Sexual Compromise & Support

[Ceebs]

On 4/1/2024 at 7:07 PM, mostweasel said:

And are there any you believe could be a valid substitute for sex itself?

No.

 

That's basically my entire answer. I agree with Ollie about other forms of intimacy being important too of course, but I think it's absurd and also often ignorant and insensitive when people make the suggestion of trying to find activities that might be an actual substitute. There is not one.

[Windmills of My Mind]

I agree with Ollie and Ceebs.

With the usual disclaimer that I am speaking for myself. Things may be different for others.

[Sally]

I'm asexual, but having had relationships with two sexuals and having been very familiar with how they felt about sex, I can't imagine them being satisfied with some ephemeral "substitute" for sex.  I think that suggestion has mostly been put forward by asexuals who don't understand why sexuals actually want sex.  

[Windmills of My Mind]

Nailed it Sally 📌🔨

[jinglebell24]

Building Trust in a Relationship: Finding Support and Discussing Compromises

 

Hello,

I'm best described as "sapiosexual" but it doesn't sit with me well (there's no other easy one word to explain it currently) --> I experience attraction across a spectrum, desiring emotional, mental, and physical intimacy. This range may change depending on my partner and who I interact with (platonic or romantic), but I desire something mental more so than physical. I prefer physical intimacy, esp anything sexual, with women-aligned individuals. 

My wonderful ace partner doesn't usually enjoy physical touch and intimacy, but occasionally is open to it with boundaries. I'm happy to prioritize the mental/emotional bond we can build and the emotional bond my partner prefers. I'd still appreciate the occasional hand-holding, caress, or hug to feel less platonic.

 

Sometimes I wonder if they truly believe I want this deeper connection over a primarily physical one.

 

How can I better understand my partner's perspective when they hear me express this?

Has anyone else navigated a similar dynamic? How did you build trust and non-sexual intimacy early on?

 

I'm open to all insights and advice.
Thank you for your understanding!
 

[Ceebs]

1 hour ago, jinglebell24 said:

I experience attraction across a spectrum, desiring emotional, mental, and physical intimacy. This range may change depending on my partner and who I interact with (platonic or romantic), but I desire something mental more so than physical.

This is what the vast majority of sexual people want in a serious, committed, long-term, loving relationship. The sexual desire and connection are part of the overall mental and emotional one, part of loving each other. You don't set up a life together, get married, etc., based on wanting to shag. What you're describing is not at all unique and isn't 'sapiosexuality'.

[jinglebell24]

52 minutes ago, Ceebs said:

This is what the vast majority of sexual people want in a serious, committed, long-term, loving relationship. The sexual desire and connection are part of the overall mental and emotional one, part of loving each other. You don't set up a life together, get married, etc., based on wanting to shag. What you're describing is not at all unique and isn't 'sapiosexuality'.

You're right, strong relationships definitely need a connection that goes beyond physical sex!

 

I think where my situation might be different is that my desires fluctuate. Also, mental connection is not an emotional connection nor is it the non-physical chemistry part of a relationship too (yes we all get old and our physical appearance changes). The mental connection is a purely abstract connection like answering the question, 'Who am I' but as 'Who are we?' in a relationship (i.e. self-actualization). 

 

I value interpersonal closeness and intellectual connection, and that can often helps me feel connected, much more so, to the point where it replaces my desire for physical intimacy. My partner was surprised that a discussion of Plato could turn me away from wanting to be physically intimate immediately.

 

I am trying to find a compromise since we experience this differently.

 

My partner is ace, and while I value mental and emotional connection sexually, my partner does not experience that connection as inherently sexual. That difference is what I'm hoping to understand better. We have agreed the physical part is just a neural activity. 

 

Do you have any thoughts on how I can communicate this clearly to my partner?

 

How can I explore ways to build a strong mental and emotional bond that feels fulfilling for both of us, even if it manifests differently for each of us? 

[Ceebs]

1 hour ago, jinglebell24 said:

mental connection is not an emotional connection

I'm not sure what that really means, because whilst those words are not perfect synonyms, in the context of having romantic feelings for someone, they may as well be. Intellectual, mental and emotional are all tied up in desiring the person for who they are as an individual. Of course one can have an intellectual or emotional connection with someone like a friend or family member as well, but in a partnership it's kind of all together and that's why you fall for them.

 

1 hour ago, jinglebell24 said:

I value interpersonal closeness and intellectual connection, and that can often helps me feel connected, much more so, to the point where it replaces my desire for physical intimacy.

But you still want physical -- sexual -- intimacy to some degree, correct? Otherwise there would be no issue here, you'd be ok in a sexless relationship.

 

1 hour ago, jinglebell24 said:

I am trying to find a compromise since we experience this differently.

 

My partner is ace, and while I value mental and emotional connection sexually, my partner does not experience that connection as inherently sexual. That difference is what I'm hoping to understand better.

The difference is simply that you experience that type of connection in a way that results in a desire for sexual intimacy and they don't. Since they're asexual, that's not going to change. No matter how much you explain and they understand, you have a desire for sex in the relationship and they don't. This is no one's fault, it's just who you both are.

 

Edit: Just asked my partner's input on this (neither of us is asexual) and in his words, 'they're not going to be persuaded by logic that they want to fuck'. Asexuals do not desire sex. Perhaps the best you can hope for is more hand-holding, hugs, etc. since you mentioned that was lacking as well. But then I don't know your partner. Some people don't enjoy non-sexual physical intimacy either. If that's not innate to them, then it's unlikely to change -- or to be particularly fulfilling if they feel coerced into it or like they owe you more touch. On the other hand, if they're fine with it and just haven't understood that it's important to you, you might be able to work on that a little.

 

1 hour ago, jinglebell24 said:

We have agreed the physical part is just a neural activity. 

Are you sure that's just how you view it? Of course on a basic biological level it's all brain chemistry, but that doesn't mean that it can be dismissed as unimportant in some way. I'm not even sure that's what you're trying to do, although phrasing it that way is certainly not helpful in terms of your partner understanding your desire for sexual intimacy.

 

1 hour ago, jinglebell24 said:

Do you have any thoughts on how I can communicate this clearly to my partner?

Again... not entirely sure what you're trying to communicate. They know that you want sex, correct? And that you also value other forms of connection? Knowing that you want to connect in multiple different ways is not going to convince them to have sex if they don't want to have sex, unless they're not actually asexual (to be clear, I am NOT suggesting that's the case) and they think that's the only thing you value and therefore don't want to be sexually intimate without other types of intimacy as well (again, that doesn't sound like the case).

 

1 hour ago, jinglebell24 said:

How can I explore ways to build a strong mental and emotional bond that feels fulfilling for both of us, even if it manifests differently for each of us? 

Do you not already have one? Do you think that if you somehow strengthen that bond even more, sex will result? How long have you been together? What's the relationship history here, like how did you end up together, declaring yourselves in a relationship?

[jinglebell24]

1 hour ago, Ceebs said:

I'm not sure what that really means, because whilst those words are not perfect synonyms, in the context of having romantic feelings for someone, they may as well be. Intellectual, mental and emotional are all tied up in desiring the person for who they are as an individual. Of course one can have an intellectual or emotional connection with someone like a friend or family member as well, but in a partnership it's kind of all together and that's why you fall for them.

 

But you still want physical -- sexual -- intimacy to some degree, correct? Otherwise there would be no issue here, you'd be ok in a sexless relationship.

 

The difference is simply that you experience that type of connection in a way that results in a desire for sexual intimacy and they don't. Since they're asexual, that's not going to change. No matter how much you explain and they understand, you have a desire for sex in the relationship and they don't. This is no one's fault, it's just who you both are.

 

Edit: Just asked my partner's input on this (neither of us is asexual) and in his words, 'they're not going to be persuaded by logic that they want to fuck'. Asexuals do not desire sex. Perhaps the best you can hope for is more hand-holding, hugs, etc. since you mentioned that was lacking as well. But then I don't know your partner. Some people don't enjoy non-sexual physical intimacy either. If that's not innate to them, then it's unlikely to change -- or to be particularly fulfilling if they feel coerced into it or like they owe you more touch. On the other hand, if they're fine with it and just haven't understood that it's important to you, you might be able to work on that a little.

 

Are you sure that's just how you view it? Of course on a basic biological level it's all brain chemistry, but that doesn't mean that it can be dismissed as unimportant in some way. I'm not even sure that's what you're trying to do, although phrasing it that way is certainly not helpful in terms of your partner understanding your desire for sexual intimacy.

 

Again... not entirely sure what you're trying to communicate. They know that you want sex, correct? And that you also value other forms of connection? Knowing that you want to connect in multiple different ways is not going to convince them to have sex if they don't want to have sex, unless they're not actually asexual (to be clear, I am NOT suggesting that's the case) and they think that's the only thing you value and therefore don't want to be sexually intimate without other types of intimacy as well (again, that doesn't sound like the case).

 

Do you not already have one? Do you think that if you somehow strengthen that bond even more, sex will result? How long have you been together? What's the relationship history here, like how did you end up together, declaring yourselves in a relationship?

Thank you for sharing your perspective! It helps me see that intimacy and sex work differently for different people.

 

I don't find it helpful to dissect and question every statement from the perspective that I somehow only want physical sex, which, to be frank, very offensive to me, but I digress. I will only say that sexuality and sex is more than just a desire for physical sexual intercourse (your questions and responses seem to suggest that is all I want). 

 

My experience is that while I value strong emotional and mental connections such that it may arouse sexual desires they don't translate automatically into wanting physical sex. My partner has helped me to explain it as a neural activity, which is cringey, but it works for us since my partner has no desire for anything sexual. The language limits us to calling it 'sexual' since it is the same brain chemical process, but I honestly prefer to just call it romance. 

 

At times, I may even say, 'I want a sexual connection,' just to communicate my deep feelings and desire for a deeper connection, but I may not seek it physically, which can make some people feel confused or rejected. That is very confusing for my partner (and many people) because it's different from how many people understand sexuality.

 

Physical touch is one way I have learned to differntiate it from a platonic relationship, which does not have the same emotional and mental depth to me (i.e. I don't desire to share my personal space with a platonic friend). Reason why I may do it is because I have gotten in trouble (i.e. sending mixed messages) with physical allosexual people for not being physical enough when I want to have a deeper relationship. So, it is simply a declaration of intent in a way.

 

But this is my first time with a partner who identifies as ace, hence my first time being with someone willing to seek something more than just something physical, which is appealing to me, and that is why I am here -- that is all. I don't plan to give details of our private relationship. That is something sacred to me that I only discuss at a high level with my closest friends. 

 

Right now, our different perspectives on 'what is sex' and 'what is intimacy' create misunderstandings. I want to build a fulfilling emotional bond, something we are open to trying to explore in order to navigate our differences since we share some similiar ways of expressing romantic interest, but I worry my partner thinks that any desire for a deeper connection on my part ultimately means wanting physical sex.

 

So, I guess that I'm particularly interested in understanding how to navigate a physical ace/allo relationship, where my partner might interpret my desire for emotional and mental connection as solely leading to physical intimacy since I don't fully understand that dynamic. It may help me to explain how I am different.

 

Perhaps someone else here has navigated a similar dynamic and could share their insights on building a strong emotional and mental bond that feels fulfilling for both partners, especially when the experiences of emotional, mental, and physical intimacy differs significantly -- this could give me a place to start.

 

If this isn't the right thread, then I may have to keep searching for a different thread.

 

P.S. I will admit that it is hard for me to explain, because I think many people see sex as just physical sex, which is the dominating definition in our world.  

[Windmills of My Mind]

13 minutes ago, jinglebell24 said:

I don't find it helpful to dissect and question every statement from the perspective that I somehow only want physical sex, which, to be frank, very offensive to me, but I digress. I will only say that sexuality and sex is more than just a desire for physical sexual intercourse (your questions and responses seem to suggest that is all I want).

 

14 minutes ago, jinglebell24 said:

P.S. I will admit that it is hard for me to explain, because I think many people see sex as just physical sex, which is the dominating definition in our world.  

 

Just taking these snippets to comment on. One thing I have learned over time is that the activity of sex can be defined, experienced and valued in a wide variety of ways. Some people may see it as "just physical sex". Which I interpret as the physical activities, without regard for presence of an emotional, romantic or other connection. To some this can be what they desire. Some even don't seem to desire anything more around sex. For others, that view of sex is utterly shallow and meaningless. They cannot see it as a mere physical activity. While the presence of the physical aspect is indispensable, the other aspects that are also involved together with the physical activities create the true value of sex. Personally, I think this can, like many other aspects of the human psyche, be seen as a spectrum. All those who desire something sexual in their lives are somewhere on this spectrum.

 

Some are mostly at the extreme where a deep emotional, intellectual, romantic or other connection must first be solidly in place before any sexual desire may spark.

 

At the extreme other end, people may see someone and instantly think: they are hot! How I'd love to shag their brains out! No need for talking, connecting, whatever, the person looks hot and I'd like to do sexual things with them.

 

I have a strong opinion that we cannot judge one another on where we are on this spectrum. I am sexual and I know that I need sexual activities in my life. But I can not find that in superficial contacts with a person I don't know at all. Someone may have a totally hot body (yeah, I can see that and appreciate it in and off itself), but if I don't like the personality that comes with it then I do not desire to actually get hands on sexual with them. On the other hand, I do not absolutely require a very deep and long lasting emotional, intellectual, romantic connection. I could have sex with someone I truly like without being in love, without falling in love. I do absolutely need to like them. Up to the point that I tend to find a woman more attractive the more I like her personality.

 

To some sex is just the physical activity. To you it may seem as though mental aspects are almost enough to feel like sex to you. I have yet another way of desiring and experiencing sex. All are valid. It does make things complicated if partners are at a very different place on that spectrum. They may find it hard to find common ground in the way sex works for them.

 

Does that make sense?

[Ceebs]

2 hours ago, jinglebell24 said:

I don't find it helpful to dissect and question every statement from the perspective that I somehow only want physical sex, which, to be frank, very offensive to me, but I digress. I will only say that sexuality and sex is more than just a desire for physical sexual intercourse (your questions and responses seem to suggest that is all I want). 

My entire point was basically assuming that sex is NOT just about the physical act for you -- you seem to make that quite clear, and this is the case for most sexual people -- but that you do indeed want some amount sexual intimacy, precisely because it's 'not just sex'. Is this correct?

 

2 hours ago, jinglebell24 said:

physical sex

You've used this phrase multiple times. What does it mean to you? Sex is inherently a physical activity. Expressing sexual desire does not always result in having sex, and simply expressing desire at times even when no sex is happening is usually important to most people -- my partner and I express desire for each other far more often than it would even be physically possible to have sex -- but the act of sex is a physical one. Are you saying that you'd be fulfilled by expressing your sexuality within your relationship in a way that doesn't involve physical sex acts? What does that look like? Is the problem primarily that you're lacking emotional/mental/intellectual intimacy? Would you be happy in a relationship if you never had sex at all?

 

For the purposes of this conversation btw, I'm using the term 'sex' to mean a partnered physical activity that involves sexual arousal. It may or may not involve deeper emotional connection between the participants, but it literally always involves something physical happening, whether it's PIV sex, oral sex, manual sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, even phone sex... you get the gist.

 

2 hours ago, jinglebell24 said:

Reason why I may do it is because I have gotten in trouble (i.e. sending mixed messages) with physical allosexual people for not being physical enough when I want to have a deeper relationship. So, it is simply a declaration of intent in a way.

 

But this is my first time with a partner who identifies as ace, hence my first time being with someone willing to seek something more than just something physical, which is appealing to me, and that is why I am here -- that is all.

Ok, so it appears that you've had some issues in the past with partners who want more sex than you do, and who apparently do not desire 'something more than just something physical', as you described it. Which I think comes off as a bit skewed, because although we're all well aware that sometimes a sexual relationship/casual interaction/whatever with nothing deeper involved is what some people want under certain circumstances, that's generally not the case in serious relationships. You make it sound as if sexual people get into relationships to have sex and asexual ones get into relationships for other types of what you perceive to be more meaningful intimacy. Which of course is incorrect, in the sense that the only difference between romantic sexual people and romantic asexual people is that asexuals don't want sex and sexuals do. We all desire all the other components though, all the other forms of intimacy and connection.

 

If this is your first experience in a relationship that isn't just about sex, then fair enough. Your perspective seems to be based on that, which is not representative of most sexual people.

 

2 hours ago, jinglebell24 said:

because I think many people see sex as just physical sex

Yes, this is where I think you're wrong. The fact that sometimes people want things like hookups or a 'friend with benefits' does not mean that that's what most of us want when it comes to sexual intimacy in a loving relationship. 
 

2 hours ago, jinglebell24 said:

I don't plan to give details of our private relationship. That is something sacred to me that I only discuss at a high level with my closest friends. 

That's up to you of course. I asked you those questions in order to gain more understanding of the connection you have with your partner, and therefore potentially be more helpful in my replies. You're certainly not required to share anything you don't want to, but people here do tend to be fairly open because that's how these conversations are able to help those in mixed relationships understand and navigate the situation.

[uhtred]

I look at a relationship as sort of links in a chain, in the sense that many different things may be necessary, and none is clearly  more important than another. Remove one link, for example sex,  and it doesn't matter how good the other links are.   There may be some cross linking, some cases where one link being especially good makes others less important, but there are also some that absolutes - the relationship simply cannot function with out them. 

 

This is why in many cases, trying to substitute for sex simply doesn't work.  I think its a common idea because for asexuals, sex is a most a non-critical link, and more often not a positive at all, so it can be difficult to imagine how it can be essential for others.  (I've experienced my wife clearly trying to substitute other things for sex - and how difficult it is for her to understand). 

 

This discussion is about sex, but for most people there are many other essential links.  Most people will not want to stay in a relationship with someone who is deeply dishonest, or cruel, or selfish, or lacking in many other desirable human traits.  

 

Sex, or any of these other things, being essential for someone in a successful relationship does not mean its has to be exclusive to that.   Its quite possible for someone to need sex as a essential link in a romantic relationship, but to also enjoy casual sex outside of a romantic relationship.   I don't know how common that is, but I don't see anything inconsistent about it.

 

[Frameshift07]

3 hours ago, uhtred said:

I look at a relationship as sort of links in a chain, in the sense that many different things may be necessary, and none is clearly  more important than another. Remove one link, for example sex,  and it doesn't matter how good the other links are.   There may be some cross linking, some cases where one link being especially good makes others less important, but there are also some that absolutes - the relationship simply cannot function with out them. 

 

This is why in many cases, trying to substitute for sex simply doesn't work.  I think its a common idea because for asexuals, sex is a most a non-critical link, and more often not a positive at all, so it can be difficult to imagine how it can be essential for others.  (I've experienced my wife clearly trying to substitute other things for sex - and how difficult it is for her to understand). 

 

This discussion is about sex, but for most people there are many other essential links.  Most people will not want to stay in a relationship with someone who is deeply dishonest, or cruel, or selfish, or lacking in many other desirable human traits.  

 

Sex, or any of these other things, being essential for someone in a successful relationship does not mean its has to be exclusive to that.   Its quite possible for someone to need sex as a essential link in a romantic relationship, but to also enjoy casual sex outside of a romantic relationship.   I don't know how common that is, but I don't see anything inconsistent about it.

I've been meaning to ask something, and this looks like an excellent opportunity to do so with your chain analogy. I can see other parts of the chain being important because they tie into how pleasant a person actually is to hang out with (which sounds incredibly important before anything romantic or even sexual that might drive them to live together), when sexual release is something you could theoretically get from anyone all the same. After all, dishonesty, cruelty and selfishness are fundamental traits (and I'd imagine an actually abusive relationship would suck), but I don't see how sex fits in with those traits. So this is what I wanted to ask, what makes a lack of sex as fundamental in this chain as a partner being cruel and selfish?

[Olallieberry]

51 minutes ago, Frameshift07 said:

what makes a lack of sex as fundamental in this chain as a partner being cruel and selfish

Everyone's different. To some people, it's not. To some people, it is. Who's to say "what" makes it that way. I don't even know what kind of an answer would suit a question like this. God? I'm not trying to dismiss or belittle your question, I just don't think there's a way to answer it satisfyingly.

 

I mean, you're right, sex is not "like" cruelty. That doesn't mean they can't both be critical to some particular person. And if that person isn't you, well, you can ask about it, but I'm not sure it will go anywhere.

[uhtred]

3 hours ago, Frameshift07 said:

I've been meaning to ask something, and this looks like an excellent opportunity to do so with your chain analogy. I can see other parts of the chain being important because they tie into how pleasant a person actually is to hang out with (which sounds incredibly important before anything romantic or even sexual that might drive them to live together), when sexual release is something you could theoretically get from anyone all the same. After all, dishonesty, cruelty and selfishness are fundamental traits (and I'd imagine an actually abusive relationship would suck), but I don't see how sex fits in with those traits. So this is what I wanted to ask, what makes a lack of sex as fundamental in this chain as a partner being cruel and selfish?

I picked lack of negative traits because it was easier just as an example of the chain concept, but there are positive traits that are more similar to sex. Some more similar examples:
 

Having compatible goals in life:  If one person's goal is to backpack the entire pacific coast trail and other great hikes for half of each year, and the other person wants a fast paced life moving up the corporate ladder, they really can't both have what they want and stay together

 

Having compatible risk tolerance:  if one wants to go rock climbing, cave diving, and drives race cars, while the other thinks the 55 mph speed limit is there for a good reason, they will not do well together.  

 

Having the same opinion on whether or not to have children. If one person needs children to feel their life is fulfilled, an the other does not want children, there is no "compromise" possible.

 

Having compatible religious beliefs:  No one can be happy  in a relationship with someone they truly believe is going to hell.

 

Having similar levels of what I'd call "drive":  If one is happy sitting on the sofa watching netflix and having a beer, while the other wants to always be active, work, travel, play, whatever, it won't work. 

 

Sex is similar: Not just whether they both want sex, but whether their ideas of sex are compatible.   If one person only likes candle light and soft music, and the other thinks the fun hasn't really started until the handcuffs and [redacted] are brought out, and they [redacted] until [redacted].    Their ideas of "sex" are too far apart.

 

 

You said:  "...when sexual release is something you could theoretically get from anyone all the same".   But that isn't really how it works for most people.   In most long term relationships, one person can do miscellaneous fun things with friends, but not their partner, if their partner isn't interested, but generally sex isn't on that list.  For couples where sex with others is OK, that does sometimes solve the incompatibility problem. 

 

Also for many, there is an emotional / romantic side to sex. They don't want sex with anyone, they want sex with the person they love - and in some cases will fall in love with the person they have sex with.  For many, sex is not about "release",  almost everyone can get themselves off more quickly and easily than a partner can - but that isn't sex.  Its sort of like reading the first and last page of a mystery book to save all the time reading about the details - it misses the point of the activity.