For sexuals: Why is sex so important to you?

[Guest]

I was mostly looking for clarification on the sentiment that, if compromise isn't possible, the sexual should just learn to live without sex rather than try to find a way to have their needs met. It sounds neither realistic or fair.

Oh okay I understand that then. Yeah I think that just depends on the sexual because I've met quite a few here who have learned to live without sex and although they definitely have times when things feel overwhelming etc, they have made it through and can for the most part be happy with their ace partner without sex, but of course there are sexual people who can't be happy without sex. In those cases, if the asexual literally cannot have any form of sex, and one or neither would be happy opening up the relationship (because both have to be open to that and happy with it) then I personally don't see what option there is other than one or both people being miserable, or deciding to remain friends for support etc, but move on to find partners more able to meet emotional needs. (this next part is more for the benefit of aces reading this thread, unless I have all this completely wrong in which case a sexual will correct me haha) .. I say emotional need because I personally think sex is more of an emotional need than a physical one for many sexuals. If it was *just* a physical need, then one could masturbate and get it over with, but emotionally, partnered sex (especially with someone you love romantically) is a deeply emotionally pleasurable and intimate experience.. I think in many cases that's *why* it's so hard for (many, not all) sexuals to go without sex from the person they love.. it's the emotional aspects of sexual intimacy they ''need'' more than the physical act of having an orgasm with another person. When looked at like this, it's easy to understand why it is so hard for a sexual person to go without sex with the person they love, because they need it emotionally as opposed to just needing it physically (which ties into the original question posed by the creator of this thread)

[Sally]

The 'all else is equal' thing is important though. Those other things might be the mental connection, shared life, family etc. But they'd have to be substantial to over-ride the lack of sex, and the lack of sex would still be an issue.

Yes -- that's what I read a lot of sexuals saying on AVEN -- that everything in the relationship is great EXCEPT the lack of sex, and it's definitely still an issue.

[Philip027]

I'm allo and poly. I've almost only had allo partners, but now one of my partners happens to be an ace, and I can tell you for sure, he is not less important than my other partners. No way! The relationship is a romantic relationship, he is my boyfriend, we have a strong connection and we share intimacy. Sex isn't everything. Sure, I'm allo, and I wish he was sexually attracted to me, but that's just one way in which we aren't perfectly compatible, and we're compatible in tons of other ways. Same silly humour, same tastes, we have awesome conversations, we have a great time together... In every relationship I've had there were some things we didn't see eye to eye on. With him, sex is one of them. I have an ex who didn't share my tastes in food at all. It didn't make him #2. Now I have a boyfriend who doesn't share my tastes in sex at all. Doesn't make him #2.

This being said, the sex I have with other partners isn't a "replacement". I don't crave sex as a general thing I could do with anyone. It's an activity I want to do with specific people, and the sex I don't have with my ace boyfriend is sex I don't have at all, I don't "make up for it" with someone else, they're very distinct. So being poly may not help at all in some cases.

This is a refreshing sort of thing to read from a poster who I haven't seen in quite some time :D

[butterflydreams]

I'm allo and poly. I've almost only had allo partners, but now one of my partners happens to be an ace, and I can tell you for sure, he is not less important than my other partners. No way! The relationship is a romantic relationship, he is my boyfriend, we have a strong connection and we share intimacy. Sex isn't everything. Sure, I'm allo, and I wish he was sexually attracted to me, but that's just one way in which we aren't perfectly compatible, and we're compatible in tons of other ways. Same silly humour, same tastes, we have awesome conversations, we have a great time together... In every relationship I've had there were some things we didn't see eye to eye on. With him, sex is one of them. I have an ex who didn't share my tastes in food at all. It didn't make him #2. Now I have a boyfriend who doesn't share my tastes in sex at all. Doesn't make him #2.

This being said, the sex I have with other partners isn't a "replacement". I don't crave sex as a general thing I could do with anyone. It's an activity I want to do with specific people, and the sex I don't have with my ace boyfriend is sex I don't have at all, I don't "make up for it" with someone else, they're very distinct. So being poly may not help at all in some cases.

This is a refreshing sort of thing to read from a poster who I haven't seen in quite some time :D

I agree, and it's the exact perspective I was looking for. Avistew!

[Guest]

Tele - You keep coming at this from a monogamous standpoint. Hadley was asking about poly though.

In a poly relationship, if the poly person was committed to an ace (willingly) and got into another relationship with a sexual, they probably wouldn't make the ace "#2" unless they followed the hierarchy model of poly. A lot of the poly community does with "primary", "secondary", etc. But, there is also the section that believes in more equal relationships, where every partner is special and meets different needs, there is no #1 and #2. They're all loved equally. In that situation, no, not wanting sex wouldn't make you lesser. As long as you're honest up front about the no sex thing.

As for partner coming first... I know plenty of people that do that. But, I also know people that don't. If push came to shove between friends/family and their partner, they'd choose friends/family. They won't move away from their friends/family just to be with a partner, they like their life and won't give it up for a romantic relationship... they will integrate that romantic partner into their life, but not give it away. It all depends on the person and their own relationship philosophy, not orientation.

As for the mixed relationship - it's not an easy thing to navigate. And the majority of sexuals are probably not ever going to be OK with an ace. However, as long as everyone is honest up front, it's up to each person to decide that for themselves. Not all sexuals feel a need for sex (even though they may want it), not all asexuals are repulsed by it / averse to it. It's just a matter of communicate, communicate, communicate and if you know you're ace before the relationship starts, so the partner can be told before hand and decide whether to pursue or not with that knowledge, your chances are much higher for it working than those mixed relationships where the ace didn't find out til much later.

[butterflydreams]

In a poly relationship, if the poly person was committed to an ace (willingly) and got into another relationship with a sexual, they probably wouldn't make the ace "#2" unless they followed the hierarchy model of poly. A lot of the poly community does with "primary", "secondary", etc. But, there is also the section that believes in more equal relationships, where every partner is special and meets different needs, there is no #1 and #2. They're all loved equally. In that situation, no, not wanting sex wouldn't make you lesser. As long as you're honest up front about the no sex thing.

Ok, this I did not know. Very, very interesting. I don't want to derail this thread into a poly discussion, so I think I'll split something off elsewhere. Thanks!

[Tarfeather]

Tele - You keep coming at this from a monogamous standpoint. Hadley was asking about poly though.

In a poly relationship, if the poly person was committed to an ace (willingly) and got into another relationship with a sexual, they probably wouldn't make the ace "#2" unless they followed the hierarchy model of poly. A lot of the poly community does with "primary", "secondary", etc. But, there is also the section that believes in more equal relationships, where every partner is special and meets different needs, there is no #1 and #2. They're all loved equally. In that situation, no, not wanting sex wouldn't make you lesser. As long as you're honest up front about the no sex thing.

As for partner coming first... I know plenty of people that do that. But, I also know people that don't. If push came to shove between friends/family and their partner, they'd choose friends/family. They won't move away from their friends/family just to be with a partner, they like their life and won't give it up for a romantic relationship... they will integrate that romantic partner into their life, but not give it away. It all depends on the person and their own relationship philosophy, not orientation.

As for the mixed relationship - it's not an easy thing to navigate. And the majority of sexuals are probably not ever going to be OK with an ace. However, as long as everyone is honest up front, it's up to each person to decide that for themselves. Not all sexuals feel a need for sex (even though they may want it), not all asexuals are repulsed by it / averse to it. It's just a matter of communicate, communicate, communicate and if you know you're ace before the relationship starts, so the partner can be told before hand and decide whether to pursue or not with that knowledge, your chances are much higher for it working than those mixed relationships where the ace didn't find out til much later.

Serran, you are my #1.. My #1 rational explanation giver on AVEN, that is. ;)

[Telecaster68]

Tele - You keep coming at this from a monogamous standpoint. Hadley was asking about poly though.

You're right, I do. Mostly because I am, ideally, monogamous, and in a relationship that's healthy for me, I have no desire not to be (when I was at uni, I only saw my then-girlfriend once every three or four weeks, and I was completely uninterested in any of the opportunities that being away at uni presented). Also - monogamy, like sexuality, is the overwhelming majority of cases.

I can see the 'different but equal' poly idea - but I don't think relationships are like that. Inevitably, we will have more in common with some friends than others, and the ones we have more in common with will inevitably be closer than ones where there's less in common. Maybe poly relationships don't work like that, so one poly relationship that included sex wouldn't be closer than one (otherwise identical) that didn't, but I don't think I'll ever get my head round that. It would be like having two friends, one of whom was obsessed with something I had no interest in, and the other who shared my obsession with something else. The one with the shared obsession would inevitably end up closer. We'd have common enthusiasms, spend time on the other obsession together, understand something about each other more, etc.

Covering all bases in every single post gets wearying.

If push came to shove between friends/family and their partner, they'd choose friends/family. They won't move away from their friends/family just to be with a partner, they like their life and won't give it up for a romantic relationship...

Which would say to me that they didn't see the romantic relationship as truly part of their life.

[Tarfeather]

Also - monogamy, like sexuality, is the overwhelming majority of cases.

.. Not really. There are many more people who try to find ways around monogamy - through serial monogamy, cheating, open relationships, etc. - than there are asexuals.

[Telecaster68]

There are many more people who try to find ways around monogamy - through serial monogamy, cheating, open relationships, etc. - than there are asexuals.

I meant more monogamous relationships than there are polyamorous. The number of asexuals doesn't come into it.

[Tarfeather]

I very much doubt it's the overwhelming majority of cases. Certainly not among young people, and as for older people, it might often have practical reasons than a natural inclination toward monogamy.

And by the way, when I think monogamy, I'm not thinking of being exclusive during the first year or so of the relationship. That's pretty normal for most people, yeah. But something like a years-long committed monogamous relationship, I don't think that's as common as you think it is, certainly not "the overwhelming majority".

[nanogretchen4]

Well, I think it's fairly common for people in longterm relationships to be "monogamish", but that's different from polyamory.

[Telecaster68]

I found a couple of proper academic studies of monogamy in the US (probably applicable to most Western societies, I'd guess) which say 10–15% of women and 20–25% of men engage in extramarital sex.

So 85% of women and 75% of men are monogamous in the West. I'd call that the overwhelming majority. And that's not even people choosing polyamory as a lifestyle.

Psychology Today has some academically based research which suggest about 10 million people in the US are involved in polyamory, which is about 3%.

I know you're sceptical of academic research, but it's better than your gut feeling.

[nanogretchen4]

A person has to be married to engage in extramarital sex, though, so at most that's 85% of married women and 75% of married men. Until recently same sex marriage did not exist, either, and I've seen the monogamish model in practice mostly in relationships between gay men. I've only had two longterm relationships with men and one of them was gay, but to my knowledge both of them had sex outside the relationship one or more times.

[Telecaster68]

I don't see any reason why cohabiting would be markedly different to marriage. And since we're talking about numbers, data trumps anecdotage.

[nanogretchen4]

Yes, but were any of those data from same sex relationships? Also, marriage involves vows and contracts and a greater number of traditional assumptions. Cohabiting does not imply as strong an assumption of a monogamous agreement. Finally, it is not clear whether the nonmonogamous males and females were in marriages with each other, but that data shows that anywhere from 25% to 40% of ostensibly traditional heterosexual marriages are not in fact monogamous.

[Telecaster68]

were any of those data from same sex relationships?

Given the date, no they wouldn't have been, since it's pre gay marriage.

marriage involves vows and contracts and a greater number of traditional assumptions. Cohabiting does not imply as strong an assumption of a monogamous agreement.

True, but you can't assume that makes monogamy less likely just because you'd like that to be the case. We have no evidence one way or the other.

inally, it is not clear whether the nonmonogamous males and females were in marriages with each other, but that data shows that anywhere from 25% to 40% of ostensibly traditional heterosexual marriages are not in fact monogamous.

It was about infidelity - technically, that's non-monogamy, but it's different to polyamory. It could include a drunken one night stand on a stag weekend, for instance, or a long term quasi-marital partnership when the actual spouse is in a coma and anything in between. We don't know. But you can't claim anything that's not monogamy is instantly polyamory.

That's why I quoted the Psychology Today figure, which comes out at 3%, and is explicitly about polyamory.

[Tarfeather]

Telecaster, I would say any study you look at will be intrinsically flawed, because you're essentially asking people whether they're committing an immoral act, something which you simply can not expect an honest answer to from the vast majority of people. I mean, even if it's completely anonymous and non-tracable, just admitting *to yourself* that you've cheated on your partner is difficult to do.

As long as it's a societal expectation to be monogamous, you simply won't get accurate numbers on how many would be monogamous if it were perfectly fine and encouraged not to be.

Besides of that, you're looking at married people and trying to turn that into an "overwhelming majority"?! Half the people in the US aren't even married, you won't get an "overwhelming majority" out of that. Do you think the other 50% are abstaining from love and sex or something?

[Telecaster68]

any study you look at will be intrinsically flawed

So in fact, there's no actual evidence that could shift you from your assertion based on nothing at all. It's not worth discussing in that case.

[Tarfeather]

any study you look at will be intrinsically flawed

So in fact, there's no actual evidence that could shift you from your assertion based on nothing at all. It's not worth discussing in that case.

No, what I'm saying is that you can't use studies about marriages in mono-normative countries to make an inference about whether monogamy is in the nature of the vast majority of people. If you want proper data, look at an environment where people aren't as restricted by social constraints about monogamy.

[nanogretchen4]

Now I'm just confused. I started out by saying I thought monogamish relationships were pretty common but that's different from polyamory. Monogamish relationships are mostly monogamous with minor exceptions, such as occasional one night stands. It is not necessarily cheating because the partners may have reached an understanding about it. I don't want monogamy to be less likely. I'm extremely monogamous myself. I just don't think I'm obligated to throw a fit or break off a relationship that I'm happy with otherwise just because it turns out that my partner is a little less monogamous than I am.

[Telecaster68]

I've come up with some data which indicates most relationships in the West are monogamous, whether or not you accept it. Can you come up with any research at all that indicates it's a minority, anywhere?

[nanogretchen4]

Your data indicates that 60% to 75% of heterosexual marriages are monogamous. That's a majority of heterosexual marriages. It is not an overwhelming majority of heterosexual marriages in the same sense that an overwhelming majority of the human population is sexual. I mean, data indicating that 25% to 40% of the population is asexual would cause quite a splash, don't you think?

[Telecaster68]

Okay, I'll give you that. But it's still a significant majority. The 60% is theoretically possible, but it assumes all the married men are having sex with no one but the married women, and there's no overlap, which isn't going to be the case.

[Tarfeather]

Okay, so you admit that non-pure-monogamous-leaning individuals are in no way so uncommon that we could literally overlook them. Very good. Let's get on with the discussion.

Tele - You keep coming at this from a monogamous standpoint. Hadley was asking about poly though.

You're right, I do. Mostly because I am, ideally, monogamous, and in a relationship that's healthy for me, I have no desire not to be (when I was at uni, I only saw my then-girlfriend once every three or four weeks, and I was completely uninterested in any of the opportunities that being away at uni presented). Also - monogamy, like sexuality, is the overwhelming majority of cases.

We just debunked that last part. So, chances are, whatever is your 'ideal', you or any of us reading this discussion might accidentally end up with a partner who's not as monogamous as you are. It's a very relevant thing to keep in mind, unless you're literally only thinking about yourself and your one and only partner when trying to understand the situation of another, in which case your opinions aren't going to be very useful to any of the rest of us.

I can see the 'different but equal' poly idea - but I don't think relationships are like that. Inevitably, we will have more in common with some friends than others, and the ones we have more in common with will inevitably be closer than ones where there's less in common.

That's actually literally untrue. It's not just how much we have in common, it's also in what ways are we different and how can we complement each other. And that's just the thing -- You're going to have different friends who complement you in different ways. They aren't necessarily going to be more "important" in any way, they just might be more "helpful" depending on the life situation you're in. The friends I interact with most highly depends on what subjects I currently am interested in, with what I need help and advice, etc.

Maybe poly relationships don't work like that, so one poly relationship that included sex wouldn't be closer than one (otherwise identical) that didn't, but I don't think I'll ever get my head round that. It would be like having two friends, one of whom was obsessed with something I had no interest in, and the other who shared my obsession with something else. The one with the shared obsession would inevitably end up closer. We'd have common enthusiasms, spend time on the other obsession together, understand something about each other more, etc.

Sometimes the person with the same interests turns out to be an asshole, whereas the person with seemingly nothing in common turns out to be your soul mate. It's not that simple.

Covering all bases in every single post gets wearying.

If you say things that are untrue in their literal meaning, that's on you. The same happens to me, that's why I have to rethink what I post a lot. It's an opportunity for us to learn and become accurate. If you find that "wearying", that's a bit concerning to me.

If push came to shove between friends/family and their partner, they'd choose friends/family. They won't move away from their friends/family just to be with a partner, they like their life and won't give it up for a romantic relationship...

Which would say to me that they didn't see the romantic relationship as truly part of their life.

The point is, some people (not me) are entirely content to enjoy a relationship in the now, without feeling the need to make anything committed or long-lasting out of it.

[Lord Jade Cross]

I have to agree with that last part. Alot of people may not see a relationship as an absolute factor that needs you to drop everything and go in pursuit of. Lots of people want a relationship alongside with being able to see and keep their friends and family and that doesnt mean that the relationship is not important to them. Some just want to live the day by day.

[Guest]

If push came to shove between friends/family and their partner, they'd choose friends/family. They won't move away from their friends/family just to be with a partner, they like their life and won't give it up for a romantic relationship...

Which would say to me that they didn't see the romantic relationship as truly part of their life.

Not really. Why does a specific type of relationship have to trump everything else to be part of their life? You couldn't say friends/family are not part of your life because you won't leave your romantic partner to go live with them. Not everyone views the romantic partner as trumping everything and dump everyone else in your life at their whim, just to keep them. That doesn't mean they don't care about them and value the relationship. It just means... one of their relationship needs is that they integrate into their life and not change their life. My Aunt has her best friend and responsibilities to her family, plus a house, she's not moving. However, she loves her spouse and he is very much part of her life. She just isn't willing to make him her whole life.

[m4rble]

It's perfectly possible to have a short-lived or non-committed romantic relationship that you'd never consider something like leaving your friends for. commitment != romance

By definition, yes, if it's shortlived or non-committed. I'm saying that's the difference - an exclusive, long term, committed relationship (which QPRs aside will be what AVEN brackets as romantic) does take precedence over friends. Otherwise it makes no sense to say there's any commitment beyond other relationships such as friends.

In other threads people were saying that the thing that distinguishes romantic and aromantic people was the romantic feelings, not the desire for a committed relationship. If someone doesn't feel the romantic attraction or passion they would be aromantic. Here's the thread that came from: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/135364-comparing-definitions-sexual-attraction-and-romantic-attraction/page-2#entry1061666049

[Telecaster68]

I can't see how a relationship with someone else that doesn't involve anything commonly called romantic, or sex, or commitment to them is anything other than a friendship, and pretty transient one at that.

[AthenaFay]

Seriously check this video out. I watched it a few days ago and feel it could be very relevant to this thread. It's about oral sex but can be applied to most forms of sexual intimacy.

I was speaking to my partner just yesterday about how I often feel "reset" after sex. - I feel calm, serene, and "clear". I see sex as a chance to let off steam with my partner, to clear out the stresses of the day. We spend the day working, being around people, being social, mannered; sex gives us the chance together to let go of the psychological ups and downs and the mental "muck" it gathers up. When we are having sex, it feels as though we are truly "at one" with each other.