Why Asexual Relationships Matter Part 2:Sex is like Steroids

[AVENguy]

The social function of sex, what sex accomplishes, cannot be separated from the notion of sexual desire. Arguably, when sex doesn’t accomplish anything it ceases to be pleasurable. Even the most hedonistic sexuality is couched in a complicated web of self image and social status. If, as I indicated earlier, most people experience a strong need to form sexual relationships then it seems logical to conclude that there is something very important in those relationships which can only be accomplished with sex. Sexual relationships are desirable, in other words, because sex lets you do things in relationships which are otherwise impossible.

I like to call this the “Sex is Like Steroids” theory. Take any relationship between two people, add sex and everything will get bigger, brawnier, harrier. If relationships were football players, sexual relationships would dominate the field while relationships that didn’t involve sex would benchwarm, fill in the gaps and generally do their best to stay out of the way. This kind of hierarchy is mimicked fairly closely in our society, so much so that in most contexts the word “relationship” refers exclusively to those involving sexuality. Only relationships involving sexuality are seen as strong enough to form the basis form long-term commitment and the formation of a family. Even the way that they think about that commitment is sexual. Sexual fidelity is based around the idea that the only thing which can seriously challenge a sexual relationship is another sexual relationship. Having only one sexual relationship in your life means that that relationship will always reign supreme.

Viewed from this perspective it makes sense why so many people would think that sex is a prerequisite for happiness. Without sexuality someone is incapable of forming any sort of stable emotional connection, because that connection will constantly get steamrolled by whatever sexual relationship happens to wander by. An asexual person would be forced to huddle in the corner, grabbing whatever scraps of intimacy the sexual relationships surrounding her let fall to the ground.

Though the “Sex is Like Steroids” theory is pretty widely accepted in one form or another, it has a few serious problems. First off, there’s nothing really unique about sex. All of the individual brain chemicals and arousal patterns which occur during sex occur in other contexts as well. What counts as “sexuality” in one relationship may bear almost no similarity physically or biochemically to what counts as sexuality in another (in the right context holding hands can “sexualize” a relationship just as much as full-blown sex.) The only thing which sexual activity consistently involves that nonsexual activity consistently doesn’t is the label, in many instances the same activity can be labeled sexual or nonsexual depending on the context. If there are relationship-steroids in sexual activity but not in other activity, then where are they located? If what people call “sexuality” is not neurochemically, or physically consistent then we must conclude that they are located in the label itself.

This is not unheard of. In a now-famous study, researchers randomly labeled a group of test subjects as “prisoners” and “guards” and observed the creation of an all encompassing, even brutal social hierarchy. Could the labels “sexual” and “nonsexual” have similar power? Though most of what we now call sex has been going on throughout the course of human history, the modern concept of “sexuality” dates back only to the latter half of the 19th century. Though the process of reproduction has been important in one way or another in almost every culture in history, the notion of a category of “sexual” activity is a wholly modern and western concept. The idea that valid intimacy can only occur in the context of such relationships is equally western and modern. Throughout history and around the world cultures have drawn very different lines between “erotic” and “mundane” pleasure (often such a line is not drawn at all), and relationships involving the erotic are not necessarily granted a heightened social status. In our culture the idea that sexual relationships “count” in a way that nonsexual relationships do not has been deeply ingrained, not because of some neurochemical mojo, but because sexuality is one of the primary ways that our culture organizes relationships and intimacy.

Sex is not like steroids, sex is like money. It is socially constructed, extremely fluid, and therefore much more powerful than raw chemical brawn. If money is the system by which we organize our economic activities, sexuality is the system by which we organize our intimate activities. Sexuality is, among other things, an important process by which we imbue relationships with social value. When we want relationships to matter we want them to be sexual, when we don’t want them to matter we don’t. We know that if we label a relationship with someone as “sexual” (whether through wild sex or holding hands) it will elevate the relationship to a special status in the mind of our partner. If our friends learn about it they will treat the relationship with increased interest and respect. So pervasive is this force that many sexual relationships cannot avoid acquiring social status even when they wish to do so. Convoluted titles like “fuckbuddies” and “friends with benefits” demonstrate that sexual status must be explicitly rejected. Being sexual makes you “more than friends” unless one explicitly states otherwise, and even such an explicit statement will often fail to convince friends and family.

Sex makes relationships matter, and therefore our desire for relationships that matter cannot be separated from our desire for sex . The sexual things that people feel are deeply woven into a system that marks some tags some of their relationships as brawny football players and others as bony scrubs, the way that sexual people experience even their most personal, instinctual sexuality is connected with the importance that sex places on relationships. Conversely, thinking about relationships without sex is as near-impossible as comprehending global trade without dollars, euros and yen.

[Chronicler]

Hehehe; we JUST studied the Zimbardo thing (prisons and guards) in Psychology...freaky stuff. Meanwhile, while your points do stand true, I wish they weren't. Not because of you, of course. I just wish that asexuals didn't have to get the scraps. I always thought "relationship" implied sexuality, too--as that's how norms of society convey that. I've also always referred to as a relationship without sexuality as having a "higher emotional connection"--I don't understand why sexuality has to be this dominant force because it seems like it would soon degenerate. Not always; just sometimes...or maybe it's just my being weird; I don't know. Another good viewpoint, though.

[Jael L]

Sexual fidelity is based around the idea that the only thing which can seriously challenge a sexual relationship is another sexual relationship. Having only one sexual relationship in your life means that that relationship will always reign supreme.

This reminded me of a friend once telling me that she would be more jealous of her partner taking a future partner to their old haunts (they used to visit stately homes together) than any sexual infidelity. So maybe some sexual relationships are posited on other forms of connection? Which gives weight to your theory about the pre-eminence of sexual relationships being an artificial social construct.

Incidentally, the warders and prisoners study was repeated in England recently with vastly different results from the earlier experiment. The warders bent over backwards to create a democratic environment while the prisoners split into factions, some reciprocating and others vying for supremacy in power struggles over their jailers who aquiesced to all their demands. The milder prisoners eventually came to the rescue of the beleagured guards.

[jakendy]

It is a sad thing, really..but you are right..it seems that nowadays and for the last what? 50 years or more , the only important relationship is the one between a man and a woman that also has to involve the pshysical intimacy ..and not because our species must survive thru children , but because sex it's obviously at least as important as the feelings..not only that, but today is very unnatural and damaging for the individuals not to have it (we all have to release the tension, now don't we? :roll: ) or it's not normal nor healthy if a long-term relationship it's based only on feelings ..while a relationship without feelings , based on just 'doing it' it's the most natural thing in the world (and I must insist on the 'not for procreational purposes') and quite healthy as well, if you're using all the means for protection ..well,excuse me for not rushing into someone else's bed!!

We all know that it sells and we all know that not everyone is buying it..so it's so easy to understand why the whole concept of 'if you're not doing it then you'll die/fail in the relationship/ have major health problems in the future' is slowly becoming a law of life and also why this physical intimacy is being pushed forward into almost every aspect of our lives..and all of this is just for the nookie!

it's not because it's true..we all know that the only tension a human being can suffer from on this case, it's not being a parent/not having a life-partner/loneliness..and honestly , the worst thing you can have is not feeling fulfilled..and yeah, Miss Modern Society just comes and tells us all that sex (based on feelings or no) it's the cure, and that the lack of it is the source of our unhappines..yeah, RIGHT..and my name is Mary Poppins!

We are talking about the same Madam Society that believes chians and whips and almost any kind of fetishe that releases the tension in a couple is good if it serves a right purpose (bringing back the pleasure in a relationship)

Let's just imagine that in the next 20 years all of the scientists/psychologists etc are coming to the conclusion that we don't really need sex, except for having babies..and that it's really damaging both to the mind and the body if we're doing it often and just for the fun...then it will seem very normal for one to choose not to have this kind of relationship and unnatural for one to insist on having it very often..so it's all about what we are told and how much we believe it..I know you guys are not buying it, I just wish that sexuals will see the truth as well.

Congrats on all of the 3 parts AvenGuy :D , it looks like you did some 'research' on the boards ..good theories, they seem perfectly logical to me

and I'm still keeping my previous statement, if the nasty sexuals would read them, I think they will finally understand..they look like very objective statements and even the sceptical ones can't deny the proofs..

[AVENguy]

One time I wrote an essay entitled "Everything I Know About Intimacy I Learned From Studying Bondage." Though I can conpletely understand why you would have reservations about flails and handcuffs, the problem here is NOT sexual diversity. Nor is it sex.

Time for a new metaphore: Coffee. There is absolutely nothing wrong with coffee. Sure it has a few potential negative side effects, but so long as people are aware of them they have every right to whatever exotic blend of coffee suits their palette. You don't live life by avoiding the side effects.

Coffee becomes a problem when you are addicted, when you NEED (and don't just want) it. Once you need coffee it becomes entirely possible that the bad it brings into your life will outweigh the good. When it makes sense to have less you won't be able to, and the problems associated with coffee can quickly baloon out of control.

Much of corporate culture in the US fetishizes coffee. Addiction to coffee is not only tolerated, it is actively encouraged. You are told that you NEED to be addicted to coffee if you want to be a productive member of the corporate workforce (ie if you want to survive.) The result is not only a negative impact on the health (and therefore productivity, both economically and culturally) of that workforce but also an overinflated global coffee market rife with exploitative labor practices.

The answer is NOT to say that only one type of coffee should be available, nor is it to limit the circumstances under which coffee can be consumed. What you have to do is:

A) Acknowledge that even though coffee is rich, delicious, and pleasurable the fact that people drink it so much has alot to do with cultural forces.

B) Start examining those cultural forces and

C) Offer an alternative, more appealing cultural system in which coffee is no longer as relevant. (If you need coffee to get through your day then maybe you should rethink your day. Here are some ways to do that...)

[AVENguy]

(What's that you say? In order to cut back on the use of coffee you would have to radically restructure corporate culture to wholistically value the people [and perhaps other resources] that it interacts with as people with a value to the corporation that goes beyond the units of labor that they can produce per hour and the number of hours that they spend producing it, thereby creating a corporate system that, through its expanded vision of value, would be able to produce MORE benefit to society while engaging in practices that are less socially and environmentally exploitive? Well shucks. Let's not do that then.)