Acceptance

[Homer]

4 minutes ago, James121 said:

How do you figure?

Evolution is about "survival of the fittest", right? So not giving people a desire to breed is part of the process. Not everyone is deemed "fit" by nature.

 

That doesn't mean that they're "less worthy" or sick or what have you. They're still fully functional human beings.

[James121]

4 minutes ago, Grinchmer said:

Evolution is about "survival of the fittest", right? So not giving people a desire to breed is part of the process. Not everyone is deemed "fit" by nature.

 

That doesn't mean that they're "less worthy" or sick or what have you. They're still fully functional human beings.

Excellent answer. So we are in agreement that you are either deemed fit or not and thus we are ‘intended’ to have desire. Sometimes it doesn’t happen and you are right. Please feel absolutely free to check where I originally posted that no one should negatively judged based on this but unfortunately there was someone here who wanted me to be more blunt because they like arguments and confrontation.

 

 

 

[Adamjonuk]

Well this has certainly caused a discussion is my final comment :-)

[Homer]

1 hour ago, James121 said:

Excellent answer. So we are in agreement that you are either deemed fit or not and thus we are ‘intended’ to have desire. Sometimes it doesn’t happen and you are right. Please feel absolutely free to check where I originally posted that no one should negatively judged based on this but unfortunately there was someone here who wanted me to be more blunt because they like arguments and confrontation.

You said that people who don't have the desire are broken. Which is bs. Feel free to reinstall the goalposts in their original place.

[GLRDT]

8 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.  

Yeah, but wouldn't you usually get rid of or sell the first car first because it doesn't work before you get a new one?

[GLRDT]

8 hours 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.   

Because also if your car could talk and you had all these great memories in it and went on lots of trips then it would feel unloved and lonely and stuck in the garage all alone instead of being able to get fixed and be able to stay with you and still enjoy time with you. 

[James121]

54 minutes ago, Grinchmer said:

You said that people who don't have the desire are broken. Which is bs. Feel free to reinstall the goalposts in their original place.

 

La la la. Yet another buffoon who talks about goal posts.The goal posts haven’t moved, they are still here. Here they are 🥅.  It’s not bs, you just don’t like it and you just can’t accept it.

Now in a previous post (one you haven’t obviously read) I explained that just because you didn’t develop sexual desire it doesn’t make you any less of a human being, doesn’t make you inferior, doesn’t make you anything other than someone who didn’t develop sexual desire. However, it is how humans were intended to be.

Could you give me a logical reason as to why a person would logically not develop sexual desire? For what reason?

I accept that it happens, I accept they shouldn’t be treated differently but please advise me of the reason.

 

Well I can’t believe I’ve been lowered to this sort of exchange again but you have started it with sarcasm first.

[IronHamster]

2 hours ago, Grinchmer said:

Evolution is about "survival of the fittest", right? So not giving people a desire to breed is part of the process. Not everyone is deemed "fit" by nature.

 

That doesn't mean that they're "less worthy" or sick or what have you. They're still fully functional human beings.

In my experience, asexual people can still have desire for sex during special conditions, such as the need to trap someone in marriage or to get pregnant.   

[IronHamster]

7 minutes ago, GLRDT said:

Because also if your car could talk and you had all these great memories in it and went on lots of trips then it would feel unloved and lonely and stuck in the garage all alone instead of being able to get fixed and be able to stay with you and still enjoy time with you. 

Exactly.  Perhaps that is the best explanation of why asexuals do not want their sexual partners to have fulfilling lives.  

 

There is a problem, though.  Things like memories and love are not finite things.  When my first child was born, I gave her all of my love.   When my second child was born, I did not say, "I'm sorry, but I already gave all my love to your older sister and there is nothing left for you."  Why can't I love both my asexual spouse and my sex partner?  

[Puck]

Insults are not acceptable on AVEN, please everyone refrain from using them here.

 

Invalidating asexuality is also not acceptable on AVEN, remember that this site is for discussion of things around asexuality, not questioning it's existence. Please refrain from invalidating the orientation.

 

Thank you,

Puck

Co-Reports Administrator

[Puck]

1 hour ago, James121 said:

Now in a previous post (one you haven’t obviously read) I explained that just because you didn’t develop sexual desire it doesn’t make you any less of a human being, doesn’t make you inferior, doesn’t make you anything other than someone who didn’t develop sexual desire. However, it is how humans were intended to be.

Could you give me a logical reason as to why a person would logically not develop sexual desire? For what reason?

In animal populations, non-straight relationships are most likely to develop when a species is over-populated. Many scientists believe this is because it's a support to the population when the population no longer needs to focus on just making children. Non-straight couples can take in orphans if their biological parents have died or otherwise can't care for their young. It has been observed that asexual animals tend to stay with their family (as in, parents and siblings) and do things like help hunt for their other family's young or help raise them in other ways which makes that young more likely to survive. And so, even if it's not their specific own genes, it's still the family genes that are most likely to be passed on over a family that didn't have an asexual as an extra pair of young-raising hands.

 

That's not logical, though (as in, it's not something someone could sit down and decide to do). But there is no logical reason to have an orientation as orientations aren't a choice and so are not rooted in a person's logic. However, if you mean what explanation would there be to have an asexual in human society, it might well be so that they can support society in ways other than producing children. They could adopt children from parents who have died or otherwise can't care for them, they could support their community either monetarily or physically as they don't have to spend their money and time raising kids. Asexuals might have come about because humans are vastly over-populated and our species doesn't need to focus on just on making more babies, but supporting the humans that are already here.

 

If we were, say, like bears who are independent and not social "pack" animals, then maybe non-straight orientations would be less likely. But because we focus on ensuring the well being of the "pack" and not just ourselves and our young that we physically had, non-straight orientations can very well improve our species ability to survive.

[James121]

7 minutes ago, Puck said:

In animal populations, non-straight relationships are most likely to develop when a species is over-populated. Many scientists believe this is because it's a support to the population when the population no longer needs to focus on just making children. Non-straight couples can take in orphans if their biological parents have died or otherwise can't care for their young. It has been observed that asexual animals tend to stay with their family (as in, parents and siblings) and do things like help hunt for their other family's young or help raise them in other ways which makes that young more likely to survive. And so, even if it's not their specific own genes, it's still the family genes that are most likely to be passed on over a family that didn't have an asexual as an extra pair of young-raising hands.

 

That's not logical, though (as in, it's not something someone could sit down and decide to do). But there is no logical reason to have an orientation as orientations aren't a choice and so are not rooted in a person's logic. However, if you mean what explanation would there be to have an asexual in human society, it might well be so that they can support society in ways other than producing children. They could adopt children from parents who have died or otherwise can't care for them, they could support their community either monetarily or physically as they don't have to spend their money and time raising kids. Asexuals might have come about because humans are vastly over-populated and our species doesn't need to focus on just on making more babies, but supporting the humans that are already here.

 

If we were, say, like bears who are independent and not social "pack" animals, then maybe non-straight orientations would be less likely. But because we focus on ensuring the well being of the "pack" and not just ourselves and our young that we physically had, non-straight orientations can very well improve our species ability to survive.

I get what you say and it’s quite feasible in some ways. However there is no scientific evidence to support that asexuals become such as their bodies or minds can predict or know that our species is over populated.

If what you say there were to be true, then every single person on here that has argued Ironhamster’s wife may have only realised she was asexual after she got married and produced more children is definitely wrong. Totally wrong because she would surely have instinctively refrained from intercourse altogether and if that had happened, she would never have become Mrs ironhamster in the first place.

[James121]

33 minutes ago, Puck said:

Insults are not acceptable on AVEN, please everyone refrain from using them here.

 

Invalidating asexuality is also not acceptable on AVEN, remember that this site is for discussion of things around asexuality, not questioning it's existence. Please refrain from invalidating the orientation.

 

Thank you,

Puck

Co-Reports Administrator

I didn’t see any invalidating of asexuality? I must have missed it.

[GLRDT]

2 hours ago, IronHamster said:

Exactly.  Perhaps that is the best explanation of why asexuals do not want their sexual partners to have fulfilling lives.  

 

There is a problem, though.  Things like memories and love are not finite things.  When my first child was born, I gave her all of my love.   When my second child was born, I did not say, "I'm sorry, but I already gave all my love to your older sister and there is nothing left for you."  Why can't I love both my asexual spouse and my sex partner?  

To answer your question you can do anything you wish to do. But before I posted about the car talking I posted that most people get rid of or fix the car that isn't working before they buy a new one. You can do whatever you want of course, but the car talking explains why there may be consequences of buying a new car without first repairing or getting rid of the first car. YOU can love both your spouse and your new sex partner, but there are consequences to those actions that you may not like.

[GLRDT]

41 minutes ago, Puck said:

Insults are not acceptable on AVEN, please everyone refrain from using them here.

 

Invalidating asexuality is also not acceptable on AVEN, remember that this site is for discussion of things around asexuality, not questioning it's existence. Please refrain from invalidating the orientation.

 

Thank you,

Puck

Co-Reports Administrator

Yay! You've come! You're here!

[GLRDT]

I wish that some of the sexual people in this thread would spend a lot of time looking through a bunch of these asexual threads on this site. I keep hearing some of the sexual people here saying that they aren't being heard and that we are judging them for being sexual, but multiple times i feel these same people have said things that make me think they don't really know or understand that much about asexuality either and I think if we both knew more about each other then a lot of these arguments wouldn't be happening in the same way and would make way more sense and have a lot more helpful insights for both sexual and asexual people to consider.

[GLRDT]

2 hours ago, IronHamster said:

Exactly.  Perhaps that is the best explanation of why asexuals do not want their sexual partners to have fulfilling lives. 

Wait a sec. I would say most people who are in a relationship, a partnership and who love each other would want their partner to live a fulfilling life. If they don't then there is no love, there is extreme selfishness, manipulation, denial, or some sort of other issue going on. It doesn't necessarily have to do with sexuality at all. Wanting your partner to have a fulfilling life is something I think every successful relationship should have. And i feel if one person doesn't want that or can't give that to their partner then that is a relationship issue but doesn't mean it is necessarily sexuality related. In fact I would bet it's often something else. Im hope I'm not overstepping, but I don't feel that your main issue is that you and your wife have different sexualities. It's definitely a huge issue but to me, it seems like some of the biggest issues in your relationship are a lack of communication, miscommunication, and lack of trust which i think are often the main issues of why any relationship breaks down or struggles.

[Puck]

42 minutes ago, James121 said:

I get what you say and it’s quite feasible in some ways. However there is no scientific evidence to support that asexuals become such as their bodies or minds can predict or know that our species is over populated.

If what you say there were to be true, then every single person on here that has argued Ironhamster’s wife may have only realised she was asexual after she got married and produced more children is definitely wrong. Totally wrong because she would surely have instinctively refrained from intercourse altogether and if that had happened, she would never have become Mrs ironhamster in the first place.

Asexuals still might want to have a partner and still might want to have children. Sexual desire isn't the only reason to want a relationship. Also, evolution isn't such that it comes out perfect and everyone knows what their purpose is supposed to be. It just works out how it works out. It's odd to think that someone would want kids but not want to have sex to have them, but it happens. They still can have sex, obviously they have the parts. I mean, there are lots of cases of homosexuals who have first had sex with a partner (or partners) of the opposite gender, realized it wasn't right, and realized their true nature. Some have even gotten married to someone of the opposite gender and had kids, all before coming out and choosing to only have same-gender sex from them on (think of Ross' first wife from the show Friends).

 

I'm a fairly big advocate of asexuals should typically only date other asexuals once they know their orientation. They can fall in love with sexuals and sexuals can fall in love with them, sure. But it's like a homosexual getting married to a straight person; it's probably not going to end well because someone isn't (or both parties aren't) feeling fulfilled. Doesn't mean the partners didn't love each other, just that they weren't sexually compatible. If an asexual does date a sexual, they should be upfront from the beginning so the sexual understands that sex is not something that will be happening for them. If the sexual can't live with that, then it's absolutely fair that they leave the relationship.

 

The challenge comes in situations like ironhamster's where it sounds like his wife didn't know about asexuality prior to the marriage. After all, awareness of the orientation is still low in the world.  If one doesn't know that never wanting to have sex is a normal phenomenon that happens to around %1 of the population, they may think that their only opportunity to have a family is to have it with a sexual and thus find themselves in a situation they and their partner might not have put themselves in had they had all the information. Also, some (NOT ALL) sexuals I find tend to assume an asexual MUST eventually want sex; as in, they don't really think they are signing up for a sexless marriage.  But they are (or, at least, a very low sex one). If they knew more about asexuality from the top, then they might have been able to make a more informed choice. Neither party is to blame here, it's just the reality of the situation they now find themselves in.

 

Some asexual/sexual relationships can work, I've met people who are very happy in such a relationship. But it takes a lot of compromise and communication. It means that all needs on both sides must somehow be met. No one is right or wrong in these situations, both needs (the need to have sex and the need to not have sex) are equally important and if one of those needs (or both) can't be met, the relationship likely will have lots of trouble.

[GLRDT]

3 minutes ago, Puck said:

Asexuals still might want to have a partner and still might want to have children. Sexual desire isn't the only reason to want a relationship. Also, evolution isn't such that it comes out perfect and everyone knows what their purpose is supposed to be. It just works out how it works out. It's odd to think that someone would want kids but not want to have sex to have them, but it happens. They still can have sex, obviously they have the parts. I mean, there are lots of cases of homosexuals who have first had sex with a partner (or partners) of the same gender, realized it wasn't right, and realized their true nature. Some have even gotten married to someone of the opposite gender and had kids, all before coming out and choosing to only have same-gender sex from them on (think of Ross' first wife from the show Friends).

 

I'm a fairly big advocate of asexuals should typically only date other asexuals once they know their orientation. They can fall in love with sexuals and sexuals can fall in love with them, sure. But it's like a homosexual getting married to a straight person; it's probably not going to end well because someone isn't (or both parties aren't) feeling fulfilled. Doesn't mean the partners didn't love each other, just that they weren't sexually compatible. If an asexual does date a sexual, they should be upfront from the beginning so the sexual understands that sex is not something that will be happening for them. If the sexual can't live with that, the it's absolutely fair that they leave the relationship.

 

The challenge comes in situations like ironhamster's where it sounds like his wife didn't know about asexuality prior to the marriage. After all, awareness of the orientation is still low in the world.  If one doesn't know that never to have sex is a normal phenomenon that happens to around %1 of the population, they may think that their only opportunity to have a family is to have it with a sexual and thus find themselves in a situation they and their partner might not have put themselves in had they had all the information. Also, some (NOT ALL) sexuals I find tend to assume an asexual MUST eventually want sex; as in, they don't really think they are signing up for a sexless marriage.  But they are (or, at least, a very low sex one). If they knew more about asexuality from the top, then they might have been able to make a more informed choice. Neither party is to blame here, it's just the reality of the situation they now find themselves in.

 

Some asexual/sexual relationships can work, I've met people who are very happy in such a relationship. But it takes a lot of compromise and communication. It means that all needs on both sides must somehow be met. No one is right or wrong in these situations, both needs (the need to have sex and the need to not have sex) are equally important and if one of those needs (or both) can't be met, the relationship likely will have lots of trouble.

Yaaaaaas.

[James121]

18 minutes ago, GLRDT said:

I wish that some of the sexual people in this thread would spend a lot of time looking through a bunch of these asexual threads on this site. I keep hearing some of the sexual people here saying that they aren't being heard and that we are judging them for being sexual, but multiple times i feel these same people have said things that make me think they don't really know or understand that much about asexuality either and I think if we both knew more about each other than a lot of these arguments wouldn't be happening in the same way and would make way more sense and have a lot more helpful insights for both sexual and asexual people to consider.

You are probably right. But as you have stated yourself, the road runs both ways.

[James121]

8 minutes ago, Puck said:

Asexuals still might want to have a partner and still might want to have children. Sexual desire isn't the only reason to want a relationship. Also, evolution isn't such that it comes out perfect and everyone knows what their purpose is supposed to be. It just works out how it works out. It's odd to think that someone would want kids but not want to have sex to have them, but it happens. They still can have sex, obviously they have the parts. I mean, there are lots of cases of homosexuals who have first had sex with a partner (or partners) of the opposite gender, realized it wasn't right, and realized their true nature. Some have even gotten married to someone of the opposite gender and had kids, all before coming out and choosing to only have same-gender sex from them on (think of Ross' first wife from the show Friends).

 

I'm a fairly big advocate of asexuals should typically only date other asexuals once they know their orientation. They can fall in love with sexuals and sexuals can fall in love with them, sure. But it's like a homosexual getting married to a straight person; it's probably not going to end well because someone isn't (or both parties aren't) feeling fulfilled. Doesn't mean the partners didn't love each other, just that they weren't sexually compatible. If an asexual does date a sexual, they should be upfront from the beginning so the sexual understands that sex is not something that will be happening for them. If the sexual can't live with that, then it's absolutely fair that they leave the relationship.

 

The challenge comes in situations like ironhamster's where it sounds like his wife didn't know about asexuality prior to the marriage. After all, awareness of the orientation is still low in the world.  If one doesn't know that never wanting to have sex is a normal phenomenon that happens to around %1 of the population, they may think that their only opportunity to have a family is to have it with a sexual and thus find themselves in a situation they and their partner might not have put themselves in had they had all the information. Also, some (NOT ALL) sexuals I find tend to assume an asexual MUST eventually want sex; as in, they don't really think they are signing up for a sexless marriage.  But they are (or, at least, a very low sex one). If they knew more about asexuality from the top, then they might have been able to make a more informed choice. Neither party is to blame here, it's just the reality of the situation they now find themselves in.

 

Some asexual/sexual relationships can work, I've met people who are very happy in such a relationship. But it takes a lot of compromise and communication. It means that all needs on both sides must somehow be met. No one is right or wrong in these situations, both needs (the need to have sex and the need to not have sex) are equally important and if one of those needs (or both) can't be met, the relationship likely will have lots of trouble.

It wasn’t an invalidation of asexuals when I said that though. I agree with a lot of what you have written but there is a lot of support for the idea that when gay people marry someone of the opposite sex, have children and then come out in later life, that they knew all long. They just didn’t want to accept it or know if they would be accepted. This is a huge problem because their deception, despite having no malicious element to it, has massively altered their partners life.

i made a polite and valid point that if asexuals become such as a way of nature ‘balancing the books’ so to speak, then Mrs ironhamster must have known all along. Therefore she deceived ironhamster. Does that make any sense?

[GLRDT]

4 minutes ago, James121 said:

You are probably right. But as you have stated yourself, the road runs both ways.

Exactly. It does run both ways! I love the sexual and sexual allies to asexual part of this website. I enjoy reading, speaking with, and understanding the struggles sexual people are going through as well as asexual people. I mean I'm dating a sexual person and most of the world is sexual soooo I kind of want to know what's going on there. There is a kick-ass book I'm currently reading called "I Fell In Love With An Asexual" by Dave Wheitner. I have to admit I'm only in page 67 but it's very interesting. It's a book that is supposed to support sexual people who are in a relationship with asexuals and touch on their concerns and relate with their struggles and to also help them understand their asexual partners more. If it continues to be cool I'm gonna make my sexual boyfriend read it! Wah ha ha ha ha ha!

[GLRDT]

1 minute ago, James121 said:

It wasn’t an invalidation of asexuals when I said that though. I agree with a lot of what you have written but there is a lot of support for the idea that when gay people marry someone of the opposite sex, have children and then come out in later life, that they knew all long. They just didn’t want to accept it or know if they would be accepted. This is a huge problem because their deception, despite having no malicious element to it, has massively altered their partners life.

i made a polite and valid point that if asexuals become such as a way of nature ‘balancing the books’ so to speak, then Mrs ironhamster must have known all along. Therefore she deceived ironhamster. Does that make any sense?

This does make sense what you're saying. I don't think you have invalidated asexual people, but I do think you've said a lot of things that show me it may be super helpful for you to read a lot of threads on this website about asexual people discovering they were asexual when and how. I think it would give you a lot of helpful insight an open your eyes to a whole new world and understanding if you so desire. I also think if Ironhamster truly does want to understand how and why his wife feels the way she does, it would be enormously beneficial for him to do this as well.

[Puck]

37 minutes ago, James121 said:

It wasn’t an invalidation of asexuals when I said that though. I agree with a lot of what you have written but there is a lot of support for the idea that when gay people marry someone of the opposite sex, have children and then come out in later life, that they knew all long. They just didn’t want to accept it or know if they would be accepted. This is a huge problem because their deception, despite having no malicious element to it, has massively altered their partners life.

i made a polite and valid point that if asexuals become such as a way of nature ‘balancing the books’ so to speak, then Mrs ironhamster must have known all along. Therefore she deceived ironhamster. Does that make any sense?

First, I never said you specifically were invalidating asexuals, it was a broad statement as this conversation was getting dicey and I wanted to put that reminded to all users out there.

 

Secondly, I agree that they usually have a feeling that they are. They have some feeling that they are different and may try to force a sexual relationship but they feel they are forcing something.

 

In this specific case, ironhammer did say that on year 1 they found her lack of wanting to have sex an issue. See here:

 

On 12/6/2017 at 12:01 PM, IronHamster said:

Year 1.  It not only took a year to consummate the marriage,  but every alternative we had been playing with dried up, too.  I expressed a lot of grief and frustration, but I was also loving and committed to making our marriage work.  I saw this as temporary.  She went through counseling.  I took on more responsibilities.  I took her out.  I bought her things.  Then, kids came along and I was even more committed.  

 

I can tell you the conception dates and times of all our kids.   It was that sparse.  

Before they had children, she clearly wasn't interested in having sex. They went to counseling for it, they tried to "fix" it but it wasn't being fixed. So ironhammer (and Mrs. ironhammer too)made the choice to stay in and have children in a low-sex marriage. Mrs. ironhammer didn't just willingly have sex at the top and then stop, they both knew from year 1 without kids that this was an issue. It was up to both of them to decide if this was a relationship worth staying in. Evidently, they both agreed it was. Evidently, neither are fully satisfied with that choice.

 

I can't say what was right in this situation, it was up to both to decide. I am not a counselor or a relationship expert. I'm just saying, both sides have an obligation to each other and it sounds like neither side is fulfilling each other's needs and it's been that way through the whole marriage.

[IronHamster]

2 minutes ago, Puck said:

First, I never said you specifically were invalidating asexuals, it was a broad statement as this conversation was getting dicey and I wanted to put that reminded to all users out there.

 

Secondly, I agree that they usually have a feeling that they are. They have some feeling that they are different and may try to force a sexual relationship but they feel they are forcing something.

 

In this specific case, ironhammer did say that on year 1 they found her lack of wanting to have sex an issue. See here:

 

Before they had children, she clearly wasn't interested in having sex. They went to counseling for it, they tried to "fix" it but it wasn't being fixed. So ironhammer (and Mrs. ironhammer too)made the choice to stay in and have children in a low-sex marriage. Mrs. ironhammer didn't just willingly have sex at the top and then stop, they both knew from year 1 without kids that this was an issue. It was up to both of them to decide if this was a relationship worth staying in. Evidently, they both agreed it was. Evidently, neither are fully satisfied with that choice.

 

I can't say what was right in this situation, it was up to both to decide. I am not a counselor or a relationship expert. I'm just saying, both sides have an obligation to each other and it sounds like neither side is fulfilling each other's needs and it's been that way through the whole marriage.

It has certainly been a frustration.   For twenty years, I never gave up hope that I could fix the sex problems, because there was always a goal.  "I would be in the mood if ______"  Fill in the blank.  With what?  It does not matter.  There was always another condition. 

 

So, we know what I needed, as much as it can be understood.   It is no more having access to a hole than a saltine cracker is to fine cuisine.  What did she need?  We never really got to the bottom of it.  It always changed. 

[GLRDT]

5 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

It has certainly been a frustration.   For twenty years, I never gave up hope that I could fix the sex problems, because there was always a goal.  "I would be in the mood if ______"  Fill in the blank.  With what?  It does not matter.  There was always another condition. 

 

So, we know what I needed, as much as it can be understood.   It is no more having access to a hole than a saltine cracker is to fine cuisine.  What did she need?  We never really got to the bottom of it.  It always changed. 

From reading this it sounds like maybe she doesn't know what she needs or wants either or is in denial or she does know but is afraid what it will mean for your relationship if she admits it? I sure don't know either! Ha ha. Maybe she has been just as confused as you through this process and hasn't known how to get help or figure out what she wants and needs or should do? Just ideas I'm throwing out. Does she know about this website? Do you think it would help bring clarity for her? I mean you probably wouldn't want her to read this thread though....I mean unless you do for some reason.

[vega57]

 

23 hours 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.

So, you're linking the desire for sex directly to our reproductive organs.

 

7 hours ago, James121 said:

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

Since you have linked the desire for sex to reproduction, then all people who experience sex but do what they can to PREVENT reproduction...are also "broken".

 

[GLRDT]

@IronHamster  I have a question I just thought of. If you didn't think your wife would have a problem with it or didn't understand why she should, why didn't you find a sexual partner earlier in the relationship? Or is it that you have never thought that sleeping with someone outside of the marriage is wrong since the beginning, but you didn't do it because you knew your wife didn't approve? Either way wouldn't your behavior now show that at some point you cared about what your wife had said and that you knew it would be wrong or cause problems at least for her and your relationship? If you weren't aware of this, why didn't you find a sexual partner sooner if you didn't think it would be an issue in any way? I guess I'm struggling to understand how you would think that there would be no consequences of your recent actions outside of your relationship today if you knew there would have been consequences before. And if you didn't think there would be consequences before, why didn't you find a sexual partner sooner? Sorry, I hope I didn't word all of that too crazily. I think the last two sentences are the most clear....I hope.

[Puck]

49 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

It has certainly been a frustration.   For twenty years, I never gave up hope that I could fix the sex problems, because there was always a goal.  "I would be in the mood if ______"  Fill in the blank.  With what?  It does not matter.  There was always another condition. 

 

So, we know what I needed, as much as it can be understood.   It is no more having access to a hole than a saltine cracker is to fine cuisine.  What did she need?  We never really got to the bottom of it.  It always changed. 

That does sound really hard. It shows how much you cared for her that you stayed. It honestly is commendable. You obviously loved (and it sounds like you still love) your wife. It's amazing that you both found someone you care that deeply about. I'm asexual, but to flip your situation, if I was with someone I really loved who kept saying "babe, if we have sex just once more, then I'll never need sex again" or "babe, if we have sex in ____ way then we'd never have to have sex again," I'm sure I would want that to be true and maybe go along with it, but after 20 years, I'm sure I'd feel very uncared for and maybe even unloved. So your feelings are valid, your pain in more than understandable. You've been through a lot of emotional struggle and strain.

 

That doesn't excuse cheating on her, it doesn't excuse doing anything behind her back. She, of course, has no excuse to not help you get your needs met either. Doing something like having sex with another person without her knowing is unfair to a partner. To be clear, if she is aware and ok with it, then there is NOTHING wrong with seeking another partner or partners outside of the relationship, but both partners must be aware and ok with it.

 

It sounds like you mostly want emotional validation, I hope I gave you some. If you want advice as well, I'll give some here that you are welcome to ignore or take: I would suggest sitting down with your wife and explaining that the current situation just isn't working for you. Tell her you aren't happy about her not wanting to have sex, but if that's what her need is then it's valid and ok. However, you have a need too and it's not being met in the relationship. Tell her you need to have someone (or some people) to have sex with you at least [insert how much sex you need]. If she can't give it, you need to find it somewhere else. Remind her that it's not because you don't love her, it's because you have a need that is not being met. Tell her you care fiercely about your kids and their wellbeing, and so you want your relationship to work, but if this need isn't being met, you will have to either leave the relationship or you are afraid you might cheat again. Tell her that is the situation as you see it and that you value and want her help in solving the problem at hand.

 

Obviously, if anything I said isn't true or you don't agree with it, you can ignore it. And, once again, you can completely ignore my advice as I don't know that you were seeking it.

[James121]

1 hour ago, vega57 said:

 

So, you're linking the desire for sex directly to our reproductive organs.

 

Since you have linked the desire for sex to reproduction, then all people who experience sex but do what they can to PREVENT reproduction...are also "broken".

 

I link sex organs and their capacity for arousal to desire and no to your second statement because that is about having control over reproduction.