For sexuals: Why is sex so important to you?

[K1ng]

My friend and I argued about this once, because I'd suggested trying asexual identities once, but as far as he's concerned it's all personal preference and the idea that (since he's gay) gay people demand sex out of a relationship is built off homophobia. I can definitely see it, though, because otherwise everyone who was sex repulsed on account of trauma, dysphoria or anything else, or just didn't like the feeling of sex, would be asexual (and considering asexual people can have sex because they enjoy it, I can't see why sexual people can't dislike sex).

[Telecaster68]

I can't see why sexual people can't dislike sex

Because if they disliked it, they wouldn't want to have it, which would make them de facto asexual, surely?

[Tarfeather]

I can't see why sexual people can't dislike sex

Because if they disliked it, they wouldn't want to have it, which would make them de facto asexual, surely?

No. There's a huge difference, for instance, between a person who once was sexual and stopped desiring sex due to age or other circumstances (but they still remember how it was and how they liked it), and an asexual person.

[Telecaster68]

But if they have the same lack of desire to actually have sex now, what difference does it make?

[Tarfeather]

But if they have the same lack of desire to actually have sex now, what difference does it make?

There's a difference between "no desire" and "can't be bothered".

[Telecaster68]

There's a difference between "no desire" and "can't be bothered".

There's a difference between 'dislike' (which is what the post said) and 'can't be bothered'.

[Rising Sun]

Somebody can have sexual instincts and repress them because of disgust, mainly for religious reasons. They aren't any less sexual. Telecaster, do you know many traditionalist Catholics ?

[Telecaster68]

So how do you tell the difference between a repressed sexual and an asexual?

If you asked either of them if they wanted sex, they'd say 'no', just as a sexual with almost no libido would. Because all these things are subjective (IE the information is only available to that person), we can't know the difference. Trying to parse distinctions is pointless.

[K1ng]

I can't see why sexual people can't dislike sex

Because if they disliked it, they wouldn't want to have it, which would make them de facto asexual, surely?

No. There's a huge difference, for instance, between a person who once was sexual and stopped desiring sex due to age or other circumstances (but they still remember how it was and how they liked it), and an asexual person.

I don't think they even have to like memories of it. I can definitely imagine survivors of various hating the memories of it. Sexuality just revolves around attraction, otherwise asexuals who have sex aren't asexuals, lesbians who sleep with men out of forced marriage or repression are straight, children are always asexual (barring the terrible). It isn't related to sexual activity.

[Rising Sun]

So how do you tell the difference between a repressed sexual and an asexual?

If you asked either of them if they wanted sex, they'd say 'no', just as a sexual with almost no libido would. Because all these things are subjective (IE the information is only available to that person), we can't know the difference. Trying to parse distinctions is pointless.

Trust me, if you knew some of these people, you'd see the difference immediately.

Even though they both don't want to have sex, for repressed Catholics it's a choice that goes against their instincts. They express both desire and disgust, sometimes in the same time, sometimes alternately, and they're always judgmental of others and themselves (they all seem to like to use the word "whore" at any occasion). They aren't fine with what they are like asexuals, they need a therapist.

[Guest]

children are always asexual (barring the terrible)

I'd actually say yes, they are... and that a pre-pubescent child not being asexual pretty often is an indication of, as you call it, the terrible.

(Of course, I don't agree with basing sexuality on attraction, but on desire... but I don't think that's relevant to this question.)

[Lord Jade Cross]

So how do you tell the difference between a repressed sexual and an asexual?

If you asked either of them if they wanted sex, they'd say 'no', just as a sexual with almost no libido would. Because all these things are subjective (IE the information is only available to that person), we can't know the difference. Trying to parse distinctions is pointless.

Trust me, if you knew some of these people, you'd see the difference immediately.

Even though they both don't want to have sex, for repressed Catholics it's a choice that goes against their instincts. They express both desire and disgust, sometimes in the same time, sometimes alternately, and they're always judgmental of others and themselves (they all seem to like to use the word "whore" at any occasion). They aren't fine with what they are like asexuals, they need a therapist.

I agree with this, especially considering that part of my childhood had this factor present. One of the most reiterated points in Catholicism is the constant rejection as well as shaming of the desire for sex as a pleasure/leisure activity. The only moments under which sex becomes slightly more accepted is for the purpose of bearing kids and even then, its reinforced that one must never do it for the pleasure of it even if its to bear children.

This tends to be a problem for anyone with a high enough libido/desire/urge (whatever name you want to give it) who has come to internalize what sex represents for the religion because they become disgusted with themselves (and others)for having the desire but they cant get rid of it so easily (unless they severely repress it and thats no guarantee) since they are brought up to think that sex is sinful and even disguisting (why do you only see demons being related to sex?)

[Telecaster68]

So how do you tell the difference between a repressed sexual and an asexual?

If you asked either of them if they wanted sex, they'd say 'no', just as a sexual with almost no libido would. Because all these things are subjective (IE the information is only available to that person), we can't know the difference. Trying to parse distinctions is pointless.

Trust me, if you knew some of these people, you'd see the difference immediately.

Even though they both don't want to have sex, for repressed Catholics it's a choice that goes against their instincts. They express both desire and disgust, sometimes in the same time, sometimes alternately, and they're always judgmental of others and themselves (they all seem to like to use the word "whore" at any occasion). They aren't fine with what they are like asexuals, they need a therapist.

In which case, they don't actually dislike sex, clearly. They dislike themselves for liking sex.

[Tarfeather]

I'd actually say yes, they are... and that a pre-pubescent child not being asexual pretty often is an indication of, as you call it, the terrible.

(Of course, I don't agree with basing sexuality on attraction, but on desire... but I don't think that's relevant to this question.)

Guess pre-pubescent me was pretty terrible. :> I don't have an issue with that.

[Rising Sun]

In which case, they don't actually dislike sex, clearly. They dislike themselves for liking sex.

I'd rather say that they dislike sex but they still need it. It's exactly the same thing as if you feel the need to smoke, but you want to stop because you hate smoking.

[Guest]

"The terrible" refers to a presumed (sexually violent) action that victimized and traumatized the child, by action of an abusive adult. It doesn't mean the child is a terrible person. Sorry if that was in any way unclear - that would actually be the very last connotation I would want to foster.

[Tarfeather]

By your very own desire-based definition, not being asexual, is not the same as engaging in sex. You can be a child and experience sexual desire. This would make you a non-asexual child.

[Telecaster68]

Rising Sun

But you'd still *like* cigarettes.

[Rising Sun]

No. On the contrary, when you need them so much but don't have enough mental strength to quit, you can only hate them with passion, trust me.

[Tarfeather]

"He hated and loved the ring, just as he hated and loved himself."

Sorry, couldn't help it..

[Telecaster68]

I'm a smoker. You hate the fact you need them, not the things themselves, but the things themselveshave become symbols of your addiction. Like repressed Catholics hate their need for sex but focus that hatred on sex itself.

[Rising Sun]

I can say with confidence that I hate molecules I've become addicted to. I hate the addiction, but when a molecule is designed with addiction as a serious side effect, I hate the molecule itself as well. I never liked taking it. I always took it not because I liked it, but because it was prescribed too long to the point where I was feeling sick without, and it was the only possible way to make the sickness stop.

Same way, sex-repulsed people with a high libido will have sex or touch themselves not because they like it, but because if they don't do it, their libido is going to bother them all day long. There isn't anything likable about it.

Drugs or sex, it's like "I need to go to the bathroom not because I like peeing but only because I'm going to pee in my pants if I don't go to the bathroom". And please, don't tell me that people actually like to pee (because I already see this argument coming).

[Guest]

Actually I'm back to being addicted to cigarettes and I hate them. I hate the taste, I hate the smell, they tend to give me headaches... but still addicted and still smoke. And yeah, I kinda do like them... sometimes. But mostly I hate them.

What are we talking about anyway???

[Guest]

By your very own desire-based definition, not being asexual, is not the same as engaging in sex. You can be a child and experience sexual desire. This would make you a non-asexual child.

As I said - I'd consider a pre-pubescent child desiring partnered sex a pretty big (though not 100% infallible) warning sign that something traumatic happened to them.

[Telecaster68]

But this has come a long way from sexual people not liking sex, which was the original issue.

A high-libido sex-repulsed person is really unlikely to be sexual, surely. They'll just masturbate a lot.

[Guest]

But this has come a long way from sexual people not liking sex, which was the original issue.

A high-libido sex-repulsed person is really unlikely to be sexual, surely. They'll just masturbate a lot.

I agree with you that it's a distinction without a difference, between asexuals and repulsed sexuals.

[Rising Sun]

Asexuality is a lack of attraction / desire / whatever.

Sex-repulsion is a negative feeling towards attraction / desire, usually of psychological origin and sometimes connected to antisexual ideologies. If sex-repulsion causes you to be asexual, most Catholics and all antisexuals are asexual by definition. (In which case they're welcome as asexuals here, and I'd leave AVEN at light speed)

Lack of feelings should not be confused with negative feelings.

[Guest]

But this has come a long way from sexual people not liking sex, which was the original issue.

A high-libido sex-repulsed person is really unlikely to be sexual, surely. They'll just masturbate a lot.

I agree with you that it's a distinction without a difference, between asexuals and repulsed sexuals.

As a romance-repulsed person who is/was hair-triggerishly hyperromantic by nature before SSRI basically switched it off...

No. Just no. Not by a far cry. I was nowhere near close to aro. I would have killed to become aro, because that is a paradisiacally serene and peaceful state compared to the hell I went through, and I yearned for freedom pretty much every single day.

Replace romance with sex, and I'm sure the same applies.

[Guest]

Huh... Ok, that makes sense... so you guys are saying that the internal feelings, etc, are completely different? I accept that!

[Rising Sun]

Completely. Essentially, there is suffering (in order to fight feelings you don't want) in one case, no suffering at all (because there are no feelings to fight) in the other.