Jump to content

Acceptance


IronHamster

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Camicon said:

I'm sorry, "intended to have desire for sex"? What do you mean by that?

We are born with reproductive organs and we (humans) are intended to have desire for sex. It may be at different levels but none the less it was how we were intended to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I do agree with the majority of posters, a relationship was formed with the understanding 1 person was asexual, so assuming at the time that sex was unlikely. I can see that you were expecting that you change, that's between the 2 of you to discuss and sort really, maybe a post - pre agreement can be reached as there is love on both sides, but again that's something that needs agreement between you.

 

I had a similar talk with someone who was "gay" he proposed to a pre op transexual knowing that within 18 months she would have completed transition and no longer be male. Then within months wanted gay sex as he couldn't cope with being with a women. I see this as a similar situation, he married knowing that she would be full women, then changed his mind. Why put her through the upset of feeling not good enough. 

 

Realise your situation had subtle differences but I see the principle as the same.

 

That being said I truly hope that you can sort this between you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

a relationship was formed with the understanding 1 person was asexual,

No it wasn't. The OP's wife said they'd have sex when they got married.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, James121 said:

We are born with reproductive organs and we (humans) are intended to have desire for sex. It may be at different levels but none the less it was how we were intended to be.

I know we are born with reproductive organs; that has nothing to do with my question. Why do you think we "are intended to have desire for sex"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, James121 said:

The point of the last paragraph was that ironhamster made a perfectly reasonable assumption that sex would form part of his marriage. He chose to marry someone who was human and therefore intended to have desire for sex. In addition she had reproductive organs. The analogy is that on appearance she could see, she had eyes, she appeared to see things but after he married her he discovered she was blind.

But maybe she discovered she was blind toooooo! Also do you have any thoughts about anything I wrote in that message? Do you agree or disagree? Do you understand my points?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Camicon said:

I know we are born with reproductive organs; that has nothing to do with my question. Why do you think we "are intended to have desire for sex"?

Are you saying that we aren’t. The reason we are is because its fact. Or is there another explanation as to why 95% of the population, through a certain age range, the world over, through the history of time have had a desire for sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James121 said:

Are you saying that we aren’t. The reason we are is because its fact. Or is there another explanation as to why 95% of the population, through a certain age range, the world over, through the history of time have had a desire for sex?

I'm questioning why you think we are. Desiring sex is an evolutionary benefit, because that's how we reproduce. Most people do, yeah, but why do you think we are intended to desire sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Camicon said:

I'm questioning why you think we are. Desiring sex is an evolutionary benefit, because that's how we reproduce. Most people do, yeah, but why do you think we are intended to desire sex?

Because without desire you have nothing but rape. It stands to reason that give sexual organs have the capacity to become aroused, we are intended to experience desire. What is your opinion? That we are not built to experience desire?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, James121 said:

Are you saying that we aren’t. The reason we are is because its fact. Or is there another explanation as to why 95% of the population, through a certain age range, the world over, through the history of time have had a desire for sex?

I don't know enough to know about facts, but it sure does make sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint that all living animals are made to reproduce and you need sex for that so it would definitely be easier if people did desire it on a consistent basis with a member of the opposite sex. This is just a crazy not super thought out theory, but how cool would it be if there are homosexual and asexual people because it's nature's way of cutting down on the population? The homosexual and asexual people are a result of evolution!! Okay, I'm getting real cray cray now and I feel like we've completely taken over poor Ironhamster's post. Sorry dude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, James121 said:

Because without desire you have nothing but rape. It stands to reason that give sexual organs have the capacity to become aroused, we are intended to experience desire. What is your opinion? That we are not built to experience desire?

"... without desire you have nothing but rape".

- No, rape is what you get when you force someone to have sex. A person can consent, even if they don't desire sex.

 

"... have the capacity to become aroused,"

- You'll note that I said most people desire sex.

 

"... intended to experience desire. What is your opinion? That we are not built to experience desire?"

- Are you incapable of answering my question? Why do you think people are intended to desire sex?

 

My opinion is that desiring sex, and not desiring sex, both provide evolutionary benefits to humans. That there is no "intention" behind desiring sex, it's simply a physiological response that life developed alongside sexual reproduction.

 

But I would really appreciate it if you could answer my question now. This is the third time I've asked you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop. Just stop. Everyone should let this post go. I'm tired of the arguing and it's not getting anywhere.

 

His wife refused sex.

He "outsourced" (cheated).

The kids are supposedly okay with all of this.

 

Everyone in his life seems content with the situation except his wife, who is reasonably upset by his betrayal to their marriage. 

He came on AVEN to seek the approval of his wife. We can't give him that.

We can tell him why his actions were wrong, but unless we tell him that his wife is suddenly accepting, he isn't going to listen. 

We need to stop wasting our energy on this situation. AVEN is my happy place, and seeing this post just makes me feel like a floor to be mopped. 

 

Let's return to the peace and let this situation go. There's nothing we can do to help.

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

Stop. Just stop. Everyone should let this post go. I'm tired of the arguing and it's not getting anywhere.

 

His wife refused sex

He cheated

The kids are supposedly okay with all of this

 

Everyone in his life seems content with the situation except his wife, who is reasonably upset by his betrayal to their marriage. 

He came on AVEN to seek the approval of his wife. We can't give him that.

We can tell him why his actions were wrong, but unless we tell him that his wife is suddenly accepting, he isn't going to listen. 

We need to stop wasting our energy on this situation. AVEN is my happy place, and seeing this post just makes me feel like a floor to be mopped. 

 

Let's return to the peace and let this situation go. There's nothing we can do to help.

I really prefer the term "outsourced" to cheated.  

 

In my view, I was the one cheated out of a sexual relationship.  

 

I gave her everything she wanted, and I even put up with forced celibacy for over two decades, which is inhumane as any other sort of torture.  I think I have been through enough.  You don't need to be disparaging.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

No it wasn't. The OP's wife said they'd have sex when they got married.

Ok let me rephrase - the OP therefore went into the relationship only for the sex promised and not because he loved Mrs for who she was then maybe 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Adamjonuk said:

the OP therefore went into the relationship only for the sex promised and not because he loved Mrs for who she was then maybe 

How on earth do you work that out? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

I really prefer the term "outsourced" to cheated.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

I fixed it.

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

Ok let me rephrase - the OP therefore went into the relationship only for the sex promised and not because he loved Mrs for who she was then maybe 

Let's be clear.  Sex is only part of a relationship. If you bought a new car only to find out it had no drive train, would you be let down by that?  Did you only buy the car for the drive train?  

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

Let's be clear.  Sex is only part of a relationship. If you bought a new car only to find out it had no drive train, would you be let down by that?  Did you only buy the car for the drive train?  

How MUCH of "only part" of the ENTIRE relationship is it? 

 

 

 

 

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

How MUCH of "only part" of the ENTIRE relationship is it? 

 

 

 

 

If the parts of the relationship are like parts of the drive train, it does not matter if you are missing a shaft or a planetary gear or even the whole transmission.   The result is that the whole car just won't meet your needs for transportation.  You can sit in it.  You can look at it.  But, there is no moral issue having a second vehicle to get you around town like the first car was supposed to do.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

If the parts of the relationship are like parts of the drive train, it does not matter if you are missing a shaft or a planetary gear or even the whole transmission.   The result is that the whole car just won't meet your needs for transportation.  You can sit in it.  You can look at it. 

Quote

But, there is no moral issue having a second vehicle to get you around town like the first car was supposed to do.  

Your car isn't going to car if you drive it or not.  Your wife obviously does care.  

 

And yes,  there IS a moral issue about stepping out on your marriage to get sex elsewhere.  Hopefully you don't live in a state where adultery is treated as a crime, if she decides to divorce you

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

Your car isn't going to car if you drive it or not.  Your wife obviously does care.  

 

And yes,  there IS a moral issue about stepping out on your marriage to get sex elsewhere.  Hopefully you don't live in a state where adultery is treated as a crime, if she decides to divorce you

Sexual abandonment finally has weight in our state.   

 

I think that, if the other car could talk, it would be very happy knowing that it still had a nice garage to live in and all the care and maintenance a car should have.  

 

What I do not understand is why a car that does not want to be driven would want to leave me stranded without transportation.   

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

Sexual abandonment finally has weight in our state.   

 

I think that, if the other car could talk, it would be very happy knowing that it still had a nice garage to live in and all the care and maintenance a car should have.  

 

What I do not understand is why a car that does not want to be driven would want to leave me stranded without transportation.   

If the car is asexual, it would be because the car doesn't want to be driven AT ALL.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronHamster said:

If the parts of the relationship are like parts of the drive train, it does not matter if you are missing a shaft or a planetary gear or even the whole transmission.   The result is that the whole car just won't meet your needs for transportation.  You can sit in it.  You can look at it.  But, there is no moral issue having a second vehicle to get you around town like the first car was supposed to do.  

People are not things. You might want to rethink this analogy, it implies a great many things I don't believe you intend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I really prefer the term "outsourced" to cheated.  

Yeah, and murderers probably prefer "improving the gene pool" to killing someone, too.

 

You cheated, bottom line.

 

Quote

I even put up with forced celibacy for over two decades, which is inhumane as any other sort of torture.

Oh please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Camicon said:

"... without desire you have nothing but rape".

- No, rape is what you get when you force someone to have sex. A person can consent, even if they don't desire sex.

 

"... have the capacity to become aroused,"

- You'll note that I said most people desire sex.

 

"... intended to experience desire. What is your opinion? That we are not built to experience desire?"

- Are you incapable of answering my question? Why do you think people are intended to desire sex?

 

My opinion is that desiring sex, and not desiring sex, both provide evolutionary benefits to humans. That there is no "intention" behind desiring sex, it's simply a physiological response that life developed alongside sexual reproduction.

 

But I would really appreciate it if you could answer my question now. This is the third time I've asked you.

Again you have become confrontational with your post. Again you have taken it from peaceful conversation to outright disagreement. 

I see you are demanding I answer to your question. I am really sorry that I apparently haven’t but I’m not sure why you feel you have such control over people. 

 

Here is my answer:

 

Humans are born with a stomach and all the body parts required to chew, swallow and digest food. We are ‘intended’ to eat food and this forms part of the survival process of the species. But we have MORE than just the tools to eat the food. We experience HUNGER which is a DESIRE to eat the said food. It’s purpose built in to us. Some people actually don’t experience this as readily as others and have to force their food down. 

Sexual desire is exactly the same. We DON’T just have the tools to have intercourse, we as a species experience the HUNGER, the DESIRE to have said sexual intercourse. 

A young child could understand this analogy, so I hope I have explained this in such a way that you understand. Let’s hope you do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Adamjonuk said:

Ok let me rephrase - the OP therefore went into the relationship only for the sex promised and not because he loved Mrs for who she was then maybe 

Again, yet another person who uses the act of or desire for sex in a very negative way to cast aspersions on someone’s character. The very reason why people like ironhamster was left without a voice for 20 years. 

Totally disgraceful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, James121 said:

Again you have become confrontational with your post. Again you have taken it from peaceful conversation to outright disagreement. 

I see you are demanding I answer to your question. I am really sorry that I apparently haven’t but I’m not sure why you feel you have such control over people. 

 

Here is my answer:

 

Humans are born with a stomach and all the body parts required to chew, swallow and digest food. We are ‘intended’ to eat food and this forms part of the survival process of the species. But we have MORE than just the tools to eat the food. We experience HUNGER which is a DESIRE to eat the said food. It’s purpose built in to us. Some people actually don’t experience this as readily as others and have to force their food down. 

Sexual desire is exactly the same. We DON’T just have the tools to have intercourse, we as a species experience the HUNGER, the DESIRE to have said sexual intercourse. 

A young child could understand this analogy, so I hope I have explained this in such a way that you understand. Let’s hope you do.

 

Asking someone to answer a question they've already ignored multiple times is being confrontational? Excuse me while I play your sensitivities a dirge on my unusually small violin. My polite request for you to answer a very straightforward question was clearly out of line. Press 'F' to pay your respects.

 

Moving on though, you don't seem to understand what you're saying when you use the word "intended". If Thing X is intended to be used for Purpose Y, then Thing X must necessarily have been created for Purpose Y. When you say that people are intended to have sexual desire then you are saying that humans were created for the purpose of having sex (you simultaneously imply that people who don't experience sexual desires are broken, which is kind've messed up).

 

We become hungry because it's evolutionarily beneficial to know when your body needs more fuel, not because our purpose is to eat food. Most people have sexual desires because it's evolutionarily beneficial (for the species) to reproduce, not because it's our purpose to have sex. These aren't things that were created which means they can't have a purpose for which they are intended; they are just things that exist, that people experience, because that's how humans evolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7wQNowTgdKk3zVszbqp0

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Camicon said:

Asking someone to answer a question they've already ignored multiple times is being confrontational? Excuse me while I play your sensitivities a dirge on my unusually small violin. My polite request for you to answer a very straightforward question was clearly out of line. Press 'F' to pay your respects.

 

Moving on though, you don't seem to understand what you're saying when you use the word "intended". If Thing X is intended to be used for Purpose Y, then Thing X must necessarily have been created for Purpose Y. When you say that people are intended to have sexual desire then you are saying that humans were created for the purpose of having sex (you simultaneously imply that people who don't experience sexual desires are broken, which is kind've messed up).

 

We become hungry because it's evolutionarily beneficial to know when your body needs more fuel, not because our purpose is to eat food. Most people have sexual desires because it's evolutionarily beneficial (for the species) to reproduce, not because it's our purpose to have sex. These aren't things that were created which means they can't have a purpose for which they are intended; they are just things that exist, that people experience, because that's how humans evolved.

“Are you incapable of answering my question”.

 

Do you not think that is unnecessarily confrontational? Why do you deem yourself so important that your are owed further explanation?

I had already answered your question but you really weren’t getting it. I’m not sure why. It was all fairly simple. 

 

And yes, I am saying that people who don’t experience the desire are broken. You have made that in to something derogatory when it clearly wasn’t (check my original post where i said it for the ‘evidence’ that you always like to demand). You clearly don’t like that I’ve been honest enough and courageous enough to say it. Sorry, I’ll get my violin out too and play a nice song. Soon all the birds will be singing and the bees will be buzzing and everything will be A Ok 👌 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, James121 said:

And yes, I am saying that people who don’t experience the desire are broken.

That is bull, both on a "philosophical" and an evolutionary level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...