Jump to content

Archived

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

Telecaster68

What sexuals are really thinking

Recommended Posts

Perkins
Just now, Homer said:

I've witnessed it. It is very much a thing.

That's just too wrong to me. Leave them, yeah if it came to that. But to cheat on them? So not okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
2 minutes ago, Gleep said:

Incorrect. Love has everything to do with it. And there is a requirement of intimacy and endorphin enhanced connection that most humans need. We feel duty and honor to our partners to be with them, but there are needs that are not being met inside the relationship.

This seems contradictory. If you truly love someone, you don't sunder an otherwise working relationship for the sake of endorphins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Quote

If you truly love someone, you don't sunder an otherwise working relationship for the sake of endorphins.

When one partner is miserable because of a lack in that relationship, it's not a working relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

Well, obviously, if their asexual partner has unilaterally decided that's no longer part of the relationship.

What if it's not a decision? Desire is not a matter of will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

When one partner is miserable because of a lack in that relationship, it's not a working relationship.

Hence the truth of passion and commitment being mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Quote

What if it's not a decision? Desire is not a matter of will.

Short of outright repulsion, there's a choice being made by the asexual to withdraw all sexuality from the relationship.

 

Since desire isn't a matter of will, why are sexuals supposed to be fine knowing theirs will always be frustrated in a relationship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
1 minute ago, asexjoe said:

Hence the truth of passion and commitment being mutually exclusive.

No matter how often you might want to repeat it, it's still nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Just now, asexjoe said:

Hence the truth of passion and commitment being mutually exclusive.

If the passion and commitment is mutual, there's no contradiction. Both sexual partners can be passionate about each other, and committed to each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
8 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

'I don't see why not' sounds like a convenient line of thinking based on nothing at all, with the benefit of relieving asexual partners of any responsibility for their partner's happiness.

No one is directly responsible for another's happiness. One is responsible for his/her own.

 

Have you been married 30 or 40 years, Telecaster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perkins
2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Short of outright repulsion, there's a choice being made by the asexual to withdraw all sexuality from the relationship.

Sex in a relationship is always a choice, regardless of the participants sexuality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Quote

Have you been married 30 or 40 years, Telecaster?

18.
 

Quote

 

No one is directly responsible for another's happiness. One is responsible for his/her own.


 

It's fair to expect your life partner to do what they can to make you happy, and avoid what will make you miserable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
Just now, Homer said:

No matter how often you might want to repeat it, it's still nonsense.

Suit yourself. Divorce rates are highest in societies that ascribe great value to sexual intimacy.

 

The grass on the other side looks greenest to those who can't stand a little brown grass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
1 minute ago, Perkins said:

Sex in a relationship is always a choice, regardless of the participants sexuality. 

Exactly. There is a word describing forcing someone to have sex against his/her will. What is it, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perkins
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's fair to expect your life partner to do what they can to make you happy, and avoid what will make you miserable.

That's a two way street. If having sex frequently makes you happy but your partner unhappy then that makes it imbalanced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

18.
 

It's fair to expect your life partner to do what they can to make you happy, and avoid what will make you miserable.

I sincerely wish you luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Just now, asexjoe said:

Exactly. There is a word describing forcing someone to have sex against his/her will. What is it, again?

Which is why sexuals on here never, ever coerce their partners. Asexuals might feel pressure, but they still have a choice. All they have to do is say 'no' and they get their choice - no sex. 

 

On the other hand, pretty much all the sexuals on here have had any choice about having sex taken out of their control, unless they leave the relationship.

 

There isn't a word for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
5 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

If the passion and commitment is mutual, there's no contradiction. Both sexual partners can be passionate about each other, and committed to each other. 

Both, in perpetuity?

 

Is passion simply an act of volition, or is it something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gleep

Hey, we get it. Something that we feel feeds our sanctuary of the relationship, feeds our love for our partner and ourselves is equal to the abject degradation of rape. That's why you win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
2 minutes ago, Perkins said:

That's a two way street. If having sex frequently makes you happy but your partner unhappy then that makes it imbalanced. 

Exactly, and (rightly) 'no sex' trumps 'sex, please', so the imbalance is ultimately always in the asexual's favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
3 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

I sincerely wish you luck with that.

Someone who remarried purely because they wanted a mother for their children probably isn't a great authority on supportive relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
1 minute ago, Perkins said:

That's a two way street. If having sex frequently makes you happy but your partner unhappy then that makes it imbalanced. 

That's what Tele said.

 

3 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

Suit yourself. Divorce rates are highest in societies that ascribe great value to sexual intimacy.

 

The grass on the other side looks greenest to those who can't stand a little brown grass.

In what way is this related to commitment vs passion? Your argument was that these two are "mutually exclusive". This is simply not a general truth, even though your personal experiences might be different.

 

One, there are a lot of married couples with a passionate sex life. Two, there are other ways to show passion in a relationship; sex isn't the only way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gleep

We don't want it either if it feels rapey. If it feels like we are a burden, like you're just "going through the motions to shut us up". I described pretty well what I'm after with sex. And there's a lot more about emotional connections and intimacy and feelings than there is about rubbing slimy bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perkins
3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Exactly, and (rightly) 'no sex' trumps 'sex, please', so the imbalance is ultimately always in the asexual's favour.

My statement could apply to sexual/sexual couples too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Can we get back the insights please? I was (for once) trying to be constructive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP

Oh, I don't pretend to be an expert on anything.

 

If passion in a marriage is that important, and represents a reasonable expectation, you certainly would not object to a prenuptial agreement specifying what the parties will do when sexual desire is absent, for whatever reason, in the marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gleep
Just now, asexjoe said:

Oh, I don't pretend to be an expert on anything.

 

If passion in a marriage is that important, and represents a reasonable expectation, you certainly would not object to a prenuptial agreement specifying what the parties will do when sexual desire is absent, for whatever reason, in the marriage.

It isn't passion. It isn't even in the same time zone as passion. It's intimacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
2 minutes ago, Homer said:

there are a lot of married couples with a passionate sex life. Two, there are other ways to show passion in a relationship; sex isn't the only way.

Yes, there are, but they're not eligible for Medicare.

 

True, there are different types of passion, but it's sex the folks on the dead bedroom sites are complaining about, people in their sixties complaining about lack of sexual desire.

 

When I married, my primary goal was to have a partner in life that would grow old with me. I never for a minute assumed she would either be available for sex or even want it well into old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
3 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

Oh, I don't pretend to be an expert on anything.

 

If passion in a marriage is that important, and represents a reasonable expectation, you certainly would not object to a prenuptial agreement specifying what the parties will do when sexual desire is absent, for whatever reason, in the marriage.

That would make sense. The reason it's not standard is that sexual desire is the norm, and hence expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDP
2 minutes ago, Gleep said:

It isn't passion. It isn't even in the same time zone as passion. It's intimacy.

How would you define intimacy in legal terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Quote

When I married, my primary goal was to have a partner in life that would grow old with me. I never for a minute assumed she would either be available for sex or even want it well into old age.

You expected her to be part of 1% of the population in other words. Reasonable expectation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...