Should I Still Have Sex Even Though I'm Asexual?

[Dinosaursgorawr648]

This is my first time posting, but I'm hoping to have FINALLY found a community of like-minded people. I should mention that I'm currently seperated from my husband, and sex was one of the biggest factors. He's very physical and I'm...not. The idea of sex makes me physically sick. My question is...should I still have sex with him even though I have no interest in it? I've never had a desire for a physical relationship outside of hand holding and cuddling. But I also don't want to be alone, and he's someone I trust. 

[Ruru+Saphhy=Garnet]

Sex is a privilege: NOT A Right.

If you don't want to have sex, don't.

You aren't obliged to give him sex.

I know you don't want to be alone, but making yourself do something you don't want to isn't good at all.

Look, I think it would be fair to the both of you if you told your husband what's going on in this situation concerning your asexuality, and sees where it goes from there. Even if you divorce, there will be some one else in the world for you! There a plenty of folks who are willing to accept you for who you are.  I hope things go well for the both of you. But as I stated before: do not pressure yourself do do something you don't want to do.

[vega57]

51 minutes ago, Ruru+Saphhy=Garnet said:

Sex is a privilege: NOT A Right.

Brilliant.  This should be tattooed on every person's head at birth. 

[Homer]

I would not want a tattoo on my head tyvm.

 

@Dinosaursgorawr648 If you don't enjoy/like/connect any other positive emotions to having sex, you shouldn't "make yourself do it". I could see why one would be okay with doing it if they were at least meh about it, but it appears that this doesn't apply to you.

[Perilous Poozer]

It’s something that can only be negotiated between the two of you. Bear in mind you’re primarily asking other aces here and a relationship must equally consider the needs of both parties. It’s perfectly OK not to want sex, but it’s equally OK to need it. I wish you both all the best.

[Sally]

Trusting someone is not a reason to do with them something that you don't want to do.  

[Telecaster68]

4 hours ago, Dinosaursgorawr648 said:

The idea of sex makes me physically sick.

Clearly it wouldn't be good for you to have sex with him then. The equation on both sides of what AVEN calls 'mixed' relationships comes down to whether the aggregate of whether they get enough good from a relationship to outweigh the bad, and for most of those couples, having or not having sex tips the scales one way or another. Maybe not immediately, but eventually.

 

3 hours ago, Ruru+Saphhy=Garnet said:

Sex is a privilege: NOT A Right.

I know what you're driving at, and it's right that nobody should have sex if they don't want to.

 

But the 'privilege' word makes me uneasy. It's framing sex as a reward to be granted if someone meets conditions set by someone else, and I can see how if you fundamentally have no need of sex with someone else, then it does feel like 'allowing' them to do it to you. That gives it a power dynamic, and the one granting the privilege has the power.

 

But from a sexual's point of view, sex isn't something you allow or not: it's something you want, for yourself, or not. It's a shared desire and delight, and not something you make your partner jump through hoops to get from you.

 

I'd feel just as uncomfortable if it was sexuals framing 'being in a relationship with me isn't a right, it's a privilege'. It's correct in a way, but it frames the relationship as something the sexual is magnanimously granting. That's not a healthy relationship, and it's generally not how they work.

[Ruru+Saphhy=Garnet]

3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

.

 

I know what you're driving at, and it's right that nobody should have sex if they don't want to.

 

But the 'privilege' word makes me uneasy. It's framing sex as a reward to be granted if someone meets conditions set by someone else, and I can see how if you fundamentally have no need of sex with someone else, then it does feel like 'allowing' them to do it to you. That gives it a power dynamic, and the one granting the privilege has the power.

 

But from a sexual's point of view, sex isn't something you allow or not: it's something you want, for yourself, or not. It's a shared desire and delight, and not something you make your partner jump through hoops to get from you.

 

I'd feel just as uncomfortable if it was sexuals framing 'being in a relationship with me isn't a right, it's a privilege'. It's correct in a way, but it frames the relationship as something the sexual is magnanimously granting. That's not a healthy relationship, and it's generally not how they work.

Thanks for your point of view…...I never thought about it like that. 

[uhtred]

No one should do something sexual that they don't want to do. No one should stay in a romantic relationship where they are seriously unhappy about their sex life.  This means that some relationships simply cannot work. 

 

If you find sex so distateful that you don't want to do it - that is completely fine.  But if sex is necessary for his happiness (as it is for some people), then it is OK for him to leave the relationship.

 

There is no "right" or "wrong" about the level of sex people want, but some combinations don't work. 

[Chimeric]

17 hours ago, Dinosaursgorawr648 said:

But I also don't want to be alone, and he's someone I trust. 

Speaking as someone hot off of a divorce, this was something I struggled with during my separation. (Well, the trust bit not so much - but different circumstances.)

 

There were days where I felt like I had made a mistake and I was destined to die alone, or he was destined to die alone (which was an even more painful thought than the first one), and I had to very firmly remind myself (or have a trusted friend remind me) that I had made the decisions that I had made because they were right for me and, in a weird way, for my relationship.

 

You are under no obligation to have sex with anyone, married or otherwise. If you think the relationship is worth saving, then it might be something to consider, but also keep in mind that this will set a lifelong precedent. And if it's something you truly never enjoy, your sexual husband is going to pick up on that, and while he may initially be happy about the sex, he may become resentful about the lack of your emotional involvement in the sex. It takes a lot of open, honest communication to keep a mixed a/sexual relationship going, and - often - a lot of really difficult compromises on both partners' parts. 

 

If that's not a compromise you're willing to make - and that is 100% within your right to decide - then ending the relationship based on sexual incompatibility is a perfectly fine thing to do. You give yourself the freedom to find a mate to whom you're better suited, and you grant him the freedom to do the same thing, and at the end of the day that's better for both of you.

 

You will get these really convincing, really intrusive reminders that suddenly you are all alone, but as someone who's recently gone through the same thing, I can assure you the decision to end my marriage was absolutely the right one to make. I don't regret it.

 

Edit-

 

Oh, also, welcome to AVEN. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

@Telecaster68, I generally understand your point. I don't really like the word "privilege" either, so I tend to put it in a different framework: that the right not to have sex goes before any right to have sex. Which means, in practice, that if there are two people, one of which wants to have sex and the other one doesn't, the needs of the person who doesn't want sex outweigh the other person's needs. Simply because I strongly believe that having unwanted sex is much more harmful than not having sex even though one would want to.

 

So, back to the OP. @Dinosaursgorawr648, I would say you shouldn't. If someone is willing to compromise, fine, it's their right to make personal decisions. Actually, I even believe in the right to make self-harmful decisions. But still I don't think that it's a good choice to harm oneself with sex. For a sex-averse person trying to have sex anyway is a bad idea, one that can result in a lot of psychological harm. Don't sacrifice your wellbeing to your partner.

It really upsets me how having sex is still the default. Once again - if someone is fine with having sex for their partner's sake even though they don't feel desire themselves, t's OK. But over and over again I read about aces compromising to have sex (and not the allosexual partner compromising to be celibate), about people who have sex and slowly allow themselves to discover that they don't like it and never truly felt the desire. It's not just sacrificing one's own wellbeing to one's partner, worse - it's sacrificing one's own wellbeing to social norms.

 

Which is why, again, I come to the conclusion that just visibility and recognition of asexuality is not enough. The goal I would like to see achieved is much more ambitious: to deconstruct a lot of beliefs about sex which work to make it the default. Having consensual sex is OK, but not having any sex is OK too and it's time our society and culture recognizes it! If you don't want to have sex, you shouldn't have sex - it's that simple, and yet society pushes people into a lot of situations where they have or risk having unwanted sex.

I wouldn't call myself sex-positive, but I am sexual-agency-positive. Sexual agency always includes the right to say "no" whenever one wants to - also if it means never saying "yes". Our society expects particularly women to be sexually available (to the extent judged right), not to have sexual agency. And even if it emphasizes consent and free choice, the expectation is almost always that one will desire sex with some people. And this is what should change, not having sex should be as obvious as having sex. Focus on agency and not just the belief that "sex is good" will benefit more people and not just those who identify as asexual.

[Chimeric]

On 2/3/2018 at 4:40 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

It's not just sacrificing one's own wellbeing to one's partner, worse - it's sacrificing one's own wellbeing to social norms.

Having a sex drive is a biological/physiological norm, not a social norm. 

 

If someone relies on and expects sex in order to have their intimacy needs fulfilled, not having sex is a very damaging thing for that person. I think I tend to agree with you that the pendulum tends to swing more to the side of having sex when one doesn't want sex as a more damaging thing, but to discount sex as something frivolous is inaccurate.

 

Visibility for the asexuality community is important and it should grow, but preaching things like this to the ace community is simply untrue, and it's going to set up a lot of false expectations. That's gonna make it unnecessarily difficult for a lot of people who already are dealing with a difficult situation to begin with. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

I never said that sex is something frivolous. I am simply against situations when people who don't want to have sex force themselves to do it anyway.

Of course it requires communication and I really don't think that the allosexual partner's needs don't matter. Still a lot of asexual people have sex not just because their partners want to, but because social norms dictate so. And this is what should change: a sex-free lifestyle should become acceptable. Having sex without wanting to shouldn't be perceived as "no big deal" and no psychological harm.

[Telecaster68]

3 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Having sex without wanting to shouldn't be perceived as "no big deal" and no psychological harm.

Neither should *not* having sex when you want to.

[James121]

3 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

I am simply against situations when people who don't want to have sex force themselves to do it anyway.

The key to this is not to get in to a relationship or worse a marriage where sex would be a reasonable expectation.

Sex is a reasonable expectation in most adult relationships.

[uhtred]

On 2/3/2018 at 1:40 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

@Telecaster68, I generally understand your point. I don't really like the word "privilege" either, so I tend to put it in a different framework: that the right not to have sex goes before any right to have sex. Which means, in practice, that if there are two people, one of which wants to have sex and the other one doesn't, the needs of the person who doesn't want sex outweigh the other person's needs. Simply because I strongly believe that having unwanted sex is much more harmful than not having sex even though one would want to.

 

So, back to the OP. @Dinosaursgorawr648, I would say you shouldn't. If someone is willing to compromise, fine, it's their right to make personal decisions. Actually, I even believe in the right to make self-harmful decisions. But still I don't think that it's a good choice to harm oneself with sex. For a sex-averse person trying to have sex anyway is a bad idea, one that can result in a lot of psychological harm. Don't sacrifice your wellbeing to your partner.

It really upsets me how having sex is still the default. Once again - if someone is fine with having sex for their partner's sake even though they don't feel desire themselves, t's OK. But over and over again I read about aces compromising to have sex (and not the allosexual partner compromising to be celibate), about people who have sex and slowly allow themselves to discover that they don't like it and never truly felt the desire. It's not just sacrificing one's own wellbeing to one's partner, worse - it's sacrificing one's own wellbeing to social norms.

 

Which is why, again, I come to the conclusion that just visibility and recognition of asexuality is not enough. The goal I would like to see achieved is much more ambitious: to deconstruct a lot of beliefs about sex which work to make it the default. Having consensual sex is OK, but not having any sex is OK too and it's time our society and culture recognizes it! If you don't want to have sex, you shouldn't have sex - it's that simple, and yet society pushes people into a lot of situations where they have or risk having unwanted sex.

I wouldn't call myself sex-positive, but I am sexual-agency-positive. Sexual agency always includes the right to say "no" whenever one wants to - also if it means never saying "yes". Our society expects particularly women to be sexually available (to the extent judged right), not to have sexual agency. And even if it emphasizes consent and free choice, the expectation is almost always that one will desire sex with some people. And this is what should change, not having sex should be as obvious as having sex. Focus on agency and not just the belief that "sex is good" will benefit more people and not just those who identify as asexual.

I don't think there is a scale to measure what is more harmful, nor do I think its useful. 

 

No one should have sex they don't want.  No one should be forced to stay in a relationship where they are seriously unhappy.  Many people are made seriously unhappy by not having a sex life.   So it follows that some relationships should not continue.

 

Sexual people need to understand the extent to which some asexual are adverse to sex.  Asexual need to understand the extent to which sex is important to some sexual people.  Never shame people for not wanting sex. Never shame people for wanting sex. 

 

Sex matters.  Never ever deceive a potential partner about your sexual interest in order to have a relationship.  A reasonable match in sexual interests is vital for the happiness of both.   This is not something that can just be worked out. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

17 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Sexual people need to understand the extent to which some asexual are adverse to sex.  Asexual need to understand the extent to which sex is important to some sexual people.  Never shame people for not wanting sex. Never shame people for wanting sex. 

 

Sex matters.  Never ever deceive a potential partner about your sexual interest in order to have a relationship.  A reasonable match in sexual interests is vital for the happiness of both.   This is not something that can just be worked out. 

And at least here I fully agree.

Unfortunately, in our society wanting to have sex is understood and not wanting to have sex is met with disbelief, mocking or even verbal violence. Which is why it needs to be reminded that not all people want sex. For some it's one of the best things ever, but for some it's horrifying.

[MrDane]

@Dinosaursgorawr648 !

dont have sex if you want to not have it. If you feel bad while doing it, then stop. If you are somehow able to be okay with aspects of sexual-ish behaviour, like a handjob or so, then do consider this with an understanding and lovable partner. It will surely make your sexual partner feel good. If you are still feeling bad about it, then be true to yourself. 

[uhtred]

3 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

And at least here I fully agree.

Unfortunately, in our society wanting to have sex is understood and not wanting to have sex is met with disbelief, mocking or even verbal violence. Which is why it needs to be reminded that not all people want sex. For some it's one of the best things ever, but for some it's horrifying.

Agreed, but I think that is due to a lack of information.  Honestly until recently I wasn't aware that there were people who just didn't desire sex ever, with anyone (other than a very rare exceptions).  Reminds me of 40 years ago when I didn't believe gay people actually existed - I thought it was just a made-up concept, like saying someone has kooties.

 

Neither of these views was due to being evil, but due to simply not having any information.  Asexuality is very rarely mentioned outside of very limited groups.

 

What is funny is that in many ways society actually respects / approves of asexuality - at least in concept. Many religious offices are expected to be asexual.  There is a certainly admiration for people who are not driven by "base animal instincts".  I think the key is education.