Why Do Sexuals Require SEX Specificially to Orgasm? Magic?

[Telecaster68]

Medical practice makes it very clear that the characteristics of most of these conditions are on a continuum, and to qualify as a disorder they have to seriously affect your life in a dysfunctional way for at least six months. It's not as if diagnoses are done on a whim.

with SPD it's generaIIy a IifeIong thing and it doesn't actuaIIy affect the person negativeIy a Iot of the time. It's just viewed as a ''disorder'' because ''oh it's not normaI or heaIthy to IiteraIIy have no interest in forming connections with peopIe, to prefer to spend your Iife totaIIy immersed in fantasy, and to not want sex'' ..But peopIe who feeI this way are often very happy with it and don't want it any other way.

If its not causing any problems, how do they come in contact with medical professionals who give them the diagnosis?

[Tarfeather]

If its not causing any problems, how do they come in contact with medical professionals who give them the diagnosis?

Not being a productive member of society is generally seen as problem, even when the individual in question isn't feeling any distress over it. :)

[Telecaster68]

Medical practice makes it very clear that the characteristics of most of these conditions are on a continuum, and to qualify as a disorder they have to seriously affect your life in a dysfunctional way for at least six months. It's not as if diagnoses are done on a whim.

with SPD it's generaIIy a IifeIong thing and it doesn't actuaIIy affect the person negativeIy a Iot of the time. It's just viewed as a ''disorder'' because ''oh it's not normaI or heaIthy to IiteraIIy have no interest in forming connections with peopIe, to prefer to spend your Iife totaIIy immersed in fantasy, and to not want sex'' ..But peopIe who feeI this way are often very happy with it and don't want it any other way.

If its not causing any problems, how do they come in contact with medical professionals who give them the diagnosis?

[Telecaster68]

Double post

[Telecaster68]

Not being productive is fine if you have a private income. If you expect everyone else to pay for it, they're entitled to check whether you're ill or lazy, wouldn't you say?

[Homer]

Because it means trusting someone with your physical vulnerability, the combination of intense physical and emotional feelings, and being comfortable with losing physical control with them.

The bolded part is something I never really took into consideration. I'm going to think about and then come back to it.

[Guest]

Not being productive is fine if you have a private income. If you expect everyone else to pay for it, they're entitled to check whether you're ill or lazy, wouldn't you say?

Nope. I'm a big supporter of the idea of Unconditional Basic Income instead of classic welfare. The only thing they're entitled to check is whether you actually live in the country (and maybe if you're a legal citizen).

[Philip027]

I was wondering when someone wouId notice that T_T my kids puIIed out the key after K from my Iaptop (there is IiteraIIy just a hoIe where it once was) so I have to use capitoI 'i' in pIace of my key after K.

If you ever want to get that key back from those kids, you may just have to... beat the L out of them

_{Sorry, I'll get my coat}

[Telecaster68]

Not being productive is fine if you have a private income. If you expect everyone else to pay for it, they're entitled to check whether you're ill or lazy, wouldn't you say?

Nope. I'm a big supporter of the idea of Unconditional Basic Income instead of classic welfare. The only thing they're entitled to check is whether you actually live in the country (and maybe if you're a legal citizen).

It's a great idea in theory, I agree. But where you had something even close to it, in the old Communist states, people abused it.

Even in the UK, in the 60s and 70s there were various sectors where union strength made people virtually unsackable - motor manufacturing and newspaper production for example. They could do whatever they wanted and still get paid. The systems were epically abused, and came close to killing both industries.

So, much as I'd love to support an unconditional basic income, I do think people getting benefits need some kind of accountability. It should be generous, humane and flexible, but without it, pisstakers gonna take the piss.Why does it matter? Because it's unfair on all the people paying into the system, and it makes the cost of the system unsustainable, so the deserving cases miss out too.

We're way off topic now.

[Guest]

We're way off topic now.

Tends to happen a lot when either you or I get involved in a thread, and especially when you and I start discussing with each other, dunnit? :lol:

[Plectrophenax]

I quoted way too many posts and my response would turn out way too long and rambly even for my standards, so I'll abandon doing that and try to formulate my questions and perspectives directly, risking more obscurely alluding to statements already made by others.

I clicked on this thread for a similar reason that AvengelAzrael did, having understood the question slightly differently. Ever since I figured out that sex was a thing that people didn't just do the way they do other things [like hobbies] but that it was more equated with vital and necessary activities like eating or even breathing, I could only really explain that by means of the feelings that sexual interaction [interaction, i.e. excluding completely solo masturbation] must cause. Because I simply refused to believe, though I have had discussions that would indicate it, that this appeal lies purely in sensual stimulus, I have understood it as a deeply rooted desire for physical intimacy. This was helpful to me because it allowed me to consider myself a person who, on a theoretical level, can understand the desire for intimacy [not the desire for sex itself, but sex as a means to achieve this form of intimacy], yet merely prefers mental over physical. In a sort of infantile way, I tended to view sexual intercourse as the prime example for physical intimacy, and "the exchange of secrets" as the prime example for mental intimacy.

And I suppose that, even though many people have responded in this thread by referring to this sense of intimacy inherent in sexual acts - sometimes to a minute and secondary, sometimes to a prominent and primary extent - the question still stands as to why people seem to generally desire physical intimacy in a way they don't seem to desire many other things, and why sexual intercourse is desired more than other forms of physical intimacy - such as sensual 'foreplay' without the play, or the commonly used example of [mutual?] massages. The prior is potentially just a sign of a healthy social person [*sigh*], but I wonder if the latter is too.

Aside from the fact that genitals are erogenous for most people and so are an obvious target for feeling nice sensations and for making someone else feel nice sensations, I find it difficult to understand their seemingly unique role. Is the inserting/enclasping the closest we get to 'becoming one' and that is something many desire to experience? Or is it as trivial as I expect is most likely, namely that sexual interaction has a special status for basic biological reasons, specifically the evolutionary advantage that having a desire to procreate entails? I tried to avoid this position throughout most of my life because it drastically increases my sense of alienation while also encouraging me to have a very simplistic, instinct-driven and highly animalistic understanding of sexual desire.

[As an aside, as someone who has 'learned' what sex is from other people and being a late-bloomer even then, I wonder just how long it would have taken me to realise the main purpose of my genitals on my own. Literally every person I spoke to in this context has stated more or less explicitly that they 'knew' it intuitively after a certain age, that age being anything between 8 and 13, very rarely later than that. I can't vouch how well they factor in the (fortunately) often hard-to-avoid socialisation, though.]

Still very rambly, but I hope I managed to bring across my meanings sufficiently.

As someone who has had sex, had a very good time, and specifically not actually orgasamed. I can confirm that yes, sex is not about the orgasm. It's usually a combination of sexual lust (I.E. the want to orgasm) and want for sexual intimacy. Which is a whole other thing. The former can indeed be solved by yourself, at least to an extent that for most people it solves the problem. The latter...? Ehhhhh, if anyone ever finds a way to do that by yourself I'd be very interested to find out how.

What exactly do you mean by "sexual intimacy"? Woud you coun't fetish activities that do not necessarily include genital stimulation or orgasm as possible means of experiencing it? Would, say, just standing in the same room without any clothes on count?

There seems to be a bit of a tendency (I wouldn't put it any stronger) for asexuals to be as disinclined to have physical, sexualish (erotic maybe?) contact, like stroking, prolonged eye contact, just being very close amd vulnerable with someone as they are for actual PIV sex. Stuff about sharing physicality, really. I'm talking about anything more active and dynamic than cuddling, which is a pretty static activity.

I thought it was quite common for asexuals to like sensual interactions, which is what I would call what you are describing. The amount of fairly touch-averse people [to whom, I suppose, I should count myself] is quite high as well, though. And perhaps even those who enjoy sensuality are more likely to not be so in a particularly passionate, highly proactive way. I find it impossible to tell.

[Lara Black]

why is sex viewed as like one of the "go-to" ways or biggest show of intimacy?

Because it means trusting someone with your physical vulnerability, the combination of intense physical and emotional feelings, and being comfortable with losing physical control with them.

But if asexuals are often damaged by the act of sex itself, doesn’t it mean that many of them are just a bit more vulnerable in this area? And the same (or, from my experience, even greater) feeling of trust, shared vulnerability and such can be achieved with them not through sex but through physical contact right on the border of their personal sexuality?

[Telecaster68]

Maybe, but it's not a way that will be shared with their partners.

[AshenPhoenix]

As someone who has had sex, had a very good time, and specifically not actually orgasamed. I can confirm that yes, sex is not about the orgasm. It's usually a combination of sexual lust (I.E. the want to orgasm) and want for sexual intimacy. Which is a whole other thing. The former can indeed be solved by yourself, at least to an extent that for most people it solves the problem. The latter...? Ehhhhh, if anyone ever finds a way to do that by yourself I'd be very interested to find out how.

What exactly do you mean by "sexual intimacy"? Woud you coun't fetish activities that do not necessarily include genital stimulation or orgasm as possible means of experiencing it? Would, say, just standing in the same room without any clothes on count?

It would more or less depend on the person. Sexual intimacy is... Well, the need for it, what satiates it, and etc. are more dependent on person to person. Generally though? No, fetishes usually focus more on the actual orgasm. People usually engage in them because it gives them a more intensive orgasm, and of course while some people would feel sexually intimate from fetish play. I don't think most people do exclusively. Nor do I think that generally just standing naked in a room with another person would work all that well (if anything it may increase the desire for being close and intimate with someone).

Sexual intimacy is, to me... I guess the best way to describe it would be the feeling of closeness with another person during a sexual act. Think of it kind of like the bridge between sensuality and sexuality. What happens when the two are present at the same time. It's kind of a complex emotion that gets into nitty gritty details and feelings. But to boil it down, you're sharing an intensely personal experience with another person, and usually (depending on the person and situation), that evokes a special kind of emotion and feeling that really cannot be replicated.

[Lara Black]

Maybe, but it's not a way that will be shared with their partners.

That’s true if we assume that during sex partners are equally vulnerable, which, IMHO, we can’t really do. From what I’ve heard and read, it’s more common for a couple to have an active partner and a recipient – the latter usually being more vulnerable, open and such. Seems not that different from what can happen in a mixed couple.

[Telecaster68]

From what I’ve heard and read, it’s more common for a couple to have an active partner and a recipient – the latter usually being more vulnerable, open and such. Seems not that different from what can happen in a mixed couple.

It's very, very different. I speak as a sexual person who's had sex with sexual partners, and now has a wife whose menopause and various other things has made her functionally asexual.

Most importantly - two sexual partners both desire each other. While one might be generally more passive, or roles switch (from encounters, or during encounters, which is pretty much the norm), both partners know the other wants them sexually. This isn't the case when one partner is asexual, and not being desired is probably even more important than actually performing the physical act for most sexuals.

And passivity doesn't equal vulnerability. Being the active partner who makes a move which can be rejected makes you incredibly vulnerable - it's widely recognised amongst sexual therapists that the person doing the refusing is the gatekeeper of sex, which puts them in a position of power.

[Lara Black]

And passivity doesn't equal vulnerability. Being the active partner who makes a move which can be rejected makes you incredibly vulnerable - it's widely recognised amongst sexual therapists that the person doing the refusing is the gatekeeper of sex, which puts them in a position of power.

That’s why I’m not saying “passive”, but the “recipient”. And I’m also a sexual, comparing sexual and ace relationships – don’t feel that much of a difference in the area of physical trust and vulnerability.

The absence of desire gives it a different shade and makes me feel a bit insecure in the process, but it has no negative impact on the openness, vulnerability or trust. Well, maybe it’s just me that doesn’t need the act itself for the same feelings… Actually, deeper feelings.

[Telecaster68]

Fair enough. For me the absence of being desired puts a huge hole in the reciprocal vulnerability, trust etc. It's definitely more than a different shade of sex.

[Tarfeather]

That’s why I’m not saying “passive”, but the “recipient”. And I’m also a sexual, comparing sexual and ace relationships – don’t feel that much of a difference in the area of physical trust and vulnerability.

The absence of desire gives it a different shade and makes me feel a bit insecure in the process, but it has no negative impact on the openness, vulnerability or trust. Well, maybe it’s just me that doesn’t need the act itself for the same feelings… Actually, deeper feelings.

Interesting. I also suspect that in a certain way, the connection can be even more intimate and close, when you put the "noisy" primitive instincts aside and focus on the more subtle aspects of physical intimacy. However, I'm a virgin, so apparently I can not judge. If you've experienced both, can you enlighten us?

[OutsideObserver]

Interesting. I also suspect that in a certain way, the connection can be even more intimate and close, when you put the "noisy" primitive instincts aside and focus on the more subtle aspects of physical intimacy. However, I'm a virgin, so apparently I can not judge. If you've experienced both, can you enlighten us?

Your (meaning ironically you and a bunch of the asexuals on this board) insistence on primitive instincts in regard to sexuality being somehow "bad", or detracting from the experience, never fails to fascinate me. Sex without "noisy, primitive instincts" would be considerably less fulfilling and fun.

[OutsideObserver]

maybe it’s just me that doesn’t need the act itself for the same feelings… Actually, deeper feelings.

I'm not sure there's any act someone could come up with that makes me feel more connected to a romantic partner than sex. Maybe isolated moments that you can't really deliberately create, but nothing that could possibly replace the intimacy of regular sex on a regular basis.

[Tarfeather]

Your (meaning ironically you and a bunch of the asexuals on this board) insistence on primitive instincts in regard to sexuality being somehow "bad", or detracting from the experience, never fails to fascinate me. Sex without "noisy, primitive instincts" would be considerably less fulfilling and fun.

And would it be more intimate? That was the topic of discussion.

[OutsideObserver]

Your (meaning ironically you and a bunch of the asexuals on this board) insistence on primitive instincts in regard to sexuality being somehow "bad", or detracting from the experience, never fails to fascinate me. Sex without "noisy, primitive instincts" would be considerably less fulfilling and fun.

And would it be more intimate? That was the topic of discussion.

Heck yes it's more intimate! Assuming you aren't bringing a bunch of your own baggage with it (ie. you aren't fantasizing that this somehow hurts or degrades your partner, or that primal emotions are somehow "less" than effete, intellectualized emotions).

The draw to be physically close to and love a mate is a primitive instinct too.

[Tarfeather]

So, let me get this on paper..

You are saying asexuals are intrinsically incapable of experiencing the same level of intimacy as sexuals?

[Lara Black]

Interesting. I also suspect that in a certain way, the connection can be even more intimate and close, when you put the "noisy" primitive instincts aside and focus on the more subtle aspects of physical intimacy. However, I'm a virgin, so apparently I can not judge. If you've experienced both, can you enlighten us?

Your description of sex feels a bit judgemental, but that aside I do understand what you mean and do agree. It might be my feelings for the current partner and memory playing tricks on me, but I do feel much more intimate with him than I did to people I had the act of sex with. It’s hard to pinpoint, what makes the key difference, but for me the difference is, in fact, positive.

Don’t get me wrong – I miss sex, a lot. But I wouldn’t trade what we have for it, nor, being a monogamist, do I want to get it from someone else. I guess, it’s more like nostalgia for me.

Sex without "noisy, primitive instincts" would be considerably less fulfilling and fun.

Yes, sex is much less “fun” without them, but, apparently, there are so many beautiful feelings and emotions that you can get in the process – aside from fun. So, I guess, it’s all a matter of personal preferences.

[Guest]

And passivity doesn't equal vulnerability. Being the active partner who makes a move which can be rejected makes you incredibly vulnerable - it's widely recognised amongst sexual therapists that the person doing the refusing is the gatekeeper of sex, which puts them in a position of power.

That’s why I’m not saying “passive”, but the “recipient”. And I’m also a sexual, comparing sexual and ace relationships – don’t feel that much of a difference in the area of physical trust and vulnerability.

The absence of desire gives it a different shade and makes me feel a bit insecure in the process, but it has no negative impact on the openness, vulnerability or trust. Well, maybe it’s just me that doesn’t need the act itself for the same feelings… Actually, deeper feelings.

I really don't agree with this recipient vs. giver split re: intimacy, vulnerability, etc.

[OutsideObserver]

So, let me get this on paper..

You are saying asexuals are intrinsically incapable of experiencing the same level of intimacy as sexuals?

How the heck am I suppose to know that? How can anyone who has never felt what it's like to be asexual know that?

I would assume asexuals are able to achieve that level of intimacy through other means, or feel intimate in other ways. What I am not convinced of, and what it sounds to me that you are trying to convince yourself of, is that whatever creates that level of intimacy in an asexual must create that same level of intimacy in a sexual, because all a sexual is is an asexual with a desire for sex. You are coming at it from the perspective that you can compartmentalize your sexuality, and experience everything with the same emotional experience as a asexual. I don't think you can. I think having a sex drive and sexual desire for your partner makes all your interactions with them different, even deeply emotionally fulfilling non-sexual interactions.

[OutsideObserver]

Sex without "noisy, primitive instincts" would be considerably less fulfilling and fun.

Yes, sex is much less “fun” without them, but, apparently, there are so many beautiful feelings and emotions that you can get in the process – aside from fun. So, I guess, it’s all a matter of personal preferences.

What beautiful feelings are being quashed or ruined by instincts and noise? Love? Regard for one another? What exactly is admitting our primal nature taking away from? I fail to see why it would be any better.

[Lara Black]

What beautiful feelings are being quashed or ruined by instincts and noise? Love? Regard for one another? What exactly is admitting our primal nature taking away from? I fail to see why it would be any better.

I don’t understand the goal of you arguing with me. Are you trying to prove to me that I don’t feel better during my intimacy with the asexual partner? That would be strange and hardly possible. Are you defending the right of every other person to feel good only during traditional sex? I’m not attacking that right – I only speak for myself and don’t know how other people feel – I can only speculate on that matter. But are you sure that there are no other people that feel the "instinct-less" contact to be more intimate?

And what would naming some feelings do in the way of achieving your goal? People call totally different things “love” or “intimacy” and such – it seems fairly useless to try and compare feelings by name alone.

[OutsideObserver]

What beautiful feelings are being quashed or ruined by instincts and noise? Love? Regard for one another? What exactly is admitting our primal nature taking away from? I fail to see why it would be any better.

I don’t understand the goal of your arguing with me. Are you trying to prove to me that I don’t feel better during my intimacy with the asexual partner? That would be strange and hardly possible. Are you defending the right of every other person to feel good only during traditional sex? I’m not attacking that right – I only speak for myself and don’t know how other people feel – I can only speculate on that matter. But are you sure that there are no other people that feel the "instinct-less" contact to be more intimate?

And what would naming some feelings do in the way of achieving your goal? People call totally different things “love” or “intimacy” and such – it seems fairly useless to try and compare feelings just by name.

The point of my argument was mostly just to argue. I do that.

I was also genuinely curious as to whether you had an answer other than "well, in my opinion..." A lot of people say things framed in absolutes "i.e. intimacy without instinct and primality is more intimate because reasons" When I ask people to expand on those reasons, because I feel essentially the opposite, they drop the statement and get defensive about their opinions.

Don't get defensive about your opinions! just answer the question! Or retract the absoluteness of your statement.

Sex is a primal, instinctual expression of love, joy and intimacy for me. I don't see how I could have more love, joy, and intimacy doing something else. Maybe I am wrong. I am certainly willing to be proven wrong.