hipsterdoofus Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I'm a 35-year-old man who is sexually attracted to women, so I know I don't fit the asexual definition. Although I'm very attracted to women, I'm not interested in sex or dating, and have not been on a date since I had a girlfriend when I was 17. The reason I'm not interested is not a lack of sexual attraction, but that the sexual urge is no where near sufficient enough to overtake the risk-aversion, which it would need to do in order to cause me to want to have sex. I had sex when I was 17, but at that time I don't think I was nearly as risk-averse as I became as an adult. I think that most men seem to have a situation where either their risk-aversion is weaker, or their urge is stronger, which then causes them to seek out women. I'm not saying that perhaps at age 65, when the risk is lower because the value of my health and freedom at 65 would be less than it is today at 35 (i.e., in the prime of life with hopefully many years left), I would still not be interested; I might be at that point. When I'm 65, for example, the value of what could potentially be lost by having sex will be less than the value of what could be lost today, so perhaps by then I would be interested in sex. Not to mention that at that age there are people becoming available again through divorce or death, unlike the 30s age-group where we know there are no unattached people, except for those who aren't interested in dating, or those no one would want to date anyway, or those who fit both of those categories. What I'm saying is that I have no interest in sex because I'm not willing to accept the risks that go along with it, not because the sexual desire is missing. Does that make any sense? And does that situation have a name other than risk-averse? I doubt it, but one never knows. Link to post Share on other sites
mindlife Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 The reason I'm not interested is not a lack of sexual attraction, but that the sexual urge is no where near sufficient enough to overtake the risk-aversion, which it would need to do in order to cause me to want to have sex. Asexual or not, I think you'll fit in here. You may not choose the label asexual for your behavior, but the fact that a rational construct has trumped your capacity for sexual attraction leading to sexual contact indicates a frame of mind that might be asexual. You'll find that most of us do not look at others in a sexual way, neither do we use any sexually-based hierarchy to understand intimacy. A need for sexual contact does not influence how we function with others from day to day and in relationships. We live not above it, but in a place where it is not. Thus intimacy becomes how we think with the significant other, how we feel with that person rather than about that person. I know that sounds strange, but that's how I interpret asexuality. I believe that you are interpreting it in your own way too. So, welcome to AVEN. Link to post Share on other sites
hilbertastronaut Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 What I'm saying is that I have no interest in sex because I'm not willing to accept the risks that go along with it, not because the sexual desire is missing. Does that make any sense? And does that situation have a name other than risk-averse? I doubt it, but one never knows. Well, sex is a risky activity, not just because of STDs and all, but also because it entails the gift of one's whole self to another person. We shouldn't think of sex as only a physical thing, like scratching an itch; it involves the whole person, body and soul. It could be that you don't feel ready to give yourself to someone like that. i wonder if too many people are calling themselves "asexual," just because they don't want to have sex with any random person at any random time for the fun of it. Maybe i'm just reading too much into your post -- this is what came to mind. Link to post Share on other sites
hipsterdoofus Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 Well, sex is a risky activity, not just because of STDs and all,. Thanks for the reply, hilbertastronaut. I often think the risks are clear to everyone, but to be sure, for women they're 1) STD infection, and 2) pregnancy (which to me is a risk because I don't want a child). Men of course have those same risks, plus the added risk of imprisonment if for some reason the woman decided to send him there by claiming rape. These risks hold true anytime a man and a woman have sex (in the USA anyway), no matter who they are, married or otherwise. Of course there are ways to minimize them, like condoms and other means of BC, and video tape incase the man would ever need it for his defense if that situation arose. But still, way too risky in my book. The philosophy of risky business aside, I prefer to live alone anyway. Couldn't imagine life any other way actually. Link to post Share on other sites
confused but not confused Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 This is very interesting. I was also physically attracted by some men but just their faces and hands and nothing below shoulders but I never felt comfortable in going through the process of fully sharing myself with anyone, I mean my body. I thought it is a matter of fluid exchange or whatever which make me feel nausea or that I will lose myself but then I realized that I do make myself vulnerable and put at risks sometimes by my own choice. It is just a matter of sex where I resist to take any risks. Similarly, now after getting recently engaged. I don't think this way now with my fiancee as I believe in his love for me and I don't feel nausea even drinking from the same glass and eating where the possibility of fluid exchange is good. But I still can't think of intercourse. I feel that you are a different kind of asexual if YOU ARE. The problem you maybe facing is the lack of confidence in your partner. I mean you maybe internally seeking for a long-term dedicated relationship full of love BUT not the traditional commitments which society defines. Maybe one day when you will find yourself in love with a woman, the situation will be different for you. (Sexual attraction and love are two different things in my point of view). I define my asexuality as the person you love most is available to you and you really want to express your love in other ways but not in the form of sex. Link to post Share on other sites
str8fuknpimpin Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 well, i suck at articulation, or, better yet, i ralley against it, somewhat like i ralley against sexuality...but, anyway, i'll try to explain as best as possible.... hipsterdoofus, your post reminded me of an article in a magazine (forgotten title) (actually, the same one i found the asex. article in). not to be offensive, :) and you are so more than welcome to hang here, but i'm not sure if your situation is asexual...maybe like 45%, but i wouldn't say 50% or above... (that's just me dude, i am so not all-knowing though:wink:) the article was just about how some young men (20's and 30's) who finally find a marriage/other partner, and who have not, in the past, had any relationships (or, have had only a very few)...well, when they do get into a marriage/partnership (and assuming they are sexual), they gain confidence from their partner, and then later frequently partake in infidelity (i think, usually, with the masses of 'those very horney', found on the numerous websites where everybody cheers for casual sex) :lol: the article in totale was about how this, above described situation, was becoming a fad...young men don't have confidence, young men finally get married, and then, young men turn into middle-aged men who seek infidelity-opportunities often. not that this is you dude. i was just stating the article, and then summing it up, incase you relate...(and not to the infidelity part, just the 'will eventually find someone you're comfortable with, and then gain confidence' part) :) anyway, have faith. the confidence will come. (or else a non-anxiety-producing female will come) :) Link to post Share on other sites
Orbit Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Men of course have those same risks, plus the added risk of imprisonment if for some reason the woman decided to send him there by claiming rape. ....video tape incase the man would ever need it for his defense if that situation arose. But still, way too risky in my book. WHOA!!! :shock: The risks you are talking about are completely valid - It totally makes sense to me that you wouldn't want to have sex with someone you thought might give you an infection, get pregnant or cry rape. But there are ways to reduce these risks other than the 'mechanics' you're talking about in your post... It's called a trusting relationship. ;) Maybe it's not sex you're afraid of, but finding someone you trust enough to do it with. Again - completely a valid fear. There are a lot of creeps and creepettes in the world who don't share the same risk aversions and sometimes it does seem easier to just not be in a relationship than to work on one that might go south. From your posts in this thread it sounds like you're focusing on women for sex, but that might just be because of the topic and you haven't opened up more... Do you have women friends you trust? I don't mean women you want to have sex with, but women who you would trust wouldn't do this to you if you DID want to have sex with them. (And they with you) If the answer is no - you don't have any trustworthy women in your life, that might be the problem... just a hunch. hawke <- 35 year old who used to not trust men when it came to sex ps Julievir - you made sense to me. :) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts