Jump to content

Invite To A Support Group for Sexuals Involved With Asexuals


Sweetdreamr45

Recommended Posts

She was the one who said she thought of getting a lover on the side.. maybe I am just too analytical for my own good. You know the whole .. instead of complaing about the situation, find a solution type thing. This is why I went into programming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you suggested she would go and find someone or something else for it - and to suggest that WOULD be an insult.

For some people, it wouldn't feel immoral if it was agreed upon by the couple that sex outside of their relationship was fine, so it wouldn't be an insult but a valid suggestion. (I'd personally be ok with it)

MaraKarina, I might not have all the details here, but from reading a few of your posts, your husband sounds quite abusive. Typical difficulties of asexual/sexual relationships aside, your husband seems to be emotionally abusing you. It's absolutely essential that the people in *any* kind of relationship communicate any problems that they're having in that relationship, and for your husband to completely ignore this, and to insult you and yell at you and call you names because you expressed your needs/desires/fears to him is horrible! And this (which I hope you realize), isn't what all asexual/sexual relationships are like. I'm not sure if this was mentioned before by you or someone else, but have you considered some kind of couples or marriage therapy?

I think I've read that divorce isn't an option for you, but wow... I just feel like there's only so much abuse a person should tolerate before leaving a relationship (based on my own experience and observations of abusive relationships).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talk about it? No, that's an absolute no-no!! Could just as well get on the table and dance naked with the house full of guests. Reactions on my husband's part, at least 99.5% of the time when I tried to bring the subject up ranged from defending himself by shouting at me, insulting me, calling me names from nymphomanic (for complaining about a complete lack of sex for over 6 years .... ) to narrow-minded, and ALWAYS putting full blame on me because I pressure too much (for mentioning it every 9 - 15 months ...), and to his distancing himself that far from me that we didn't have anything else in common except two people living in the same house - in short mentioning the subject turns him into a monster!

I'm sorry to hear that. I wish I could offer some advice, but I can't. Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaraKarina
MaraKarina, I might not have all the details here, but from reading a few of your posts, your husband sounds quite abusive. Typical difficulties of asexual/sexual relationships aside, your husband seems to be emotionally abusing you. It's absolutely essential that the people in *any* kind of relationship communicate any problems that they're having in that relationship, and for your husband to completely ignore this, and to insult you and yell at you and call you names because you expressed your needs/desires/fears to him is horrible! And this (which I hope you realize), isn't what all asexual/sexual relationships are like. I'm not sure if this was mentioned before by you or someone else, but have you considered some kind of couples or marriage therapy?

He's always turned into a completely different person once this subject was mentioned, and otherwise was a perfectly ok person and very supportive of about everything I did, sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. There's just been a time of 2.5 years approx. in total that the whole slid to a side which was NOT tolerable and which had led me to decide on divorce, even though, as you correctly mentioned, I am not in favour of divorce. Then, however, my husband did change so there is no more abuse. Abuse is certainly inacceptable, in my husband's case there's a clear connection between abuse and his asexuality.

But writing this, where exactly does abuse start? The depression and overweight started pretty much the moment my husband started to become "strange" with regards to sex, all the time saying that he had stomach problems and therefore didn't feel like having sex. What do you do in such an instance, run or rather be supportive and hope for your partner to feel better soon.

Does the abuse start when body and psyche react? If so, looking at the common and similar reactions of many sexuals in relationship with asexuals, such a relationship would already be abusive. With the affects being similar and overall negative for all sexuals, it would belong in one line with relationships with addicts of all types. This is not meant to offend anybody, it's just that it parallels observations from other "problem-relationships" so much.

I'm not sure exactly how he'd react now if I'd mention the subject again. My husband seems to be a bit more understanding now. But I also don't get the point of talking about it again and again. He cannot or doesn't want to change or both, and I've tried hard to be ok with it but I am not.

So I'm concentrating on the things which we share, make the best of the situation, and understanding WHY I have some problems and how I feel certain ways and that it is not just me personally failing in this situation, have helped a lot. I don't believe divorce in inself will do a magic trick, and let's wait and see what God will lead us into.

While being married, I have a good job, am a member of a great church community, spend hours on piano practice, have friends, a large family, and never have enough time to read all the books I find ever so interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites
sweetdreamer

Sometimes ya just can't win for losin' here. Now THAT'S why I initially opened up a private support group for sexuals with asexuals, with no asexuals allowed. No matter what you say here, it's too "controversial", "doesn't fit the mold" or some other lame excuse not to agree about something, or to be argumentive about, no matter how kind or unkind it is. It is BECAUSE I am a sexual that I see things as I do. It is BECAUSE you are an asexual that you see things as YOU do. And never the 'twain shall meet. I honestly think that because you have no interest in sex, you try to make up for it by overworking your analytical capacity for thought, preferring to at least be understood in an intellectual sense, if not in an asexual one. Pet my pen and talk to it? Another small-witted slam from a deficient species who simply cannot adjust to life JUST as an asexual, hoping sarcasm will give the illusion of genius out of lack of normalcy. I've tried being nice to you guys, and it doesn't work. If you all don't want to be lumped into a "sameness" category, then why do you all respond with sameness? If you don't want those who are asexual to find it everything negative, then why do you reply to everything negatively?? You just don't "get it", do you? Can't you just engage just once in a regular conversation about something else in the world without finding or saying something imcriminating about the topic? Do you have the ability to, or is that part of the asexual thing also - being unable to get into the swing of an exciting or controversial conversation which could be stimulating to discuss, without nipping it in the bud to thwart the conversation before it hardly begins?? If you want to be taken and accepted as normal, for heaven's sakes, act it. It's human nature to get into stimulating conversations where not everyone will agree with everything being said, but the conversation continues...it's not stamped with a "REJECTED" and set aside simply because some of it or part of it is "not healthy for asexuals". The subject I was talking about was not healthy for ANYBODY, but at least I was looking at the world subjectively and trying to make sense out of the senselessness in it. I wasn't accusing anybody of anything, I was jumping to a higher level than that, trying to consider the fact that there may be spiritual ramifications as to why certain "extremes" might exist gender-aly in our society. YOU sure don't have the answers! You don't know what causes asexuality, do you? There is so much to the human brain that has yet to be discovered. For instance, they have recently discovered that there is a hormone in a heterosexuals brain that exists in the brain of lesbians, and that was on the AOL news. Why couldn't there be something discovered one day in the human mind that could explain asexuality? When I was talking about the spiritual extremes between asexuality and serial killers or sex maniacs it was in a broader perspective....as in, evolution and that maybe one day nature may take care of it and balance out some type of sick mental persona that is happening in today's world causing so much horror and depravity. I wasn't trying to make hero's out of you (heaven forbid I should even imply that there might be a higher order for things in the life which would be congruant to asexuality). I'm in as much saying, however, that as they continue to learn more and more about the human brain, it is very possible that they WILL find out that asexuality is caused by the lack of a certain hormone or nerve sector taking place in the anatomy of the body or brain of asexuals. What's wrong with saying that? Is that okay to say or do I have to go stand in the corner of the room? I am not saying asexuality is a mental illness, anymore than homosexuality or heterosexuality is, as there are nuts everywhere, too many of them. But I WAS in fact, simply pointing out that there exists a measure of extremes to human sexuality now. SEX and NO SEX. With other genders, there was sex. Asexuality is the first to come along and define themselves as a "NO SEX" gender. Most sexual predators, and serial killers come with the "SEX" label. Whether it has to do with evolution or the brain, there is a new gender being introduced into the world as the first "NO SEX" one. I think it opens up a plethora of possibilities to discuss as far as science and mankind goes. YES, there may be asexuals that may be rapists, pedifiles and serial killers. But I hope to high-heaven that isn't the case; I'm simply saying that nature and evolution (or your perception of God) may be creating a higher-minded gender through this extreme. I realize you just want to be accepted as you are and as everyone else is, as nothing special but as people who simply don't care about having sex. I understand that. HOWEVER, as you have learned through numerous associations and communications with others through the AVEN network, asexuality is only normal if you're an asexual. Just as gays should make a life with gays, asexuals should make a life with asexuals as their population increase and their choices for life partner become more plentiful. You mustn't think for a moment that a sexual person can find a satisfying life with an asexual, anymore than a gay person can find a satisfying life with non-gay person. Meanwhile, those of us sexuals who are in the discovering stages of learning our mates are asexual, should be recognized as such by the asexual community, and see that we are indeed experiencing some of the same heartaches and feelings of depression or isolation and undesirability that women who discover they are married to a gay person would feel. We don't "blend" with you, and you're being extremely unfair and deceitful by trying to make it sound like you should or we should. You are a different gender, a new gender, a NO SEX gender. It sounds to me like you're all in denial that you're even a different gender. What do you think not wanting sex or caring for sex is all about?? It's about NO SEX. If you're a gay person who doesn't want sex, you're a NO SEX gender that prefers life with another gay. You're choking off your gay partner's sex life. ANY WAY YOU SLICE THE CAKE...if you don't want or care for sex and claim to be an asexual, you ARE a NO SEX gender, which means you are choking off the sex life of your your mate. Okay, "choking off" sounds intentional, and I know you have problems with that. But whether you like it or not, that's what's what's happening, nonetheless. Oh sure you can fake it, or have it a few times a year, but you are still a NO SEX gender. If you take offense to this, I'm sorry, but in a few years when there are many more asexuals out there for you to pair up with, believe me, you'll be leaning towards pairing up with them, rather than someone who is considered, in your own terms, Sexual. Sexuals want to be with other sexuals, or haven't you gotten that message yet? If there's one thing that should be very clear to you, it's that the people you term "Sexual" want a sex life. That doesn't mean that sex is paramount to us, we are saying that it's "normal" to us living in a loving, intimate, sexual relationship. That doesn't mean you're not intelligent, that you're psychologically impotent, or physically impotent; it just means that we sexuals wish this Asexual movement happened years ago so we wouldn't be in the type of partnership situations we find ourselves currently in today. WE have to be the ground-breakers of the first generation Asexuals' partners, husbands and wives, and that means we're learning how to deal with it, and helping to educate other Sexuals on how to deal with it - or not deal with. The support group DOES help and we've learned not to turn to you for validation of our own sexuality and desirability. However, we are not professionals, and we are still working our way through issues which we'll learn in time does not always "come with the territory" if we're with an asexual, as well as issues that do. You need to have patience with us if we can't express ourselves clearly; if we toss terms out there that you don't want to be recognized or associated with, because this is new for us too. At least we're here, as you are, trying very hard to help the world recognize Asexuality as a new gender which needs to be accepted, and find some normal ground in which to communicate our needs and desires and yours, as well. We're ALL pupils, there are no experts in this field....not yet. Time has not given any of us that privilege yet, but I'm sure it's in the works. As the media continues to perpetual it's discovery - there will be a sexual expert or "opportunist" that picks this up, and sees a need for a professional to intervene and do some serious studies on it...out of genuine concern, or just the money from a bestseller at the bookstore. Mark my words. Until then, we're all just feeling and groping our way through this. Sexuals (those of us who like to have sexual intimacy), who are married to Asexuals are going to have a lot to say one day when a professional does take the time to delve into this new gender more thoroughly, so you might want to listen to us a little more and take what we have to say into more serious consideration. Believe me, someone will get ahold of this Asexual stuff and try to pin more diseases on it than fleas on a donkey. So do you want to have a disease or just be a different gender, because it will probably come down to that. You're being looked at from a lot of different angles, so you better be wearing your Sunday best when you respond to messages. You better start defining yourself with more specific terms. You can't say you blend with others (sexuals) when you don't. You better be able to embrace your asexuality in whole, and not in part. We're your wives, the girlfriends, the husbands...and we know you're different, so don't play games with us, because we're the ones that really love you despite the differences. Be nice to us because it really hurts that you can't love us the way we want to be loved. YES, you are that different. That's all I have to say about it (for now). The wife of a wonderful asexual man, Robin

Link to post
Share on other sites

sweetdreamer, The views you express in the latter part of your most recent post are very valid points, many of which I had not seen before. I'm not sure I like the term "gender" applied to (a)sexuality (though I cannot think of a better term), but it does bring in a viewpoint I had not been exposed before, and honestly I think it does help bring the magnitude of our differences into perspective. Honestly, through this thread, while I have understood that we were different, and that the desire for sexual relationships was important, I didn't realise the magnitude was a large as it is.

I apologise for getting defensive here, but I would like to say that we do discuss controvercial topics. It is true they are often locked, but this only happens when people start instulting each other instead of discussing opposing views. There is a huge difference between "I disagree and here's why" and "Your ideas (and perhaps even you) are just wrong and dumb." The latter tends to bring about locking, as no progress can be made when insults are flung around. Through civil discussion, even if no agreement can be made, at least a better understanding between opposing parties can be made.

Anyhow, while I personally do not take insult, such statements as "[trying[ to make up for [lack of desire for sex] by overworking your analytical capacity for thought" and references to asexuals as being a "deficient species," as well as the many comments implying that asexuals are abnormal can easily be taken offense to.

This is not my forum, and what I am about to say I say as a concerned member and not as a moderator: I have no problems with allowing this discussion to continue. I have learned a good bit from it, but I would recommend that people (both sexual and asexual) take a moment to calm down before posting. Many good things have been said, but they have often been tainted by insults, and such words evoke anger, which can cloud, or even completely derail a good discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MaraKarina,

First of all, sorry if I'm missing things when I comment (it's hard for me to remember some details and this is quite a long topic ;))

I can't really think of asexuality being inherently abusive to a sexual in a relationship with that person. However, I think it's abusive if one of the partners refuses to communicate with the other partner about the problems he/she is having with the relationship. That only leads someone like you to think that there's something wrong with you for wanting what you want... If he's not willing to work through your problems, how can it work? That's leaving all of the troubles in the relationship on you, and it's giving you an unhealthy mindset that it's all your fault- at least, that's my impression. And I think that for a partner to refuse to communicate as your husband is, I guess that just seems a bit abusive to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pet my pen and talk to it? Another small-witted slam from a deficient species who simply cannot adjust to life JUST as an asexual, hoping sarcasm will give the illusion of genius out of lack of normalcy.

willis.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweetdreamer,

Given the length of your post, I'll do as you want and not dissect it completely. Instead, I'll take just a couple of the points you presented:

If you don't want those who are asexual to find it everything negative, then why do you reply to everything negatively?? You just don't "get it", do you? Can't you just engage just once in a regular conversation about something else in the world without finding or saying something imcriminating about the topic? Do you have the ability to, or is that part of the asexual thing also - being unable to get into the swing of an exciting or controversial conversation which could be stimulating to discuss, without nipping it in the bud to thwart the conversation before it hardly begins??

Discussions here don't have to be negative, even when they get heated. Yesterday I accused vits3k of "strawmanslaughter" in a thread in the Hot Box, and we later ended up agreeing on one important point. And we reached that consensus PRECISELY by analytical thinking and trying to prove the other's arguments false (or, in my case, irrelevant). If you read our archives, you'll find several instances of similar discussions. We like to analyze things, so what? In fact, given that a high percentage of the AVEN population is composed of people with Asperger's, you should try to understand that, at least for some of the people here, that kind of responses are natural. You proposed a point of view, we said why we disagreed with it. My own view was that there was no way to substantiate your claims, and that it's not politically convenient to uphold them. It's not the first time that someone has said precisely the same thing, but we'd rather not be seen as people who think of themselves as saints.

If you want to be taken and accepted as normal, for heaven's sakes, act it. It's human nature to get into stimulating conversations where not everyone will agree with everything being said, but the conversation continues...it's not stamped with a "REJECTED" and set aside simply because some of it or part of it is "not healthy for asexuals".

We didn't stamp it out! The thread was never locked. Everybody can argue for or against your (or my, or anyone's) point of view. It's just fair that if we don't agree with you, we should have the opportunity to say so. The conversation can continue, and did continue, but in order to reach truth (or get closer to truth, or a semblance of truth) we need to confront statements with any possible objections. True rejection would have been ignoring your comments, or worse, twisting them into saying what you didn't intend.

The 'unhealthiness' I mentioned was in regards to the perception of the asexual community, and many asexuals themselves. As you've said, asexuals are deviants. I don't want to belong to a group of deviants thinking that they are superior or holier or better human beings than the rest. And I don't want 99% of the world thinking that asexuals are an arrogant lot who believe themselves to be saints.

The opinion I expressed was honest and with an aim to debate the issue, not kill it. If we had wanted to kill it, we could have deleted the post or lock the thread. Instead, I chose to argue with you, because that's what I normally do when I disagree. Arguing is not wrong, and the right to dissent is a basic element of democracy.

YOU sure don't have the answers! You don't know what causes asexuality, do you?

Nope. I don't. But saying that because I don't know what causes asexuality I can't disagree with you is wrong, from a logical point of view. My objections still stand.

I'm in as much saying, however, that as they continue to learn more and more about the human brain, it is very possible that they WILL find out that asexuality is caused by the lack of a certain hormone or nerve sector taking place in the anatomy of the body or brain of asexuals. What's wrong with saying that? Is that okay to say or do I have to go stand in the corner of the room?

Of course you can say that! We never said you shouldn't! But I also have the right to express my disagreement with your views, and say why.

Another small-witted slam from a deficient species who simply cannot adjust to life JUST as an asexual, hoping sarcasm will give the illusion of genius out of lack of normalcy.

I don't get it. Was I sarcastic? My thanks were genuine. I like it when people say nice things about me or groups I belong to. Then again, English is not my first language, so I might have come across as rude. If that's the case, I'm honestly sorry.

However, I must say that I'm offended by being called a "deficient species who simply cannot adjust to life JUST as an asexual". I want a clarification. Your post reads like it was written in anger, and that's a bad start for argumentation. Try to approach the subject with a cold mind, and you'll see that it was never my intention to offend you or restrict discussion. If you wrote that phrase in a bout of anger, I'm willing to forget it was said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sweetdreamer

Okay, let's all hold hands and sing "What the world needs now, is love sweet love." I'm serious (small chuckle) I like the idea. I've often seen sarcastic remarks being made towards members of the sexual community, when all the sexual was doing was just being kind and striving to understand the situation they found themselves in with their own particular asexual involvement. Sarcasm doesn't sit well with anyone, does it? Asexuals are NOT a "species" at all, let alone a "deficient species". There's a lot of ways to put things, isn't there? We must all choose our words carefully. Even when I made the comment about the "pet pen", it was UNCALLED FOR AND UNTRUE. It was a play on words resulting from a statement made to me from another person's reply to a previous post. I really feel bad about that. I misunderstood the comment that poster was making. It's easy to misunderstand words if you have to be on guard about what others are saying or thinking about you all the time, isn't it? Solution? We shouldn't take our posting in this public forum for granted. We (including me, and I'm not referring to everybody, just those who it might pertain to) need to make sure nothing is left open to interpretation. Say what you mean and mean what you say...that's the best measure to take in a public forum. As for my other statement that was sarcastic, OF COURSE there are asexuals who are not only geniuses, but perceived quite normal in their interactions with others. So I also retract that statement. Again, it was only a play on words, something we should all be wary of doing because it does not draw out the "best" in us, and we need to present our best selves at ALL times on this forum. As I stated, this network is being looked at very closely because of the media attention. When you are saying something that sounds as if it might come off sarcastic, place something like this after the statement - (just kidding). Place a *smile* here and there so the reader knows what mood you're in. Use the smileys to help express yourself and your moods so no one misinterprets anything you're saying. As for everything else I said in my previous post, I meant it. Therefore, I'm going to call it a night. I hope that we all agree now that Sexuals should have their own private egroup, apart from the floodlights of the Asexual world. You're the ones on stage right now and you should be presenting yourselves in the best possible light. We, as "sexuals with asexuals" will help you to do that, by allowing us to learn how to nurture you AND ourselves within a private egroups for our own good and yours. We DO share your heart and wishes that the AVEN Asexual Network becomes a positive force for the recognition of "Asexuality" to the nation and to the internationally-known community as well. I'll get down off my soap box now. Goodnight all, and take care, Robin *yawwwwn" niters! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, good enough. While I still disagree with the way the idea was implemented, I won't argue any more on the subject of the convenience of the yahoo group for sex. Maybe it's for the best, even if it did come across as a bit... undiplomatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pet my pen and talk to it? Another small-witted slam from a deficient species who simply cannot adjust to life JUST as an asexual, hoping sarcasm will give the illusion of genius out of lack of normalcy.

Are you talking about my sig here? I didn't make it up... It came from uncyclopedia. The snippet of the article on Writer's Block. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Writing#Writer.27s_Block

And I highly doubt the admin team of that site are asexual.

I liked it because I like to write.. not because I am asexual and have a lack of what society dubs as normalcy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaraKarina

Goats:

I understand people don’t not communicate on something because they are mean or want to be abusive but because it’s a subject that is very difficult, painful or else for them. That doesn’t make it right, but that’s how things are very often.

Sweetdreamer,

Ever heard about the reactions of an alcoholic when you say maybe he's drinking a bit too much? If he agrees, he's been an alcoholic for the longest time.

More frequently, you'll be faced will denial, abusive language placing the blame on the asking person as a matter of defence, mockery of your "boring ordinary life", emphasis of their genius, and on and on.

And - the partner of an alcoholic regularly shows typical symptoms, commonly called co-dependency, which interlock with the alcoholic's problems. Feeling guilty etc. about the situation, torn between support and leaving the scene. It takes much of an effort, too, for the partner to break free from the symptoms of co-dependency and be healed!

It's definitely NOT done by cooperating - on the subject of alcohol - with the alcoholic and in trying to understand how the alcoholic feels.

Asexuals are no addicts. But the similarities which come up in many asexual/sexual relationships are too many to be ignored!

Besides, who brought up the idea that asexuality is NEW? I don’t believe it is! Just as homosexuality has always existed, I am sure asexuality always had. It’s just that, the longer we go back in history, the lesser the say women had regarding their lives, and men would either get married or not get married, and if a married man did not have sex, who was his wife to complain (in history, I mean)? Even now, would we expose our partner’s mistakes or problems to our friends, except maybe to the very closest of them (or in places where it is not connected with him/her)?

The passage I quote from the bible (Matthew 19) uses the term “eunuch” in this translation, but it could just as well, had it then existed, have used the term asexual, and certainly included those who were physically “normal” and just didn’t like sex.

The passage will also explain to those who have a problem to understand why it’s not a solution for me to get a divorce. While it is certainly not a problem to seek separate housing in cases of severe abuse etc., the point of re-marriage/new partner would, not to mention “finding someone else for sex”. Re-Marriage is not completely impossible but ok only in very few, specific situations (which are outlined in a different passage I did not quote because it has no relevancy to asexuality).

“ 3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. “

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Swept)

I do not think FF, whistler, and others are getting hung up on the word “victim” alone. We are getting hung up on a repetitive pattern of blaming solely the asexual for a mutual incompatibility issue.

The whole point is that we need to stop blaming each other and just either accept it as a fact of life or not and move on. It is not your husband’s fault for being asexual any more than it is your fault for being sexual.

It's normal to want sex with the man you love. It's normal to get aroused and excited sexually, and because it's normal, it's okay to talk about it.

Well, for an asexual woman, it is usually not normal to want to have sex with the man she loves, especially if he, too, is asexual (although I must tread carefully here because I think for some asexuals it is normal to want to please a sexual partner which might be expressed by having sex, plus the different flavors of asexual, etc., etc...). In a relationship everything is either 100%; 50/50; or 0%. There is no majority rule with only one of you claiming the "normal" majority. If two asexuals are in a relationship, asexuality is “normal”. If two sexuals are in a relationship, sexuality is “normal”. But for you to claim that your half of the relationship is “more normal” than your partner’s half belittles him and his role in the relationship. If you are in a relationship with an asexual, asexuality is just as normal as sexuality in your relationship and no other statistics on what is normal or abnormal for other people or couples matter.

One of the reasons is because a very vital part of our life was taken away from us.

Taken away by whom?? The obvious implied answer is that the vital part of your life was taken away by your asexual partner. But in reality, you made the choice: if you feel you are deprived of sex it is YOU, the sexual, who is doing the depriving! There it is again, placing the agency of the problem squarely on the shoulders of the asexual.

…but dangit....sometimes I want to go out and get laid (not that I will). Can you see a Sexual admitting that here on this forum?

Yeah, I can. Go ahead, say it. In fact there have been numerous threads contemplating whether or not it is acceptable for the sexual partner to do just that (go out and get laid) so long as the asexual partner knows and agrees to that solution. I totally try to understand what a sexual is feeling and I have no problem with you expressing what you are feeling. Just so long as you acknowledge YOUR ownership of YOUR feelings, rather than trying to blame them on someone else. What I have a problem with is when you seem to implicitly caveat it: “Sometimes I want to go out and get laid (and my husband should be doing it but he’s not because something is wrong with him and it is all his fault).”

The vast majority of your stated goals are great: support, a place to discuss sexuality as a sexual, a place to explore your identity as a sexual, and even a place to explore ways to re-connect with your sexuality. And I like the re-wording of your statement. However, you do seem to have a trend of implicitly blaming the asexual for everything, and that trend is what is causing the controversy here. I think it is counterproductive to encourage people to think that the Sexuals are Right and the Asexuals are Wrong. Support = productive; encouraging blame = not productive. It is great for sexuals to have a support forum, but it directly challenges the entire purpose of AVEN to have a forum that encourages sexuals to feel that they are Right and their asexual partners are Wrong. Plus, it is asking for contention to suggest that it exclude asexuals when sexuals are welcome to all parts of "our" board.

As far as fairness and compromise: first, it sounds like MaraKarina might actually be a victim in her relationship (MK I will edit this if I am wrong or if you want me to), if her SO is belittling her, berating her, calling her names, etc. So it does in fact go both ways. His behavior as an asexual is just as unacceptable as a sexual person belittling the asexual and demanding compromise that the asexual is not prepared to make. Which brings me to the issue of compromise. There is absolutely no way of quantifying what is "fair" in any relationship. Certain people will be willing/capable of so much compromise and that is it. If an asexual needs absolutely no sex, then yes, the sexual partner needs to either accept this arrangement or leave, and yes, the sexual is doing 100% of the compromise, but that is still the sexual's choice and is therefore still a "fair" arrangement. If the sexual requires absolute sex on demand, the asexual must either accept this or leave, which would require the asexual to make 100% of the sacrifice and would also constitute a "fair" arrangement if the asexual accepted it.

On this board you read about all kinds of compromises: twice a week, only on Sundays, once a month, twice a year, never, whenever. Any and all of these arrangements are fair if both parties agree to them, and any of these arrangements may need to be modified as time passes. If one partner is willing to go 80% and the other 40%, you two have a high chance of finding a "fair" compromise, even though 70/30 might not mathematically seem "fair". If one is only willing to go 30% and the other 30%, you will never find a compromise that seems fair to both parties, even if you are both somehow mathematically compromising exactly 50%. Each individual person must decide what an acceptable level of compromise is and if the other partner can't deal with that then problems will arise. But there is no "fair" or "unfair" in compromise. Compromise means you both agree that it is fair, whatever degree each person ends up compromising.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaraKarina

M51,

It's ok that you wrote I may be a victim, because I really think that this is what it is. But let me say that the abusive language etc my husband used (that's history, fortunately!) was EXCLUSIVELY used when the subject of sexuality was raised, i.e. a very small part of our life when you look at it all. But of course, even "small" bugs have their effects on other parts.

I totally agree with you regarding necessary compromise where both have to find what suits them. Guess why many sexuals see themselves as victims or as cheated or however you wish to put it is that in their situations, it was not possible to notice the asexuality until AFTER they were married, had children, mutual financial obligations etc. etc. And that is NOT fair to the sexual. And to then say that the sexual should leave if s/he's not fine with the situation makes matters worse.

Just assume the sexual is a woman with three children, depending on the finances of her (asexual) husband. After child No. 3 was born, he "suddenly" decides he doesn't like sex. (For clarification: it's not my situation, I have no children and I get a nice paycheck). What do you say to this woman? Go have an affair? Get divorced? What about the children? Deprive them of the presence of the other parent? The income? The feelings? It's not that the sexuals who struggle with their sex life in their relationships with an asexual partner don't love their partners, quite the opposite.

You're right that both mustn't blame each other but find ways in which to compromise. To say that the sexual should end the relationship if s/he doesn't like the situation would be the opposite of compromise. And, maybe worth thinking about, the more conservative a society, the more likely that the person leaving (in these cases the sexuals?) would be the ones getting the full blame for the failure of their marriage and would have to live with that.

So, please, please, please think about it before you mention "they should end a relationship". Think what you would tell the lady from my example if she came to this forum, if she needed help and support. Though none on this form is responsible for her situation, she may leave this forum with some ideas as to how things could work out or frustrated as the arguments she finds are those she heard from her spouse again and again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
M51,

Just assume the sexual is a woman with three children, depending on the finances of her (asexual) husband. After child No. 3 was born, he "suddenly" decides he doesn't like sex. (For clarification: it's not my situation, I have no children and I get a nice paycheck). What do you say to this woman? Go have an affair? Get divorced? What about the children? Deprive them of the presence of the other parent? The income? The feelings? It's not that the sexuals who struggle with their sex life in their relationships with an asexual partner don't love their partners, quite the opposite.

.

How nice to see advice that doesn't just say "leave him..leave her..."

One of the reasons given (I am not saying it was the true reason) by my then wife for booting me out was the "lack of sex". So, for want of a few minutes pleasure every now and again she deprived two children of their Father and (because she never was very good at managing or understanding money) settled for a scratched living. Could there have been a compromise? Of course there could. But as any psycologist could tell you, if you are having difficulties getting sexually aroused in the first place it certainly doesn't help to be constantly reminded of the fact!.

The marriage vows (or at least the traditional ones) do state "for better or worse, in sickness and in health.." Nothing there about "Till one of us gets bored with lack of sex..". That there ARE valid reasons for ending a marriage/relationship I do not doubt, but I DO seriously doubt that "lack of sex" should count as one. There are a thousand and one ways one spouse shows love for another if one cares to look. Simply providing for (or looking after a home for) takes a great deal of love in itself.

roddy

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaraKarina

Roddy,

I am very sorry that your wife left you and I hope that your children cope in the situation with as few as possible problems.

Suffering from the absence of sex myself and mostly having learnt to cope with the situation pretty well, occasionally really struggling with the situation though, I nonetheless very much believe in the vow "for better or worse, in sickness and death". If I leave my husband for this, what would I do (or expect him to do, it's both ways) if he had an accicent and were sick needing care. Just get a divorce ...

Unfortunately, society has been conditioned such that divorce is the first suggestion that comes as a solution to about everything, and people do follow it.

Have I noticed that divorced people are happier? Generally not. Is it good for their children? No. Even in cases of domestic violence where divorce appears better than continuing the situation (and I don't see an alternative to divorce in such cases, unless the behaviour does change fast), children would benefit more from a changed situation. Finances? No. In Europe it's big business for lawyers, courts, housing sales fees etc, maybe in the USA that comes at a lower price. And except for the high above average incomes, divorced "families" pay with a significantly lower standard of living, or even get close to the poverty line.

I also sympathize with your ex-wife though. I can only guess that she's been suffering a lot and didn't see a different solution. Problems especially if it's something with the potential to hurt us (and lack of sex may very badly hurt emotionally!) can get inflated to the extent that we fail to see the whole picture. It's like having a head-ache. When it gets really bad, you don't think much about your hands or feet. All you want to do is get an aspirin against the head ache.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Swept)

Hey MK,

Re-reading my post I do kind of address only the here and now. It does really suck that people may be quite committed and entrenched in a relationship when the discovery is made. I still don't think the asexual should be blamed because it was not a deception; the asexual was probably struggling with her/his "difference" her/his whole life and wanted nothing more than to be everything their partner wanted. But life doesn't work that way.

The relative suckiness of a choice does not mean that there is no choice. Once identity as an asexual is discovered, both parties still need to reassess their priorities and choose to stay or go. If twelve years of marriage and a kid and a house and a life are deemed to be worth more than a few sexual encounters, so be it. THat is still a choice, although possibly a very painful onE. I guess I would tell _your hypothetical lady_ to carefully determine how much sex is worth tO her. Then maybe try to find alternative soltions. And maybe there is no solution. Maybe life just sucks sometimes. Maybe there is nothing that anyone can tell her to make things better.

One thing I've noticed about asexuals is that we keep stumbling upon relationship-related truths that nobody ever really thought about before. I think this particular problem is something we - both sexuals and asexuals at AVEN - will just have to continue to harness our collective creativity towards solving, because the traditional model provided by society is not going to work for us. We need to forge ahead and find our own way. Easier said than done, I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaraKarina
One thing I've noticed about asexuals is that we keep stumbling upon relationship-related truths that nobody ever really thought about before. I think this particular problem is something we - both sexuals and asexuals at AVEN - will just have to continue to harness our collective creativity towards solving, because the traditional model provided by society is not going to work for us. We need to forge ahead and find our own way. Easier said than done, I know.

Think asexuality is as old as sexuality and homosexuality, just that it didn't have a name and people didn't talk much about sex anyways in the past. And as I wrote before, the longer you go back in history, the more it was the man only deciding what was done. If he was a sexual that meant sex, and if he was an asexual it meant none or, depending on social ranking the minimum to produce the required children.

At least concerning women, there are many who'd say that they've "suffered" sex only because their husbands wanted it, considering it their duty while married. Unfortunately, in history, women, including asexual women, didn't have much of a choice except to get married or stay with a brother's family etc. if they wanted to survive.

Now, there's no problem to remain single, have whatever types of great friend-ships, share an appartment or a house without peope "talking" and, depending on which country you live in, arrange for a "registered" partner to inherit your property on close-family-conditions, and share other responsibilities.

Apart from different needs within a marriage, people will need to work it out as it works for the two, individually, as they always had to - and have to do with whatever challenges will come up. And when you are married, the only way to avoid challenges - and to all I hear over many years there will be one or two MAJOR challenges - is to get divorced in time.

The only choice in fact you make is whether you get married "for better and for worse" and grow with the challenges (I know that many people with this in mind fail in spite of their sincere efforts), or you get married "as long as I consider you great" and plan to abandon your partner when inconvenience knocks on the door or emotions cool down etc. It's an attitude. And business. Because people who get divorced (frequently) spend more money on the festivities, legal, child care, counseling, buying and selling houses, furniture, on restaurants when they are single - or burn more money for nothing. Also depending on how you look at things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Swept)

Just assume the sexual is a woman with three children, depending on the finances of her (asexual) husband. After child No. 3 was born, he "suddenly" decides he doesn't like sex. What do you say to this woman? Go have an affair? Get divorced? What about the children? Deprive them of the presence of the other parent? The income? The feelings? It's not that the sexuals who struggle with their sex life in their relationships with an asexual partner don't love their partners, quite the opposite.

Okay, I do want to caveat my above post just a little.

1) If this is a loveless relationship and the woman is only staying in it for the money, that is screwed up. If she is living off of the asexual's charity then she's going to have to live off of his charity on his terms, which apparently are: no sex.

2) The children are the offspring of both parents, not just the mother. No, she should absolutely NOT deprive them of the presence of the father. How the heck does depriving the kids of their father have ANYTHING to do with the father's sexuality? There is such a thing as joint custody, and there are also plenty of fathers who have sole custody of their children and do just fine. A divorce does not automatically mean that the woman keeps the kids and never lets the father see them. The children's future and welfare should not be affected by the relationship of their parents. Both parents should love the kids and do what is best for them. IMO, the greatest sin in this world is to use a child as a weapon against his other parent in order to get more money or get personal revenge for something your (ex)spouse did. I don't care how bad the (ex)spouse's offense is, children should not be forced into the middle of parents' fights. So you ask, what about the children? Your hypothetical lady should honestly assess what is best for them. It is not best for them to see their parents constantly fighting, if that is the situation at home. It is not best for her to stunt the kids' emotional development because she refuses to let them see their father. If she cannot provide for them she needs to do the hard right and let her asexual husband have primary custody, and HE needs to do the right thing and let her have a reasonable relationship with the kids.

3) The income? Strange the way that is worded, as if it is not earned by a specific person. Perhaps she should deal with the no-sex issue for a year or two, go back to college (using HIS income to pay her way, I'm sure), get some job skills, and start earning HER income. Then perhaps she would feel her choices to be more palatable. But, of course, that would require effort on her part.

4) The feelings? What feelings? Okay, so if there is still love and respect in the relationship then everything I said above does not apply, they should not jump into a divorce, they should try to work it out, etc. But the priorities of this lady seem to be control (as opposed to love) of children, money, and sex, not necessarily in that order. Feelings for her husband seem to be an afterthought at best, as decribed in this scenario. Which means the relationship is broke and no amount of sex is going to fix it anyway.

But these are all just caveats because I just can't give good advice based on a two sentence scenario.

And I also wonder about how you worded his "sudden" dislike for sex. I think most asexuals would agree that it is not a discovery of a "sudden" dislike for sex. They've disliked sex for a long time and just didn't know why, and maybe tried to "fix" themselves, or mayeb tried to "make it go away", or tried to be "normal" in a world that defines "normal" as Sexual. What actually occurs sometimes rather suddenly is the acceptance of who you are and finding the courage to speak up about it. This takes years for some people, so it may seem sudden to an outside observer but it is a gradual, painful process for the asexual. And please do not discount that all the time the asexual has been giving out sex, s/he has been growing more and more frustrated herself. For ten years she has been doing 100% of the compromising, not because this is the amount she has reasonably assessed to be her limit (like I was talking about above) but because she felt she had to. You can't make a reasonable assessment of your limits until you understand yourself and what your limits are. By the time the asexual simply can't take it anymore and has to accept herself and inform her partner, her ability to compromise has already been totally sapped, so it does seem like a sudden transition to no sex at all from the sexual's point of view. You are right, this is not fair to the sexual, but it is not by any means intentional or mean-spirited on the part of the asexual. I guess you could say the asexual has been building up hurt for ten years, and now the sexual unfortunately experiences all that hurt at once, but they are both hurting.

So again, to the hypothetical lady: 1) Have a little patience. If this is a recent, "sudden" development then a little bit of time and a whole lot of love and understanding will probably help the asexual be willing to compromise again. Time always seems longer to the person who is waiting for something. Four months is not "forever". Don't be so pessimistic. 2) Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst: Go to college, get some job skills. There is no excuse for a physically and mentally sound adult in the West today to be totally dependent on the finances of another. Also, that job needs only to be able to support YOU. If it can also support three kids, great. But there are plenty of perfectly acceptable options other than you having sole custody and financial responsibility for those kids. And those options should absolutely NOT include using the children against each other for money or petty revenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaraKarina
1) If this is a loveless relationship and the woman is only staying in it for the money, that is screwed up. If she is living off of the asexual's charity then she's going to have to live off of his charity on his terms, which apparently are: no sex.

1. Why would the woman not be glad that there is no sex if it is a loveless relationship?

2. What do you mean by living of the asexual’s charity? If the couple shares their household, child-rearing, and money-making duties such that the woman takes over child-rearing and household and the man the money-making, the money he makes is 50% hers, if you ask me.

2) The children are the offspring of both parents, not just the mother. No, she should absolutely NOT deprive them of the presence of the father. How the heck does depriving the kids of their father have ANYTHING to do with the father's sexuality? There is such a thing as joint custody, and there are also plenty of fathers who have sole custody of their children and do just fine. A divorce does not automatically mean that the woman keeps the kids and never lets the father see them. The children's future and welfare should not be affected by the relationship of their parents. Both parents should love the kids and do what is best for them. IMO, the greatest sin in this world is to use a child as a weapon against his other parent in order to get more money or get personal revenge for something your (ex)spouse did. I don't care how bad the (ex)spouse's offense is, children should not be forced into the middle of parents' fights. So you ask, what about the children? Your hypothetical lady should honestly assess what is best for them. It is not best for them to see their parents constantly fighting, if that is the situation at home. It is not best for her to stunt the kids' emotional development because she refuses to let them see their father. If she cannot provide for them she needs to do the hard right and let her asexual husband have primary custody, and HE needs to do the right thing and let her have a reasonable relationship with the kids.

Of course, the children have nothing to do with the father’s asexuality. And I never even thought that far as to think that any responsible parent could want that the other parent could not see, visit etc the children after a divorce. Or that a child might be used as a weapon.

The furthest I could actually think was a nice and neat divorce where both don’t use the children as a weapon and where both see and care for the children regularly. It’s just that the break-up of a family – which a divorce is, no matter HOW you do it – will have its negative effects on children. If you want their best, you try to avoid a divorce. There’s plenty of literature on it, so I don’t want to go into detail.

3) The income? Strange the way that is worded, as if it is not earned by a specific person. Perhaps she should deal with the no-sex issue for a year or two, go back to college (using HIS income to pay her way, I'm sure), get some job skills, and start earning HER income. Then perhaps she would feel her choices to be more palatable. But, of course, that would require effort on her part.

Ever had the idea that there are women with an excellent/college education who give up their jobs, at least for a while, to take care of their children’s needs? They don’t do that because they are lazy, nor because it gives them great benefits. They usually do it because they want the best for their family. Or how do you think a family with three small children will work with two people working 12 hours a day – and the better the job the more likely it will be a 12 hour+ day! You cannot responsibly raise a family with a housekeeper alone.

4) The feelings? What feelings? Okay, so if there is still love and respect in the relationship then everything I said above does not apply, they should not jump into a divorce, they should try to work it out, etc. But the priorities of this lady seem to be control (as opposed to love) of children, money, and sex, not necessarily in that order. Feelings for her husband seem to be an afterthought at best, as decribed in this scenario. Which means the relationship is broke and no amount of sex is going to fix it anyway.

Didn’t list with priorities in mind. If there are no feelings and it’s just for the money, as mentioned above, I am sure the woman would be glad to be left alone. She wouldn’t even ask why he doesn’t want sex and definitely not have a problem with it.

There is no excuse for a physically and mentally sound adult in the West today to be totally dependent on the finances of another. Also, that job needs only to be able to support YOU. If it can also support three kids, great. But there are plenty of perfectly acceptable options other than you having sole custody and financial responsibility for those kids.

This sure varies from country to country. In my country it is the norm that mothers with small children stay at home and even where they like to work - or must because the husband’s income is not sufficient – it’s a nightmare to find somewhat decent child-care. And schools are only in the mornings, with lots of things for the pupils to do at home. You have to take this into account before blaming someone for “totally depending on the finances of another”; the legal system here accounts for that with sustenance to be paid in case of divorce.

I am not sure how old you are – how do you think a household with 3 kids would work, if both parents would be away 12 hours each day?

Besides, this was an example. To say, hey, divorce is not the magic formular. Believe me, if I am married to an asesxual and that primarily because of his money, status whatever, I take the money and the benefits and don’t care for sex. I wouldn’t bother to think about it at all, except with relief that I don’t have to do it with him. The lack of sex becomes a problem to a sexual ONLY where the emotions are intact.

And that is the crux (or one of it) why an asexual partner is such a challenge for a sexual – the behaviour signals that s/he’s lost interest. It’s the behaviour of a sexual who’s lost interest. And the sexual stops minding the lack of sex the moment s/he’s lost interest. Whatever is discussed about it is fine, helps people understand each other, but the basic message through behaviour is “I’ve lost interest in you”, and as all other behaviour is different it’s psychologically very confusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Swept)

That's all cool. I think we are saying the same thing just with a different focus. The only thing is:

Ever had the idea that there are women with an excellent/college education who give up their jobs, at least for a while, to take care of their children’s needs?

I thought that because you said she was dependent on his income. I understood from that that she had no means of earning her own income, rather than that she gave up a viable means of income in order to raise the kids. But that is just an explanation, not an argument.

I am not sure how old you are – how do you think a household with 3 kids would work, if both parents would be away 12 hours each day?

I'm not a teenager - far from it, if that is what you were wondering. I am old enough to have seen such households working quite well, though as I was not actually a part of them I can't tell you what the secret was. I have known several dual income families like this and they seem to make it work somehow. The house maybe isn't as clean and there is always work to do, but they make it happen. And where do you live that 12-hour work days are common enough for BOTH parents to be away twelve hours a day?

I totally understand the idea of having one parent stay home (not necessarily the mother) to take care of "domestic" stuff while the other works to provide the financial support. In fact, if I were ever to get married and have kids I would think this arrangement was preferable, and I would be happy to be the one to stay home. But I would never consider myself dependent on my husband's income, ever. Also, I am pretty jaded about this kind of arrangement - in the vast majority of cases I have seen the work load is NOT distributed equally. The women go and shop all day long, pay minimal attention to the kids, do a mediocre job at best at keeping house, and then on top of it all complain of being bored. I absolutely think that being a GOOD houseparent is a full time job. Just that unfortunately a lot of people don't have any desire to be GOOD houseparents.

The lack of sex becomes a problem to a sexual ONLY where the emotions are intact....

And that is the crux (or one of it) why an asexual partner is such a challenge for a sexual – the behaviour signals that s/he’s lost interest. It’s the behaviour of a sexual who’s lost interest.

Which indicates, as many asexuals have concluded, that this is ultimately a communication issue more than a sex issue. As an asexual what I hear from sexuals is "I need sex!! It is a biological drive!!". But if it is a biological drive, then shouldn't sexuals want it without the love part? Then you say that the crux of the problem is that sexuals understand the asexual's lack of desire for sex to be a lack of desire for the sexual, which suggests that it is an understanding/communication issue. But then when we ask to try to communicate in other ways, you go right back to the biological drive thing...please understand, this is confusing and frustrating for asexuals, too. Is it a sex drive issue or a communication issue? And if it is a communication issue, why must the communication be in your language, that we don't understand? I am not saying it has to be in "our" language - a silly thing to say really, because we don't have a language for asexuals. But if the asexual just does not get the sexual language, why not find a language you both speak? But then again, any language other than sex is considered asexual language, and thus an unfair imposition on the sexual. And around and around I go....

Link to post
Share on other sites

M51

The number of hours worked definitely depends on the job - if you ask most business executives, lawyers, consultants for the number of working hours they (must) put in, I understand in the US, in the UK and in many other European countries it is somewhere around 60 hours or more - add the time needed for business travel/to get to the office, 12 hours per day is rather moderate. Even if you look at the middle or lower ranking employees, if you allow for an 8-hour work day, plus 1 hour break, add 30 minutes to get to the work-place that's already 10 hours they are away from home.

And if one of the couple would work part-time (IF part-time jobs are available in that field), there's still a financial dependency. Even if the high or single income person would have to financially support the spouse (that could be for a life-time! And it's not necessarily the man paying for the woman, it could also be the woman paying for the man if she's the one with the better income) and children after the divorce, income tax jumps after a divorce and two separate households are more expensive than 1 shared household. Add that, depending on number of years not worked and age, it can be easy, a little or very difficult, or impossible to find a decent job afterwards. There again I assume that different cultures will provide great or almost zero opportunities.

Regarding sex. Yes, it is a physical need. No doubt whatever. It's just that I control it lacking the right sexual partner (which is not a pleasant situation). Many sexuals without the right sexual partner go for masturbation, others go for "temporary" partners, depending on their morals, some try to make it without anything. In addition to the physical part, there's the psychological/emotional, the closeness (one-flesh-feeling or howsoever you may call it) that sex gives you. That's what is the most painful part in an otherwise great sexual/asexual relationship. And as sex is both, sex for sex sake as much as it may relieve the physical need, will only account for (here I can only speak for myself) maybe 30 - 50%.

That's why sex with "someone" is as unsatisfactory as is masturbation and life with a great partner without sex is also unsatisfactory as it prevents the ultimate closeness and completely ignors the physical needs.

As it got several aspects - and sometimes we become aware of them only as they are missing - one person would highlight one part or the other, but its physical, emotional, psychological. Maybe it has even more facets. That probably is the reason why it is difficult to communicate about it but the difficulty we have in speaking about it does not mean that the problem is a communication problem. The problem remains the lack - or absence - of sex, and the affects this has for the individual and thereby for the partnership.

To some extent you may compare it with food, though an extreme lack of it is life-threatening while a lack of sex is not. It's a physical need and where people are deprived of food it becomes the number one issue and people more and more exclusively think about it.

Lacking food, just about anythink eatable becomes desirable. Look at reports from people who suffered at war times, in famine regions, in war/concentration camps - you'll hear that their personalities change completely because of the starvation. Once we have enough food for survival, we will not be happy to simply have something to eat, other aspects which I believe are dormant in times of extreme shortage, awake: the need for delicious food, variation, environment, the people who share our food - the social and emotional part of it.

As to the need for sex of a sexual person: I believe (and there's probably a lot of literature on that) that the need for sex disappears in times of major or even life-threatening problems and will return the moment life is "safe" again.

Do you know Elfriede Jelinek's book "The Piano Teacher"? It's about the life of a (female) piano teacher living with her very controlling mother and how that distorts the ways in which she can allow sex - which in fact is no longer sex but very strange ways instead. The book is high standard literature, very exciting, written in very nice, excellently describing high-standard language (at least in the original language, don't know the English translation). Emphasis is on the social issue rather than sex. Can only recommend it

Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding sex. Yes, it is a physical need. No doubt whatever. It's just that I control it lacking the right sexual partner (which is not a pleasant situation).

If you control it when you are NOT hurting anyone (you don't have anyone to hurt), why can't you control it when you ARE hurting someone? I try to understand that having someone around who you desire would heighten your sense of need, but wouldn't having someone around who is deeply hurt by sex counteract that? If there was something that bothered my partner so much that it was causing him to hate me, and if I was able to control it, I would stop. If it could be partially sated - 30-50%, to use you numbers, I would gladly do that rather than continue to hurt my partner. I am not trying to be hostile, but I just do not understand why sexuals insist they can get any benefit out of pressuring their life partners to do something so foreign (and often harmful) to them. Which also addresses the intimacy thing. Sexuals constantly insist that sex is the Ultimate Form of Intimacy. But how is this possible if only one person experiences it as such? Doesn't intimacy require BOTH partners to experience it? It seems to me that sexuals who pressure asexuals for sex in order to achieve intimacy are banging their heads against a brick wall. So the intimacy argument to me is moot. You don't feel intimate when you are not having sex with an asexual, and you don't feel (real - as in sared by both parties) intimacy when you do have sex with an asexual. So why not go with the option that does less damage to your partner? Why insist on creating an illusion of intimacy that not only is not shared by your partner, but actually damages your partner's own sense of intimacy?

I think we have difficulty speaking about sex because not only is it somewhat taboo to talk about, but the emotional and psychological symbolism of it all is just so deeply ingrained that to challenge it is difficult. Speaking candidly about what sex means violates social taboos and causes cognitive dissonance when we realize how much of what we took for granted to be concrete truth is in reality quite malleable.

To some extent you may compare it with food, though an extreme lack of it is life-threatening while a lack of sex is not. It's a physical need and where people are deprived of food it becomes the number one issue and people more and more exclusively think about it.

But the fact that lack of sex is not life threatening is the number one reason why this metaphor is pointless. I think a far more accurate metaphor is that sex is like a drug addiction. It feels like it is life threatening if you don't get it, but it is not. Crack addicts can think of nothing but getting more crack. That does not make it right. Furthermore, your intake of food - or crack! - does not require an imposition on another person's body, making addiction to sex far more harmful than either habit, in a way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M51

I think it's pointless to continue our discussion, whatever I say, you manage to twist it around.

It's not about pressuring someone into something - at least it's normally NOT the sexual pressuring the asexual into a sexual relationship. The sexual who knows about it in time will usually either commit to an asexual lifestyle and go by that commitment or look for someone else. It's usually the asexual starting a normal sexual-looking relationship and, at some point in time, years after having met/married, "coming out" and then expecting the sexual to cheer "great, whow, let's do it, let's skip sex!" And that hurts - the sexual!!!!!

What would you say if a homesexual or a lesbian entered a heterosexual relationship and come out one day? Expect the heterosexual to just say "everything's" great, you have not hurt me, because I love you and I do everything for you. Would you think that the homosexual/lesbian (maybe not realizing his/her state at the point the two of them met?) had a right to have it his/her way?

Or, to use a different example: if my partner and I would both love to use fetishes or sado-maso or similar "special" practices. If we had agreed on such initially, would it be fair for me to say, years in the relationship, ok I did say that I love this type of thing but in fact I don't and if you insist on continuing what you enjoy - and which I had given you all reason to believe that I share it! - just get lost. Is such a behaviour a sign of love, or selfish/egocentric?

Whether society in which persons live tolerates/supports homosexual/lesbian relationships or whether there are plenty or a shortage of adequate partners, it is NOT ok to blame the heterosexual in such a relationship unless the heterosexual entered such a relationship fully aware of what s/he entered.

Don't understand this as a statement against homosexual/lesbian/asexual lifestyles, it isn't. It's just against imposing such a lifestyle on a heterosexual/sexual person and THEN expecting this person to be happy, cheerful - or leave if s/he doesn't like it.

There's a time to discuss such likes and dislikes and that's ideally somewhere at the beginning of a relationship where such things are agreed - and, yes, then you could claim that a person who doesn't like the terms should back out.

How would you feel if you had a great relationship with another asexual who, after several years, suddenly (for you) claims s/he wants sex regularly, and if you don't like it you can leave? Would feel great, wouldn't you!

And please note that whilst I feel the physical need for sex is between 30 and 50%, the emotional need for sex makes for the difference to 100%, i.e. lack of sex means 100% frustration! As neither the physical nor the emotional/psychological aspects are met. Holding hands or hugging will NOT meet the emotional needs usually sated with sex!

Why would an asexual plead, on and on again, that it is ok for the asexual to 100% hurt his/her partner and at the same time claim that it should be ok for the sexual to do whatever, rather than hurt his/her asexual partner? Where's the difference in there.

I knew you'd come up with the comments re comparison for food. I understand nothing is really adequate to describe it exactly to the point. It was an attempt. Obviously I failed to get the message across. Where, frankly, why is it always that sexuals are asked why they cannot just live an asexual lifestyle and the why's and how's as to their need for sex, rather than simply being ACCEPTED as that. If someone would need to justify, woundn't that be for the person changing a relationship, radically, and only in such a situation? I wouldn't want to impose such questions on our homosexual friends. I simply accept them as they are. If they want to talk about why they feel how and desire men, fine. But if not - or whether I understand what they say or not - that's ok. There's no need that I understand them. I don't understand lesbians, and if a lesbian would desire me to be her new girl-friend I would simply tell her to find someone with similiar sexual likes. If she'd like to be on friends-only terms, great. But I wouldn't start a sexual relationship with her, tell her I don't like sex with her, and make her justify why she wouldn't really be happy without sex.

I understand it's pointless to continue any discussions. I am not even accepted as I am with the needs I have and there appears to be a determination of how things are viewed so I assume there are better investments for my time. It's really like trying to convince my cat that whole grain/vegetarian food is more delicious than meat and fish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I am not trying to convince you to be asexual, or that the asexuality is right, or that the asexual partner has priority. All I want to do is explain that it is not the asexual's fault, either, and that the asexual probably did not go into the relationship realizing s/he was asexual. S/he was not trying to trick you or trap you. S/he just didn't understand herself because our society failed to give her the option.

I know you, personally, are in a situation where the asexual puts a lot of pressure on you in inappropriate, almost abusive ways and I have already clearly stated that this is unacceptable. But I think you are in the minority. I think the vast majority of the time it is the asexual who is being pressured , coerced, manipulated, and even abused. Even if not by their partner, asexuals are under constant pressure from society to behave sexually. You mentioned that when you are not with someone you love it is easier to control you sexuality; well, when asexuals are not with someone we love we are still constantly under pressure to be something other than ourselves. It never lets up. In the locker room I constantly hear women sexuals saying "it's been so long, I just wanna get laid" and they get sympathy because that is an approved expression of frustration. But if I say "God I wish everyone would stop talking about sex and I wish men would stop treating me like a piece of meat and I wish I could sit through one freakin' movie without having to cover my eyes during multiple sex scenes and I wish my doctor would stop asking about my sex life as if of course I am having sex like everybody else and I wish I could watch one commercial that wasn't trying to convince me that their product would make me sexier and I wish I could bond with people without having to let them grope me!" People in general would reject me as a freak and accuse me of being a man-hater or a lesbian. We are constantly pressured to act sexual, and most of us end up doing so for years and years. Which is why so many asexuals take so long to realize they are asexual, and then even longer to admit it to themselves and others. So you can't just say "I never pressure her/him to be sexual," and think that is enough. LIFE pressures us to be sexual.

And, to top it off, there are not a whole lot of asexuals out there. A lot of us unfortunately must either try to make it work with a sexual or live the rest of our lives alone. For sexuals, there are other fish in the sea. For asexuals...the chances of meeting another one are slim. But to meet another asexual who shares my interests and with whom I have chemistry? Yeah right, probably not going to happen, unless I am willing to travel like 3,000 miles every weekend. So that puts even more pressure on me to try/pretend to be what my sexual partner wants, because if I lose out, I REALLY lose out. It is just impossible to ask a human being not to seek out relationships. Asexuals are going to fall in love with sexuals, and they are going to pursue relationships, and unfortunately some of them may feel enough pressure to pretend to be sexual for a while, either knowing that they are misleading their partner or in denial of it or being honestly oblivious to their own condition. I just hope that AVEN will help them deal with the problem right from the start, instead of trying to pretend and then failing and hurting everyone involved. If I had had AVEN four years ago I would not have gotten married. And I would not now be divorced (he left me because I could not be the sex kitten he wanted, and yes, that hurt). But at the time I just didn't know what to do. I did not understand myself enough to realize it wouldn't work - that I couldn't make it work. I didn't understand myself because I had no outlet to express things that other people just did not understand. I mean, look at our debate here. We simply do not understand each other. Can you imagine me, four years ago, going to someone like you (a sexual) for advice? Clearly you would not have understood my situation any more than I did. Or worse, what if I had gone to a religious counsellor, who would have told me it was my sacred duty to give sex to my husband - that I should of course get married and just suck it up? Our "wise people" have been giving bad advice like that to asexuals for centuries. Maybe we should blame them. But I absolutely did not intentionally trap him into a marriage. I did not intentionally lead him on or deceive him. What happened was not my fault. I did not know I was asexual, and I did not know/understand what my deep uneasiness about sex meant or what it would lead to. Had I known everything I know now, I would have never have even entered that relationship. But I didn't know. And I loved him.

I am sorry that some asexuals come out late. I am sorry that some sexuals feel trapped. But it is not the fault of the asexual. It is just a really unfortunate situation. There is confusion and frustration on both sides, because asexuals don't understand sexuals and vice versa. Neither group understands why the other can't compromise a little more. But neither group is at fault. That is all I am trying to say.

What would I say if a homosexual or a lesbian entered a heterosexual relationship and come out one day? Well, that would suck, but I tell you one thing, I wouldn't try to change him. I wouldn't insist that he ignore his new self-revelation and go back to the way he was which was untrue to himself even though it made me happy. And if he honestly didn't realize he was homosexual, or honestly was in denial or thought he loved me enough to try, I would not blame him. Doesn't that mean something, that someone loved you enough to try to change a fundamental part of himself for you? So he failed...but he tried! Doesn't that mean anything? I have sacrificed so much over the years, and still it was not enough. Still I am to blame for everything, it is all my fault...Can you really blame me for just not wanting to sacrifice any more? Can you blame me for no longer believing that love is enough? But back to the scenario - I would just try to figure out what I need to do to live my life - either stay with him if that is what he wanted or leave him - and I would go from there. There are plenty of cases of dramatic shifts in relationships other than just asexuality. Like transsexuals who come out, and suddenly your husband becomes your wife and you are in a lesbian relationship. And believe it or not, sometimes this actually works out. Sometimes it doesn't. But that's the case with all human relationships, whether the change is dramatic or small.

I think the real problem here is the perception of romance through the lens of power and the lack thereof. If romance becomes a power struggle, then, yes, the nice guy is going to get stepped on, just as the guy who refuses to draw his pistol in a duel is going to get shot. If you are viewing romance as a power struggle, then to relinquish power by acting nice is basically suicidal.

However, if you view a romantic relationship as symbiotic, with no tally of wins/losses and no view of one partner or the other as a parasite, then power become irrelevant.

I feel like you are making the sexual aspect of your relationship into a power struggle, where either one of you must win and the other must lose. I don't know how to solve this, but perhaps it could be a helpful way of looking at it, and trying to eliminate the power/right/wrong/blame aspect from the whole thing. Maybe all of us need to honsetly ask ourselves, "Am I trying to win this, or am I trying to solve this?" because the two things are very different goals and will have very different outcomes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M 51

With all the pain you still appear to have within you because of the failed marriage, marriage IS the legal form of a sexual relationship. You don't want sex, you don't get married - or at least find someone who agrees on these terms. There are many different types of relationships, there's no need for a romantic one if you don't feel like it.

You don't want to live alone? There are millions, most of them sexuals, who live alone because they havn't found the right partner yet or ever. And in the case of many christians that means no sex by choice to reserve it for their - in case of catholics according to church rules ONE - marriage partner.

Regarding understanding: I don't understand a lesbian for example. But do I need to? If a woman tells me she's lesbian, fine. But as I am not we'll never be lovers. If I'd lack such feelings towards men I'd never be lovers with a man nor seek such a relationship with men. I can still respect or like or even love these persons, but our relationship will of course differ from a marriage.

When you say that church counselors may have said that it were your duty to have sex with your husband - until very recently, civil legislation said that, too, and the lack of sex was considered a valid reason for divorce. Even the catholic church - and that's about the most conservative norms and sex-unfriendly institution I know - would allow cancellation of a marriage where sex has never happened. Though romantic feelings are now generally considered necessary for a marriage, this is a rather modern thing, and is definitely not sufficient.

When you ask if we're trying to SOLVE it - how can this be solved? If one wants a sexual life and the other one tries to avoid it, there will always be more or less frustruation on both sides, it's just a trying to cope as best as possible.

And stop saying that my husband is abusing me. He isn't. Just because he'd had a phase where he was unable to cope with the situation and showed that in unacceptable forms, doesn't mean that he continues to do it or will ever repeat it. As that behaviour has clearly stopped I've forgiven him and though it remains part of our mutual history there's no more anger or blame on my part towards him. The only part that continues to be a major challenge is the sexlessness of our marriage (probably not for my husband because he's fine as it is)

Link to post
Share on other sites
With all the pain you still appear to have within you because of the failed marriage, marriage IS the legal form of a sexual relationship. You don't want sex, you don't get married - or at least find someone who agrees on these terms. There are many different types of relationships, there's no need for a romantic one if you don't feel like it.

True, but I've seen asexuals that have come here and have gotten married without knowing they were asexual beforehand- reasons vary, but they often thought that their desire for sex would eventually appear.

Also, (I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly or not) you can have a romantic relationship without sex. There are asexuals on this board, for instance, that are in non-sexual, romantic relationships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MK, You are staring to make a whole lot of personal assumptions about me that I did not actually say. But I am going to try to overlook that.

Marriage IS the legal form of a sexual relationship. You don't want sex, you don't get married - or at least find someone who agrees on these terms. There are many different types of relationships, there's no need for a romantic one if you don't feel like it.

Actually, marriage does a whole lot of things legally but it does not guarantee sex. I read my marriage paperwork over very well and sex was not mentioned at all. Sex is also not mentioned in the traditional wedding vows. And as for it being THE legal form of a sexual relationship? Are you saying that all sexual relationships outside of marriage are illegal? Marriage is about a whole lot of things, such as shared finances, shared home, shares lives, oftentimes shared kids...if marriage was ONLY about sex few people would get married because why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Obviously, there must be something about that cow other than the "milk" that people want. Although I am aware that exceptions exist, most people these days accept the notion that marriage is about love, not sex. Though many people tend to equate sex with love, this is clearly not the truth. It just so happens that most people associate love with sex and therefore it is assumed that marriage will be accompanied by love which will be accompanied by sex. And finally, have you truly misunderstood me and so many other people on AVEN, to think that just because we don't want sex means we don't want a romantic relationship? I absolutely want a romantic relationship - just not one that involves sex. I don't want marriage for a number of other reasons, but there is in fact at least one couple that I know of on AVEN who is married without sex. It is possible.

You seem to think sex=marriage=sex=romance=sex=love=sex=relationship=sex

They are all related, but they are not the same thing and can easily be mutually exclusive in certain situations.

I like living alone, actually. That was an assumption you made about me that I am not sure where it came from. I'm not following where your statement about Catholics living alone relates to this discussion at all. Also not sure how living lone affects my ability to have relationships, platonic or otherwise. Unless you think that

sex=marriage=sex=romance=sex=love=sex=relationship=sex= cohabitation=sex

which makes even less sense than before.

Regarding understanding: the reason you might want to try to understand asexuals is because you are married to one, and you don't seem to like the idea of divorcing him. You are right, you are never going to have to understand a lesbian because any relationship you have with one will not resemble marriage. But the relationship you have right now with an asexual does not just resemble marriage, it IS one, regardless of the fact that it does not mold nicely with your expectations. It doesn't matter how you got there. It doesn't matter if you feel you were tricked or trapped or mislead or whatever. The fact of the matter is that you are now married to an asexual, and a stubborn insistence that you do not need to understand asexuals because you would never WILLINGLY get into a relationship with one or because their idea of a healthy relationship is different than yours is now a moot point. If you honestly believe you do not need to understand asexuals I don't know why you are here.

When you ask if we're trying to SOLVE it - how can this be solved? If one wants a sexual life and the other one tries to avoid it, there will always be more or less frustruation on both sides, it's just a trying to cope as best as possible.

Well, have you tried to solve it? Have you honestly tried not to lay blame, not to try to win or get your way, but to actually solve it? I'm not looking for an answer for that, actually, because I know the mere fact that I wrote that is going to offend you. I just suggest that you ask yourself that question. And in the end the answer doesn't matter. Whether you have tried or not, it seems you have already reached you conclusion: this is not going to be solved, but you are not going to get divorced, so you are going to just "cope" with it. Whatever that means. Which brings me back to choice. If you have decided that you are not going to solve the issue within the marriage and that you are not going to get divorced, that is YOUR choice.

I said he was acting abusive, because that is what it sounded like. If it is over, great. If you have forgiven him, great. Perhaps that will open the path for a solution.

The only part that continues to be a major challenge is the sexlessness of our marriage (probably not for my husband because he's fine as it is)

Do you still talk about it with him? Or have you comepletly resigned yourself to this? It sounds like you are only applying the "major challenge" part of that statement to yourself, so I wonder if he knows how much of a major challenge it still is? Well, if that is the only challenge in your relationship, I think you actually have a lot of hope. So good luck.

And goats - I agree. I think because society falsely teaches that love=sex a lot of asexuals get married bcause they love someone and just hope that the sex will become more tolerable because of the love, or even that they will start to want sex because they love the person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M 51

As mentioned before, I am a bible-believing Christian (born-again, practicing, and not just baptized at some point as an infant), i.e. to me, the bible is the word of God, not debatable and to be followed to the best of understanding whether convenient or not. And for that it doesn't matter what we feel about it or if we like some passages better than others or not at all. The choices to which you referred in your mail come down to me being convinced that God is real, that the bible is his word and that I must follow it. Going from there, it is no CHOICE, whether I get divorced or not, it's to follow what I understand to be God's laws for life.

I'll quote the passages I feel are relevant to our discussion:

Romans 7: 2-3

2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

1 Corinthians 2-3

2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

Which clearly says that:

- divorce is not ok

- marriage is to include sex

- people should get married to prevent immorality

Agreed that there are situations (illness, accidents) where a spouse is unable to live by these passages.

In my previous post, I did not refer to your life. The only thing I know about that is that you must be divorced because you mentioned that some time ago.

You asked whether I still talk to my husband about our situation: NO. I've done that repeatedly for 15 years. It always seemed to hurt and anger him. Life as it is is not ok, but none of the discussions made it better, many worse. My husband is fully aware of how I feel. And as I do believe from his behaviour overall that he clearly cares for me, I guess there's probably nothing he can do about it at the moment. And it's pointless to discuss things you cannot change again and again.

I do pray about the situation - daily as I couldn't survive otherwise - for the miracle that either changes my husband or my ability to live with the situation. A God who invented and created the universe with everything in it can do everything if He in His wisdom decides to do so - it's just that sometimes He doesn't.

Many say that asexuality is an orientation. Elsewhere on this forum I've seen a thread "asexuality by sublimation". There seem to be at least two types of asexuality, one which you cannot change and one which is the result of some conscious or unconscious decision not to have sex.

I've decided I will no longer discuss or justify myself as to why I'm not leaving the relationship or if or why it's truly a nightmare (it IS!!!!). Discussing why it's a nightmare would be equal to discussing why on earth an asexual doesn't feel like having sex. Once things are said - and that need not include any relationship outsiders - there's no point in going over it again and again, except if something changes for one of the partners.

As to understanding the other's point: I don't believe it's possible regardless of the times of discussions, it's only that words can be heard and must be taken as they are, but as there's no echo in the other's feelings and needs etc. true understanding is not possible just as a man (and possibly a childless woman) cannot truly understand childbirth. They can try but it will never even come close to knowing it.

I will focus on minimizing the negative effects it had and continues to have on my life including the resultant loss - which we couldn't prevent though we tried - of the prime closeness we used to share, and to make the best of our marriage and our individual lives. Looking for help and support for that, I had come across the AVEN forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...