship, without the sex. 

 

It's like, going to an amusement park.  The Asexual wants to experience all of the other rides except the roller coaster.  The sexual wants to ride the roller coaster as much as possible, and the rest of the other rides pale in comparison. 

[JDP]

5 minutes ago, vega57 said:

People don't usually have affairs because they want "closeness and intimacy" that sex can provide.  They do it because they want sex PERIOD.  In another survey, over 60% of the men who had affairs reported that they were "happy" with their sex lives with their wives.  They simply wanted more sex and 'variety'.

I would want to know the methodology of these "surveys." It depends on how they're worded.

 

I would wager that most cheaters are angry with their spouses, or are bored with them.

[JDP]

9 minutes ago, vega57 said:

If you knew ahead of time that a woman was going to have sex with you because she feared that if she didn't she'd 'lose' you , would you still have sex with her?

That's a very good question.

[vega57]

2 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

I would want to know the methodology of these "surveys." It depends on how they're worded.

 

I would wager that most cheaters are angry with their spouses, or are bored with them.

Sorry. I goofed.  I wrote that "over" 60% were happy, when I meant to write "almost".  My fingers are still waking up! 

 

http://www.yourtango.com/2014215265/adultery-infidelity-8-things-you-didnt-know-about-cheaters

 

 

[JDP]

This reads too much like something out of Cosmo, Vega. I take it with a grain of salt, which is deadly to me, since I'm supposed to not eat salt at all.

 

I was cheated-on, and I have cheated, with and without permission.

 

Often the reasons behind cheating don't truly reveal themselves until much later, after relationships and marriages have been sundered and all parties can look back with some honesty and perspective.

[vega57]

15 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

This reads too much like something out of Cosmo, Vega. I take it with a grain of salt, which is deadly to me, since I'm supposed to not eat salt at all.

The article cites a Rutger's survey, which I've read before.  Actually, quite good.  Read it, if you can find it...which I can't seem to do right now! 

 

Quote

 

I was cheated-on, and I have cheated, with and without permission.

 

Often the reasons behind cheating don't truly reveal themselves until much later, after relationships and marriages have been sundered and all parties can look back with some honesty and perspective.

 

The main reason behind cheating is ego.  

[JDP]

6 minutes ago, vega57 said:

The article cites a Rutger's survey, which I've read before.  Actually, quite good.  Read it, if you can find it...which I can't seem to do right now! 

 

The main reason behind cheating is ego.  

If you mean a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance, I can agree to that. If your partner is beating up on you that way, it would motivate you to cheat.

 

Not YOU in particular, of course. I mean in general.

[vega57]

Just now, asexjoe said:

If you mean a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance, I can agree to that. If your partner is beating up on you that way, it would motivate you to cheat.

That is what I mean, but your partner doesn't have to be doing anything 'wrong', like beating up your ego, in order for someone to cheat. 

 

Quote

Not YOU in particular, of course. I mean in general.

Yes, I already knew you meant *you* as plural. 

[Telecaster68]

Quote

It happens often enough to gain the attention of the health/mental health profession, who addresses this issue on a daily basis. 

Plenty of things get in the DSM without being endemic.

 

That WebMD figure is very vague. It's about right for post menopausal women, but since he hasn't included a link to the actual study, it's impossible to say how the age skews it, and it's one study. It doesn't explain its terms ('a loss of interest in sex' is really vague. Less interest? Less actual sex? A decline over how long? From what, to what?). And the definition of HSDD is that it causes significant, prolonged distress, so they're not happy about it.

 

On the other hand, Kinsey stats are extremely robust, and you can view the source data and loads of analyses of it.

 

Quote

One percent?  After what I quoted above from WebMD, it seems to be much higher than one percent. 

I was specifically talking about mixed-relationships, that is sexual-asexual. One percent is the figure generally quote for the proportion of asexuals. Not all of them are married, and not all of those are married to sexuals. So it applies to actually less than one percent of the population.
 

Quote

 

 A female partner, for example, may not particularly like sex, but she'll do it out of fear of losing the relationship...which is a very real fear. 

 

Maybe. Or she might do it because she likes to doing something her partner enjoys. 

 

You're right though, it is a real fear, for the reasons I've explained previously, and you're ignoring.

 

Quote

There are too many surveys and stats out there to show otherwise.  

So you're writing off all of Kinsey now?

 

Quote

I understand that's how many sexuals think. 

Where sexuals = about 99% of the population, so not so easily brushed aside.

 

Quote

 

And yes, some asexuals do have sex, but that's--once again--to preserve the relationship and to please their partner.

 

Or, if you read a lot of posts on AVEN, because they like giving pleasure to their partners.

 

Quote

 But I don't think the solution is to cause EITHER party to be unhappy (compromise will STILL cause one party to remain dissatisfied).  Unless the solution is a win-win for BOTH people, it should be "no deal". 

In the context of the wider relationship, a sexual who would ideally like sex 2-3 times a week could easily be perfectly fine with, say, once a week, given all the other things they get from the relationship, just as an asexual may be fine with once a week rather than 'never', because of the other things they get. Most relationships have some imbalance on libido. 

 

You seem to view any asexual ever having sex as an entirely negative experience. It's clear from many posts on here that that's frequently not the case. Either they enjoy the closeness, or the actual sex, or they just like giving pleasure to their partner. Compromise is not necessarily one party being dissatisfied; merely making things work can be pleasure in itself, after all.

 

Quote

People don't usually have affairs because they want "closeness and intimacy" that sex can provide.

They frequently have affairs because closeness and intimacy is missing from their relationship; have a look at the Adultery subreddit.

 

Quote

  If you absolutely hated snails, and your partner loved them, would you eat them to make your partner happy?  Might work for a short time, but that's about it.

Which is frequently what happens in mixed relationships. But anyway, I was making a rhetorical point.

 

Quote

 The sexual wants to ride the roller coaster as much as possible, and the rest of the other rides pale in comparison. 

More like they enjoy the other rides just as much as the asexual, but the rollercoaster even more.

 

Quote

If you knew ahead of time that a woman was going to have sex with you because she feared that if she didn't she'd 'lose' you , would you still have sex with her?

If it was purely, simply 'have sex or I'm off', then of course not. But if her reason to not admit that is that it's a dealbreaker (which is where I suspect you're going with this), then she can't really complain when she finally admits it and ... lo.... it's a dealbreaker, can she?

 

 

 

[JDP]

Just now, vega57 said:

That is what I mean, but your partner doesn't have to be doing anything 'wrong', like beating up your ego, in order for someone to cheat.

Well yeah I know that from personal experience.

 

I don't worry about that topic any more.

[Telecaster68]

Quote

That is what I mean, but your partner doesn't have to be doing anything 'wrong', like beating up your ego, in order for someone to cheat. 

This may be the nub of it. Asexuals seem incapable of grasping that sexually rejecting your partner is a massive beating up of their ego.

[JDP]

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

This may be the nub of it. Asexuals seem incapable of grasping that sexually rejecting your partner is a massive beating up of their ego.

Where is this "incapability?" One doesn't get married to someone to inflate a partner's ego. It's called SELF-esteem for a reason.

 

I'm perfectly capable of understanding the emotional impact of rejection, but there's nothing I can do about it. The sexuals seem incapable of grasping THAT.

[Telecaster68]

Quote

One doesn't get married to someone to inflate a partner's ego

Not to inflate it, no, but to support it, in the sense of not doing things that make them feel like crap.

 

Quote

I'm perfectly capable of understanding the emotional impact of rejection, but there's nothing I can do about it. The sexuals seem incapable of grasping THAT.

Most sexuals understand it intellectually. It still hurts though.

 

I know the 'it's not personal' argument, but when that general rejection of sex only applies in practice to one person, it's a pretty academic distinction.

[JDP]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Not to inflate it, no, but to support it, in the sense of not doing things that make them feel like crap.

I doubt any asexual withdraws from unwanted sexual activity to hurt his/her partner.

 

How long can one fake interest in sex to "support" someone's self-esteem? Doesn't living that lie damage the self-esteem of the one faking it?

[nanogretchen4]

If an asexual does not want to have sex to keep a sexual, they should not have sex, and they should not keep the sexual. They should kindly and maturely let the sexual go to find someone more compatible. Then the asexual in future should only date people who know in advance they are in for a sexless relationship and have given informed consent to this arrangement.

[JDP]

3 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

If an asexual does not want to have sex to keep a sexual, they should not have sex, and they should not keep the sexual. They should kindly and maturely let the sexual go to find someone more compatible. Then the asexual in future should only date people who know in advance they are in for a sexless relationship and have given informed consent to this arrangement.

Ideally, yes. That requires a great deal of self-awareness and maturity.

 

The mass culture strongly promotes the notion that love conquers all. People fall in love and assume everything else falls into place. How many truly own their own emotional, psychosexual development?