Can anything be better than sex for sexuals - split from better than sex sexual edition

[MrDane]

First of all, I have read many surveys, which were quite untrustworthy, like when a magazine asks its readers about their sexual interests and afterwards publish it, as a european standard, but it was only hundred young people from a specific country, who read the magazine due to their specific interest in the first place. And sometimes it is not as important, what the neighbor does, as what I can do with my wife!

OP asked about things which were better than sex! I just dont want to compare uncomparable things! I love my children, campfires, sex and I love coffee, water when thirsty and food when hungry, but it is not in the same league. I would anytime sacrifice my own needs before sacrificing the happyness of my children, though!

...but when sex is at its best,I lose myself and drift off into a state of happy/good feeeling/harmony/togetherness! When I have the best orgasm, it is like a moment, where I connect to all the cells in my body and they tremble melodically with joy. It is a happy and healthy drug! At that point, campfires and coffee doesnt quite make the cut!

[Snao Cone]

Clearly sexuals differ, as do asexuals. But there is a cut off, which is saying that any of these is *always* better than sex. For sexuals, there are times when nothing else will do, and I think that's different for asexuals.

Other sexual can speak for themselves. They can't speak for you. You can't speak for them. You're not being silenced or misrepresented when other sexual people say something that's different from how you feel.

[Telecaster68]

Clearly sexuals differ, as do asexuals. But there is a cut off, which is saying that any of these is *always* better than sex. For sexuals, there are times when nothing else will do, and I think that's different for asexuals.

[Telecaster68]

Clearly sexuals differ, as do asexuals. But there is a cut off, which is saying that any of these is *always* better than sex. For sexuals, there are times when nothing else will do, and I think that's different for asexuals.

Other sexual can speak for themselves. They can't speak for you. You can't speak for them. You're not being silenced or misrepresented when other sexual people say something that's different from how you feel.

Quite, which is why I didn't come close to saying those things.

[Guest]

Clearly sexuals differ, as do asexuals. But there is a cut off, which is saying that any of these is *always* better than sex. For sexuals, there are times when nothing else will do, and I think that's different for asexuals.

Other sexual can speak for themselves. They can't speak for you. You can't speak for them. You're not being silenced or misrepresented when other sexual people say something that's different from how you feel.

Quite, which is why I didn't come close to saying those things.

But you categorically said "for sexuals, there are times when nothing else will do" as though you speak for ALL sexuals. When there are, in fact, sexuals out there who do enjoy other things more than sex and just have sex because it feels good etc, but if they had to give it up for something they enjoy more, they would. Not all sexuals experience their sexuality in exactly the same way you do. If you changed your comment to "for MOST or MANY sexuals there are times nothing else will do" that would be more accurate.

And again, no one was actually saying "sexuals will categorically choose these things over sex every time" people were just saying that sometimes some sexuals find this or that "better than sex" (and those people are speaking for themselves, not every sexual alive)

[Telecaster68]

"for sexuals, there are times when nothing else will do" as though you speak for ALL sexuals

In the same way that people will say 'for themselves, asexual would be quite happy to never have sex again', yes, I do. I think it's a defining characteristic that if you're sexual, there are times when nothing other than sex will do, and in that sense, nothing is better than sex.

[Guest]

"for sexuals, there are times when nothing else will do" as though you speak for ALL sexuals

In the same way that people will say 'for themselves, asexual would be quite happy to never have sex again', yes, I do. I think it's a defining characteristic that if you're sexual, there are times when nothing other than sex will do, and in that sense, nothing is better than sex.

So that would mean that to be asexual, you can love and desire sex, as long as you enjoy some things more than sex.

[Telecaster68]

No, just that you'd be happy to never have sex again under some circumstances, like for instance, campfires on demand, because to you there would never be any circumstances where sex would be better than campfires.

[Homer]

How is this even confusing? :huh:

[Snao Cone]

No, just that you'd be happy to never have sex again under some circumstances, like for instance, campfires on demand, because to you there would never be any circumstances where sex would be better than campfires.

So if someone says they think ______ (campfires or other) are better than sex, they're either a) lying, or b) asexual?

[Sally]

Tele, I think your statement, "I think it's a defining characteristic that if you're sexual, there are times when nothing other than sex will do, and in that sense, nothing is better than sex" doesn't hold true. In that situation, yes, nothing other than sex will do. But that doesn't mean that for all sexuals, at all times, nothing is better than sex. You're overreaching in speaking for all sexuals.

[Telecaster68]

It comes down the definition of 'better'. I'm taking 'better' as 'always preferable'. I stand by the assertion that if you never, ever need sex more than you need anything else (in other words, if something - anything - is always better than sex), you're at the least, gray.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure being "sexual" is a rather severe psychological dysfunction, by these standards, and that the vast majority of people are gray or asexual. Like, 80-90% of the general population, at least.

You are a strange, strange man, Tele. :huh: (And that's coming from me, of all people...)

[Telecaster68]

As always, I'm grateful for the way asexuals can explain to sexuals what being sexual is like.

Here's an analogy: someone takes a long, hard run on a hot day, but at the end of the run, they'd still rather watch a campfire than take a drink. In other words, at a time when you'd expect them to be want water more than anything else, they still have no urge for it. Wouldn't you assume they had some deep rooted aversion to water?

[Guest]

The analogy fails, because noone, not even sexuals, needs sex the way the runner in the heat needs water. Ever. If they feel they do, that means they need therapy, or at least, very serious counseling.

If what you describe were a "common sexual", then sexuals would be exactly the pitifully obsessed sickos some misguided aces think they are.

[Guest]

As always, I'm grateful for the way asexuals can explain to sexuals what being sexual is like.

Here's an analogy: someone takes a long, hard run on a hot day, but at the end of the run, they'd still rather watch a campfire than take a drink. In other words, at a time when you'd expect them to be want water more than anything else, they still have no urge for it. Wouldn't you assume they had some deep rooted aversion to water?

Skullery (and other *sexuals* here) have stated that they feel differently than you. And your analogy is *extreme*, you're comparing sex to an immediate survival need in a human body (because if you're thirsty and dont drink, you will die within a week tops)

I haven't been identifying as asexual for some time now, and Mysticus has gathered a lot of knowledge from sexuals who have posted here over the years (so despite identifying as asexual, he speaks from a lot of knowledge of how sexuals on AVEN have described their own sexuality over the years)

It's not us that are wrong here, not me, Mysticus, Skullery, or anyone else who has commented. It's you who are incorrect for assuming every single sexual experiences sexuality in the same way that you do, to the extent of saying much of the population must be grey or asexual if they don't experience sexuality the way that you do (which no offense, is the stereotypical predominantly male experience of sexuality that the asexual community assumes applies to every single sexual human. It certainly doesn't apply to all sexuals regardless of gender.)

Technically Skullery must be asexual or at least grey, yes? I hope she comments again so we can see what she has to say about this. And now I've gone back to 100% full asexuality because I'd happily never have sex with my partner if I had to choose between that and having him read outloud to me for the rest of our lives. If I could choose between sex whenever I want with no reading outloud ever, or him reading outloud whenever I want and no sex ever, I'll choose the reading without second thought (though I'd ideally have both whenever I want of course :p)

[Telecaster68]

Skullery (and other *sexuals* here) have stated that they feel differently than you.

And Athena and Dane have agreed with me. But yes, if Skulls, for instance, says she's always choose a campfire over sex, then I'll concede. But I doubt that'll happen.

I haven't been identifying as asexual for some time now, and Mysticus has gathered a lot of knowledge from sexuals who have posted here over the years (so despite identifying as asexual, he speaks from a lot of knowledge of how sexuals on AVEN have described their own sexuality over the years)

As have I about asexuals. So what?

to the extent of saying much of the population must be grey or asexual if they don't experience sexuality the way that you do

No. I'm saying that for sexuals, there are times when nothing is better - in the sense of preferable - to sex. If there is something that is always preferable to sex, then yes, gray, at least.

Did you pick that word up? Always.

So yes, under that particular Pick Your Own definition of asexuality, you'd be gray.

[Homer]

* :mellow: 's at thread*

[Ricki]

If someone *always* felt there was something they'd rather do than sex, then they'd be grey, at least.

Er no. You can enjoy something and desire something, without liking it the most in the world.

I *really* like pizza and love eating it, but I also prefer Yorkshire Pudding. So what, that suddenly means that I am meh towards pizza? No. Because that is stupid.

I don't actuaIIy identify as asexuaI, just to be cIear (and I'm not sure if Ricchan does either?

I purposely don't say my gender or sexuality in the forums because I find it hilarious watching people like Tele make assumptions about me on his own opinions :lol:

[Kai99]

No. I'm saying that for sexuals, there are times when nothing is better - in the sense of preferable - to sex. If there is something that is always preferable to sex, then yes, gray, at least.

And what about this statement is Telecaster wrong? Are we going to pretend that sex isn't important to sexuals now? Gee, I had no idea that sex is so replaceable. Next time a sexual complains about not having sex with their asexual partner, I'll just say to them," I'm pretty sure there are other things you can do to replace it. Quit whining!"

Sex is so much more than just a physical activity. It isn't comparable to your favorite food or favorite things to do. The lack of sex in a relationship or life can be devastating to a person's self esteem and mental well being. We know this. Whenever a sexual come here to complain about the lack of sex, it usually follows the same formula. "I need sex to feel love" "I feel horrible about myself because my partner doesn't want me" "I have to constantly fight the urges for my partner" " I feel disconnected from my partner without sex!" " I would hate to break up a perfectly good relationship for sex, but I am too unhappy". There are psychical and mental benefits for sex that isn't comparable to other personal loves. People are naturally incline to want sex. Your favorite things and activities is just that. Sex is something on a more powerful level.

Like the other day I had a huge craving for green apples. We didn't have any. Throughout the day those cravings would come and remind me of what I want, but I couldn't do anything about it. Did it distress me? No, it was just really annoying that I didn't have any green apples available, but it wasn't that big of a deal. Sex for sexuals isn't like that. Now, that isn't the same as saying sex is all sexuals care about. But your telling me that if a sexual was in the mood and had a partner who was very willing that they would be okay with substituting sex for something else? SkullaryMaid, you have been suppressing your urges for quite some time but imagine that scenario and write back about it.

An asexual would never put sex over anything else they would like to do. If they did than they wouldn't be asexual. Its a broad statement, sure, but accurate. If an asexual puts sex in front of other hobbies/favorite food than they wouldn't be asexual. If someone could care less about never having sex again than they wouldn't be sexual. They would be on the asexual spectrum.

[Telecaster68]

I *really* like pizza and love eating it, but I also prefer Yorkshire Pudding. So what, that suddenly means that I am meh towards pizza? No. Because that is stupid.

And it's not what I said.

[Guest]

No. I'm saying that for sexuals, there are times when nothing is better - in the sense of preferable - to sex. If there is something that is always preferable to sex, then yes, gray, at least.

And what about this statement is Telecaster wrong? Are we going to pretend that sex isn't important to sexuals now? Gee, I had no idea that sex is so replaceable. Next time a sexual complains about not having sex with their asexual partner, I'll just say to them," I'm pretty sure there are other things you can do to replace it. Quit whining!"

Sex is so much more than just a physical activity. It isn't comparable to your favorite food or favorite things to do. The lack of sex in a relationship or life can be devastating to a person's self esteem and mental well being. We know this. Whenever a sexual come here to complain about the lack of sex, it usually follows the same formula. "I need sex to feel love" "I feel horrible about myself because my partner doesn't want me" "I have to constantly fight the urges for my partner" " I feel disconnected from my partner without sex!" " I would hate to break up a perfectly good relationship for sex, but I am too unhappy". There are psychical and mental benefits for sex that isn't comparable to other personal loves. People are naturally incline to want sex. Your favorite things and activities is just that. Sex is something on a more powerful level.

Like the other day I had a huge craving for green apples. We didn't have any. Throughout the day those cravings would come and remind me of what I want, but I couldn't do anything about it. Did it distress me? No, it was just really annoying that I didn't have any green apples available, but it wasn't that big of a deal. Sex for sexuals isn't like that. Now, that isn't the same as saying sex is all sexuals care about. But your telling me that if a sexual was in the mood and had a partner who was very willing that they would be okay with substituting sex for something else? SkullaryMaid, you have been suppressing your urges for quite some time but imagine that scenario and write back about it.

An asexual would never put sex over anything else they would like to do. If they did than they wouldn't be asexual. Its a broad statement, sure, but accurate. If an asexual puts sex in front of other hobbies/favorite food than they wouldn't be asexual. If someone could care less about never having sex again than they wouldn't be sexual. They would be on the asexual spectrum.

We are not saying Tele is wrong when it comes to sexuals *like Tele*, which yes there are many! We are saying that there ARE sexuals who feel differently (ie enjoy sex in the right time with the right person but have preferences for other things). Wow I can't believe it's so hard to understand that not every sexual person on the planet see's sex as the greatest thing in existence. Some sexuals enjoy some things more than sex. That's just a fact of life. How is that so shocking or hard to understand? I'm honestly baffled by this attitude (oh wait, no I'm not. We are on AVEN after all)

Not every sexual on the planet is like Tele and quite frankly it's offensive to say that if a sexual doesn't feel the same about sex as he does, they must actually be grey.

Sexuality = having a desire to connect sexually with others for sexual and/or emotional pleasure under some circumstances.

Asexuality = no desire to connect sexually with others for sexual and or emotional pleasure, ever.

Someone might only desire sex once or twice a month, and have a preference for other things over sex (like good food, or exercise) and still be sexual.

I'm not saying that when a sexual person is in the mood for sex, and their lover is also in the mood, they'll turn down sex like "oh man you know what, lets not have sex even though we both feel like it, lets go and have cake", I'm just saying that a sexual may enjoy eating cake more than they enjoy sex, but still enjoy sex so choose to have it. I prefer cheesecake (a non-sexual activity) to apple pie (sexual activity) but if I have some apple pie I'm not going to be like "nah I don't want this, I prefer cheescake" ..I'll still eat the apple pie and enjoy it immensely.

This whole "this is how I experience sexuality and if anyone else experiences it differently then they're wrong about their sexual identity and must actually be grey or asexual" is pretty creepy actually.

[Telecaster68]

I think these may be helpful.

http://www.majortests.com/sat/reading-comprehension.php

[Homer]

Pan, you just wrote a long text to point out how you disagree with Tele, when in fact you agree... *scratches head*

Tele said that there are times when other activities just won't do the job. He never said that sex would ALWAYS be preferable or that it would ALWAYS be the best option no matter what.

He never made any assumption about frequencies or whatever. All he said is that for sexuals, there are times where other activities just don't cut it. If it were different, there would always be something you could replace sex with.

To me, and seen from an intellectual POV, this seems completely legit and logical.

[m4rble]

Pan, you just wrote a long text to point out how you disagree with Tele, when in fact you agree... *scratches head*

Tele said that there are times when other activities just won't do the job. He never said that sex would ALWAYS be preferable or that it would ALWAYS be the best option no matter what.

He never made any assumption about frequencies or whatever. All he said is that for sexuals, there are times where other activities just don't cut it. If it were different, there would always be something you could replace sex with.

To me, and seen from an intellectual POV, this seems completely legit and logical.

Except that leaves some people out of both the sexual and the asexual category. Imagine if someone desired sex but would still always choose going to a movie over having sex even when they were in the mood. Then they wouldn't be asexual because they still desired sex but they still wouldn't be sexual if we apply this definition.

[Homer]

If someone desires sex, they're sexual.

[Telecaster68]

Pan, you just wrote a long text to point out how you disagree with Tele, when in fact you agree... *scratches head*

Tele said that there are times when other activities just won't do the job. He never said that sex would ALWAYS be preferable or that it would ALWAYS be the best option no matter what.

He never made any assumption about frequencies or whatever. All he said is that for sexuals, there are times where other activities just don't cut it. If it were different, there would always be something you could replace sex with.

To me, and seen from an intellectual POV, this seems completely legit and logical.

Except that leaves some people out of both the sexual and the asexual category. Imagine if someone desired sex but would still always choose going to a movie over having sex even when they were in the mood. Then they wouldn't be asexual because they still desired sex but they still wouldn't be sexual if we apply this definition.

That's why I said 'gray'.

To be clear, I'm not talking about just 'being in the mood'. I'm talking about the times when sharing the intensity, urgency and intimacy of sex is as emotionally necessary as necking a litre of water is physically necessary after exercise in the heat. To pick some really extreme examples: it's pretty common for grieving a loved one to manifest at times as really needing the closeness and life affirming feeling of having sex with your partner; or if you haven't seen them for ages, missed each other like hell, and now you're together and alone for the first time - it's celebrating and luxuriating in each other again; or it could be sparked by jealousy - it's saying 'you're mine, I'm yours, we're us' in the most visceral way possible.

All those are more than just 'being in the mood'. They're about sex being part of a relationship in a way that nothing else can come close to, for sexuals. Regardless of libido, it seems to me that the common characteristic of asexuals is that they don't see their sexuality as necessarily part of any relationship, and if that's the case, I can understand why none of those three scenarios make any sense.

[Ricki]

I can't believe this is still going on...

Greysexual is a stupid label because it is so ridiculously broad. By definition then most of the population is greysexual, so unless you walk around and 50% or more of the time you are thinking "Yes I want to commit coitus imminently" which most people don't, then you are grey, by definition.

You are sexual if you desire sex. There's no two ways about it. You can be sexual and really hate the act of sex itself. You can also be sexual and enjoy sex more than anything else. And you can be asexual and enjoy sex. Why is that so hard to understand?

[m4rble]

Pan, you just wrote a long text to point out how you disagree with Tele, when in fact you agree... *scratches head*

Tele said that there are times when other activities just won't do the job. He never said that sex would ALWAYS be preferable or that it would ALWAYS be the best option no matter what.

He never made any assumption about frequencies or whatever. All he said is that for sexuals, there are times where other activities just don't cut it. If it were different, there would always be something you could replace sex with.

To me, and seen from an intellectual POV, this seems completely legit and logical.

Except that leaves some people out of both the sexual and the asexual category. Imagine if someone desired sex but would still always choose going to a movie over having sex even when they were in the mood. Then they wouldn't be asexual because they still desired sex but they still wouldn't be sexual if we apply this definition.

That's why I said 'gray'.

To be clear, I'm not talking about just 'being in the mood'. I'm talking about the times when sharing the intensity, urgency and intimacy of sex is as emotionally necessary as necking a litre of water is physically necessary after exercise in the heat. To pick some really extreme examples: it's pretty common for grieving a loved one to manifest at times as really needing the closeness and life affirming feeling of having sex with your partner; or if you haven't seen them for ages, missed each other like hell, and now you're together and alone for the first time - it's celebrating and luxuriating in each other again; or it could be sparked by jealousy - it's saying 'you're mine, I'm yours, we're us' in the most visceral way possible.

All those are more than just 'being in the mood'. They're about sex being part of a relationship in a way that nothing else can come close to, for sexuals. Regardless of libido, it seems to me that the common characteristic of asexuals is that they don't see their sexuality as necessarily part of any relationship, and if that's the case, I can understand why none of those three scenarios make any sense.

I was thinking about the physical act of sex and forgetting the emotional side, but I can understand it as an emotional need connected to loneliness. I wonder though if some unnecessary suffering for sexuals in sexless(or not as sexful as they would like) is caused by society teaching people their worth is based on their sexual appeal.

By definition then most of the population is greysexual, so unless you walk around and 50% or more of the time you are thinking "Yes I want to commit coitus imminently" which most people don't, then you are grey, by definition.

That was not the scenario that was being discussed. It seems like some would argue that people who see sex as a purely physical act and not an emotional one would be grey even if they desired sex. I'm not so sure about this conclusion though.

[Telecaster68]

I agree that AVEN gets hung up over definitions, but then a lot of people are here trying to figure themselves out and it can be useful to find a niche to feel more comfortable in while you do it. But the definitions on AVEN don't really work - all the attraction/desire stuff is subjective so nobody ever quite agrees on what they mean, so they're pretty useless as communication tools. Libido doesn't work either - sexuals and asexuals can both have high or low libidos.

That's why I talked about wanting to share your own sexuality with someone, generally in a relationship. That seems to be the dividing line that always works. Sexuals see that sharing as intrinsic to relationships, asexuals see their sexuality as nothing to do with anyone else. They may choose to share it in a relationship, but they don't feel a loss if they can't.

So to apply that to the thread topic - there are times for sexuals (yes all of them, by definition, I'm asserting) when nothing matters more, nothing is preferable to sharing your sexuality, generally in emotionally intense circumstances because of the intense closeness. People who don't see their sexuality as anything to do with anyone else simply don't get that feeling, so chances are something else will always be better.