Jump to content

What does your compromise look like? TMI warning


Guest

Recommended Posts

A lot of new members come here without really knowing how to go about compromise with their asexual partners. Some feel any sex would simply be out of pity. Some feel it would be more akin to forcing sex, since the asexual doesn't want it. For those of us who have compromises, or have in the past, we know it can be possible, if both parties are willing. But often we get asked how it even works, how to start, etc.

So to sexuals: How did you initiate compromise discussions? What ended up working for you and your partner? Are you happy with your arrangement?

To asexuals : What do you feel is the best way to initiate compromise discussion? What ended up working for you and your partner? What is your motivation for compromise and are you happy with the arrangement?

For me, the best way to initiate is to just come out and talk about it. "I feel like I am not getting what I need" etc. Not yelling, not a fight, just say what you want. And then, allow me time to decide if I can meet those needs, or offer an alternative.

What compromise worked best for me is a schedule, or set amount of times. That way I would know when I was safe to be affectionate without worrying about sex. I need to know sex isn't going to happen to be relaxed enough to be tactile and intimate (kissing , hugging , cuddling). Otherwise, I can and will pull away from all physical forms of affection. I do prefer they initiate as it is tiring to try to remember to do it.

As for how to go about actual sex that worked best, I liked it more when my one ex would ask "is this OK? Want to stop?" Etc. He always made me feel like I could stop him at any time, without making him angry. I appreciated that quite a lot. And it made me more comfortable and willing to have sex with him. It felt less like I was just doing it for obligation and more out of wanting to make him happy.

I was, overall, willing to compromise out of wanting to make my partners happy. I loved them. I never wanted sex for myself, I do not even like it, orgasms do nothing for me but make me feel like a muscle cramp is happening. But, it made me happy that I could give them that, which was important to them. For most of my relationships I did not know asexuality existed. But, I still had sex for them and I was happy with it. Only if it got too frequent (once per two weeks is more my limit) did it become something of a problem for me. Never was my decision out of pity or did I feel they were forcing me to do it. As long as they were respectful in how they asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what help my input is, but I'll bite. :)

I'm not open to much compromise, at all... I'll lay down my limits very openly early on - first date isn't too early, IMO; I'll mention my asexuality/not being open for pretty much any form of sex at that point, anyway - and see if the one thing I have to offer (one-sided handjobs, preferrably virtual - cyber/phone) is something the sexual prospective partner would be okay with as the only form of sex ever happening between us. (The first partner I was with was okay with it, not that it did our short-lived mess of a relationship any good (she was a catfish and probably deeply psychologically disturbed... 'nuff said); R. wasn't okay with that one-trick-pony-show, so sex was off the table for us and we never had any in over six years of relationship.)

If it's option A, I can enjoy "serving" her in that capacity just fine - it's definitely not "charity sex", and I don't even know at what frequency I'd get oversaturated/annoyed - I'm not into hanging out with a partner daily, in general, and I guess weekly sex within the strict limits I insist on would probably be quite doable for me, as long as that's not by any far cry the only, ore even remotely the central, thing we'd be doing together.

If it's option B, then sex between us is simply off the table permanently, which suits me fine. :P Then, there's always the option on the table for her to get these needs met with (an)other partner(s) - whether casual hookups or serious other partnerships would be fully up to her, I won't restrict it... I would, however, not be happy if that sex involved a penis, my repulsion is too strong for that even "second hand"... which is why I don't consider straight women partner-compatible with me. I'm not ever even going to consider a closed/exclusive/monogamous relationship model (I'm strictly poly, by orientation), so that wouldn't even rate as "compromise" from my view... it's the natural and preferred state of affairs. :)

Either way, I think it's all mostly theoretical by now for me, anyway... I'm not open for a partner relationship, mixed or otherwise, at this point, and possibly not ever again, as the breakup with R. last year just took way too much out of me to be willing to even risk that again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually not open to sex. I have noticed it making me feel bad mentally in the long run, and I end up disliking the person I had sex with. Nowadays I usually tell the person I think I have something going on with quite early on that I don't want sex, mainly to not cause any expectations that later just turn into disappointment for the other. Instead I have decided that I'm okay with my partner having sex with others. If my partner needs sex, then they should be able to have it. Since I don't think I can give it to them, I think it's better if someone else does. My partner shouldn't have to be miserable because of no sex, just like I shouldn't have to miserable because I have it. That's my thoughts on the subject anyway. xD

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

How did you initiate compromise discussions?

At first, badly, by sulking and then losing it. This was after years of apparently obliviousness to the same kind of initiation moves that she used to recognise. She'd had various stresses and illnesses so I'd backed off, until it got to the point where I was feeling so rejected and resentful that it was bleeding over into the rest of our relationship.
It wasn't about compromise initially, more about 'WTF is going on?'. She finally admitted she had no sexual feelings any more, didn't fantasise, masturbate, get turned on, orgasm, nothing.
At first we tried putting the ball in her court so she wouldn't feel pressure, but that resulted in a fairly grudging handjob or similar about once every couple of months. So we switched to me initiating but it's hard to initiate when you know your partner takes no pleasure in it, and there's no desire or passion.
At the moment, she kinda sorta initiates at about the same rate.
What ended up working for you and your partner?
I wouldn't say it's working. It's not as bad as the months and years before, because I know (I think) that it's not about me, it's about her lack of sexuality. But in terms of actual sex... it just sucks a bit less.
Are you happy with your arrangement?
I'm not sulking or resentful (well, hardly ever), and learning to just shut up and try to live with it. Overall, our relationship is better, day to day.
She hasn't actually used the 'asexual' word, but her attitudes are exactly the same as asexuals, and understanding the concept helps me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ace. My partner is bisexual.

My partner has other relationships, typically short term, open to people of any gender. The dates they go on is mostly eating dinner, cuddling/watching a movie, having sex, and leaving the next morning. It's casual, it's lowkey, and I meet the partners pretty early on. My partner and I discuss her relationships, I listen to her discuss issues she might have with them and offer solutions or advice, etc. I get really insecure a lot, I fear abandonment, but we get through it. My partner is suuuper patient and understanding.

While we've had sex in the past, it's not something I want to be obligated to do. Even though she's attracted to me, she doesn't want to have sex with me unless I want to because I want to, not to please her. So that means we don't really have sex, lol. And we're happy like that.

Our relationship grew organically, and she's always known my poly feelings/ideals about relationships. She has always known I'm ace and that I cannot be her source of sexual satisfaction. The dialogue was initiated years and years ago

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
because I want to, not to please her

I'm finding that's a difficult grey area for me. Obviously there's the 'innately wanting it for yourself' thing, but for you, how does that cross over with wanting to please your partner for yourself? That's the bit I can't get my head around at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

So to sexuals: How did you initiate compromise discussions? What ended up working for you and your partner? Are you happy with your arrangement?

Okay. So the first, very most important thing for a sexual in a mixed relationship: You must give up. There won't be any fulfilling sex life here, and if that is important to you, you must seek it elsewhere.

Next, as for "compromise". We did have a lot of discussions about that subject, but the purpose wasn't so much to "negotiate" a compromise. Personally, I think negotiating such a thing shouldn't be done. Everything the two people in the relationship do should come organically and out of their own free will, with no "agreements" that must be upheld. (Note that this is just my opinion and I take no issue with couples who do this differently)

And so, with "compromise", what's important in our relationship is that we both enjoy it. For my partner, that means a lot of sensual touch. Generally, we can be intimate through sensuality, which I get something out of (both because I like the sensuality itself, and because touching my girlfriend's body is sexually arousing to me), and she gets something out of.

TMI

With regards to sexuality involving genitals, we are doing that right now, but it's more of an experiment than part of an established compromise for us. It might just be that we conclude that she does not enjoy that kind of thing in any way, in which case it would be pointless to do it regularly.

My last word of advice is to, if you can, consider poly. And if that's not an option for you, see the relationship as more of a friendship. You're not getting what you need out of this relationship, and trying to convince yourself otherwise is going to lead to a lot of unnecessary pain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
because I want to, not to please her

I'm finding that's a difficult grey area for me. Obviously there's the 'innately wanting it for yourself' thing, but for you, how does that cross over with wanting to please your partner for yourself? That's the bit I can't get my head around at the moment.

I guess that there's no real "for yourself" involved here. It's like Amedot is doing their partner a favour and they themselves aren't into that at all, to put it mildly. When your negative feelings exceed the pleasure you draw from knowing that you're making your partner happy, there is no room left for the "for yourself" bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Makes sense. And that has to be a difficult position to explain. In the end it's just about incompatability but from a sexual partner's point of view it can easily sound like 'my distress over sex outweighs your distress over the lack of it'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense. And that has to be a difficult position to explain. In the end it's just about incompatability but from a sexual partner's point of view it can easily sound like 'my distress over sex outweighs your distress over the lack of it'.

...which seems alright, given that "outweigh" is meant as in "it's equally important", not "more important". The latter would be an outright dangerous assumption to any kind of relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
...which seems alright, given that "outweigh" is meant as in "it's equally important", not "more important". The latter would be an outright dangerous assumption to any kind of relationship.

But in practice (and I'm not saying it could be any other way, because:rape etc), the asexual partner gets what they want - to not have sex - and the sexual doesn't get what they want - to have sex. So the effect, if not the intention, is that the asexual's needs do outweigh sexuals.

Of course, many asexuals feel bad and anxious about that, and would love to do something about it if they could. But the fact remains, their needs are being met and their partner's aren't.

(I'm not having a go here, at all, but this seems to me to be an undeniable reality of a mixed relationship where the asexual partner is unable to have sex).

Link to post
Share on other sites

TW: R and SA mention

As an asexual who has had spurts of no sex... my needs weren't being met at all by not having it during those times. My need is for sex to not be an issue. For it to not be the constant anxiety. When we weren't having sex, my partner was upset. I was anxious, guilty and miserable. He was frustrated and miserable. But if we had sex like that, he was still miserable as he felt more like it was forced and rape-like and I was more miserable because I had really not wanted it and it caused me to feel nearly as bad as the sexual trauma I had suffered in the past. So, either way, neither of us was getting our needs met and neither was happy. We just had two options of how do you want to be miserable together. And the no sex was the lesser evil on both sides, in the end.

For me that extreme was rare. And for others, it can be more common. That is why boundaries are important. And frequency can be a real issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
My need is for sex to not be an issue. For it to not be the constant anxiety. When we weren't having sex, my partner was upset. I was anxious, guilty and miserable. He was frustrated and miserable. But if we had sex like that, he was still miserable as he felt more like it was forced and rape-like and I was more miserable because I had really not wanted it and it caused me to feel nearly as bad as the sexual trauma I had suffered in the past. So, either way, neither of us was getting our needs met and neither was happy. We just had two options of how do you want to be miserable together. And the no sex was the lesser evil on both sides, in the end.

This is going to sound like misery olympics... but my point still stands. As you say yourself, nobody's happy, and in roughly the same way, but the when it comes to the core issue - sex or no sex - is still going the asexual's way.

The asexual is feeling bad on behalf of their partner, essentially. The sexual is feeling bad on their own behalf, and behalf of their partner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To asexuals : What do you feel is the best way to initiate compromise discussion? What ended up working for you and your partner? What is your motivation for compromise and are you happy with the arrangement?

I don't think there was a compromise discussion, more like a series of discussions about sex and how we both feel about it. Luckily my partner was aware of asexuality before we got together and so has always been careful to not pressure me into sex. This does cause a bit of a problem sometimes because I tell her that she needs to initiate sex if she wants it cus I won't (mainly because I forget, can't tell if she is in the mood, or because I really can't be bothered), but she is worried about initiative because she thinks it would be pressuring me. I have to reiterate frequently that I am comfortable saying NO and I trust her to respect my non-consent if she does try to initiate sex.

In practical terms, we have sex maybe once every few months at the moment, although sometimes its longer. I think having sex as a woman with another woman makes any compromise fairly different anyway because there is no real equivalent of PiV sex. TMI, but it's basically me using my fingers, my mouth or a dildo so sex doesn't rely on me being sexually aroused or penetrated or faking orgasms or anything like that.

Very occasionally I'll let my partner physically stimulate me because I know how much she loves doing it.

I pretty much want to be with my current partner for the rest of my life so I'm happy to make compromises that make her happy. There is a definite feeling of relief after we've ad sex though because it means I probably won't have to do it again for a while. And I think on her part there is a disappointment that she isn't desired in that way by me, and that perhaps our sex life isn't as adventurous as she would like, but she doesn't really talk about those things with me, I think because she doesn't want to make me feel guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My need is for sex to not be an issue. For it to not be the constant anxiety. When we weren't having sex, my partner was upset. I was anxious, guilty and miserable. He was frustrated and miserable. But if we had sex like that, he was still miserable as he felt more like it was forced and rape-like and I was more miserable because I had really not wanted it and it caused me to feel nearly as bad as the sexual trauma I had suffered in the past. So, either way, neither of us was getting our needs met and neither was happy. We just had two options of how do you want to be miserable together. And the no sex was the lesser evil on both sides, in the end.

This is going to sound like misery olympics... but my point still stands. As you say yourself, nobody's happy, and in roughly the same way, but the when it comes to the core issue - sex or no sex - is still going the asexual's way.

The asexual is feeling bad on behalf of their partner, essentially. The sexual is feeling bad on their own behalf, and behalf of their partner.

But the core issue is not just sex-or-no sex... it's always much more complicated than that. The core issue is more feelings of rejection, difficulty feeling loved, etc. Which, both parties can be feeling regardless of sex or no sex. Me having sex with him, at those times, was not what he needed. What he needed was to feel accepted, loved and all the stuff sex does between two people that enjoy it. That is something I literally could not give, it was not possible, even if I gave sex. It made him feel worse, as he got "what he wanted" but didn't, at the same time. So, it's a whole lot more complicated than just "one wants sex, one doesn't". In the same way no sex "got me what I wanted" but didn't, at the same time. Because it's not just not getting it, or just getting it, that is wanted.

Not to mention, you have no idea why the asexual is feeling bad. Feeling like you are a failure at relationships, will never be able to make anyone happy, should just be alone, etc is pretty much coming internally. Just as much as feeling like your love is being rejected is coming from internally. Both are simply feeling bad because of the incompatibility between you. And it sucks on both sides. So to say "the asexual is getting their way, so they are more important than the sexual" is wildly inaccurate. Yes, not forcing sex is more important than wanting it (though, I doubt forced like that would meet the emotional needs of most sexuals anyway), however... no ones needs are more important. And neither one gets their needs met, if the situation does not have a workable compromise. That's why it's important to find one. Which, is why I made this thread to outline the ones that work for various couples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Feeling like you are a failure at relationships, will never be able to make anyone happy, should just be alone, etc is pretty much coming internally. Just as much as feeling like your love is being rejected is coming from internally.

Except the rejection part isn't. An asexual can sit alone at home and feel those things. A sexual won't feel rejected till someone actually rejects them. In general, we don't feel spontaneous rejection. Obviously there's a ton of connotations of those original feelings, but those are the original feelings.

"the asexual is getting their way, so they are more important than the sexual" is wildly inaccurate.

And it's not what I said. I said, that the effective outcome is that their needs outweigh the sexuals. Which, since you say...

not forcing sex is more important than wanting it

... you're agreeing with.

I'm arguing that in the general morass of pain of most mixed relationships where the asexual is unable to have sex, asexuals are getting one thing that sexuals aren't: their preference over whether or not to have sex.

I'm not even arguing that ultimately it shouldn't be the case (because:rape, but let's not go down that rabbit hole). There's no way round it. I just find it frustrating that whenever this comes up, asexuals try to claim somehow it's not so. It's objectively the case that no sex is being had. A third party could observe that no sex is happening, and that this is the preference of the asexual, and not the preference of the sexual.

ETA: f'ing qualifiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, no sex is happening. But, it has nothing to do with getting their way etc. When you say that, it comes off as if we are the spoiled child in the relationship that always gets their way while the other child never gets the fun toys. It is way more complex than that. And getting ones own way isn't involved because.. it's not getting what we want. Anymore than me having sex with my ex that left him feeling as rejected and scummy as it did was him getting what he wanted. Saying either of us had our way would be like saying someone who said they wanted a chocolate bar got handed a bar of unsweetened baking chocolate. Technically, they got what they wanted. But it will taste so bitter it's not satisfying so wasn't what they wanted in anything but a technicality.

And sexuals can sit at home and feel unloved and rejected for much the same reason aces can sit at home and feel not good enough. General not feeling like they have the connection they want, whether they have a partner or not.

However, I have never felt those things when alone. And I didn't feel any of them when around other aces. Or when with my low libido partner. The trigger to those feelings of rejection and not feeLing loved was my partner needing sex. Me needing to not made him feel rejected and unloved. Him needing me to want sex made me feel rejected and unloved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Very well put, Serran.

Adding to this... even in my relationship with R., where I will not deny for a second that I was in the more "privileged" position, and way, way closer to my ideal of a perfect 'ship than she was, I very often felt the tinge of doubt and sadness about the question whether she'd be truly happy with not getting as much of her ideal scenario out of our 'ship as I was. And I've asked her that question more than once (every couple of months, give or take), and had to learn to accept her answer of "yes" unconditionally while it lasted, and refrain from every kind of meddling in her business of deciding this for herself.

It's the sexual's responsibility to make the decision for themselves, whether to stay or leave.* If staying makes one partner unhappy, that is not ever the problem or responsibility of the other partner to solve, but their own and theirs alone. Fullstop.

* And obviously, the ace partner has to make that same decision for themselves too... independently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
I will not deny for a second that I was in the more "privileged" position, and way, way closer to my ideal of a perfect 'ship than she was

That's the point I was making. I find it bizarre that it seems so hard to comprehend.

But, it has nothing to do with getting their way etc.

It has everything to do with getting their way. 'No' means 'no'. I'm not saying there's any way round it, but when it comes to sex happening or not happening, the asexual partner does get their way, which means the sexual partner doesn't get their way.

When you say that, it comes off as if we are the spoiled child in the relationship that always gets their way while the other child never gets the fun toys. It is way more complex than that.

I agree that over all, it's a far more complex situation, which is why over and over again, I've said 'when it comes to sex in that relationship'. We agree that both partners have a shit-ton of emotional distress over the situation. By its nature, that's subjective and presumably different from relationship to relationship, so there's no way of knowing, for instance, if the asexual's distress is epically more than the sexual's, or the other way round, or if they're roughly equal, or what. Whatever the case, on top of that, there is whether sex is happening - and it isn't.

And sexuals can sit at home and feel unloved and rejected for much the same reason aces can sit at home and feel not good enough. General not feeling like they have the connection they want, whether they have a partner or not.

In a general mopey 'nobody loves me' type of way, yes. But specifically sexual rejection from a specific person, no. And that kind of rejection is lot sharper and deeper.

Me needing to not made him feel rejected and unloved. Him needing me to want sex made me feel rejected and unloved.

And then you didn't have sex - which is what you wanted, and not what he wanted.

Imagine a hungry homeless man knocking on the window of a house at a family having a huge meal, wanting to come in for something to eat. The people inside refuse to let him in, because he could be anyone, and there are kids in the house, which is completely understandable, but they feel awful about it. The man outside feels terrible for begging, and understands why he's not being let in, but still can't help feel irritated by it, even though he knows it's completely reasonable. Both sides are upset, but the fact remains, the homeless guy has no food and the people inside do have food.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That situation is a bad analogy. The family giving bread or broth would make the homeless guy happy. The asexual cannot, at all, give anything that would make the sexual happy even if they give sex when there is that level of emotional distress in having it. It would be more like the family had no food in the house and were starving themselves, but could offer him only something that would make him more hungry, not less.

But... it's a bad analogy to begin with because when you turn down a homeless person you feel bad not helping them. You don't feel like you are rejected for everything you are , unlovable, like the person you love so much doesn't want you. Yeah sexual rejection is bad for a sexual. But the rejection of everything I am and how I express love, which is what I felt often enough when sex was needed but I didn't want to at all, is pretty different to the general as well. The person I love didn't want me, or my love, is how it felt. That goes a lot deeper than general rejection as well. And a lot deeper than what someone could feel on their own.

And... I guess if you insist I "got what I wanted" in the sex/no sex, despite my explaining I did not get anywhere near what I wanted. Then my partner "got what he wanted" far more often, despite his not getting anywhere near what he wanted. I am pretty sure his screaming about not being able to get what he wants means sex itself was as far not "getting what he wants" in the sex / no sex as aces try to say over and over getting no sex is not "getting what we want". And people will most likely continue to take exception with it when you phrase it that way (I know my sexual ex would if you tried to tell him he got what he wanted). Because yes, ultimately, we can say no. But, ya know, on a few occasions he said no just because it was such a poor offer and then I guess the no sex was him "getting what he wanted" despite the extreme distress it caused, which hardly makes the statement accurate. And the few times I phrased things as "you get what you want, what more can I give?" he took extreme exception to my saying that and I fully understand why. Because he wasn't getting what he wanted. And he got that I wasn't getting what I wanted when we didn't have it.

But if you can't get why we take exception to that line, I don't think I can explain it any better. No ace has, as far as I have seen in any of the threads, denied we have the right to not be forced. Everyone accepts that is the case. And anyone that doesn't, please seek help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
It would be more like the family had no food in the house and were starving themselves, but could offer him only something that would make him more hungry, not less.

... which, to extend the analogy even further, would still mean the family were fine with having no food, and that's why they have none to give. Both parties are in some kind of emotional distress, but it's only the homeless man that who's still hungry,

the rejection of everything I am and how I express love, which is what I felt often enough when sex was needed but I didn't want to at all is pretty different to the general as well. The person I love didn't want me, or my love, is how it felt.

Equally, sexuals are being rejected because of everything they are, and how they express love. 'The person I love didn't want me, or my love' is exactly how we feel too.

I completely accept that desireless sex isn't want sexuals want (and I turned down sex at the weekend for that reason), but that just means we're even less likely to get what we want because it's not available. It underlines the difficulty of the problem, but it doesn't change that 'no sex' is what asexuals want (in this scenario), and that's what they get.

No ace has, as far as I have seen in any of the threads, denied we have the right to not be forced.

And no sexual has, either. Particularly not me. I'm just observing the result of that situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not deny for a second that I was in the more "privileged" position, and way, way closer to my ideal of a perfect 'ship than she was

That's the point I was making. I find it bizarre that it seems so hard to comprehend.

It's no secret that you and I disagree, a lot, vehemently, and not always respectfully... but I'm fully with you on that bit.

While I think that you could word things better, a lot of the time... it does baffle even me, being ace myself, that a lot of aces would disagree with the idea that they're clearly in the better/stronger position in a mixed 'ship. To be perfectly blunt: If the ace partner isn't in the "privileged" position regarding sex/sensuality/compromise, I can hardly imagine how that could be due to anything else than their partner being such a dangerously entitled, rape-adjacent douchenozzle that they'd probably be better off dumping them on the spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the rejection of everything I am and how I express love, which is what I felt often enough when sex was needed but I didn't want to at all is pretty different to the general as well. The person I love didn't want me, or my love, is how it felt.

Equally, sexuals are being rejected because of everything they are, and how they express love. 'The person I love didn't want me, or my love' is exactly how we feel too.

I completely accept that desireless sex isn't want sexuals want (and I turned down sex at the weekend for that reason), but that just means we're even less likely to get what we want because it's not available. It underlines the difficulty of the problem, but it doesn't change that 'no sex' is what asexuals want (in this scenario), and that's what they get.

Yes, I know the rejection is quite the same. Both me and my partner were both feeling rejected, either way, one or the other was. Both me and my partner were not getting what we wanted, no matter what we did - sex or no sex. Because no sex isn't what I wanted, anymore than desireless "I hate this sex" was what he wanted. So, if I got what I wanted from "no sex" by default he got what he wanted from "sex", even the desireless, mechanical kind that left me hating it and myself. You can't have it both ways, saying desireless sex means the sexual is less likely to get what they want, while frustrated, cranky, affectionateless no sex means the asexual gets what they want. What I wanted was as impossible for my ex to give me as what he wanted was for me to give him. That's what it made it an impossible to compromise situation, in the end. We literally could not, no matter how much effort we put in, give the other what they wanted. To paraphrase his words when I explained to him what I wanted from the "no sex" periods "I can't do that. I am what I am."

No ace has, as far as I have seen in any of the threads, denied we have the right to not be forced.

And no sexual has, either. Particularly not me. I'm just observing the result of that situation.

I wasn't saying you had. It's quite obvious every poster in the various threads agree no one should be forced. The only thing any of us have taken issue with in your various posts is what asexuals want thing. I know Sally has mentioned something similar in threads before. And, as you say, asexuals tend to argue when you say it. So, I tried explaining why you get arguments. Of course "I won't have sex" trumps "lets have sex", even among two sexuals with mismatched libidos. It's a given. That doesn't make their partner's needs unimportant, but it is a basic human right (morally speaking) that can't be violated without serious consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Yes, I know the rejection is quite the same. Both me and my partner were both feeling rejected, either way, one or the other was. Both me and my partner were not getting what we wanted, no matter what we did - sex or no sex. Because no sex isn't what I wanted, anymore than desireless "I hate this sex" was what he wanted. So, if I got what I wanted from "no sex" by default he got what he wanted from "sex", even the desireless, mechanical kind that left me hating it and myself. You can't have it both ways, saying desireless sex means the sexual is less likely to get what they want, while frustrated, cranky, affectionateless no sex means the asexual gets what they want. What I wanted was as impossible for my ex to give me as what he wanted was for me to give him. That's what it made it an impossible to compromise situation, in the end. We literally could not, no matter how much effort we put in, give the other what they wanted. To paraphrase his words when I explained to him what I wanted from the "no sex" periods "I can't do that. I am what I am."

None of which was my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know the rejection is quite the same. Both me and my partner were both feeling rejected, either way, one or the other was. Both me and my partner were not getting what we wanted, no matter what we did - sex or no sex. Because no sex isn't what I wanted, anymore than desireless "I hate this sex" was what he wanted. So, if I got what I wanted from "no sex" by default he got what he wanted from "sex", even the desireless, mechanical kind that left me hating it and myself. You can't have it both ways, saying desireless sex means the sexual is less likely to get what they want, while frustrated, cranky, affectionateless no sex means the asexual gets what they want. What I wanted was as impossible for my ex to give me as what he wanted was for me to give him. That's what it made it an impossible to compromise situation, in the end. We literally could not, no matter how much effort we put in, give the other what they wanted. To paraphrase his words when I explained to him what I wanted from the "no sex" periods "I can't do that. I am what I am."

None of which was my point.

If your point isn't "asexuals get what they want from no sex" and "sexuals are less likely to get what they want, because desireless sex isn't what they want", then you will have to explain your reply a bit more as that is what you said. Either sex alone or no sex alone is either side getting what they want (so, any offer of sex, no matter how desireless or miserable, is the sexual getting what they want as well) or it's not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Tar's guide to sexual compromise:

aXMy0Gw.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

In this scenario, asexuals want to not have sex. This makes a relationship better for them than one in which there is sex. When they say 'no', no sex is what happens. On that level, they are getting what they want.

In this scenario, sexuals want to be desired. This makes a relationship better for them than one in which they are not desired. This cannot ever happen with an asexual. On this level, they are not getting what they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it's much more to the point of the problem saying that (most) asexuals do not want to be (sexually) desired, and can't ever feel sexual desire, themselves.

Whereas (most) sexuals do want to both be (sexually) desired, and do feel sexual desire as part of their nature, themselves.

This, far more than the behavioral question of to boink or not to boink, is the crux in mixed 'ships.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

It is better in a way. I was just trying to avoid any terminology that could set off another semantic debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...