• Announcements

    • Kelly

      New Team members Needed--Moderator, Project Team, and Declass Team: Voting   12/10/13

      See:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164659-new-declass-team-member-needed-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164657-new-moderator-member-needed-qa-co-mod-and-world-watch-mod-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/164656-new-project-team-member-needed-resources-and-education-director-voting/  
    • Kelly

      AVENues Holiday Special Edition is now live   08/17/17

      The new edition of AVENues is done!   See:        
    • Lady Girl

      Ace Community Census   11/06/17

      It’s time for the 2017 Ace Community Census!   see:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162675-announcing-the-2017-ace-community-census/  
    • Heart

      Help fund AVEN's servers!   11/06/17

      AVEN is doing its annual fundraiser to raise donations for server costs! See http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/163251-aven-server-fundraiser/ for more details.  
Lamkirk

Are sexuals and asexuals really compatible?

Recommended Posts

vega57
25 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

You're going to have to expand on that. 

Why?  You're HERE on AVEN because you have "issues" in your marriage....right? I mean...if you equate sex with "conversation", then I understand WHY you may have "issues" In your marriage.

 

I don' t want "sex"....I want INTIMACY.  I get intimacy THROUGH conversation.  Chances are, that when you first met your wife, you didn't just see each other across a crowded room, *grunt* a few times, and screwed.....you probably had SOME kind of "conversation". 

 

Did you "converse" with her because you believed that IF you did...and if you said the "right" things at the "right" time, that you would eventually get laid? I mean, was that your GOAL? 

 

Was your "conversation" ALL about you eventually getting laid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

You completely misunderstand my point. I think. Your post was a bit hard to follow, to be honest.

 

I get intimacy from both sex and conversation. Conversation wasn't a way to get laid, it was a way to increase that connection, which (asexuals aside) then goes on to include sex as another way to share intimacy.

 

I used it as an analogy because sex and conversation are inherently a shared pleasure, with both sides enjoying it as a joint experience. If one partner discovered they no longer wanted to talk to the other, ever, you'd expect the whole relationship to take a hit - not out of score settling or pettiness, but because an important channel for intimacy had been lost. You wouldn't think it was unreasonable if one partner decided this change of the ground rules, which left them unable to have any conversation with anyone ever (by analogy) was too much for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
12 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

You completely misunderstand my point. I think. Your post was a bit hard to follow, to be honest.

 

I get intimacy from both sex and conversation. Conversation wasn't a way to get laid, it was a way to increase that connection, which (asexuals aside) then goes on to include sex as another way to share intimacy.

 

I used it as an analogy because sex and conversation are inherently a shared pleasure, with both sides enjoying it as a joint experience. If one partner discovered they no longer wanted to talk to the other, ever, you'd expect the whole relationship to take a hit - not out of score settling or pettiness, but because an important channel for intimacy had been lost. You wouldn't think it was unreasonable if one partner decided this change of the ground rules, which left them unable to have any conversation with anyone ever (by analogy) was too much for them. 

YOU were the one to bring up conversation, o.k?   I didn't.  YOU did.  YOU equated "conversation" to SEX.

 

And I'm sorry, but there ARE a number of people (especially men) who DO equate "conversation" to the "equal" to sex.  "If she doesn't want to have sex with me,  then I wont TALK to her...." (usually followed by 'ha, ha, ha'")

 

Look, Tele...from what I have understood/researched/read, etc., it seems that many people are looking for INTIMACY..and NOT necessarily sex  Sex CAN be a means to an end.....

 

But to WHAT "end"

 

At what point does the end....END? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

No, I used it as analogy. Different thing. 

 

I have no idea of the relevance of the rest of your post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhyCantIBeACat
28 minutes ago, vega57 said:

And I'm sorry, but there ARE a number of people (especially men) who DO equate "conversation" to the "equal" to sex.  "If she doesn't want to have sex with me,  then I wont TALK to her...." (usually followed by 'ha, ha, ha'")

There are misogynistic jerks all over the world, but they're not typical amongst sexual men. Don't judge us all or form your opinions on the basis of a few bad examples.

 

30 minutes ago, vega57 said:

from what I have understood/researched/read, etc., it seems that many people are looking for INTIMACY..and NOT necessarily sex  Sex CAN be a means to an end.....

It is true that most romantic people (sexual or asexual) seek intimacy. It is also true, that for sexuals one (probably the most powerful) of the routes to intimacy is through the act of sex, especially when that positive feedback loop kicks in with another sexual. However, sexuals can also create and feel intimacy through other routes, as an asexual can. (Sex can also be a lot of other things to a sexual, not least of which being fun.)

 

The big problem is the opposite though. While intimacy can be created by a number of different things, for a sexual, intimacy can also be diminished by the lack of sex - you begin think they don't love you because they don't want to have sex with you, and this eats away at the feelings of intimacy. For a sexual in a mixed relationship this probably means that the non-sexual efforts to build intimacy also have to compensate for the reduction caused by the lack of sex.

 

This diminishment is certainly reduced by understanding asexuality and being able to rationalise how an asexual separates love and sexual desire (at least it has been in my case), but it is still there.

 

Compare this with @Telecaster68's conversation analogy - your intimacy with your partner would also be diminished if they unilaterally decided to stop talking to you or have nothing other than pure functional discussions and never really share their innermost thoughts with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GLRDT
4 hours ago, vega57 said:

 

It seems that 'no' comes with consequences.  Often, those consequences are at the expense of the ENTIRE relationship. 

 

I know while I was growing up and trying to figure out how relationships worked, every single one of my relationships ended with me breaking up with my boyfriend (wonderful, kind, intelligent, and funny men) because of sex every time. I couldn't articulate it at the time, but I felt like having sex with your boyfriend is what was supposed to make the relationship different than friendship and didn't know it was possible to love or be in love with someone if you didn't want sex with them until several years ago. I thought if you don't find your partner sexually attractive, you aren't supposed to be together and that was the only option I knew about where you're allowed to have a romantic relationship. I did have sex for the first and all of the other times after until my current boyfriend because I thought I should or was supposed to. I was curious, but never really desired it. The pressure to have sex came from me and societal norms, never from the men I dated. Sex has ruined every romantic relationship I've ever been in. Sigh. Except the current one I'm in isn't ruined because of it but it sure makes things challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
1 hour ago, WhyCantIBeACat said:

There are misogynistic jerks all over the world, but they're not typical amongst sexual men. Don't judge us all or form your opinions on the basis of a few bad examples.

And you know this...HOW????  They're not "typical"....dang, dude.  Have you NO CLUE about the history of marriage and relationships PERIOD????  Do you think that Patriarchy was something that sort of 'evolved' its way into fairy-tale books?  And that one day, when feminism FINALLY "took roots", that so many men suddenly decided that, "Well, YEAH.  I can see how women SHOULD have been 'equal' all along"...?? 

 

Try reading Reddit.  Do you REALLY think that those men are a minority?  I'm not judging based on a "few" bad examples.  It's not a "few". Even some of the men who DO claim to be 'more modern" AREN"T, when it comes right down to it.  There are a WHOLE lot of men out there who know it's not "politically correct" to SAY, "Yes, I want my wife to be at HOME, cooking for me and taking care of the kids, and taking care of *my* sexual 'needs'.", yet they get upset when it doesn't happen. 

They don't come right out and say it, but it's clear....THAT'S what they want.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

And you, of course, would never be so sexist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhyCantIBeACat
5 minutes ago, vega57 said:

And you know this...HOW????  They're not "typical"....dang, dude.

If that's true then it puts me and every man I know in real life into a minority I'm proud to be a member of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
11 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

And you, of course, would never be so sexist. 

LOLOLOL!  *I'm" the one who is sexist?  Pretty funny, since *I'm* not the one who wants sex...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
10 minutes ago, WhyCantIBeACat said:

If that's true then it puts me and every man I know in real life into a minority I'm proud to be a member of. 

Maybe that's true...of *you*.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
5 minutes ago, vega57 said:

LOLOLOL!  *I'm" the one who is sexist?  Pretty funny, since *I'm* not the one who wants sex...

Eh? 

 

Have you been drinking? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhyCantIBeACat
37 minutes ago, vega57 said:

LOLOLOL!  *I'm" the one who is sexist?  Pretty funny, since *I'm* not the one who wants sex...

Sorry, you mean you think sexist and sexual are the same thing, or even related? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhyCantIBeACat
1 hour ago, vega57 said:

Maybe that's true...of *you*.....

Sorry but I'm really not sure what you're trying to imply here. I think it's either that I have no friends in real life or that they're all secretly misogynistic jerks. 

 

In both cases you couldn't be further from the truth. Most of their partners would be getting their sharp knives out and serving up meat and 2 veg for dinner without needing to go to the shops if they even hinted at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
festiff

Please remain civil in your responses. We encourage you to step away from a thread should you feel frustration.

 

Iff

Moderator, sexual partners, friends & allies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheAngel(of)Peace
On 11/29/2017 at 7:24 AM, AthenaFay said:

I don't even understand how this is a debate at all.

 

In my mind, it's as clear-cut as being just about as compatible as a heterosexual is with a homosexual. 

 

They can love each other, sure, but it's nothing even remotely comparable as to constitute any kind of reciprocation enough for both parties to find truly satisfactory. 

I don't think that's the same, though. Because most straight or gay people probably have matching sexual and romantic orientations, meaning that one partner would be unable to be attracted to the other in either way. Whereas an asexual in a relationship would feel romantic attraction for their partner, though not sexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sapphire Delvai

It depends on the individuals...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle
On 11/30/2017 at 11:24 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

In my opinion it's quite the opposite. It's ONLY an act of giving, not taking for oneself because a sex-capable ace usually doesn't get pleasure from the act apart from feeling happy that their partner gets pleasure.

Of course it is not all. It's not an issue in my case because I'm not in a relationship and even if I was, I'm sex-averse and very much unwilling to ever try sex. But I'e read enough to realize that there are some people for whom it is not enough if an ace partner has sex only for their sake, who feel bad about having sex with someone who loves them, but doesn't desire them.

Still, ace-allo couples need to reach some kind of compromise and it's not just about whether to have sex (and I don't like the way it is usually framed: that the only possible compromise is for the ace partner to give in...). I'm against any form of sexual violence, including pressure to have sex. I believe that people should only have sex whif (=when-if) they are absolutely sure that they want it. But I also believe that wanting to provide pleasure for one's partner, even when not getting much pleasure from the act oneself, IS a valid reason to have sex. If someone truly wants to do it, who am I to judge them? And here the allo partner should compromise: realize that this is as much as the ace partner can provide, that their lack of real enthusiasm doesn't mean that they don't love their partner. If a relationship works well in all other aspects, it would be stupid to break up over the ace partner being unable to feel real desire...

On the other hand, if the ace partner is on the sex-averse side, this means full stop. In such situations any sex is rape and no sex-averse person should feel expected to have sex. Not having sex is just as valid a lifestyle as having sex.

 

You know, I've been criticized even on this forum for strongly saying that people should only have sex whif they are 100% sure that they want it. Still, it may be just a misunderstanding. I'm not speaking about the sometimes unattainable ideal of enthusiastic consent. Willing consent should be enough. But at the same time, I'm strongly against sexual pressure and I feel very concerned about supposedly 2/3 of sexually active young women having their first time "consensually, but without really wanting it". If these data are true, it means that these women feel like they can't or shouldn't say no. This is scary, but it's also a huge open area for sex ed. True love doesn't necessarily have to wait until marriage, but it MUST wait until a person feels ready. And it must realize that some people never feel ready and that it doesn't mean that they don't love.

Isn't that exactly what I stated, in that asexuals only partake in the act of giving to please their partner? Every sexual/asexual has a different view on sexual activity, from definite no-no to maybe sometimes or if they genuinely want to please their partner, then whenever. Whatever model is chosen, the sexual will always feel that the actual act is not a genuine desire from the asexual, and that is a fact. This is not to belittle any one about their sexuality, it just appears to be a fact of life and we must all realise that, sexual and asexual alike. 

My own experience as a sexual male is that I think my SO didn't realise she was asexual and it was only after having children that she did realise she wasn't interested in sex. Coincidence or not and talking with other sexuals, this is not uncommon and can happen within sexual relationships as well (having children is the most likely disruption). 

I suppose, and this is my own personal view, I did and still feel that I have been emasculated in some way.

As for having sex when you are ready or not, well, I just don't know what to say. I never felt I was ready for many years after puberty and I do remember being teased by one woman in particular for 'not being a man' when it came to the crunch. Not a confidence inspiring quote.

 

It can and does work both ways though. Men do feel pressurised to consummate, mainly due to current convention, media and probably pornography (pornography being the worst influence in my opinion). Worse, women seem to be following trends set by pornography. I find it all rather shallow myself.

Edited by Apostle
spell error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whaley

I have an ace friend that got engaged at uni to a cishet and they been living together for about three years now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle
On 12/4/2017 at 1:04 PM, Whaley said:

I have an ace friend that got engaged at uni to a cishet and they been living together for about three years now. 

I can beat that. Married to an asexual for 41 years. Never a moment passes when I miss having an intimate relationship though. It's my greatest sadness and compromise. Other than that, no complaints. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl

Sorry to disturb you (because I understand that you feel bad about this aspect), but "intimate" =/= "sexual".

I really hate how the word "intimacy" is almost used as an euphemism for sex. Intimacy is possible without sex. I'm not saying this to ignore feelings of allosexual people, I accept that some people just can't feel fully satisfied with nonsexual intimacy only, but I can't agree and accept when some people distort meanings by equating intimacy with sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Actually I agree. You're right, it's not the same thing, but intimacy through sex is a particular intense type of intimacy that the others can't replace. I think object more to 'intimacy' as a prudish euphemism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mell,22

Just as my personal opinion i dont see it to go anywhere !! I dont think it's gonna  work out at all !!

I mean Asexual people may think they can make a good relationship with sexual partners, because basically most of asexual people are just so nice and open about any kind of relationships, but i dont think it works the same for sexual people !!

 

Walking, talking, watching TV, and being a person who's always there are all that an asexual person wants; but it's not ALL what a sexual person wants !!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zyden

I agree with Mel22.

 

Sexuals use sex to feel loved, for intimacy, to apologise, to relieve stress, to feel good about themselves and to relieve boredom. I'm sure there are other reasons, but it's too complex for me. Sex to me is not required or needed for any of the above. I know for a fact that I disregard sex in situatiins where an allo wants or needs it. I simply cant meet their needs. I am neither perceptive enough to understand when they need sex, or willing to have it.

 

Would I have a relationship with a sexual? Sorry, it's a no from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.
2 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Sorry to disturb you (because I understand that you feel bad about this aspect), but "intimate" =/= "sexual".

I really hate how the word "intimacy" is almost used as an euphemism for sex. Intimacy is possible without sex. I'm not saying this to ignore feelings of allosexual people, I accept that some people just can't feel fully satisfied with nonsexual intimacy only, but I can't agree and accept when some people distort meanings by equating intimacy with sex.

It's more than sexual intimacy is a specific type of intimacy, and I think when people type it just as 'intimacy' they're assuming you'll know what they mean based on the context. But yes obviously a sexual person may also enjoy, for example, intimacy they experience through cuddling or having a conversation with their partner that lasts for hours, and will be perfectly satisfied with that intimacy when it's that which they desire. 

 

However, lets say you love cuddles and find them very important for your pleasure in a relationship, and your partner won't hug you, ever.. then a massive part of the intimacy you desire is missing. It's not 'all' intimacy, but it's a specific type of intimacy that cannot be replaced by you lying in bed hugging yourself.. and no matter what other kinds of intimacy you have, you're still going to feel that a massive part of the intimacy in your relationship is missing. That's the same for sex, when it's specifically sexual intimacy someone desires. Sure there are other forms of intimacy, but sexual intimacy is one specific type that is very important to many sexual people. All the other forms of intimacy combined can't really make up for the lack of sex, for someone who desires sexual intimacy. I understand that's what you were saying anyway, just wanted to clarify that I think it's more just that people think you'll know what they mean based on context, as opposed to anyone actually equating sexual intimacy with all intimacy.

 

3 minutes ago, Zyden said:

Sexuals use sex to feel loved, for intimacy, to apologise, to relieve stress, to feel good about themselves and to relieve boredom.I'm sure there are other reasons, but it's too complex for me. Sex to me is not required or needed for any of the above. I know for a fact that I disregard sex in situatiins where an allo wants or needs it. I simply cant meet their needs. I am neither perceptive enough to understand when they need sex, or willing to have it.

 

Would I have a relationship with a sexual? Sorry, it's a no from me.

I have it because it's fun and emotionally pleasurable, and I'm only close enough emotionally with one person to desire it with them :P That's quite a basic reason haha. The rest of the stuff you listed we probably do more in the ways you would with an asexual partner. But regardless, even when 'fun' is the main reason someone enjoys sex, they're still not going to be compatible with an asexual, as asexual people have no desire to connect sexually with others. ...Unless you're the AVEN version of an SJW -  they say asexuals can love and desire sex just as much as anyone else and you're elitist if you disagree with that. *shakes my head*. If that was true, you'd be as sexually compatible with sexual people as other sexual people are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrDane

I feel intimacy while having sex, but sometimes it is more a massage for me, which is fine and nice and better than doing it on my own, (as I get help, which boosts the orgasm) if I feel that her ‘energy’ is not focused, then some of the intimacy is lost. A conversation/a hug/a snuggle can fulfill my need for intimacy, but doesnt help with the sexual need. Partnered sex, done with love and focus and enjoyment and intimacy, can boost the whole ‘sjabang’ a lot. Partnered sex done with mutual lust/desire and combined with love and at the rigth time is perfect on a cosmic level.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now