Jump to content
Lamkirk

Are sexuals and asexuals really compatible?

Recommended Posts

AthenaFay
9 hours ago, vega57 said:

But is that a good thing?  I mean, I would hate to think of myself as someone's 'pusher' or 'supplier'.  I wouldn't want to be dependent on someone else to make me feel 'good'.  Once again, I can do that by myself. 

The feelings accompanied by romantic and sexual desire add another dimension to the life of a sexual / romantic, you could say, in the sense that we experience those feelings alongside our other life experiences. For many of us, our lives in term of life ambition and goals are shaped massively by them. Is it a good thing? I don't think there are many sexuals who would argue that it isn't, on account of the life enrichment and rewards that it brings, even when taking heartbreak into account. 

 

If not for love, I wouldn't have had the incentive (or even the knowledge, means, confidence, or finances (during my teen years)) to travel to different countries and places to be with my ex partners. I wouldn't have allowed my life to be shaped by drugs in the same way, so even though the high is as it is, it isn't really comparable imo. That doesn't mean to say that if not for love, I wouldn't have traveled.... but actually, no, I think that's wrong. I think there's a pretty high chance that I wouldn't have traveled much, because there just wouldn't have been such a feeling of all-encompassing need. I'm definitely someone who feels at the mercy of her desires. 

 

I've experienced cocaine many times in the past (note: as a high functioning frequent user, not as an addict); and in my experience, the high of love is way more intense, emotionally and physically. Idk if my experience is an enormous exception, but it mostly just had the effect of making me feel relaxed, while at the same time giving me a lot of energy and social stamina. For me, it definitely wasn't the crazed state of being the media likes to depict drugs as. The first time I tried it, I ended up engaged in a conversation with emphatic passion, with a woman I had just met, about the state of education and Schooling in our country; this was unlike "normal" me. The normal me would likely have been very bored by that chat, and wanted to go home and just read or whatever. 

 

The only time I ever feel damning of romantic and sexual love were during break-ups, and during a relationship I had with an aro-ace. I suppose you could say how "good" we feel it is, is dependent on how much we are able to share those feelings with someone who is experiencing the same thing for us at the time we're asked if we think it's "a good thing" or not. (When it's good, it's very good indeed, but when it's bad, it's horrid). 

 

I'd guess that regardless of any pain it brings, us sexual romantics are happy with being who we are, because it's an integral part of who we are; the same as - also regardless of any pain it brings - aromantics and asexuals are happy being who they are, because again, it is just as integral part of who they are, too. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57

 

Quote

To almost dismiss it as an addiction just because it gives enough pleasure to seek out again seems puritanical though. You might as well right off exercise on that basis too. Both do good rather than harm, which is a key difference. 

No, no.  I'm not 'dismissing' it as an addiction for the bolded reason. 

 

You mentioned exercise because exercise can make us feel good, yet we don't consider it an 'addiction' because we like it. 

 

The 'addictive' quality I see is in the lack of the thing we 'crave'.  Whether it's exercise, sex or anything else, how do we feel when or if it's NOT part of our lives?  I mean, my self-esteem isn't wrapped up into whether or not someone 'wants' me sexually, nor is it wrapped up in how many sets of exercises I can do (for example).  There are so many other things that can cause me to be happy WITHOUT those things.  I don't feel 'depressed' or 'worthless' or 'grumpy' or any of the other discomforts that some sexuals describe as they feel when they're lacking sex, if I'm not doing something that I enjoy (such as exercising). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

You're not everyone. 

 

Societally, generally exercise isn't bracketed with addictions because it doesn't need treatment. Extremes aside, pursuing  it doesn't do anyone any harm. But people getting used to the chemical hit and mood changes it brings is pretty well documented just as with say drink or drugs. 

 

Self esteem isn't about the sex act itself. It's about what it signifies about the relationship between two people, and for most people (but not you) it's a very important intense positive signifier. Its absence is read as an absence of the things it signifies - closeness, intimacy, taking pleasure in someone else's pleasure. Put those absences together and it looks like an absence of caring for them as a person - the nonsexual partner doesn't want emotional intimacy, doesn't care about making their partner feel good. That affects deep primitive parts of the brain (FMRI research shows) - often the same pain receptorsy as physical harm,  for instance. 

 

From previous experience, I'm guessing you're unlikely to accept this because it's not how you feel about sex. What would it take to convince you it is in fact the case for most humans? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
1 hour ago, AthenaFay said:

The feelings accompanied by romantic and sexual desire add another dimension to the life of a sexual / romantic, you could say, in the sense that we experience those feelings alongside our other life experiences. For many of us, our lives in term of life ambition and goals are shaped massively by them. Is it a good thing? I don't think there are many sexuals who would argue that it isn't, on account of the life enrichment and rewards that it brings, even when taking heartbreak into account. 

 

If not for love, I wouldn't have had the incentive (or even the knowledge, means, confidence, or finances (during my teen years)) to travel to different countries and places to be with my ex partners. I wouldn't have allowed my life to be shaped by drugs in the same way, so even though the high is as it is, it isn't really comparable imo. That doesn't mean to say that if not for love, I wouldn't have traveled.... but actually, no, I think that's wrong. I think there's a pretty high chance that I wouldn't have traveled much, because there just wouldn't have been such a feeling of all-encompassing need. I'm definitely someone who feels at the mercy of her desires. 

 

I've experienced cocaine many times in the past (note: as a high functioning frequent user, not as an addict); and in my experience, the high of love is way more intense, emotionally and physically. Idk if my experience is an enormous exception, but it mostly just had the effect of making me feel relaxed, while at the same time giving me a lot of energy and social stamina. For me, it definitely wasn't the crazed state of being the media likes to depict drugs as. The first time I tried it, I ended up engaged in a conversation with emphatic passion, with a woman I had just met, about the state of education and Schooling in our country; this was unlike "normal" me. The normal me would likely have been very bored by that chat, and wanted to go home and just read or whatever. 

 

The only time I ever feel damning of romantic and sexual love were during break-ups, and during a relationship I had with an aro-ace. I suppose you could say how "good" we feel it is, is dependent on how much we are able to share those feelings with someone who is experiencing the same thing for us at the time we're asked if we think it's "a good thing" or not. (When it's good, it's very good indeed, but when it's bad, it's horrid). 

 

I'd guess that regardless of any pain it brings, us sexual romantics are happy with being who we are, because it's an integral part of who we are; the same as - also regardless of any pain it brings - aromantics and asexuals are happy being who they are, because again, it is just as integral part of who they are, too. 

Hmm... I like your description here.  :) 

 

As I read your post I kept thinking, "I really wouldn't want someone to 'need' me for things they can do for themselves".  I don't want someone to depend on me so heavily for their 'happiness', especially if the ONLY way they can be 'happy' is if I participate--"frequently"--in ONE aspect of life with them...and to be so miserable if I'm simply not interested. 

 

It's not that I'm not interested in them; I'm just interested in the activity that they want to enjoy with me. 

 

It's like going to an amusement park.  *I* want to ride on all of the rides EXCEPT the super-duper-100 story roller coaster.  I want to ride the Tea Cups, the Tilt-a-Whirl, play the arcades, ride on the water rides, eat cotton candy, etc.  Yet my partner almost looks BORED with those things.  The only thing my partner REALLY wants to do is to ride that coaster...with me.  Over and over again. 

 

As a sexual romantic, you can be happy being who you are, but if you're NOT in a relationship, or if you're in a relationship that lacks what you want, can you still be happy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

You're not everyone. 

I know.  What's your point? 

 

Quote

Societally, generally exercise isn't bracketed with addictions because it doesn't need treatment. Extremes aside, pursuing  it doesn't do anyone any harm. But people getting used to the chemical hit and mood changes it brings is pretty well documented just as with say drink or drugs. 

Exercise doesn't produce the chemical 'high' for everyone.  I used to run track in high school.  Two of us ran the mile.  We used to train with the cross country team, running 5 miles every other day.  I never experienced that runner's "high" I heard so much about.  Oh, I felt good after I ran, especially if I beat my old time.  And I felt physically exhausted.  But I didn't feel especially "happy" or "euphoric". 

 

Quote

Self esteem isn't about the sex act itself. It's about what it signifies about the relationship between two people, and for most people (but not you) it's a very important intense positive signifier. Its absence is read as an absence of the things it signifies - closeness, intimacy, taking pleasure in someone else's pleasure. Put those absences together and it looks like an absence of caring for them as a person - the nonsexual partner doesn't want emotional intimacy, doesn't care about making their partner feel good. That affects deep primitive parts of the brain (FMRI research shows) - often the same pain receptorsy as physical harm,  for instance. 

That's not true.  The nonsexual partner DOES want to experience emotional intimacy; just not sexual intimacy.  They just don't want to experience emotional intimacy through having sex.   Besides, not everyone who has sex experiences emotional intimacy along with it. 

 

Quote

From previous experience, I'm guessing you're unlikely to accept this because it's not how you feel about sex. What would it take to convince you it is in fact the case for most humans?

 This has been a controversial issue since 'forever'.  Social scientists are STILL debating whether or not the sex "drive" is innate or learned.  There's decent research on both sides.  I've already done my homework, and I've chosen a side.

 

You've chosen another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I've said nothing about whether it's innate or learned on this thread. 

 

My other point is that all your arguments are from your personal experience, and since you're asexual, clearly they don't necessarily apply to 99% of the population,but you're dismissing any thought of that. 

 

Again though, what would it take to change your views? If the answer is 'nothing' you don't have an argument. 

 

Personally, if there was consistent robust evidence that most people don't initially want to have sex but learn it from their environment, I'd change my argument. What would your equivalent be? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao

Man i've stopped following this already, and trying to understand is making my brain confused.

 

But like ... almost all sexual people i've talked to about this (not that i talk a lot about it & i've talked to mostly women) have generally agreed that orgasms are more easily achieved by masturbation and usually easier to control for yourself & therefore stronger. The difference is that for sexual people, there's something extra or more satisfying or some kind of positive difference in achieving orgasm with someone else that they have an emotional connection to, so they'd pick that over masturbation, even if orgasm is harder to achieve and/or less strong.

 

For ace people, I really just think there's no difference between the two, or sex with another person is not as good, or orgasms aren't even that great so why bother? 

 

For sexual people, there's an (emotional? interpersonal?) difference with a partner that makes it worth seeking out, and that difference generally has to be mutual in order for it to be satisfying.

 

That's how I've understood it, anyway. I don't know. I can only speak for myself and what I've heard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrDane
1 hour ago, gaogao said:

Man i've stopped following this already, and trying to understand is making my brain confused.

 

But like ... almost all sexual people i've talked to about this (not that i talk a lot about it & i've talked to mostly women) have generally agreed that orgasms are more easily achieved by masturbation and usually easier to control for yourself & therefore stronger. The difference is that for sexual people, there's something extra or more satisfying or some kind of positive difference in achieving orgasm with someone else that they have an emotional connection to, so they'd pick that over masturbation, even if orgasm is harder to achieve and/or less strong.

 

For ace people, I really just think there's no difference between the two, or sex with another person is not as good, or orgasms aren't even that great so why bother? 

 

For sexual people, there's an (emotional? interpersonal?) difference with a partner that makes it worth seeking out, and that difference generally has to be mutual in order for it to be satisfying.

 

That's how I've understood it, anyway. I don't know. I can only speak for myself and what I've heard.

It is not just about having an orgasm. Many sexual women are more certain that they will have an orgasm by themselves, when that is all they seek. Most sexuals, though, seek a loving, caring partner to mutually enjoy sex and other things with. And when everything fits, then happiness is reached. 

 

If the sexuality-difference wasnt a challenge, then we wouldnt be on AVEN.

if the sexuality were 'just' a difference, but our challenge lay in other areas, like humour, we migth have been on other platforms, like A-humouristic Visibility and Education Network. Discussing how and why, everything else can seem fine, but this strange dulness clouds everything and makes it hard to be happy, as nothing is ever funny. Not even worth a giggle or a smile. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrDane

Where it comes from? As a world thing, that sex? I agree, that society makes it important and sex is selling. I just dont care about society as I am home alone in my relationship with my wife and me.  Society may have made her try to think that it was normal to enjoy sex and to, to some extend, desire nice sex. Guess society was mostly rigth. It doesnt fit all, though! 

 

If all other areas in a relationship are well fitting, then a difference in sexuality can still mean a lot and can be the difference between nirvana and just 'meh!?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao
39 minutes ago, MrDane said:

It is not just about having an orgasm. Many sexual women are more certain that they will have an orgasm by themselves, when that is all they seek. Most sexuals, though, seek a loving, caring partner to mutually enjoy sex and other things with. And when everything fits, then happiness is reached. 

Actually... This is exactly what I was trying to say, in a nutshell! Many of my non-ace female friends of all orientations have said exactly this to me, including my own partner.

 

If it was about just the orgasm (i.e. just behaviour) they wouldn't bother with sex because they can do it themselves. There's something MORE than that, that asexuals generally don't see or understand.

 

In my experience, understanding that sex is more than just behaviour is a really hard leap of logic to make for us aces! Asexuals don't seek a partner to enjoy sex with and we don't reach happiness through it, so we can't imagine what it is like... and i feel like it's really hard to get that through to some ace people here, who just focus on behaviour and ask questions about why sexual people 'don't just leave' if they want sex and ask why it's so important to sexuals.

 

It's because sex isn't just about bumping uglies for sexuals... there's some extra thing we don't understand and we need to accept that. Sexuals will also never fully understand our experience, so why should we be dictating theirs???

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AthenaFay
44 minutes ago, gaogao said:

Actually... This is exactly what I was trying to say, in a nutshell! Many of my non-ace female friends of all orientations have said exactly this to me, including my own partner.

 

If it was about just the orgasm (i.e. just behaviour) they wouldn't bother with sex because they can do it themselves. There's something MORE than that, that asexuals generally don't see or understand.

 

In my experience, understanding that sex is more than just behaviour is a really hard leap of logic to make for us aces! Asexuals don't seek a partner to enjoy sex with and we don't reach happiness through it, so we can't imagine what it is like... and i feel like it's really hard to get that through to some ace people here, who just focus on behaviour and ask questions about why sexual people 'don't just leave' if they want sex and ask why it's so important to sexuals.

 

It's because sex isn't just about bumping uglies for sexuals... there's some extra thing we don't understand and we need to accept that. Sexuals will also never fully understand our experience, so why should we be dictating theirs???

Your insight is really helpful for me tbh. I'm gathering an increasing amount of knowledge for what my aro-ace must have inevitably felt. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Gaogao

 

There's definitely something about sharing that experience with someone that makes it qualitatively different than being alone - the difference between kicking a ball against a wall by yourself or playing with a team. 

 

But it's not just about the orgasm.  It's the interaction and sharing of pleasure along the way, as well as the anticipation and afterglow together. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao
1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

 

But it's not just about the orgasm.  It's the interaction and sharing of pleasure along the way, as well as the anticipation and afterglow together. 

Hahha Tele, I know!!! that's what I'm trying to say - that i've realised that orgasm can't be the only thing that is important and if it was, more people wouldn't bother with partnered sex, especially women.

 

What I'm trying to say is that for asexuals, it's very hard for us to logic that out. It definitely took me a long time for me, but I get it now, and I have had to accept that 'the joy of interaction and sharing of pleasure' is just something I'm never going to understand or experience.

 

To me,  using your metaphor.. kicking a ball is kicking a ball and I don't see the difference between kicking it against a wall or playing with a team, because to me it's.. just a ball.. and you have to kick it. I'd just ask isn't it easier to kick it against a wall instead of towards another person? If the goal is to kick it, why not...? but then that's defeating the entire point, isn't it... because there's a whole game there that I'm just not seeing and I somehow can't understand that people don't play football just to kick a ball. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao
1 hour ago, AthenaFay said:

Your insight is really helpful for me tbh. I'm gathering an increasing amount of knowledge for what my aro-ace must have inevitably felt. Cheers!

Im glad that talking about this has helped!! I feel like Sometimes I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes much sense when read by someone else so I'm really glad to hear this hahah;;; 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

@gaogao you're extremely articulate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alibali

Thank you all for all your insghts. I guess the long and short of it is that there will always be something lacking because there is that incompatibility. What individuals do when armed with that knowledge and with all the rest of the stuff that is part of a relationship, is really up to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

Gaogao

 

There's definitely something about sharing that experience with someone that makes it qualitatively different than being alone - the difference between kicking a ball against a wall by yourself or playing with a team. 

 

But it's not just about the orgasm.  It's the interaction and sharing of pleasure along the way, as well as the anticipation and afterglow together. 

Tele, I know you wrote this to Goagao.  But reading it made me think about something...

 

Quote

There's definitely something about sharing that experience with someone that makes it qualitatively different than being alone

I think part of the problem is that not all sex is created equal.  That is, the 'sharing' you're describing isn't felt or even sought by all sexuals who want sex. 

Some teens in middle school have had sex.  And from what I have read about/hear about from the students themselves, the majority of high school students having sex aren't looking for some long-term meaningful relationship. 

 

People who are having one-night stands aren't usually looking to 'bask in the afterglow' in the arms of someone they love. 

Many men who visit prostitutes report that they often feel "empty" after a sexual encounter, yet they keep on going to prostitutes. 

People who are in Friends-With-Benefits situations are often not looking for any kind of "emotional connection". 

Some people who are dating and having 'casual sex' aren't looking for anything long-term and 'meaningful' either. 

 

And many people who have affairs have reported that they're "happy" with their spouse and "very happy" with both the frequency and quality of the sex they're having with their spouse/long term partner.  Yet, they go outside the marriage claiming that it was "just sex". 

 

In other words, all sex doesn't necessarily lead to an emotional connection, nor does having an emotional connection necessarily lead to sex.  This is probably WHY asexuas and sexuals will have  difficult time relating to each other. 

 

Quote

But it's not just about the orgasm.  It's the interaction and sharing of pleasure along the way, as well as the anticipation and afterglow together. 

If it's not about the orgasm, then why doesn't sex usually end unless and until SOMEONE has an orgasm?  Somehow, I don't think a lot of sexuals would enjoy or even seek out sex UNLESS an orgasm was involved.  I've actually asked this question before on another forum (with sexuals) and the majority have said, "What would be the point if no orgasm happened for either of us?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
2 hours ago, gaogao said:

Hahha Tele, I know!!! that's what I'm trying to say - that i've realised that orgasm can't be the only thing that is important and if it was, more people wouldn't bother with partnered sex, especially women.

O.k.  How about if we told sexuals that they can have sex, but they're not 'allowed' to have an orgasm during sex?  How many sexuals do you think would still want to have sex?  Most sexuals I know would NOT stop short (during the act) of having an orgasm.  Like I wrote to Tele, MOST sexuals I've known have said, "Without the orgasm what's the POINT of having sex?" 

 

While I understand that MOST women do not experience an orgasm during intercourse (I think the figure is around 66%), most men do (again, around 96%) A lot of women are 'in it' for the emotional 'connection', they don't seem to expect an orgasm, whereas, most men DO expect to have an orgasm during intercourse. 

 

If 66% of men didn't experience orgasm during sex, how many of them would want to have sex? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NickJ
4 hours ago, gaogao said:

Actually... This is exactly what I was trying to say, in a nutshell! Many of my non-ace female friends of all orientations have said exactly this to me, including my own partner.

 

If it was about just the orgasm (i.e. just behaviour) they wouldn't bother with sex because they can do it themselves. There's something MORE than that, that asexuals generally don't see or understand.

 

In my experience, understanding that sex is more than just behaviour is a really hard leap of logic to make for us aces! Asexuals don't seek a partner to enjoy sex with and we don't reach happiness through it, so we can't imagine what it is like... and i feel like it's really hard to get that through to some ace people here, who just focus on behaviour and ask questions about why sexual people 'don't just leave' if they want sex and ask why it's so important to sexuals.

 

It's because sex isn't just about bumping uglies for sexuals... there's some extra thing we don't understand and we need to accept that. Sexuals will also never fully understand our experience, so why should we be dictating theirs???

This is a very well-made point, thank you. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

At least as far as the whole "kicking a ball" metaphor goes, I know I can say I definitely preferred a wall.  Simpler and more consistent.

 

My views about orgasm though, are different -- there's no point to me in even bothering with it if it's on my own (I'm not even sure if I'm capable of it on my own).  The only reason I'd even bother is if my partner were involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
On 28/10/2017 at 8:04 AM, vega57 said:

Tele, I know you wrote this to Goagao.  But reading it made me think about something...

 

I think part of the problem is that not all sex is created equal.  That is, the 'sharing' you're describing isn't felt or even sought by all sexuals who want sex. 

Some teens in middle school have had sex.  And from what I have read about/hear about from the students themselves, the majority of high school students having sex aren't looking for some long-term meaningful relationship. 

 

People who are having one-night stands aren't usually looking to 'bask in the afterglow' in the arms of someone they love. 

Many men who visit prostitutes report that they often feel "empty" after a sexual encounter, yet they keep on going to prostitutes. 

People who are in Friends-With-Benefits situations are often not looking for any kind of "emotional connection". 

Some people who are dating and having 'casual sex' aren't looking for anything long-term and 'meaningful' either. 

 

And many people who have affairs have reported that they're "happy" with their spouse and "very happy" with both the frequency and quality of the sex they're having with their spouse/long term partner.  Yet, they go outside the marriage claiming that it was "just sex". 

 

In other words, all sex doesn't necessarily lead to an emotional connection, nor does having an emotional connection necessarily lead to sex.  This is probably WHY asexuas and sexuals will have  difficult time relating to each other. 

 

If it's not about the orgasm, then why doesn't sex usually end unless and until SOMEONE has an orgasm?  Somehow, I don't think a lot of sexuals would enjoy or even seek out sex UNLESS an orgasm was involved.  I've actually asked this question before on another forum (with sexuals) and the majority have said, "What would be the point if no orgasm happened for either of us?" 

Yeah but all those people are still choosing to have partnered sex, when masturbation alone would be a lot easier. Clearly there is some preference for the pleasure experienced (or at least hoped for) in the partnered act that they can't get from masturbation. I actually worked in a brothel and men would pay hundreds of dollars just to have an orgasm with another person, some didn't even want the orgasm though! It was mainly about sharing a sex act with another person (no matter how much it costed or how broke they were - some would get the money off their mums!) which is something they just can't get from masturbation alone. So again, even if it's not some deep emotional thing in all these cases, it's still something driving people to seek the partnered act over masturbation alone, whether it's an orgasm they seek or just a sex act with no orgasm involved. Another person being there is still preferable to doing it alone in all these cases.

 

On 28/10/2017 at 8:10 AM, vega57 said:

O.k.  How about if we told sexuals that they can have sex, but they're not 'allowed' to have an orgasm during sex?  How many sexuals do you think would still want to have sex?  Most sexuals I know would NOT stop short (during the act) of having an orgasm.  Like I wrote to Tele, MOST sexuals I've known have said, "Without the orgasm what's the POINT of having sex?" 

 

While I understand that MOST women do not experience an orgasm during intercourse (I think the figure is around 66%), most men do (again, around 96%) A lot of women are 'in it' for the emotional 'connection', they don't seem to expect an orgasm, whereas, most men DO expect to have an orgasm during intercourse. 

 

If 66% of men didn't experience orgasm during sex, how many of them would want to have sex? 

Also, most of those women would still prefer to have an orgasm than be left hanging, lol.. it's just that sometimes men have no idea what they're doing and don't care a whole lot about the pleasure the woman experiences (and those are the type of men who don't really deserve to get sex from that woman in the first place, lol). No, it's not common for women to orgasm during PiV, but there are plenty of other ways to leave a woman satisfied after having sex with her.

 

However, in my experience (which I can say it's pretty extensive due to my previous employment) many sexual people would prefer to have partnered sex without an orgasm than no sex at all. I think if you gave a sexual person the choice of 'partnered sex any time you want but without orgasm, or no sex at all ever but you can still masturbate alone and have an orgasm' most of them would still choose the partnered sex.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alibali

My OP was based on the assumption that most people (99%) would rather have partnered sex. It was more about whether a partnership between someone who wants partnered sex can ever be compatible with a person who doesn't. I didn't query what most people want. I may not feel the same way but I do accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

An emotional connection isn't the same as being in love. It can be that, or it can be sharing that pleasurable experience, or simply human touch. Obviously something deeper is better, and orgasms all round are better, but Ficto's right - most people would choose sex with someone who's into it, with no orgasms, over a life of masturbation.

 

Men who use prostitutes are choosing to pay for partnered sex. If orgasms were the point, they're just masturbate and save themselves some money and risk. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
41 minutes ago, alibali said:

My OP was based on the assumption that most people (99%) would rather have partnered sex. It was more about whether a partnership between someone who wants partnered sex can ever be compatible with a person who doesn't. I didn't query what most people want. I may not feel the same way but I do accept it.

Ali

 

Yeah the thread seems to have been hijacked by Vega's conviction that people secretly didn't really want partnered sex, based on her not wanting it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NickJ
8 hours ago, alibali said:

My OP was based on the assumption that most people (99%) would rather have partnered sex. It was more about whether a partnership between someone who wants partnered sex can ever be compatible with a person who doesn't. I didn't query what most people want. I may not feel the same way but I do accept it.

This is all pretty new to me. That said my personal feeling is that if both partners are willing to work hard, communicate and find viable compromises, then yes it is possible for sexuals and asexuals to be compatible.

 

My wife and I are slowly working through some of these issues now. I can't claim we've found any solutions yet but the communication is certainly welcome and helpful, though initiating that communication and being open and honest hasn't been easy. Frankly, it's taken us far too many years to get to that point of discussing it properly, since neither of us wants to hurt the other, but we're there and we are talking.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao
On 10/27/2017 at 8:10 PM, vega57 said:

If 66% of men didn't experience orgasm during sex, how many of them would want to have sex? 

Ficto basically said this earlier but I think most sexual men still would desire sex even if they didn't experience orgasm. Men just think their orgasms are important because men in our society are taught that the whole point of sex is for them to ejaculate, and it's easier to see this result.

 

If culture and society taught us that the whole point of sex was for women to experience orgasm instead, women would probably orgasm 96% of the time, and men would probably orgasm way less - though they would still be willing partners. 

 

So imo it is because of this culture and framing of sex that men orgasm 96% of the time. Straight men don't always know how to get a woman to orgasm, even if they want to, and not many straight women expect to orgasm during sex because they aren't taught that's part of it. There's still a certain amount of stigma against women who enjoy sex. Yet - they still desire to have it.

 

Unless there was a way to measure this sort of social conditioning, comparing men and women and how much either orgasm and how this affects their desire to have sex is pointless in this argument.

 

(( Also I might be asexual, but as a lesbian I think it's stupid that so few women ever experience orgasm during sex. What are men doing ?? It's not that hard, guys... holy shit, if an uninterested asexual like me can figure it out, YOU CAN TOO. /asshole lesbian rant over

 

eta/ps: one last thing as a lesbian, sometimes sex between two women doesn't involve orgasm or orgasm doesn't happen even if we try. That doesn't mean that the sex was any less 'real'... Though I've certainly heard people say that sex between two women isn't real sex - i'm sure most lesbians would disagree ))

 

On 10/27/2017 at 8:04 PM, vega57 said:

the 'sharing' you're describing isn't felt or even sought by all sexuals who want sex. 

I don't know, but I think from what I've read here and from what people have said there's still something quantitatively different about sharing sex with someone else that we just don't understand - even outside of a committed relationship. otherwise, as tele said, men would not bother going to prostitutes for sex, they'd just orgasm at home with a handjob or fleshlight, and people wouldn't bother with the messy business of one night stands. Plus, if orgasm was 100% the point of sex, the problems here in the sexual allies forum probably wouldn't matter because sexuals could just jack off by themselves or open up the relationship and be perfectly happy without the bonding aspect. 

 

I always wondered what people were looking for when I heard songs or stories about unloved singles sleeping around, trying to find solace for loneliness in a stranger's bed. I've even heard of some of these sentiments from my own friends and wondered what they were seeking. It makes more sense now to me that as an asexual, I obviously never understood this - but if you imagine that there is something about  partnered sex that simulates some kind of bonding or alleviates loneliness, even if it's fake, then maybe one night stands and prostitution do make sense. Friends with benefits situations and one night stands might be another thing, but there is still something different about having sex with someone else vs. masturbating alone, otherwise why do people have friends with benefits or go to the trouble of finding someone at a club or bar? 

 

Something I recall from when I first got together with my girlfriend - she asked me "wasn't that different and so much more satisfying than just doing it yourself?" and I had no idea what she was talking about. Tbh, I actually never masturbated before so there was nothing for me to compare it to, but even after trying it out by myself (she persuaded me to try by telling me it helps with period cramps) I honestly didn't see what the difference was - if anything, it was more satisfying to do it alone. I've noticed though that for my girlfriend, touching me is half the fun, beyond her own pleasure - and when we first got together I refused to touch her and she still thought it was fun. I used to ask her why she enjoyed it, and I just could not understand any of her explanations. 

 

Honestly, I still don't understand. I just know it means a lot to her and i've had to accept that, and I guess I offer myself to her not understanding why or what she gets out of it -- just that it helps and makes her happy and I want to make her happy.

 

I'm sure she's found it hard to understand and it was difficult for her to accept that my willingness to compromise for her is 100% for her benefit, but it took a lot of talking and lot of understanding and I think to a certain extent this still hurts her a lot. It's a struggle.

 

On 10/27/2017 at 7:08 PM, Telecaster68 said:

@gaogao you're extremely articulate. 

also thank you tele ... i try.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle
On 10/26/2017 at 11:40 AM, vega57 said:

But it's usually not a conscious "faking" it.  There's a belief that we're ALL "supposed" to love sex.  So, we "act" that way.  This is because the "desire" for sex is "supposed" to be "innate" in ALL of us.  We're never told that while desire (which is a fancy word for 'want') may be "innate", behavior (sexually) is not. 

 

It's been demonstrated time after time on this board, that having a libido does NOT mean that we have a 'desire' for partnered sex. 

 

Kind of like saying that just because I'm hungry, doesn't mean that I'm hungry for chocolate, or that I want to eat chocolate WITH someone else. 

 

Why do we put sex on this "higher" pedestal than other desires? 

It would help a lot if asexuals actually said they didn't want sex in the first place. Would have saved me many years of angst!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InquisitivePhilosopher
55 minutes ago, Apostle said:

It would help a lot if asexuals actually said they didn't want sex in the first place. Would have saved me many years of angst!

The thing is, it's not only asexual people's fault. When some were honest about their lack of desire for sexual activity and asked doctors or therapists for help, society and the medical field wasn't as advanced, yet, about asexuality being a normal, sexual orientation.

 

Kinsey, a researcher, knew and had a category for asexuals, (just called, "X,") decades ago, but no one in the medical community bothered to research asexuals or anything about asexuality until more recently.

 

From http://wiki.asexuality.org/Kinsey_scale

 

Quote

In the Kinsey reports of 1948 and 1953, Kinsey added a grade for asexuality as well; this separate category, X, was created for those with "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions."[1]

So, when some told doctors about their lack of sexual attraction, those doctors were just as flummoxed and confused as to what the cause of their lack of sexual attraction was and suggested therapy because that was the only solution they could come up: the idea that it might be due to repressed trauma in their past (even though they hadn't experienced any) and that the asexual person just needs to keep trying to become more comfortable with sexual activity.

 

Plus, some asexuals have mentioned that they weren't 100% sure of their feelings on whether they did or didn't want sex, partly due to the fact that they weren't taught about asexuality being okay or normal, growing up. They weren't deliberately trying to deceive their sexual partners; they spent years, decades, feeling bad and confused about their feelings, too, and genuinely thought that because they had a romantic attraction to their sexual partner, that that must mean they're heterosexual (or homosexual, etc.) and just needed to try sex more often, in order to possibly feel sexual attraction like "everyone else" and "cure" themselves, like doctors and therapists at the time thought.

 

Others might've feared being ostracized or abandoned by their friends, partners, and family, if they told them they weren't interested in sex, because at the time, homosexuality wasn't accepted, either.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao
14 hours ago, Apostle said:

It would help a lot if asexuals actually said they didn't want sex in the first place. Would have saved me many years of angst!

It would also help a lot if society didn't constantly tell people who say they don't want sex that there must be something wrong with them or they're just not doing it right and to keep trying...

 

And there also needs to be more said about sex as something positive and bonding in relationships rather than something dirty, and especially not as something that's just for men's pleasure or for women to tolerate. 

 

This is why we need education and visibility and good communication on all sides. To save a lot of people many years of angst.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Quote

 

It would also help a lot if society didn't constantly tell people who say they don't want sex that there must be something wrong with them or they're just not doing it right and to keep trying...

 

And there also needs to be more said about sex as something positive and bonding in relationships rather than something dirty, and especially not as something that's just for men's pleasure or for women to tolerate. 

 

How can 'society' (IE people) be giving the message that not liking sex makes you faulty in some way and that sex is dirty, negative and a way of men using women? They're contradictory. Obviously they can be coming from different sources, but they can't both be the dominant message.

 

I agree the first message isn't helpful, but I really don't see much of the negatives - dirty and just for men. Maybe that's just confirmation bias of sexual male at work though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...