Jump to content
Lamkirk

Are sexuals and asexuals really compatible?

Recommended Posts

Penguino
5 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

If only that were true :P

 

I believe it is :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Have you read much of the Allies section?

Share this post


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

Have you read much of the Allies section?

was this question for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Yes. There are plenty of examples of partnerships where love isn't conquering all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Penguino
11 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Yes. There are plenty of examples of partnerships where love isn't conquering all.

I said it can conquer all, not that it does every single time. The OP asked for our opinions and I was just giving mine :). I have seen many real-life examples where love does conquer all despite all the differences. That's where I get my opinion from. I have also seen many examples where things don't work out. But I know the possibility is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AthenaFay

I don't believe love can conquer incompatabilites, nor do I believe that love necessarily even should "conquer all". I think my experience at least has taught me that there are situations where love for another should be put aside, especially because other priorities and needs exist. Of course, there are so many other experiences in love, way more dangerous than sexual/romantic compatibility, where the "love can conquer all" idealism should be flung off the planet into space. 

 

Technically, you could say that I still "love" my ace-aro ex-boyfriend, in the sense that I still care for him very much, albeit platonically, rather than romantically. 

If love (in the romantic or whatever, sense, (but he didn't want that anyways, lol)), actually had "conquered" our incompatibility, and we stayed together despite our differences, it would mean only that our suffering would have been prolonged, because nothing actually would have changed. I would still have been in a miserable relationship where I wasn't getting my needs met, and he would still have been in a situation in which his self-esteem would no doubt be getting slowly getting trodden into the ground over the knowledge that he was "not enough" for me. 

 

Conclusion: Define "love", because if it's sexual and romantic love, in the context of a relationship with an aro-ace, then if you want to still love them, your definition of love will need to change a whole lot in order to make it "work" in a much different way. i.e. for me and my ex, it was friendship. 

 

</overthinking>

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao

@Penguino I think I understand where you're coming from and your opinion is yours to have - but in the end it's far too idealistic and trivializing for me and probably for many other people on this sub-forum who are in mixed relationships / have had to leave mixed relationships. 

 

I think the truth is that everything is always possible somewhere, and sometimes it looks like love can conquer all - so people want to believe it - but Love is only one single part of what makes a relationship work. 

 

If a relationship fails for sexual incompatibility or any other difference, I wouldn't want to give people the idea that there's anything wrong with their love if their love can't overcome something as extreme as this... especially since because sometimes love is about realizing that you can't make someone else happy / someone cannot make you happy and you need to leave or let them go.

 

Basically I just don't think I can give Love all the credit if an asexual and sexual can make their mixed relationship work. I think it's a lot more than just Love. It's communication, respect, willingness to listen and commitment... and compatibility in all those other factors. Perhaps, that's what you would call love, but as I said.. in the end I think that trivializes it.

 

This is just my opinion and two cents though, I guess.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Penguino

My opinion remains the same :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AthenaFay
3 minutes ago, Penguino said:

My opinion remains the same :)

 

What is your opinion, though? I mean, can you elaborate more fully on what "love conquers all" for you, means? I think there are some differing ways that it can be interpreted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Penguino
13 minutes ago, AthenaFay said:

 

What is your opinion, though? I mean, can you elaborate more fully on what "love conquers all" for you, means? I think there are some differing ways that it can be interpreted. 

My opinion is that love can conquer all. Sometimes things don't work out, but sometimes they do. You can interpret it whichever way you want :). I don't want to debate about it, I was just posting my response to the OP. I've always believed that love can conquer all and I always will. Thank you for understanding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao

@Penguino Everyone is free to believe what they want and yes - your response is relevant to OP's question. I also don't dispute that it may be true to you, however it is that you interpret it!

 

My opinion - that the phrase 'love can conquer all' sounds as though it simplifies, romanticizes and trivializes the experiences of people who have been able to overcome their incompatibilities through hard emotional work ( work that I believe is more complex than can be described by just "love") - also remains unchanged. I say this as someone who has, for now, been quite successful in conquering a huge number of obstacles and making my relationship work. 

 

I offered it only as my perspective on your choice of wording, not in an attempt to change your mind or pass judgment. 

 

Thanks for your understanding too!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

@Penguino Everyone is free to believe what they want and yes - your response is relevant to OP's question. I also don't dispute that it may be true to you, however it is that you interpret it!

 

My opinion - that the phrase 'love can conquer all' sounds as though it simplifies, romanticizes and trivializes the experiences of people who have been able to overcome their incompatibilities through hard emotional work ( work that I believe is more complex than can be described by just "love") - also remains unchanged. I say this as someone who has, for now, been quite successful in conquering a huge number of obstacles and making my relationship work. 

 

I offered it only as my perspective on your choice of wording, not in an attempt to change your mind or pass judgment. 

 

Thanks for your understanding too!

K...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle
21 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

 Do you want me to explain why the idea that there is no such thing as sexual incompatibility between sexuals and asexuals is ridiculous? Or was it something else you were asking? :o

 

Also, there isn't actually an official definition of asexuality.. so people pretty much define it however they think is most accurate personally. So you get people identifying as asexual for such vastly different reasons as to render the label meaningless. 

 

When you have one person saying "I love sex and I can't be happy without it, but I don't care about appearance so I'm asexual" and another person saying "I can definitely find people attractive to look at and appreciate beauty etc, but I have no desire to actually have sex with anyone else no matter how attractive they are. I do masturbate, but I don't ever associate genital arousal with any desire to connect sexually with another person.. I'm happiest without partnered sex. This is why I'm asexual" then if those people are both legitimately asexual (because 'self identification' is the all important benchmark) then it really is a meaningless label. And of course, with the 'sex loving' asexuals, there is literally no sexual incompatibility between them and any other sexual person. They can screw like bunnies all day and may even wear the sexual person out lol, but hey, they're still asexual because they said they are :P

 

(Edit: just for clarification I was being sarcastic with the post you responded to. There are literally people here who insist the sexual attraction definition  means 'an asexual can love and desire sex but doesn't care who they have sex with' and these people are pretty much are calling anyone who says otherwise (like, that asexuals don't desire partnered sexual intimacy) uniformed and ignorant. If that was really the case, then there literally wouldn't be any sexual incompatibility between sexuals and asexuals so this entire thread, as well as almost every other thread in the sexual partners subforum, would be totally irrelevant. It must be something else that's stopping all the 'asexuals' from actively desiring sexual intimacy with their sexual partners because just being asexual doesn't actually mean you don't want partnered sex T_T

Yeah, I was being sarcastic as well. Ha Ha!!!:D

 

10 hours ago, alibali said:

 

Not sure if it is chemicals....i think it is probably neurological or hormones would probably work.  Someone mentioned autism. I certainly am not autistic. But am inclined to think it is similar. Autistic people can learn to behave in certain ways to fit in better in let's say standard society, but behaviour is usually insufficient for a sexual partner as many threads suggest.

Our bodies are made up of chemicals and electrical pathways. It's these, individually or collectively that are missing in asexuals. Fact, I'm afraid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apostle
21 hours ago, Sally said:

Actually, the sexual doesn't always know, and as far as difficulty, consider how difficult it is for someone to participate in an activity that they neither want nor enjoy because their  partner wants it, for years and years in a long marriage or relationship. 

 

As far as asexuals chemistry missing some ingredients, that's assuming that asexuals are basically handicapped.  Sexuals and asexuals are different; asexuals are not "less than".  

Sally. What I meant to get across is that the difference between sexuals and asexuals is the ingredients that make us human. I'm not in any way denigrating asexuals; after all I'm married to one who I love very much!

It's a cruel fact of life that these incompatibilities exist and there is not much that we can do about it. Talking about our issues are possibly helping us all though. Hope you can understand what I am saying here.

I've not yet met a sexual who doesn't 'know' who they are though, and I've probably lived a longer life than you have so I've yet to be convinced on your statement I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

I think Sally means the sexual doesn't always know that their asexual partner has never wanted or enjoyed sex, since the asexual partner never saw fit to communicate this extremely important piece of information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
2 hours ago, Apostle said:

I broke the quote box T_T

 

2 hours ago, Apostle said:

Yeah, I was being sarcastic as well. Ha Ha!!!:D

Omg I thought you were seriously asking haha fail!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
12 hours ago, Penguino said:

 

I believe it is :)

That's interesting, I actually thought you were being sarcastic in your original comment based on what I've read of the pain and stress your current situation is causing you :o (goes to check your profile in case I'm thinking of the wrong person)

 

Edit: okay I went and re-read your other comments, and you do kind of seem to be in the kind of situation people here are talking about when it comes to total incompatibility :/  It's honestly great that you have faith that love can conquer all, but I also think that a lot of the time (especially when it's a sexual/asexual relationship or crush)  people end up in situations where no matter how much love they personally have (especially when it's only one person who has the feelings!), incompatibility among other issues can make 'conquering' impossible.. though of course it does seem totally possible when you're caught up in those feelings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Quote

What I meant to get across is that the difference between sexuals and asexuals is the ingredients that make us human. I'm not in any way denigrating asexuals;

I hope you realize that's basically like telling someone "You're a complete jackass.  No offense"

 

Your second statement is rendered meaningless tripe because you've already managed to offend with the first one.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
13 hours ago, Apostle said:

Sally. What I meant to get across is that the difference between sexuals and asexuals is the ingredients that make us human. I'm not in any way denigrating asexuals; after all I'm married to one who I love very much!

It's a cruel fact of life that these incompatibilities exist and there is not much that we can do about it. Talking about our issues are possibly helping us all though. Hope you can understand what I am saying here.

I've not yet met a sexual who doesn't 'know' who they are though, and I've probably lived a longer life than you have so I've yet to be convinced on your statement I'm afraid.

I'm pretty old, Apostle.  You really can't make valid assumptions about ages on-line.  And since I've had long involvement with two separate sexuals in my life (one for 10 years; the other for 30+ years), I'm very aware of incompatibilities.  I simply don't think we should talk about asexuals "missing" something; that indicates "less than".  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alibali
30 minutes ago, Sally said:

I'm pretty old, Apostle.  You really can't make valid assumptions about ages on-line.  And since I've had long involvement with two separate sexuals in my life (one for 10 years; the other for 30+ years), I'm very aware of incompatibilities.  I simply don't think we should talk about asexuals "missing" something; that indicates "less than".  

Lolol I certainly don't feel inhuman because I am asexual. Or less of a person etc. 

 

Someone also said that asexuals may not tell their partner that they are asexual or aren't interested. Presumably this is when an asexual is having sex with their partner because if they are not, then the sexual would question the lack of, rather than the lack of finding it important. 

 

My answer is that asexuals can still have sex, and can still recognise it as important to others, but not realise that it is important for the sexual to need the asexual to find it important.

 

So in my own experience, I used to have sex every day, because that is what my bf wanted. I acquiesced because that's what it took for the relationship, and just er got on with it. For me though it was all about behaviour. No doubt for him it was all about need and feelings. I didn't have any kind of clue that my lack of desire was unusual and we were compatible in everything else. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao
2 minutes ago, alibali said:

asexuals can still have sex, and can still recognise it as important to others, but not realise that it is important for the sexual to need the asexual to find it important.

THIS THIS THIST HIS

 

edit: just saying lmao because it took me so long to understand this !!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alibali
36 minutes ago, gaogao said:

THIS THIS THIST HIS

 

edit: just saying lmao because it took me so long to understand this !!!!!

Ha ha ha.... Feelings versus behaviour. Basically. From what I have read on these threads, behaviour just isn't enough for sexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57

 

56 minutes ago, alibali said:

Ha ha ha.... Feelings versus behaviour. Basically. From what I have read on these threads, behaviour just isn't enough for sexuals.

From what I was "taught", behavior is what mattered.  No one EVER asked *me* how I "felt" about having sex.  As long as I was "willing" to have sex, and tht I had the physical ability to have sex,  that's all that mattered. 

 

No one ever asked me if I actually WANTED to have sex, or, if I LIKED having sex.  It was just "assumed" that I WOULD have sex, and when I did, I WOULD like it and want it. 

 

Wow, Alibali.  You have just inspired my next  thread....:D

Share this post


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

Ha ha ha.... Feelings versus behaviour. Basically. From what I have read on these threads, behaviour just isn't enough for sexuals.

Because behaviour almost always denotes feelings. An asexual laying still and clearly waiting for it all to be over is like having a conversation with someone who's answering in monotones and monosyllables - it's clear they'd rather not be having the conversation at all, and it's no pleasure for anyone. 

Edited by Telecaster68
Meaning-critical typos
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
7 minutes ago, vega57 said:

 

From what I was "taught", behavior is what mattered.  No one EVER asked *me* how I "felt" about having sex.  As long as I was "willing" to have sex, and tht I had the physical ability to have sex,  that's all that mattered. 

 

No one ever asked me if I actually WANTED to have sex, or, if I LIKED having sex.  It was just "assumed" that I WOULD have sex, and when I did, I WOULD like it and want it. 

 

Wow, Alibali.  You have just inspired my next  thread....:D

Do you mean in  general, or on individual occasions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
34 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Do you mean in  general, or on individual occasions? 

Not quite sure I get what you're asking....?

Share this post


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

Ha ha ha.... Feelings versus behaviour. Basically. From what I have read on these threads, behaviour just isn't enough for sexuals.

Because sex is more than just behaviour to most sexuals.... i thought that's what we were talking about lol.

 

I think it's not even just what @Telecaster68 is saying about behaviour denoting feelings - even if you're the best actor/actress and you can behave in such a way that imitates feelings and your partner doesn't realise that you're just faking your enjoyment of sex, when they find out that you were just going through the motions it's really painful for them because they thought there was a connection there that wasn't happening.

 

I mean, there ARE some sexuals out there who don't care about their partners and only care about sex for themselves.. but that isn't really what we're talking about here. Those people are just assholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
41 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Because behaviour almost always denotes feelings. An asexual laying still and clearly waiting for it all to be over is like having a conversation with someone who's answering in monotones and monosyllables - it's clear they'd rather not be having the conversation at all, and it's no pleasure for anyone. 

No, no.  Behaviour doesn't denote feelings:  THOUGHTS denote feelings that denote behavior. 

 

The problem that many suffer, is that our THOUGHTS (a.k.a. beliefs) don't correspond with our feelings and/or our behavior. 

 

I can believe that I'm "supposed" to have sex (behavior).  Yet, when I have sex, I don't "feel" good about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
8 minutes ago, gaogao said:

Because sex is more than just behaviour to most sexuals.... i thought that's what we were talking about lol.

 

I think it's not even just what @Telecaster68 is saying about behaviour denoting feelings - even if you're the best actor/actress and you can behave in such a way that imitates feelings and your partner doesn't realise that you're just faking your enjoyment of sex, when they find out that you were just going through the motions it's really painful for them because they thought there was a connection there that wasn't happening.

 

I mean, there ARE some sexuals out there who don't care about their partners and only care about sex for themselves.. but that isn't really what we're talking about here. Those people are just assholes.

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? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swirl_of_blue
43 minutes ago, gaogao said:

I mean, there ARE some sexuals out there who don't care about their partners and only care about sex for themselves.. but that isn't really what we're talking about here. Those people are just assholes.

Not all of those sexuals are assholes: some might just be really inexperienced. I think this is what happened to me in my second relationship, where my partner was a virgin. He didn't know what he was supposed to do, I am so uncomfortable discussing sex in person that I didn't tell him what to do or not to do and I guess he just assumed that everything was all right since he was enjoying himself and I didn't say anything negative. Me showing no interest or any sign of pleasure didn't cause him to have problems "performing", so I guess he really just didn't notice everything wasn't all right since he had no experience of what should happen when people are having (consensual) sex.

  • Like 1

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...