Jump to content

My asexual Partner prefers to masturbate then do anything with me 


Ryker_Corney

Recommended Posts

Eh, I never really understood the masturbation issue. My partner does it and I couldn't be less bothered by it. Masturbation and sex are very different to me, and there are times when I want one but not the other, so it just always seemed understandable to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's the thing. 'No sex' is pretty much equivalent to 'no talking no cuddles'. It's not a matter of intellectually accepting their word. I'm sure both sides do. The point is about feeling loved, which is different to not accepting something rational. We don't get to choose how we feel on either side.

That may be how the sexual reacts. But that isn't necessarily what the asexual says. Possible situation: the asexual says they like talking and cuddles but not sex. The sexual says if there's no sex, talking and cuddles just aren't on, because those things come before sex (i.e., if the sexual regards talk and cuddles as a preliminary to sex). In that situation, the relationship just won't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I never really understood the masturbation issue. My partner does it and I couldn't be less bothered by it. Masturbation and sex are very different to me, and there are times when I want one but not the other, so it just always seemed understandable to me.

Yup. Heck, if masturbation and sex aren't completely different things, then it would really be high time to ask why sexuals in mixed 'ships don't just masturbate and leave their ace partners alone already about the whole partnered sex thing. If they're more or less the same, then sexuals would really have no valid reason whatsoever to make a fuss over lack of sex, and should be fine and dandy with simply abstaining from sex indefinitely as long as they have two healthy hands.

The answer, of course, is that masturbation and partnered sex are completely different matters, and should not be equated. The question of whether or not one's partner masturbates simply has jack squat to do with the couple's (triad's, etc.) sex life with each other.

Personally, I would never include another person in masturbation - that thought is revolting to me. I still have to go through that chore (damn libido needs taking care of <_<), but I will always do so alone - whether I'm with a partner or not has nothing to do with it. Having another person interact with my genitals is simply not an option, fullstop. If someone - partner or not - has a problem with that, that's their problem; I won't let it become mine. (In all likelihood, I'd simply suggest breaking up/not being partners in the first place if they showed having a problem with that and can't easily get over it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
That may be how the sexual reacts. But that isn't necessarily what the asexual says.

The point is that asexuals say one thing, which the sexual generally really wants and tries to believe. But then they behave in a way that contradicts it, to a sexual. And behaviour always strikes deeper than what people say, whether you want it to or not.

The question of whether or not one's partner masturbates simply has jack squat to do with the couple's (triad's, etc.) sex life with each other.

I'm not saying sex with someone and else and masturbation are the same - I'm saying they're both sexual. Logically, yes, they're unrelated. But then there's no reason cuddles and feeling loved are related, by that reasoning. So if the sexual partner says 'I love you but I don't want to cuddle you or anyone else', can you see how that would be a massive difficulty for someone who found cuddles a vital (though not exclusive) way they expressed and received love?

If someone - partner or not - has a problem with that, that's their problem; I won't let it become mine.

But that won't work, whether it's cuddles, sex, or any other way of sharing intimacy. If one partner feels their needs are being dismissed with 'that's your problem', it's an issue for the relationship, and like it or not, that becomes your problem too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone - partner or not - has a problem with that, that's their problem; I won't let it become mine.

But that won't work, whether it's cuddles, sex, or any other way of sharing intimacy. If one partner feels their needs are being dismissed with 'that's your problem', it's an issue for the relationship, and like it or not, that becomes your problem too.

Of course it works. It's not dismissing the partner's needs, it's making it clear that these needs are their own responsibility to take care of, not mine. They don't become mine just by being in a relationship.

The partner has the choice of accepting it and getting over it, or to leave the relationship. It really is not my problem, and a relationship style in which it would in any way become my problem would be far too symbiotic for my taste - we need to remain separate, autonomous individuals who spend quality time together, and who keep taking care of their own stuff on their own responsibility, not some kind of merged two-headed couplebeing. (Aristophanes' myth presented in the Symposion is an absolute horror story to me, and not for the cutting-in-half part... what's presented there as Zeus' punishment for humans - basically a fall from grace and a lost paradise - to me looks more like being mercifully being set free by Zeus to be true individuals for the first time ever.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that won't work, whether it's cuddles, sex, or any other way of sharing intimacy. If one partner feels their needs are being dismissed with 'that's your problem', it's an issue for the relationship, and like it or not, that becomes your problem too.

Yes, Mysticus would not be able to lead a mixed relationship. But I don't think that's your problem, really?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that won't work, whether it's cuddles, sex, or any other way of sharing intimacy. If one partner feels their needs are being dismissed with 'that's your problem', it's an issue for the relationship, and like it or not, that becomes your problem too.

Yes, Mysticus would not be able to lead a mixed relationship. But I don't think that's your problem, really?

Correction: I wouldn't be able to lead a mixed relationship with Telecaster. (And yeah, probably with most others... sexuals and aces alike. But not all.) It worked well enough with R. for over six years (counting out the last two or three months when she found out she wanted more than I could give her - but that doesn't invalidate the happiness that came before.)

My compatible "dating pool" is certainly minuscule, but it's already been quite solidly proven to be non-zero. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be able to lead a mixed relationship with Telecaster.

For which I think we're both probably profoundly grateful.... ;)

My point was really that there are areas in a relationships in general where you can't just say 'it's their problem' because it will impact on you whether you want it to or not. As Mysticus discovered, eventually.

The partner has the choice of accepting it and getting over it, or to leave the relationship

That is dismissing it. Not dismissing it would be 'we both have our needs, how can we both find a solution together'.

Obviously you're perfectly entitled to say that, but if they said 'we're having sex, deal with it, or leave', wouldn't you feel they were dismissing your needs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be able to lead a mixed relationship with Telecaster.

For which I think we're both probably profoundly grateful.... ;)

Well, I can agree with that much. :lol: :P

My point was really that there are areas in a relationships in general where you can't just say 'it's their problem' because it will impact on you whether you want it to or not. As Mysticus discovered, eventually.

I strongly disagree with that description of it. I did not eventually discover that. It still, to this day, was R.'s problem and hers alone - not mine, and not ours. And she ended up doing what was right for her - to end a relationship that no longer fit her needs (but which had fitted her needs for over six years just fine). Which is both her right, and her responsibility. How I deal with this end of the relationship, in turn, has never been R.'s problem, nor ours, but mine alone. Being/having been in a partnership doesn't absolve either of us from individual autonomy and personal responsibility, and never did; we have, thankfully, remained separate persons all these years long.

The partner has the choice of accepting it and getting over it, or to leave the relationship

That is dismissing it. Not dismissing it would be 'we both have our needs, how can we both find a solution together'.

I repeat: It's simply not my job to work on finding a solution for a problem that is solely the partner's own responsibility.

Obviously you're perfectly entitled to say that, but if they said 'we're having sex, deal with it, or leave', wouldn't you feel they were dismissing your needs?

No, I would be thinking they are threatening me with rape. That's a criminal offense, not just "dismissing needs" - and the correct response is not talking it out with them, but to get the hell away from them, and probably call the cops. People who say such things should not be in a relationship with anyone, period... and I will make absolutely sure they won't be in a relationship with me for a second longer. They have proven to be ragingly entitled psychopaths, and it's outrageous to expect me to even have a dialogue with them other that goes beyond "get out of my face, stat".

The simple fact is that you don't have a right to sex within or without a relationship. Noone ever has. End of story, deal with it, own it, and don't take it out on your partner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
. It still, to this day, was R.'s problem and hers alone - not mine, and not ours

That's only the case if you didn't care about the relationship ending, surely?

I repeat: It's simply not my job to work on finding a solution for a problem that is solely the partner's own responsibility.

But that isn't the problem. The problem is the mismatch. And by definition, that's partly about you, and your response to your half of it is 'my way or the highway'.

And even if it wasn't - most people in relationships want to help their partners when they're in pain, regardless of responsibility. If you can help, you do. Responsibility doesn't really come into it. (Obviously abusive relationships or your partner demanding you lie in court to get them off a murder charge would be different, but wanting some kind of sexual element in a relationship is hardly in that ballpark).

I would be thinking they are threatening me with rape.

Yep, and you'd be right. Which is why no sexual partner with a molecule of decency would even think of going near behaviour like that. We have no choice but to accept the asexual's choice, and in doing so we lose any control of our own sex lives unless we leave.

But we're getting off the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. It still, to this day, was R.'s problem and hers alone - not mine, and not ours

That's only the case if you didn't care about the relationship ending, surely?

You're wrong. However, I do care a lot more about the autonomy of either of us being threatened than about the continuation of the relationship. It's far better to be alone, than in a relationship that's stickily symbiotic. If a partner shows clear signs that they would be happier without our relationship, I will of course do my best to encourage them to break up with me in the name of freedom and happiness. Anything else would seem loveless and disrespectful.

But that isn't the problem. The problem is the mismatch. And by definition, that's partly about you, and your response to your half of it is 'my way or the highway'.

No, it's not partly about me. When entering a relationship with me, the potential partner has agreed to accept that sex between us is permanently off the table. If this agreement to the "relationship TOS" creates problems for them down the line, that is not my problem - it's theirs alone. They weren't forced to be in this relationship, and chose entering it out of their own accord. It has never been, and will never be, about me.

And even if it wasn't - most people in relationships want to help their partners when they're in pain, regardless of responsibility. If you can help, you do. Responsibility doesn't really come into it. (Obviously abusive relationships or your partner demanding you lie in court to get them off a murder charge would be different, but wanting some kind of sexual element in a relationship is hardly in that ballpark).

Facts of life grownups need to humbly accept, #437: Sometimes there is simply no room for help.

If they can't live in peace with no sex between us, then they should not have entered the relationship in the first place. If they find out that not having sex with me is a problem for them, then that's a problem they brought on themselves, 100%. It's not my job to fix it; it's their own job - whether by learning to acquiesce, or by leaving - either way, it's their choice, not mine. As I said above already, I'd certainly encourage them to leave, because I wouldn't want anyone to make sacrifices for my sake... but if they want to stay, it will still be on the same terms they accepted from day one, i.e., no sex between us, and I would expect that if they chose that route, they will do so without putting any blame on me for it. It's not my business how they feel about the relationship; what's relevant is that this is the relationship they agreed to, and that I have honestly said from the beginning that there are some non-negotiable conditions for being in a relationship with me. Expecting negotiations over these to start anyway, just because the partner started being unhappy about them down the line, is simply not in their place to do. Own your unhappiness and the choices that led to it, don't make it my problem.

Yep, and you'd be right. Which is why no sexual partner with a molecule of decency would even think of going near behaviour like that. We have no choice but to accept the asexual's choice, and in doing so we lose any control of our own sex lives unless we leave.

Yes. So? That's how mutually respectful relationships work. In questions of consent, no beats yes, every time, and that's an unambiguously good thing. I find it disconcerting that you think you should even have a control over your sex life with any specific partner to begin with. Consensual sex is not about control, but about contracts. ;)

But we're getting off the point.

Eh, the feeling of rejection because the ace partner masturbates makes this sideline of discussion still on point enough... as that's 100% the sexual partner's responsibility to deal with. Correct the misperception, or break up - bothering the partner with it is an imposition that just won't sit right with me.

Your feelings of rejection due to masturbation aren't your partner's business, they're yours and yours alone. It's your job to change and adapt, not to bother the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do care a lot more about the autonomy of either of us being threatened than about the continuation of the relationship.

Isn't the nature of relationships that you both choose to do stuff because the other wants to? I don't mean to the point where neither of you has their own life too, but there's some kind of shared life going on - even if it's just watching stuff you wouldn't normally, or listening to their music. Partly compromise, partly because giving your partner pleasure is pleasurable in itself, and partly that you're interested in anything they're interested in, because there's a real pleasure in understanding them better. It's not loss of autonomy if you choose to do it.

No, [the mismatch] it's not partly about me.

We're just going to have to disagree on that one.

I find it disconcerting that you think you should even have a control over your sex life with any specific partner to begin with. Consensual sex is not about control, but about contracts.

But you cleave to total, complete control over yours. You can't have it both ways.

Your feelings of rejection due to masturbation aren't your partner's business, they're yours and yours alone. It's your job to change and adapt, not to bother the other.

Ultimately, yes, I wouldn't dream of banning a partner from masturbating, it would just be silly. But there's an undercurrent of 'just shut up about your pain' to all this that seems to be uncaring, to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do care a lot more about the autonomy of either of us being threatened than about the continuation of the relationship.

Isn't the nature of relationships that you both choose to do stuff because the other wants to? I don't mean to the point where neither of you has their own life too, but there's some kind of shared life going on - even if it's just watching stuff you wouldn't normally, or listening to their music. Partly compromise, partly because giving your partner pleasure is pleasurable in itself, and partly that you're interested in anything they're interested in, because there's a real pleasure in understanding them better. It's not loss of autonomy if you choose to do it.

That simply doesn't sound like a relationship worth having, IMO. I'd be happier on my own without having to do stuff to cater to someone else that I'd hate to do (to the point of divebombing my life quality) if it weren't for them. In fact, I'd consider that a sure recipe to build up resentment to the partner that's going to blow up into one heck of a nasty fight of "you ruined my life, I wish I never met you!" sooner or later. If I'd have to go out of my way to change myself for someone, it's a clear sign for me that they're simply not relationship material, and better off firmly friendzoned (if not outright dismissed as a worthwhile contact altogether).

We're just going to have to disagree on that one.

Yeah, looks like.

But you cleave to total, complete control over yours. You can't have it both ways.

Oh yes, I most definitely can. Because not having sex is a right, but too having sex is a privilege. Equating these two, as you seem to do, is thoroughly misguided - they are very much not equal, and should never be. Wanting partnered sex, when the one you want it from doesn't, puts you in the profoundly weaker position, and that is exactly as it should be. Know your place, and learn to accept it.

But there's an undercurrent of 'just shut up about your pain' to all this that seems to be uncaring, to me.

I'm under no obligation to care about pain that a partner brought onto themselves and that is 100% their own responsibility, especially not when their idea of "caring" is to make me do things I'd hate to do. Using pain/unhappiness as manipulation leverage doesn't call for giving someone help, it calls for telling them to cut the crap, own their stuff, and pull themselves together instead of bothering me about it. What you call "uncaring", I call "sober love". Without independence and clear boundaries of personal responsibility, I can't even imagine a loving relationship to work out.

And I'd expect no less than "well, that's your problem, not mine" as a result from a partner if I tried that kind of manipulation on them, too When I feel unhappy about something in the relationship, but see the thing that makes me unhappy about as something that is my problem, I refuse to bother a partner with it. I'll try dealing with it as best as I can on my own, possibly with help of a neutral third party (therapist, counselor, whatever). I won't impose my unhappiness on a partner as if it were their problem to solve, as that's simply not in my place to do. My problems are not the partner's problems, just as much as theirs aren't mine, and I refuse to impact a partner's freedom to do as they please just because what they choose to do are things I'm unhappy with it.

If I find myself unable to reach a solution, I'd be the one to break up because the relationship doesn't work for me anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Know your place, and learn to accept it.

Ouch.

My problems are not the partner's problems, just as much as theirs aren't mine

Shared problems and pleasures are pretty much the essence of a relationship to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Know your place, and learn to accept it.

Ouch.

Sometimes, being reminded of the facts hurts... but I find that ignoring them usually hurts far more, in the long run.

Shared problems and pleasures are pretty much the essence of a relationship to me.

Everything in moderation. I think it's better to err on the side of caution and undershare instead of overshare when it comes to problems, because otheriwse, it all too easily becomes an attempt at emotional manipulation and thus, a restriction of freedom. I simply can't fathom how a healthy relationship should be able to blossom without a foundation in personal autonomy and taking care of one's self by one's self. The other person's presence is just bonus; if they become more than that, my warning flags go up.

One of the most loving sentences I can think of is "I do not need you in my life - I keep choosing to spend time with you, again and again, because I keep enjoying your company, not because you were in any way neccessary for my happiness". The partner's role remains supporting cast; the single star of my life's show will always be me; and likewise, I'd expect my role in the partner's life to be equally secondary to their own star-level importance in their life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes, being reminded of the facts hurts... but I find that ignoring them usually hurts far more, in the long run.

I'm painfully aware of the power imbalance. The 'ouch' was about your 'suck it up' attitude.

"I do not need you in my life - I keep choosing to spend time with you, again and again, because I keep enjoying your company, not because you were in any way neccessary for my happiness"

I've run out of words.

The partner's role remains supporting cast; the single star of my life's show will always be me

I'm getting that loud and clear, believe me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh it's hard to wake up to a grey drizzly morning and find there are pages and pages of a dialogue between Telecaster and Mysticus that I MUST read, because they usually make oppositional sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's yer actual dialectic, innit, lady.

I'll take that as a compliment though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanting partnered sex, when the one you want it from doesn't, puts you in the profoundly weaker position, and that is exactly as it should be. Know your place, and learn to accept it.[/font][/color]

On the level of partnership, you're completely missing the point. If you can imagine terms like "weaker position" to apply to such a thing as partnership, then you don't understand what the term means to me. There's no such thing as negotiation or power balance when it comes to a partner. When you love someone, you love them as they are.

But in my opinion, the "wanting sex" thing is more of an issue on the level of society. People who have a strong desire for sex.. I think the term need is fitting, because the prolonged lack of it can easily destroy your mental health.. People who have that need, but can not meet it in a mutual exchange, are inherently in a "weaker position", where they have to go to great lengths that violate their human dignity just to meet that desire in a somewhat tolerable way. I don't really feel that this is a good way for society to function, and I don't feel that the attitude of "If I don't have that problem, I won't contribute to resolving it" is a good attitude to have. A society is a symbiosis, we're all benefiting from it, so having empathy and at least some willingness to reach out honestly doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The question of whether or not one's partner masturbates simply has jack squat to do with the couple's (triad's, etc.) sex life with each other.

I'm not saying sex with someone and else and masturbation are the same - I'm saying they're both sexual. Logically, yes, they're unrelated. But then there's no reason cuddles and feeling loved are related, by that reasoning. So if the sexual partner says 'I love you but I don't want to cuddle you or anyone else', can you see how that would be a massive difficulty for someone who found cuddles a vital (though not exclusive) way they expressed and received love?

Cuddles are to me the "ultimate" way of expressing love. The feeling of safety, security, love, acceptance and just connection that is achieved through laying lazily curled up in each other's arms, or with my head on my partner's chest, is just amazing. It's probably one of the best feelings in the world for me.

However... my partner actually does say he doesn't like it with me or anyone else. And I agree with Myst's stance, that's really not his problem, it's mine. He clearly stated his likes/dislikes. I clearly stated mine. There is a conflict. But, me wanting what someone does not have to offer makes it my issue. I can either accept it or not, he can't offer it either way so making him feel bad about it doesn't help anyone.

And I can also agree that there is some give and take in a relationship. I might go to a family get together I really don't want to, because he would really appreciate the support of me being there. He might watch Ever After with me, because he knows I love the movie, even though it's not really his thing. But, these are things we both CHOOSE to do and sure I can ask "Hey you wanna watch this movie with me?", but he has as much right to say no as anyone else without me getting upset with him over it. I was a bit disappointed when he wouldn't go to meet my favorite cousins, but he didn't want to, that's all there was to it. I don't own him, he isn't obligated to do what I would like. Just like I am not obligated to do what he likes. I might choose to, sometimes. But, that has to be up to me. And he might choose to sometimes, but that has to be up to him.

Pretty much... you can say what you want. You can say what you need. But your partner can say no or I can't offer it. And then yeah it really is your own problem if they can't give you what you want. It then becomes "Can I accept this, or can I not?" - I've had to make that decision several times, in various relationships, over various issues. Can I accept LDR? Can I accept someone that drinks? Can I accept someone that wants polyamorous? Can I accept someone that needs sex often? Can I accept someone that communicates in ways I don't really get? Etc, etc. It all just comes down to "What is my line in incompatibility?"

Masturbation I am sure can feel like "They want to get off so why not with me?" to some people. My partner would take sex every time over masturbation. But, that's not how everyone feels about it. And especially asexuals do not see them as similar in a lot of cases. It's kind of a either accept it or not situation, sadly. It sucks, it's not fun to have to make the decisions or try to get over being hurt by something. But, it's a reality when there are major differences. Talking about it isn't a bad thing, but there is a limit to talk - especially if it ends up being an issue that is not resolvable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanting partnered sex, when the one you want it from doesn't, puts you in the profoundly weaker position, and that is exactly as it should be. Know your place, and learn to accept it.[/font][/color]

On the level of partnership, you're completely missing the point. If you can imagine terms like "weaker position" to apply to such a thing as partnership, then you don't understand what the term means to me. There's no such thing as negotiation or power balance when it comes to a partner. When you love someone, you love them as they are.

Which is exactly the problem with Telecaster's argumentation,.. so I really don't think I'm missing the point. With an underlying theme of "who's in control when it comes to sex", and equalling things that simply cannot and should not ever be seen as equal, this level of partnership is ruined and made impossible to start with. The best thing remaining is putting someone with such views firmly in their place - showing them that unless they change their views fundamentally, a relationship built on mutual respect (let alone love) will remain impossible to be had with them, and is thus off the table.

But in my opinion, the "wanting sex" thing is more of an issue on the level of society. People who have a strong desire for sex.. I think the term need is fitting, because the prolonged lack of it can easily destroy your mental health.. People who have that need, but can not meet it in a mutual exchange, are inherently in a "weaker position", where they have to go to great lengths that violate their human dignity just to meet that desire in a somewhat tolerable way. I don't really feel that this is a good way for society to function, and I don't feel that the attitude of "If I don't have that problem, I won't contribute to resolving it" is a good attitude to have. A society is a symbiosis, we're all benefiting from it, so having empathy and at least some willingness to reach out honestly doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Eh... I guess that's one side of the issue. I won't deny that there are still a bunch of sex-negative morality concepts floating around that are toxic to society at large, and to people's emotional (and in some cases, even physical) well-being. But changing that is not my job, nor is it my problem - I have limited energy, and wouldn't personally profit from it, so that's not a fight I'll pick, even though I'll likely nod in agrement with those who do choose to pick it.

However, entitlement culture is the other issue, and I find "Know Your Place" a centrally important motto to combat it (which Western society has become terribly bad at in recent years*). When people try to impose their wants on others, regardless of these others' rights and freedom, then the time to go for empathy can only come after firmly telling them NO, and after they, indeed, stop trying to overstep their limits. They must know their place before meaningful, productive communication with them can even start. And that's a fight I'll definitely pick, because entitled attempts at imposing on my life, curtailing my rights and freedom, are a thing I personally profit from when I nip it in the bud. People try this shit in personal relationships all the time, and it's my duty to myself to tell them it won't fly with me, fullstop.

I don't impose on their lives, so they better not try to impose on mine. I have no patience for that kinda stuff in my life.

* Yes, I do realize that that's the kind of grumpage people past 40 just seem to start saying sooner or later... so gerroff me lawn already! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

[/font][/color]

* Yes, I do realize that that's the kind of grumpage people past 40 just seem to start saying sooner or later... so gerroff me lawn already! :P

Well, past 40 we are more likely to have clearly delineated the boundaries of our emotional lawns, and thus we are acutely aware of any instances of people stepping over those boundaries.

I don't know why I needed to say in so many more words what you said above but what the hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

It seems to me that Telecaster and Mysticus are discussing different relationship models, trying to explain which works for them and why.

In other words I don't think that one model is better than the other. It really depends on the couple to decide how they want their relationship to look like in order to feel comfortable, loved and accepted in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Telecaster and Mysticus are discussing different relationship models, trying to explain which works for them and why.

In other words I don't think that one model is better than the other. It really depends on the couple to decide how they want their relationship to look like in order to feel comfortable, loved and accepted in it.

If anyone is curious what it looks like when a Telecaster and a Mysticus get into a relationship together, come hang out with me and the ladyfriend.

"I shouldn't have to feel responsible for your feelings."

"That's what marriage is."

"No, that's what codependence is."

"See, that's our problem, you're selfish and I'm clingy, and you want someone selfish and I want someone clingy."

"Well, I think selfish is good. You never have to worry if I'm doing what I want to be doing."

"That's not a relationship."

It's really fun! -_-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any help or guidance?

I guess the first question that comes to mind: Do you still do things together? Like go on dates, share the same bed, cuddle on the couch, hug, kiss, etc.? If there is still affection in the relationship, maybe you just need to give him a little space to wank off alone in the comfort of the bed. Maybe you can go do something, let him know what you're doing and how long you'll be so he can wank away by himself. I'm ace, totally not into sex, but I do like to rub one out here and there, so some space to let him do that in private might be needed.

Just my 2¢. I hope the best for the both of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am (well, was, as I'm currently single due to ace/poly incompatibility in my last relationship) in the same boat as your partner. I have a libido, I have a certain desire for sexual release (although I think perhaps not much of one). I have no desire for partnered sex. I am still exploring that facet of myself, but I may be slightly sex averse. The act of sex is off putting to me. If your partner is anything like me (and as you've described it, that seems reasonable, at least in this regard) then it really isn't to do with you. It's not that you aren't good enough, or he doesn't like you well enough, or anything like that. It's that he doesn't want sex.

As to why he doesn't involve you when he does masturbate? You'll have to ask him, but I can offer some theories. The first is simple embarrassment. Self explanatory. It could also be that he doesn't want to put you in a situation where you'll be aroused, but unfulfilled. It could also just be that it never occurred to him that you could work with him to satisfy him in a way that is not intercourse. Or maybe it did, but he feels like even then he would unable to reciprocate and doesn't want to unfairly burden you. Again, these are just theories of what he might be thinking. You really need to ask him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly the problem with Telecaster's argumentation,.. so I really don't think I'm missing the point. With an underlying theme of "who's in control when it comes to sex", and equalling things that simply cannot and should not ever be seen as equal, this level of partnership is ruined and made impossible to start with. The best thing remaining is putting someone with such views firmly in their place - showing them that unless they change their views fundamentally, a relationship built on mutual respect (let alone love) will remain impossible to be had with them, and is thus off the table.

That kind of insight will develop as you learn to understand your partner and yourself. It's not something you will be able to convince someone of. Your arguments are pretty pointless in this context, and in the context of a relationship, you'd just be encouraging the other person to leave (which I guess would be your intention).

However, entitlement culture is the other issue, and I find "Know Your Place" a centrally important motto to combat it (which Western society has become terribly bad at in recent years*). When people try to impose their wants on others, regardless of these others' rights and freedom, then the time to go for empathy can only come after firmly telling them NO, and after they, indeed, stop trying to overstep their limits. They must know their place before meaningful, productive communication with them can even start. And that's a fight I'll definitely pick, because entitled attempts at imposing on my life, curtailing my rights and freedom, are a thing I personally profit from when I nip it in the bud. People try this shit in personal relationships all the time, and it's my duty to myself to tell them it won't fly with me, fullstop.

That's just black and white thinking plus over-generalization. Like, try applying that to the situation of a starving person and theft. "If you don't sit down and accept your place as a person who's going to be dead to starvation by tomorrow, I'm not even going to think about saving you."

Denying someone sex isn't equivalent to that, of course. My point is that these kinds of situations aren't black and white. "This is my property, I can do with it what I want" doesn't necessarily get you out of any responsibility for the well being of others, and I feel the same can be true when it comes to mating behaviour.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that I feel this trend of sexual freedom (which I fully support in principle) is reinforcing the biological bias we as a species have toward this "alpha male" mating behaviour where we have a group of males with many mating partners at one end, and a group of males with no mating partners at the other. I don't think enforcing monogamy is a good way to deal with this (although it has been somewhat effective for quite a while), so at this point I'm fully counting on each human's sense of empathy and high level thought to avoid this. But that does rather require that we drop this "fuck you, got mine" kind of attitude..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Denying someone sex isn't equivalent to that, of course.

No one denies someone else sex. They deny someone sex specifically with them. If that someone wants sex, that someone is completely free to go look for another person to have sex with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That kind of insight will develop as you learn to understand your partner and yourself. It's not something you will be able to convince someone of. Your arguments are pretty pointless in this context, and in the context of a relationship, you'd just be encouraging the other person to leave (which I guess would be your intention).

Yup. If I'd have to teach a "partner" how to be an autonomous individual, I'll give the relationship a pass... too much work, and they're not even paying me 100 bucks an hour for the therapy. ;) I'm better off alone than going through that.

*looks at Skulls' dialogue up there and feels drained of energy just reading it* -_-

That's just black and white thinking plus over-generalization. Like, try applying that to the situation of a starving person and theft. "If you don't sit down and accept your place as a person who's going to be dead to starvation by tomorrow, I'm not even going to think about saving you."

Denying someone sex isn't equivalent to that, of course. My point is that these kinds of situations aren't black and white. "This is my property, I can do with it what I want" doesn't necessarily get you out of any responsibility for the well being of others, and I feel the same can be true when it comes to mating behaviour.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that I feel this trend of sexual freedom (which I fully support in principle) is reinforcing the biological bias we as a species have toward this "alpha male" mating behaviour where we have a group of males with many mating partners at one end, and a group of males with no mating partners at the other. I don't think enforcing monogamy is a good way to deal with this (although it has been somewhat effective for quite a while), so at this point I'm fully counting on each human's sense of empathy and high level thought to avoid this. But that does rather require that we drop this "fuck you, got mine" kind of attitude..

Some pictures are just black and white.

TW: rape

No is rightfully stronger than yes when it comes to sexual consent, and the "yes" party does simply need to accept that, grow up, and get over their entitlement - otherwise, it becomes unethical to consider rape a crime in some circumstances. If we allow for shades of grey in this, then denying someone starved for sex to boink you should be criminalized (as failure to render assistance, most probably); and raping someone who denies you sex could well be constructed as justified self defense, depending on "how blue your balls were" at the time, and on the availability of alternative, willing sex partners.

As a society, we (thankfully! and only all too recently <_< ) decided that this is not what we want, and marked marital rape as just as criminal as any other kind of rape, and consider the one who takes sex by force the criminal, not the one who denies sex to them. No matter the situation, you never, ever, ever owe someone sex. No matter the situation, you always, always, always owe it to everyone to respect and accept it if they say no to sex. And yes, regardless of situation, everyone who thinks I owe them sex is an arsehole who can go screw themselves (literally) - it's beneath me to have them hang around my life and let them ruin it with the looming threat of them feeling entitled to rape me. No exceptions, end of story.

The strangest bit, of course, is how you state your goal as preventing "alpha male" behavior here. Not painting sexual consent in black and white enables alpha male behavior more than anything else: in a "shades of grey" world, if you're strong enough to force sex on everyone you want to, you win the game of sex forever - you will never go a single day without sex again unless you choose to.

Comparing that to a starving person is a horrendously flawed analogy... to have it work, you'd need a world where any starving person could just painlessly eat their own hands and have them grow back quickly enough to eat them again a few hours later. In that case, yes, it would start going deep into entitlement country to complain about starving while you haven't eaten all your limbs yet. In such a hypothetical world, hunger would clearly always be the fault of the hungry person to a very substantial amount - no matter how poor you are, going hungry is clearly a conscious choice, as fresh meat is right there in biting range 24/7... so expecting the rich to feed the hungry poor, who brought, and insist on constantly keep bringing, hunger onto themselves, would smack of entitled imposition, restricting their economical freedom out of sheer envy and laziness... and I'd oppose such an imposition (while still seeing myself as a democratic socialist ;)).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...