• Announcements

PoisonPoppy

Is sex really that important for a relationship?

Recommended Posts

vega57
1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

Never any pressure to 'put out', no pressure to orgasm or have to make someone else orgasm, just the freedom to enjoy each other's bodies intimately and romantically with no need for that to end in any form of sex (PiV, anal, oral, masturbating each other, anything to achieve partnered sexual stimulation and at least one person orgasming).

LOVE this! 

 

Quote

For me it's like the sex doesn't matter so much, but it's great knowing it's there as an option.

Ficto, does it seem to you that we're getting mixed messages?  I mean, we are told that it's o.k. to say 'no' to sex outside of marriage.  But by the time we get to be a certain (undetermined) age, it's as if we're expected to start saying 'yes' to sex.  Sex seems to be expected in pre-marital relationships, even though we've been taught that it's o.k. to say 'no', regardless of whether or not you're in a relationship.   

 

We're also told that it's o.k. to say 'no' to sex inside of marriage.  Marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states, and a good chunk of the rest of the world.  But again, there seems to be an unwritten, unspoken 'rule' that we can only say 'no', as long as it's not 'too often. 

 

Seems to be that if it's o.k. to say 'no' to sex AT ANY TIME, then the people who DO say 'no' to it shouldn't be viewed in a negative light. 

 

Quote

(also, is that Little Foot from Land Before Time?.. omg that movie is soooooooooo sad!)

Yup, yup, YUP!  :D 

 

Share this post


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

Ficto, does it seem to you that we're getting mixed messages?  I mean, we are told that it's o.k. to say 'no' to sex outside of marriage.  But by the time we get to be a certain (undetermined) age, it's as if we're expected to start saying 'yes' to sex.  Sex seems to be expected in pre-marital relationships, even though we've been taught that it's o.k. to say 'no', regardless of whether or not you're in a relationship.   

 

We're also told that it's o.k. to say 'no' to sex inside of marriage.  Marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states, and a good chunk of the rest of the world.  But again, there seems to be an unwritten, unspoken 'rule' that we can only say 'no', as long as it's not 'too often. 

Yeah, 'marital rape' wouldn't be a thing punishable by law if having to have sex (when you don't want it) was part of the marriage contact.

 

I think often it's more an issue that certain people feel a sense of entitlement to sex (which could potentially be one of the reasons their partner stopped wanting it in the first place, that gets tiring really fast) and due to the fact that the person demanding sex is already clearly quite narcissistic (which was part of the problems to begin with) they may end up somewhere like AVEN insisting that a man has a god-given right to shove his penis up his wife and if she doesn't want that, then she has no right to be upset if she gets cheated on because everything is literally her fault to start wit according to said man who may have been being overly demanding which is what pushed his wife away emotionally to begin with. But yeah, everyone (men and women) should be free from pressure to have sex, of course.

 

There isn't actually anything in any of the vows that I've heard that says ''I swear to fuck you this many times a week''.. like, I've honestly never heard anyone say that in their wedding vows. They DO swear to stick by each other in good times and in bad though, right? wouldn't that count as remaining faithful regardless of whether or not sex is happening? Sex isn't mentioned once in any of the traditional wedding vows I've heard. 

 

If I was to get married, my partner and I would write our own vows which would more accurately reflect the type of relationship that we have. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.

giphy.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
12 hours ago, imnotafreakofnature! said:

I could have written this myself! That's exactly how I feel - men have treated me like my only value as a human being is between my legs, and they view me as nothing more than an object on which to gratify themselves. My husband insists he loves me, and even though he doesn't understand how I feel, he seems to think that as long as he's not hurting me, I should be more willing. He doesn't understand that he IS hurting me by expecting me to put out when that's the last thing I want to do. His own ability is diminishing (he has E.D.), but he seems to think that just because I'm still perfectly capable, that automatically means I should want to. One of his "life slogans" is "Be true to yourself," but I'm not supposed to be true to myself if it means depriving him of what he considers an undeniable right.

 

Having said all that, I also realize that I'm not the only one who matters, so I do my best to compromise. Sadly, it's never enough for him. He doesn't feel loved without sex, and I don't feel loved with it. Like you, I'm tempted to tell him to find someone else to have sex with, but I really don't think he would. (It goes against his religious beliefs. Besides, I think he also realizes that a woman who wants sex as much as he does probably wouldn't be willing to put up with his limitations.) Everyone always says that all relationships are about compromise, but not all compromises works out, either. Compromise rarely creates a win-win.

The problem in a mixed relationship is that you are hurting each other.  (not physically but emotionally).  The sexual desire mismatch makes one person constantly miserable and resentful for the lack of intimacy that they need in order to be happy, and the other miserable and constantly feeling pressure for the sort  of intimacy that they don't want. 

 

Sex in a loving relationship is not about "gratifying themselves" but gratifying BOTH - something that is very desirable to most sexuals and impossible for an asexual. Its the desire for mutual gratification that makes masturbation not a substitute for partner sex. Its not that sexual people don't want to "both" masturbating,  masturbation is always the easiest way to get off, its that maturbation is simply not the same as sex because two people are not involved. 

 

I don't think sexual / asexual relationships can work out well for both. One or the other may *think* its OK, but mostly its because their partners have given up. (as I have done). 

Share this post


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

LOVE this! 

 

Ficto, does it seem to you that we're getting mixed messages?  I mean, we are told that it's o.k. to say 'no' to sex outside of marriage.  But by the time we get to be a certain (undetermined) age, it's as if we're expected to start saying 'yes' to sex.  Sex seems to be expected in pre-marital relationships, even though we've been taught that it's o.k. to say 'no', regardless of whether or not you're in a relationship.   

 

We're also told that it's o.k. to say 'no' to sex inside of marriage.  Marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states, and a good chunk of the rest of the world.  But again, there seems to be an unwritten, unspoken 'rule' that we can only say 'no', as long as it's not 'too often. 

 

Seems to be that if it's o.k. to say 'no' to sex AT ANY TIME, then the people who DO say 'no' to it shouldn't be viewed in a negative light. 

 

Yup, yup, YUP!  :D 

 

"OK" doesn't cover everything.  As I see it, everyone ALWAYS has the right to turn down sex anytime they don't want it under any conditions, BUT that doesn't free them from any (legal) consequences of that action.  Certainly you can turn your boyfriend / girlfriend down for sex, but that other person can if they wish end their relationship with you if you do. 

 

Unless otherwise discussed, sex is expected when a couple marry, so if one person doesn't want sex, it is reasonable for the other to want a divorce because the marriage was not what they expected.

 

I agree that refusal shouldn't be viewed in a negative light - but it can still lead to the relationship ending.  The exception where it is negative is if deception were involved - if someone gives their partner reason to expect an active sex life, and then refuses after marriage - they have a right to refuse, but I would view that as deceptive and would view them negatively. (if there were not other mitigating circumstances). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
58 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

Yeah, 'marital rape' wouldn't be a thing punishable by law if having to have sex (when you don't want it) was part of the marriage contact.

Exactly. 

 

Quote

I think often it's more an issue that certain people feel a sense of entitlement to sex (which could potentially be one of the reasons their partner stopped wanting it in the first place, that gets tiring really fast) and due to the fact that the person demanding sex is already clearly quite narcissistic (which was part of the problems to begin with) they may end up somewhere like AVEN insisting that a man has a god-given right to shove his penis up his wife and if she doesn't want that, then she has no right to be upset if she gets cheated on because everything is literally her fault to start wit according to said man who may have been being overly demanding which is what pushed his wife away emotionally to begin with

I believe you're right.  Certain people DO feel that they're "entitled" to sex and that they "deserve" sex...a.k.a. to be "happy", sexually.  That sex is their "right" to have.  That sense of entitlement can cause other people (the ones who sex is wanted from) to recoil.  Even though there are men out there who wouldn't want to 'force' their wives into having sex they don't want. there's still the underlying anger, bitterness, resentment, etc. when they don't get it. 


 

Quote

 

But yeah, everyone (men and women) should be free from pressure to have sex, of course.

 

Quote

There isn't actually anything in any of the vows that I've heard that says ''I swear to fuck you this many times a week''.. like, I've honestly never heard anyone say that in their wedding vows. They DO swear to stick by each other in good times and in bad though, right? wouldn't that count as remaining faithful regardless of whether or not sex is happening? Sex isn't mentioned once in any of the traditional wedding vows I've heard

I believe I've brought this up before, fairly recently, in fact.  I understand that at least some sex may be presumed, but, HOW MUCH?  How OFTEN?  What KIND?  What happens if someone in the marriage hears from his/her friends about BDSM and wants to try it with their partner...and, the partner refuses? 

 

And, you're right.  Sex is NOT mentioned in any traditional wedding vows, but once again, some people seem to want to use the Habendum clause ("To have and to hold") to mean, "To fuck as often as *I* want".  Not even CLOSE to what it means, as I've stated before.  The only part of the vows that implies sex is "...and forsaking all others".  But even then, it doesn't mean that IF you're "forsaking all others" it means that you get to take advantage of a spouse for your own lustful purposes.   

 

Quote

If I was to get married, my partner and I would write our own vows which would more accurately reflect the type of relationship that we have. :)

Thought about that myself.  Then again, life in general is so fluid and unpredictable, would there be any way that we could actually stick to those vows? 

 

(I'm having some computer issues, so I can't respond to everything you've written here....)

Share this post


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

"OK" doesn't cover everything.  As I see it, everyone ALWAYS has the right to turn down sex anytime they don't want it under any conditions, BUT that doesn't free them from any (legal) consequences of that action.  Certainly you can turn your boyfriend / girlfriend down for sex, but that other person can if they wish end their relationship with you if you do. 

...which is WHY I believe that we're paying 'lip service' to 'no'.  If it's ok to say 'no' at any time, for any LENGTH of time, EVEN IN MARRIAGE, there shouldn't be any legal 'consequences' for doing so.  As Ficto wrote above, there's nothing in our vows that says, "I vow to fuck my spouse as often as s/he wants it."  If there is a "just say no" philosophy, then perhaps the law should be in sync with that. 

 

Quote

Unless otherwise discussed, sex is expected when a couple marry, so if one person doesn't want sex, it is reasonable for the other to want a divorce because the marriage was not what they expected

Once again, HOW MUCH and WHAT KIND cannot be automatically "expected".  People change.  Situations change.  The problem is that there are certain expectations in the first place, and sometimes those expectations are TOO demanding. 

 

What Ficto wrote here is accurate: 

 

Quote

I think often it's more an issue that certain people feel a sense of entitlement to sex (which could potentially be one of the reasons their partner stopped wanting it in the first place, that gets tiring really fast)

Wanting sex is one thing.  Expecting it and/or feeling entitled to it is another.  If people use marriage or a relationship as an avenue to get sex, that tells me that they're pretty much concerned their own selves. 

 

Quote

I agree that refusal shouldn't be viewed in a negative light - but it can still lead to the relationship ending.  The exception where it is negative is if deception were involved - if someone gives their partner reason to expect an active sex life, and then refuses after marriage - they have a right to refuse, but I would view that as deceptive and would view them negatively. (if there were not other mitigating circumstances

So, you're basically saying that being married entitles you to sex?  I think the problem is that people who have sex before marriage expect the same amount/kind of sex AFTER marriage.  Meanwhile, people DO change.  If someone is going to base marriage on something that's so obviously changeable, I'd say that the problem is with THEM, and NOT the 'refuser'. 

 

The expectations are the problem.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Always looking for answers
4 hours ago, uhtred said:

The problem in a mixed relationship is that you are hurting each other.  (not physically but emotionally). 

I would like to add to this statement that when a woman doesn't get arroused because she doesn't want sex (which goes for most asexuals), her partner is most likely hurting her physically as well. If she can't relax or get into the right mood, her genitals won't be preparing for penetration either which means that in the best case a lot of lube will make it a bit less painful for her, but still uncomfortable. Worst case scenario though, the lube only makes penetration possible but still very painful. 

 

Since I don't have a penis, I can't tell if a sexual male partner is also hurting in a physical way, so I'll leave it to others who do know to comment on this subject :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran
2 hours ago, Always looking for answers said:

I would like to add to this statement that when a woman doesn't get arroused because she doesn't want sex (which goes for most asexuals), her partner is most likely hurting her physically as well. If she can't relax or get into the right mood, her genitals won't be preparing for penetration either which means that in the best case a lot of lube will make it a bit less painful for her, but still uncomfortable. Worst case scenario though, the lube only makes penetration possible but still very painful. 

 

Since I don't have a penis, I can't tell if a sexual male partner is also hurting in a physical way, so I'll leave it to others who do know to comment on this subject :) 

Penetration for me was painful about 70% of the time. I had to mentally focus on relaxing the muscles in the area, because I wasn't aroused mentally/emotionally (so wasn't relaxed), even though my body produced lubrication on its own. My ex-spouse was aware it sometimes hurt, he kinda had to be cause I would suck in air quite audibly when it hurt the most (seriously, being punched hurt less) and he'd let up so I could adjust a bit to make it hurt less before he continued. That isn't an issue when I am aroused. 

 

TMI:



I also found that if I am actually aroused, not just my body responding to being touched by producing moisture, a lot of things feel very different. Vibrators used to just make my skin numb, I never got how they were appealing, but if I'm aroused they feel good (if not, they still don't, but). A lot of physical sensations that were awful when not "in the mood" are actually quite pleasant when I actually am. So it's funny I have to start off like a virgin carefully experimenting and figuring out what's OK to do and what isn't, cause nothing really feels the same ... 

 

 

As for penises hurting from it, we have had aces that said sex hurt for them as well... though the more common issue is they can't keep an erection to even make it possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.
3 hours ago, Always looking for answers said:

I would like to add to this statement that when a woman doesn't get arroused because she doesn't want sex (which goes for most asexuals), her partner is most likely hurting her physically as well. If she can't relax or get into the right mood, her genitals won't be preparing for penetration either which means that in the best case a lot of lube will make it a bit less painful for her, but still uncomfortable. Worst case scenario though, the lube only makes penetration possible but still very painful. 

 

Since I don't have a penis, I can't tell if a sexual male partner is also hurting in a physical way, so I'll leave it to others who do know to comment on this subject :) 

Yeah that's what I pointed out in another thread recently as well. People don't seem to understand how painful sex can be for a woman if she doesn't want it.. and even if it's not outright painful it can still be very physically uncomfortable due to the internal pressure (it's not a nice feeling at all!). Some women can have unwanted sex without pain if they're naturally quite lubricated and I guess, stretchier inside? With a deeper vaginal canal or less sensitive cervix or whatever. I don't think many people realize that when a woman is aroused, not only does she get wet but her vaginal canal opens and her cervix stretches upwards which helps stop the penis from banging on it (this is called tenting). When a guy shoves it in while she's unaroused though, not only are there the friction issues, the vaginal canal is a lot narrower than it would be otherwise and the cervix is a lot lower, meaning it can be getting rammed depending on the position and the size of the guy (feels a bit like being punched in the stomach from inside). Then of course there's always the risk of pregnancy (even if he uses a condom) unless she takes the pill, which has a high chance of completely killing her libido (if she had any to begin with) and will wreak homronal havoc in her body. If I had a penis and my partner was the female in this situation, I could NOT have sex with him unless I knew he was 100% aroused and wanted it. We don't do PiV regardless as I have vestibulodynia, but there are plenty of reasons for it to hurt a woman without having a condition like mine. :/

 

Edit: @Serran you commented at the same time as me so I didn't see your response until after mine was posted. You mentioned the 'punching' feeling as well.. it's very painful I agree. I remained drunk pretty much 24/7 just so I could deal with it, and used ligocaine gel (hospital grade) to completely numb my vaj. The pain would still last for days after (alcohol was the only way to deal with it at all) and it's not quite that bad for all women who have unwanted sex, but yeah, even without direct pain it can still be very unfomfortable internally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Always looking for answers
3 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

I don't think many people realize that when a woman is aroused, not only does she get wet but her vaginal canal opens and her cervix stretches upwards which helps stop the penis from banging on it (this is called tenting). When a guy shoves it in while she's unaroused though, not only are there the friction issues, the vaginal canal is a lot narrower than it would be otherwise and the cervix is a lot lower, meaning it can be getting rammed depending on the position and the size of the guy (feels a bit like being punched in the stomach from inside).

Exactly. My gynaecologist taught me this last September, but I never knew about it before (I was already 34 years old when I got this information). If you ask me, important things like this should also be taught in high school when students learn about reproduction. There's a lot more to the human body than just shoving a penis inside of a vagina until one or both partners have an orgasm. It's insane people have to do their own research to learn stuff about their own body, while for so many people pain and trauma can be minimalized if only we knew more a lot earlier. If girls learn in school WHY it hurts, and boys learn THAT it hurts to have sex when you're not arroused, the whole idea of what sex is possibly changes.

 

I get that the mechanical part of reproduction isn't as romantic as dating and accepting eachothers bodies and stuff, but the image of the perfect sexual experience isn't helping people who have disappointing experiences and they don't know why. It makes them believe something is wrong with them, while it's just a (lack of) biological response of the body that can easily be understood once you know what the cause is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GLRDT
19 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Yes, it's true some activities can be done as part of sex, but that doesn't make these activities *sex*. This is illustrated by the fact that the same sexual person being triggered by these ideas right now would never say ''I just had sex'' if literally all they did was kiss a woman's boobs, or if she teasingly ran her hand over the front of his jeans, or if she straddled him while wearing only a towel to cover her nakedness, all wet from the shower, and kissed him passionately like that. 

If someone touches my boobs, I feel nothing sexual or erotic about it. I don't have a lot of nice tingly sensations or anything on my boobs, but a week before my period they will get sore and my sexual boyfriend likes to massage them for me and it feels nice. But not in a sexual way at all. He likes boobs and I like them massaged when they're sore. Also I don't need him to do it, but you can see how this may be a nice caring sensual touch. There are times where when we are having sex he likes to touch my boobs then too. For me it feels the same but with the context of the situation, it becomes sexual for him and I can feel the difference in energy and intention than a massage when they are sore. I think part of whether it is sexual or not depends on how both people are interpreting the interaction to some degree.

 

I also love flirting, feeling desired, but I'd rather not have actual sex. But I love touching someone's naked body on their back and arms and legs and neck and hair and pulling them close to me. But not in a sexual way for me at least. For me, it's all sensual touching and liking the feel of their skin and being close to them but no I'd rather not have them touch my genitals or I touch theirs if I had my perfect scenario. I recognize this kind of touching could also be done to turn someone on or be sexual, but it doesn't  mean that it automatically is. I will say that I can definitely relate to often holding that flirty playful part of my personality back so other people don't get the wrong idea or hurt. 

 

There are other ways to  experience physical pleasure than solely in a sexual way. Also there isn't really a body part that turns me on so in a way they are all pretty equal on an emotional level. Mentally, I know that every guy who wants to touch my boobs shouldn't be able to for societal reasons and I know it would be sending a very strong sexual signal to them, but for me personally they're just boobs just like how my arm is just an arm and if there weren't rules and expectations and unspoken signals in someone touching my boobs, I wouldn't really care that much. I'd be indifferent unless it was starting to interrupt the flow of my day and what I'm trying to do. My boobs don't feel connected to sex for me so someone occasionally touching them doesn't feel sexual or like a turn on. Clearly, though there are societal expectations and rules of appropriateness and I follow those standards so would still be weirded out if some random person touched my boobs for what it means in society and to him. Also you can tell if someone has a creep vibe or not when they touch you anywhere. I'd be more freaked out by a creep vibe. Hopefully this semi makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GLRDT
15 hours ago, flesh-pocket said:

i will jump back in here to say that fictos examples of nipple sucking and cock stroking are just that-- examples from her own relationship, and she fully admits to not being asexual anyway. i agree that the cock stroking one is a bit extreme for this, but again shes not asexual. i think whats shes getting at is that for sensual aces, its the freedom to have that kind of intimate touch without sexual undertones that's important, more so than any particular act. 

 

like serrans example of kissing her partner with only a towel on, its not the fact that shes in a towel that she likes, its that she can get out of the shower, see her partner, and run up and kiss them the same way she could if she'd just came home from work and know it won't have to escalate. like she said in another post, its not the towel that's important. its not the straddling that's important. its the fact that these things can be done as simple expressions of love between intimate partners without it being sexual, ever. 

 

its like if your partner had a foot fetish and you weren't into it, you wouldn't ask them to give you a foot massage if you just wanted a massage, because they could see it as initiation of a kind of sexual contact you didn't want. if neither of you have that fetish, then you can ask for that without worry, but your relationship still does not revolve around foot massages, nor would you get mad if your partner did not want to give the massages because its not the not-getting of the massages you didn't like in the first scenario, its the fact that you had to hold back on expressing a kind of intimacy you enjoyed because you knew it would be cruel to your partner.

 

this is the same feeling sexuals who are in relationships with asexuals and are trying to be celibate for their partner get but in reverse. the sexual wants to express love to their partner sexually, but knows that would make their partner uncomfortable so they don't. they may even suppress doing things that they don't see as sexual because they know their partner might, (ex: sleeping naked. the sexual partner might just find this the most comfortable way to sleep, but if it made the ace partner uncomfortable they might not do it. this is the type of policing that sensual aces do too.)  they also often feel they are suppressing a part of themselves, their sexuality, when they do this. a sensual ace wants to express love as it feels natural to them without sex coming into the picture, but because they know that at least some of the things they want to do will be interpreted sexually, they don't, and in turn they feel they are suppressing a part of themselves because they have to be constantly policing the way they express affection/ thinking about how their partner will react to an action, just as the sexual consciously trying not to make an ace partner uncomfortable might. 

 

and if someone did want to break up over foot massages or nipple sucking or whatever, its completely in their right to do so. people can break up if they are unhappy for whatever reason. 

 

i will say that having a partner that did not see my breasts as being in any way sexual in nature sounds like HEAVEN to me. being able to treat genitals as just another body part with sexuality never even coming up sounds fucking fabulous. i have never had a relationship but i understand these concepts intuitively, and hope i will have a relationship like this someday (though i hope i don't realize i was secretly sexual the whole time in the process!)  

 

i hope i have made it more clear...

 

Yaaaaaaas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
21 hours ago, vega57 said:

...which is WHY I believe that we're paying 'lip service' to 'no'.  If it's ok to say 'no' at any time, for any LENGTH of time, EVEN IN MARRIAGE, there shouldn't be any legal 'consequences' for doing so.  As Ficto wrote above, there's nothing in our vows that says, "I vow to fuck my spouse as often as s/he wants it."  If there is a "just say no" philosophy, then perhaps the law should be in sync with that. 

 

SNIP 

I need to clarify what I meant by "legal" consequences.  By that phrase I meant that refusal never justifies illegal activity - whether that is physical violence, or abandoning of legal financial duties etc.    What I meant was that people can act in any way within the law in response to being denied sex, and in particular I believe that they are free to leave the relationship.

 

No one should ever be "trapped" in a relationship where they are unhappy for any reason. As long as they meet their legal obligations, child support, alimony etc, then I believe that they have a right to leave for any reason, including lack of sex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
16 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Yeah that's what I pointed out in another thread recently as well. People don't seem to understand how painful sex can be for a woman if she doesn't want it.. and even if it's not outright painful it can still be very physically uncomfortable due to the internal pressure (it's not a nice feeling at all!). Some women can have unwanted sex without pain if they're naturally quite lubricated and I guess, stretchier inside? With a deeper vaginal canal or less sensitive cervix or whatever. I don't think many people realize that when a woman is aroused, not only does she get wet but her vaginal canal opens and her cervix stretches upwards which helps stop the penis from banging on it (this is called tenting). When a guy shoves it in while she's unaroused though, not only are there the friction issues, the vaginal canal is a lot narrower than it would be otherwise and the cervix is a lot lower, meaning it can be getting rammed depending on the position and the size of the guy (feels a bit like being punched in the stomach from inside). Then of course there's always the risk of pregnancy (even if he uses a condom) unless she takes the pill, which has a high chance of completely killing her libido (if she had any to begin with) and will wreak homronal havoc in her body. If I had a penis and my partner was the female in this situation, I could NOT have sex with him unless I knew he was 100% aroused and wanted it. We don't do PiV regardless as I have vestibulodynia, but there are plenty of reasons for it to hurt a woman without having a condition like mine. :/

 

Edit: @Serran you commented at the same time as me so I didn't see your response until after mine was posted. You mentioned the 'punching' feeling as well.. it's very painful I agree. I remained drunk pretty much 24/7 just so I could deal with it, and used ligocaine gel (hospital grade) to completely numb my vaj. The pain would still last for days after (alcohol was the only way to deal with it at all) and it's not quite that bad for all women who have unwanted sex, but yeah, even without direct pain it can still be very unfomfortable internally.

I think people may use "sex" to mean different things.  For some it means intercourse and that can be painful for a woman if she is not aroused, and I think no one should ever feel pressured to do something that is painful.  For other people (including me),  "sex" means sexual activity - that can include oral, hands etc - things where are not generally physically painful, but which may be psychologically unpleasant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
19 hours ago, Always looking for answers said:

I would like to add to this statement that when a woman doesn't get arroused because she doesn't want sex (which goes for most asexuals), her partner is most likely hurting her physically as well. If she can't relax or get into the right mood, her genitals won't be preparing for penetration either which means that in the best case a lot of lube will make it a bit less painful for her, but still uncomfortable. Worst case scenario though, the lube only makes penetration possible but still very painful. 

 

Since I don't have a penis, I can't tell if a sexual male partner is also hurting in a physical way, so I'll leave it to others who do know to comment on this subject :) 

Absolutely true for women - I had hoped that basically everyone knew this.  Lube can help with someone who is aroused but not lubricated, but its not a substitute for arousal.   Sex can even be painful for some women who are aroused and actively want to have sex. 

 

Sex is rarely painful for men, unless there is excessive abrasion, or sudden physical injury like sitting down too hard on a penis. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran
7 hours ago, uhtred said:

Absolutely true for women - I had hoped that basically everyone knew this.  Lube can help with someone who is aroused but not lubricated, but its not a substitute for arousal.   Sex can even be painful for some women who are aroused and actively want to have sex. 

Sex ed doesn't really teach you that stuff in a lot of places still (in the U.S. that is, I know Europe tends to have better sex ed).

 

But, even people who know, tend to think lubricated = aroused = body is ready for sex. Which, mine tends to produce lubrication with any touch but the rest of the preparing doesn't happen unless I am actually into it... so people assume I'm "ready" when my body is all like "NO NO STOP THAT" and the result is sometimes feeling like I want to throw up from the sudden piercing pain. I thought my body just couldn't penetration without pain, but I since learned that isn't the case... it's that my body can't do penetration without pain if I'm not into what is happening. 

 

7 hours ago, uhtred said:

I think people may use "sex" to mean different things.  For some it means intercourse and that can be painful for a woman if she is not aroused, and I think no one should ever feel pressured to do something that is painful.  For other people (including me),  "sex" means sexual activity - that can include oral, hands etc - things where are not generally physically painful, but which may be psychologically unpleasant.  

TMI:

 



Hands can still be quite painful if you're not aroused. The first dozen or so times someone used their fingers on me, I bled, just from a single finger... I wasn't aroused, I had never had anything up there before since I didn't masturbate. Even today it can hurt if fingers are put up there without proper care, cause without arousal, not much can fit up there comfortably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
3 hours ago, Serran said:

Sex ed doesn't really teach you that stuff in a lot of places still (in the U.S. that is, I know Europe tends to have better sex ed).

 

But, even people who know, tend to think lubricated = aroused = body is ready for sex. Which, mine tends to produce lubrication with any touch but the rest of the preparing doesn't happen unless I am actually into it... so people assume I'm "ready" when my body is all like "NO NO STOP THAT" and the result is sometimes feeling like I want to throw up from the sudden piercing pain. I thought my body just couldn't penetration without pain, but I since learned that isn't the case... it's that my body can't do penetration without pain if I'm not into what is happening. 

 

TMI:

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 


Hands can still be quite painful if you're not aroused. The first dozen or so times someone used their fingers on me, I bled, just from a single finger... I wasn't aroused, I had never had anything up there before since I didn't masturbate. Even today it can hurt if fingers are put up there without proper care, cause without arousal, not much can fit up there comfortably. 
 

 

 

I was talking about using hands to stimulate your partner.   Unwanted penetration of any type can be painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Always looking for answers
8 hours ago, Serran said:

Sex ed doesn't really teach you that stuff in a lot of places still (in the U.S. that is, I know Europe tends to have better sex ed).

Unfortunately, Europe still has a lot of work to do as well. Sex ed teaches us that indeed, when a woman gets/is lubricated, she is aroused and thus ready for sex. In the European country where I live, I learned in high school that a girl gets wet, a guy gets an erection, and that's all there is to know about arousal. Maybe Europe has a bit less taboos in some countries, but when it comes to descent information about biology, it's by far not good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
16 hours ago, Always looking for answers said:

Unfortunately, Europe still has a lot of work to do as well. Sex ed teaches us that indeed, when a woman gets/is lubricated, she is aroused and thus ready for sex. In the European country where I live, I learned in high school that a girl gets wet, a guy gets an erection, and that's all there is to know about arousal. Maybe Europe has a bit less taboos in some countries, but when it comes to descent information about biology, it's by far not good enough.

I wish there were some way to teach young people about sex and relationships. There is so much unhappiness that could be avoided if there were some way for teenagers to learn what many older adults know.

 

In my case I did do a lot of reading on the mechanics of sex - so I at least had a reasonable idea of what sorts of things many women enjoy.  OTOH I knew *nothing* about relationships. I had no idea that sexual incompatibility existed, and this has led to a lot of misery in my life.  

 

In an ideal world, parents would teach their children - but most parents are to uncomfortable, or sometimes unknowledgable themselves. 

 

Society in the US is at least finally getting comfortable with sexual orientation - and its well understood that a romantic relationship between a straight and gay person is unlikely to work.  Now it needs to start to learn that there are a lot of other variations - from level of interest / asexuality to kinkiness that also need to be compatible. 

 

Romance movies do a terrible disservice in this.  Ever notice that the only time a couple in the movies is sexually incompatible it is because one of them (usually the woman) is an evil stuck-up #&#&.  But every loving couple always has great sex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chimeric
14 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Ever notice that the only time a couple in the movies is sexually incompatible it is because one of them (usually the woman) is an evil stuck-up #&#&.  But every loving couple always has great sex. 

Uff this is such a good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

I'm always baffled as to how "serious" people take movies. It's not the real world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thea2

@Homer ^^ Imho a movie (idem a book) gives a take on reality, and a morality how to deal with it. It's the writer's own religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
9 minutes ago, Thea2 said:

@Homer ^^ Imho a movie (idem a book) gives a take on reality, and a morality how to deal with it. It's the writer's own religion.

I think it's a fantasy more than anything else. How many times have you seen people rushing to airports with 243 roses in their hands to keep someone from travelling abroard? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

We experience them like reality though, if they're any good and we get involved. Neurons in our brains fire as if we were actually in the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
48 minutes ago, Homer said:

I'm always baffled as to how "serious" people take movies. It's not the real world...

Its not real, but it does sort of "train" young people on what to expect in relationships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

It's one of the influences. Upbringing, peers, education, are others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Quote

Romance movies do a terrible disservice in this.  Ever notice that the only time a couple in the movies is sexually incompatible it is because one of them (usually the woman) is an evil stuck-up #&#&.  But every loving couple always has great sex. 

There's a trope for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anamikanon
On 30/11/2017 at 7:03 PM, PoisonPoppy said:

More so aimed at sexual/ asexual relationships but obviously open to all answers. Like, as an asexual I don't see what wrong with being loving, affectionate, cuddling, kissing and spending my life with someone without sex (other than to have kids).

 

1. Is sex really an important part of a relationship?

2. If it is, what would you compare its importance to? 

3. How would you compromise as an asexual? 

1. Short answer: Yes. Long answer: It is important, yes, but sex does not have to be PIV vampire romance style one true mate and perma horny. To a sexual person, sex is a natural intimacy. It is like from shaking hands with someone, as trust grows, you may sit close side by side, or hug. If your relationship still grows and trust develops, you may be affectionate, kiss, cuddle. If you want to get still closer, you get your clothes off and get really close. And sometimes you want to be closer still, and you use your body to bring pleasure to another and to receive pleasure from the contact with their body. I suppose, it is simply a matter of how close you let someone get on one level. For someone, the optimal distance may be cuddling. For someone else, it is with a part of one body getting inside another. From the pleasure of company to the pleasure of closeness, touch, extended touch to extended touch on really sensitive skin that brings a whole different level of pleasure. A vibrator can give an orgasm. The real headiness of sex, in my view is that you bring that pleasure to someone you want to treasure and you unravel in pleasure in the arms of someone you trust.

 

2. Trust. Intimacy. The willingness to drop barriers and boundaries and once in a while be physically close, mentally blown and emotionally overloaded in the presence of another person. It is freeing. It brings two people close in ways you simply can't otherwise. If you don't do sex, that level is not there. If you are capable of sex and you don't do it, it definitely feels like a loss. It isn't so much about how often - at least for me. But it definitely is a matter of being in a zone of very intimate trust with a partner. 

 

3. I would not. I don't believe in compromises of this sort. If I cannot joyfully adapt to the situation, I would consider it a favor to all concerned to not make compromises that would become a noose once the headiness wore off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alibali
2 hours ago, anamikanon said:

1. Short answer: Yes. Long answer: It is important, yes, but sex does not have to be PIV vampire romance style one true mate and perma horny. To a sexual person, sex is a natural intimacy. It is like from shaking hands with someone, as trust grows, you may sit close side by side, or hug. If your relationship still grows and trust develops, you may be affectionate, kiss, cuddle. If you want to get still closer, you get your clothes off and get really close. And sometimes you want to be closer still, and you use your body to bring pleasure to another and to receive pleasure from the contact with their body. I suppose, it is simply a matter of how close you let someone get on one level. For someone, the optimal distance may be cuddling. For someone else, it is with a part of one body getting inside another. From the pleasure of company to the pleasure of closeness, touch, extended touch to extended touch on really sensitive skin that brings a whole different level of pleasure. A vibrator can give an orgasm. The real headiness of sex, in my view is that you bring that pleasure to someone you want to treasure and you unravel in pleasure in the arms of someone you trust.

 

2. Trust. Intimacy. The willingness to drop barriers and boundaries and once in a while be physically close, mentally blown and emotionally overloaded in the presence of another person. It is freeing. It brings two people close in ways you simply can't otherwise. If you don't do sex, that level is not there. If you are capable of sex and you don't do it, it definitely feels like a loss. It isn't so much about how often - at least for me. But it definitely is a matter of being in a zone of very intimate trust with a partner. 

 

3. I would not. I don't believe in compromises of this sort. If I cannot joyfully adapt to the situation, I would consider it a favor to all concerned to not make compromises that would become a noose once the headiness wore off.

 

This is one of the best explanations I have read. Unfortunately as an asexual it also makes me feel very disappointed with my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now