Jump to content

Is it ok if your partner gets their sexual needs met elsewhere?


Paneeda

Recommended Posts

Quote

The definition of "need" isn't "something you die without", and I wonder why that mistake is so common here.

Because that's actually exactly what it means.  Learn the difference between needs and wants.  I was taught this in kindergarten; it's not that hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, James121 said:

Neither can if it is followed with “I’m so sorry, I’m the person who changed so tell me the terms of the divorce and show me where to sign”.

Not every person wants to leave. And, honestly, if my partner took the sexual part of our relationship off the table, I'd be upset with them if they jumped right to breaking up. It would be my decision if I was OK with it or not, not theirs. And I'm perfectly capable of making that decision myself. The only way I would consider it OK for them to decide that, is if they were unhappy and wanted out. Not if it was cause they thought I would be. 

 

If a change causes either side to want to leave, then that is fine and fair though, imo. 

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

Unmet sexual needs in a relationship almost always lead to the sexual partner getting depressed, which has risks to physical health, in the most extreme case, self harm. So it's not nothing just because it's not directly life threatening. 

But where is the line drawn?  If I have a partner who believes that they "need" anal sex, and I refuse to participate, am I going to be held responsible for his 'depression'? 

 

Seems to be a convenient way to get all the sex you want under the guise of becoming 'depressed' if you don't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wild Seven said:

As to sexuality and what not (and can we please not mix up child development into these sorts of discussions, they're different animals altogether, people do not die of unmet sexual needs, children can and do die because of unmet contact needs, one isn't like the other even remotely) -

 

It'd entirely depent on the relationship in question and arrangements of.

I'm fine with my partner(s) being poly, themselves.

But I need the other relationships not be cheating, and not be exploiting me and/or an instrument of abuse. Which is where drawing the lines gets damned tricky.

I’m afraid you are simply wrong. Children live troubled lives when their parents don’t love and care for them appropriately but they do not drop down dead as a result. 

If a baby is not fed by it’s unloving mother, it is a malnutrition that kills baby. Not lack of love. Granted the lack of love leads to the lack feeding baby but, it is still the malnutrition that had the physical effect that caused death. Lack of love is linked, but not the direct cause.

If an older child seeks comfort when upset and is not comforted by unloving father or mother, said child will not die. If this pattern is repeated throughout the whole of their childhood, he/she may switch off to emotion later in life and become what others would consider traumatised but would they drop down dead?.......I don’t thinks so.

The analogy is fine, you just don’t like it because it blows the ridiculous ‘sexuals won’t  die without sex’ idea clean out of the water.

 

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

But where is the line drawn?  If I have a partner who believes that they "need" anal sex, and I refuse to participate, am I going to be held responsible for his 'depression'? 

 

Seems to be a convenient way to get all the sex you want under the guise of becoming 'depressed' if you don't. 

There’s no such thing as ‘needing’ anal sex. That’s a something someone may want.

 

Quite simply the line is drawn when it becomes silly like that.

 

As for it being a convenient way to get all the sex you want under the guise of becoming depressed if you don’t, it’s no more or less convenient than the person who has sex, gets married, has children, buys house with spouse and removes sex under the guise that sex will now make them depressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Because that's actually exactly what it means.  Learn the difference between needs and wants.  I was taught this in kindergarten; it's not that hard.

In which case an asexual wants little or no sex. They don’t need little or no sex. Good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Serran said:

Not every person wants to leave. And, honestly, if my partner took the sexual part of our relationship off the table, I'd be upset with them if they jumped right to breaking up. It would be my decision if I was OK with it or not, not theirs. And I'm perfectly capable of making that decision myself. The only way I would consider it OK for them to decide that, is if they were unhappy and wanted out. Not if it was cause they thought I would be. 

 

If a change causes either side to want to leave, then that is fine and fair though, imo. 

That was the point I tried to elude to. The individual who removes sex from a relationship should offer their partner the right to choose how it proceeds from that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James121 said:

That was the point I tried to elude to. The individual who removes sex from a relationship should offer their partner the right to choose how it proceeds from that point.

They don't need to offer though. I always have the freedom to choose how to respond. No one can take that from me. 

 

So, if my partner comes to me one day and says "I don't want to do anything sexual anymore" - then that's just them stating their own needs. Then, it's up to me to state my own. And if our needs conflict too badly, the one that isn't happy can say they need to break up. 

 

I wouldn't want my partner to follow up stating their needs with offering me a break up. I'd be annoyed if they did. 

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

They don't need to offer though. I always have the freedom to choose how to respond. No one can take that from me. 

 

So, if my partner comes to me one day and says "I don't want to do anything sexual anymore" - then that's just them stating their own needs. Then, it's up to me to state my own. And if our needs conflict too badly, the one that isn't happy can say they need to break up. 

 

I wouldn't want my partner to follow up stating their needs with offering me a break up. I'd be annoyed if they did. 

I think we are just different then.

 

If my wife came to me and said I don’t want to do anything sexual anymore, I would expect her to say as a follow up “I appreciate we got married and I hadn’t stated this was going to be the case, so I offer you the opportunity ask me to walk away if you so wish”

 

Its what I would do for my wife if I were to take something equally significant away from our marriage which she couldn’t have reasonably foreseen and would have reasonably expected to form part of our marriage until age impacts my ability to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, James121 said:

There’s no such thing as ‘needing’ anal sex. That’s a something someone may want.

 

Quite simply the line is drawn when it becomes silly like that.

O.k.  If anal sex isn't a 'need', then what about oral sex?  Handjobs?  Intercourse?  Seems like just about any kind of sex can be classified as a 'want' and not a 'need'. 

 

Quote

As for it being a convenient way to get all the sex you want under the guise of becoming depressed if you don’t, it’s no more or less convenient than the person who has sex, gets married, has children, buys house with spouse and removes sex under the guise that sex will now make them depressed.

If they've been having undesired sex all those years in order to keep the sexual 'happy', maybe it's about time that the sexual reciprocates.

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

O.k.  If anal sex isn't a 'need', then what about oral sex?  Handjobs?  Intercourse?  Seems like just about any kind of sex can be classified as a 'want' and not a 'need'. 

 

If they've been having undesired sex all those years in order to keep the sexual 'happy', maybe it's about time that the sexual reciprocates.

I get what you saying so here’s how I answer.

 

Anal sex is a preference but un natural by virtue of where sexual organs are being put. Oral sex again is arguably just a bonus but not all that hard to receive.

Intercourse is what our sexual organs are designed to facilitate.  

 

In relation to your our second statement, why does someone have to be happy to reciprocate when at the point you got married no such lifestyle was ever mentioned as being a probability?

 

The real question is, how on gods green earth do you end up having undesired sex ‘all those years’? Perhaps disclosing the **undesired** part before the wedding day and the children would have stopped it dead in its tracks and saved one or both from an unhappy life.

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

I just can't wrap my head around the concept of someone getting the exact relationship that they want while knowing their partner is missing out on something integral to their happiness in a relationship, and the one who's getting what they want still being able to be happy??

I don't think that really happens.  Anyone who's in a close relationship with someone else knows when that other person is unhappy.  I think sexuals who are unhappy about not getting any/enough/pleasing sex are letting their discontent convince them that their partner is "happy".   The partner may be relieved not to have to deal with sex; happy, no.  The times that I just couldn't deal with it and my partner was unhappy, I felt guilty, not happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, James121 said:

Anal sex is a preference but un natural by virtue of where sexual organs are being put. Oral sex again is arguably just a bonus but not all that hard to receive.

Intercourse is what our sexual organs are designed to facilitate.  

Some people would see intercourse as something that's incomplete without conception.  Basically just using someone's body to masturbate. 

 

Quote

In relation to your our second statement, why does someone have to be happy to reciprocate when at the point you got married no such lifestyle was ever mentioned as being a probability?

When I got married, the sexual lifestyle that my sexual partner's wanted wasn't mentioned, either.  If they told me that they expected sex several times a week or three times a day for the rest of our lives, and that they would cry, pout, sulk, get angry and 'depressed' if they didn't get any for a week or two, or even a month or two, I would have dumped them before reaching the alter.  As to why I didn't see my next comment below.

 

Quote

The real question is, how on gods green earth do you end up having undesired sex ‘all those years’? Perhaps disclosing the **undesired** part before the wedding day and the children would have stopped it dead in its tracks and saved one or both from an unhappy life.

Many asexuals keep repeating on this forum that they believed that sex was something they were "supposed" to do.  No one ever said anything about liking it or actually WANTING to do it.  While I was growing up, I was taught that sex was something I should "save for marriage", and then have sex as often as my husband wanted it.  There was no provision made for what *I* wanted/didn't want.  So, during those years, it was the HIGHER DRIVE PARTNER who was the 'gatekeeper' of sex.  And, my husband was allowed to 'take it by force, if necessary'.  The laws regarding marital rape in the US changed between the 1970s and 1990s (Of course, that doesn't mean that it no longer occurs...).  And yes, we were "supposed" to have all this sex in order to keep our partner  'happy' so they wouldn't cheat. 

 

Let's also keep the playing field even.  Sexuals can also change the 'rules' at any point after marriage.  A man (for instance) may decide that he wants to spice things up in the bedroom and try to introduce toys into sex play, which may be something he never did before.  He may desire anal sex when he never desired it before.  He may start to want more and more blowjobs, or may even want to introduce a third party into the sexual 'mix'.  Was any of that foreseeable?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 

 

Perhaps the **undesired** part should be disclosed before the wedding, but then so should the **desired** part. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, James121 said:

what others would consider traumatised but would they drop down dead?

Trauma kills. Prolonged trauma kills.

 

Lack of touch and similar neglect - to very little children - leads to not growing due to not having a growth hormone, and their immune system shutting down, which kills them.

 

Take just orphanages, for one. About a third of kids placed there DO. DIE. as a result of a lack of a nurture.

There's studies to this sort of thing. No, it isn't just malnutrition. It's touch and physical affection and care -literally- stimulating healthy child development.


That's why I said I wouldn't mix it up with this discussion at all.

Because sex is a want and not a need.

People don't actually suffer that kind of extreme, to the point of shut down of immunity and an actual physical death, effect from a lack of -sex-, as do -children- from a lack of -touch-.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wild Seven said:

Lack of touch and similar neglect - to very little children - leads to not growing due to not having a growth hormone, and their immune system shutting down, which kills them.

 

Take just orphanages, for one. About a third of kids placed there DO. DIE. as a result of a lack of a nurture.

There's studies to this sort of thing. No, it isn't just malnutrition. It's touch and physical affection and care -literally- stimulating healthy child development.

 

There are neglected children with little to no physical affection given, and though that is a tragedy, it does not kill children, and growth hormone and the immune system has nothing to do with neglect.  

 

I don't know what country you live in, but the US (and I would say the UK, also) does not have orphanages.  You can't just say "there's studies to this sort of thing"  and be believed.  

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

 

I just have to clarify here that it's not just 'lack of the emotion of love' that kills a child. Someone can not love a kid, yet still feed it, bathe it, clothe it, teach it etc.. a child will NOT die when cared for properly even if they're not 'loved'.

There's this ancient story that suggests the contrary. Of course, it's not evidence in any way, and I sure hope nobody will ever repeat such an experiment to verify it, but at least according to this story, babies do have psychological needs that are necessary for them to survive.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deprivation_experiments

 

Quote

An experiment allegedly carried out by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II in the 13th century saw young infants raised without human interaction in an attempt to determine if there was a natural language that they might demonstrate once their voices matured. It is claimed he was seeking to discover what language would have been imparted unto Adam and Eve by God.

 

The experiments were recorded by the monk Salimbene di Adam in his Chronicles, who wrote that Frederick encouraged "foster-mothers and nurses to suckle and bathe and wash the children, but in no ways to prattle or speak with them; for he would have learnt whether they would speak the Hebrew language (which he took to have been the first), or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perchance the tongue of their parents of whom they had been born. But he laboured in vain, for the children could not live without clappings of the hands, and gestures, and gladness of countenance, and blandishments."[5]

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Philip027 said:

Because that's actually exactly what it means.  Learn the difference between needs and wants.  I was taught this in kindergarten; it's not that hard.

That's.. not really a convincing argument.

 

You know, even if you consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which IMO is incredibly oversimplified and outdated, not only does he include sexual instinct in his list of needs (which according to you, it is not), he even puts it at the very bottom of the pyramid.

 

As psychology progressed, it only gets more nuanced and fine-grained from there. What never happened, outside some fringe elements maybe, would be for psychologists to consider only those things as needs which you literally die without.

 

Lastly, phrases such as "psychological needs", "emotional needs", "social needs", and so on and so forth exist and are in widespread usage (you can confirm this using google trends).

 

In conclusion, while argumentum ad kindergarten is not a fallacy I've ever had used on me, it's still a fallacy. The dictionary agrees with my definition. The people who literally research and study this subject as their job agree with my definition. The very way in which people in our culture use the word "need" agrees with my definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you.  They're still wants, because you don't NEED them.  It's inherent in the name.

 

There is no argument.

 

Quote

You know, even if you consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which IMO is incredibly oversimplified and outdated, not only does he include clothing, shelter and sexual instinct in his list of needs (which according to you, they are not), he even puts them at the very bottom of the pyramid.

There's so many problems with this "hierarchy" that I can never take it seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Good for you.  They're still wants, because you don't NEED them.  It's inherent in the name.

 

There is no argument.

 

There's so many problems with this "hierarchy" that I can never take it seriously.

I agree.

 

Saying someone 'needs' sex the same way they need food, water, and air, is quite literally laughable. Try going without sex for three days, then try going without oxygen for three days. You'll quickly realize that sex was really nothing compared to how badly you needed that air. Well, you would realize that if you hadn't suffocated to death after about 6 minutes with no oxygen. *sigh*. That pyramid also says 'sexual instinct' is more important that health. I'm assuming the person who made that pyramid didn't know that if you're in shit-poor health, your libido can drop to 0%.

 

Obviously I'm not saying sex isn't important for people who desire it, it's often integral to a sexual person's pleasure and happiness in a romantic relationship (just as going without sex is integral to an asexuals happiness), but even the most sexual person in the world would quickly agree that oxygen is more important than sex if they had to test which one they could last longer without.

 

(as a side-note, that pyramid also says sexual instinct is more important than intimacy, but one of the reasons sex is so important to many people is due to the emotional pleasure they derive from sharing that form of intimacy with another person. There are also many couples that would quickly break up if they were literally ONLY having sex, but weren't intimate in any other way, ever. So sex isn't exactly 'more important than intimacy' at all.)

 

42 minutes ago, Tarfeather said:

There's this ancient story that suggests the contrary. Of course, it's not evidence in any way, and I sure hope nobody will ever repeat such an experiment to verify it, but at least according to this story, babies do have psychological needs that are necessary for them to survive.

 

Yes babies do have psychological needs, but if they're being fed then they'll generally fight through even if they're never held or kissed or anything. There are many babies in Romanian orphanages (as just one example) who are literally left in their cots for years and just cleaned and fed then put back in the cot. A lot of them still survive and are adopted by Western families (I knew a set of teenage Romanian twins who had come from one of those orphanages, a Kiwi couple had adopted them). While babies who are given literally no love or touch can often still survive as long as they're fed and cleaned etc, they will almost grow up with severe psychological issues as touch and affection is integral to a child's healthy brain development. They do physically survive however.

 

I'm not saying that intimacy is something that many people require as an integral part of their happiness in life, however I'm also not saying that means an asexual should just give sex to ensure their sexual partner is 'psychologically fulfilled', especially if giving sex is going to hurt the ace just as much as not giving sex hurts the sexual. My honest opinion is that if your relationship is in a state that's sooooo bad that one of you feels like you're becoming suicidal or might die due to lack of sex (or on the flipside if it's the ace who is miserable because they're having to give sex) then a serious re-evaluation of whether or not the relationship is healthy is needed.

 

But seriously, if your partner was nagging you so badly that you were becoming suicidal or truly thought you would die, people would be right to tell you that you should leave them. But when someone's saying they feel like they can't live any more because their ace partner won't have sex with them, they seem to get angry if you suggest that maybe they should break up. It's true though: If your partner is doing anything that is making you feel like your actual life is threatened in some way (which is what some sexuals in this thread seem to be implying about a lack of sex) then it's clearly safer for you to not be with them... Obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also like to add that while sex is certainly not a 'need' in the same way that food, air, and water are needs, it can certainly be a requirement for some. Many people truly do require sex to be truly happy in their relationship (then of course you get all the couples who have great sex but are still miserable, that's a different topic though). I think requirement is a much better and much more accurate word than 'need'. Requirement still implies that sex is integrally important to that person's happiness, but without suggesting that a person will literally die after a few minutes without sex in the same way they would if they had to go a few minutes without air.

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

babies do have psychological needs that are necessary for them to survive.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2314964/Tragic-end-to-troubled-journey

 

One of the girls I knew died sadly, but in this article about her they mention the issues that can come when a baby does not form a bond with their mother in early childhood

 

Quote

 

''Life with Natasha and Joanna has not been easy. They were Romanian orphans, two of the numerous abandoned babies whose plight gained international exposure in the early 1990s as evidence of the cruelty and hollowness of the Ceausescu regime in its final years of tyranny.

 

As Bryan explains, the couple experienced a big difference between the children they had adopted at birth and those who had been severely neglected as babies, who they took on later.

 

He says mental health professionals have described the condition as a reactive attachment disorder in children who do not have a close bond with a mother in infancy. They can go on to develop behavioural problems, and find it difficult to return the love given by their adoptive parents.''

 

 

 

Tasha and Jo were homeless, alcoholic, drug users when I knew them. They had a very healthy family life with their adoptive parents and were loved and supported etc, but found it almost impossible to 'exist' in a normal kind of way of life due to the attachment disorders they developed as babies who were neglected in an orphanage after being abandoned in infancy. They did still survive though, as do many unloved babies. Again this is another situation where I would say love is more a 'requirement' than a need. It's definitely required for someone to develop happily and healthily, but it's not a 'need' in the same way oxygen, food, or water is. A baby can usually still survive without 'love' as long as it has those three things, it just won't develop normally in the same way a baby who is truly loved will and cared for properly will.

 

Here's some more

 

Quote

 

''Mental health professionals who have worked with some of the Romanian children say profound neglect at infancy has left some with attachment disorders - a condition that makes children aggressive, untrusting and unable to return the love of their new parents. Children who lack a close bond with a mother or other caregiver in infancy miss out on a fundamental building block in the development of the brain. Without it, they fail to learn to empathise and understand others' feelings. As they grow up, these children can experience emotional and social problems ranging from anxiety and anger to destructiveness and cruelty; they also have a tendency to lie and steal.

 

In some of Romania's wretched orphanages, babies and children were so neglected they had learned not to cry, because no one would answer their needs. The Kiwis who went there saw children who had been left lying in their cots all day.

 

Attachment-related trauma can affect any neglected or abused child, or one with repeated changes of caregiver - not just those in orphanages. Overseas studies show perhaps half of all adult prisoners have some form of psychiatric problem caused, at least partly, by attachment breaks in childhood. But some children prove remarkably resilient despite early mistreatment. A nurturing environment can bring major improvements, according to a Mental Health Foundation fact sheet on attachment disorders.''

 

''Their 19-year-old Romanian twins, Natasha and Joanna, featured recently on TV3's 60 Minutes, have left home and live on their wits in Nelson. They mix with criminals and spend the odd night sleeping rough under a bridge or at a night shelter. '' (side note: females weren't actually allowed to sleep at the night shelter, we had to sleep outside it on the doorstep or find somewhere else to go Y_Y)

 

http://www.noted.co.nz/archive/listener-nz-2009/the-children-who-couldnt-love/

 

So yeah, unloved children do survive a lot of the time, they often go on to live very hard lives though unfortunately :/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Philip027 said:

Good for you.  They're still wants, because you don't NEED them.  It's inherent in the name.

As I've just thoroughly explained using multiple sources, the word "need" doesn't mean what you think it does. Words don't have inherent meaning, they take on meaning through the people who use them. Your refusal to accept the common meaning of the word while simultaneously not being able to bring forth any argument in favor of your definition other than asserting that you're right, quite literally means that you're being intellectually dishonest and we've left the realm of rational debate. I'm no longer interested in this discussion.

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

Yes babies do have psychological needs, but if they're being fed then they'll generally fight through even if they're never held or kissed or anything. There are many babies in Romanian orphanages (as just one example) who are literally left in their cots for years and just cleaned and fed then put back in the cot.

It's hard to be sure one way or the other. The specific scientific experiment would involve a group of babies that are fed and cleaned, but receive no human interaction in any way. No holding, no making noises to it, no playing with in any way. It'd also involve a control group that's being treated normally. The hypothesis is that some of the children would die from lack of social interaction, not that all of them would. If the hypothesis were confirmed, human interaction could be seen as a literal survival requirement for babies, that if not met can lead to death.

 

Of course, such a study hasn't been carried out, and hopefully never will be. But without it, there's no way of telling whether the hypothesis is true or not. We certainly can't be sure that babies will always survive as long as their physiological needs are being met.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say, that I need sex to reach that level of ease in my body and mind. The lack comes with a depression. I can live without and live with a depression, but question is rather: is my life then worth living? Or is it better to go in a new direction?

I think we all have the rigth to pursue a good and happy life, though we still have to accept that all our goals cannot be reached. (Work to change, what we want to change, accept what cannot be changed)

 

the thing about anal sex reminds me of when kids are offered candy but cry  it isnt ice cream. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we really have to perform an experiment on babies to state a well known fact. Children who does not get the proper care in the beginning of their lives will suffer from it in the long run, like troubles with commitment due to too little contact/care in the first days. Care is a mix of nutrition, bodily contact and warmth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tarfeather said:

It's hard to be sure one way or the other. The specific scientific experiment would involve a group of babies that are fed and cleaned, but receive no human interaction in any way. No holding, no making noises to it, no playing with in any way. It'd also involve a control group that's being treated normally. The hypothesis is that some of the children would die from lack of social interaction, not that all of them would. If the hypothesis were confirmed, human interaction could be seen as a literal survival requirement for babies, that if not met can lead to death.

 

Of course, such a study hasn't been carried out, and hopefully never will be. But without it, there's no way of telling whether the hypothesis is true or not. We certainly can't be sure that babies will always survive as long as their physiological needs are being met.

We do have have something pretty close with the babies from Romanian orphanages though. It didn't lead to death, but it did lead to serious physical, neurological and psychological problems as they grow up for 80% of them - they've been followed through and peer reviewed papers published, and those problems are way worse than you'd expect in a normal population. That damage can translate to things like drug addiction, depression and 'failing to thrive' in the medical terminology. Clearly all those things can lead to death in some cases. It's not as clear cut as 'unloved babies die', but deprivation of emotional interaction in early childhood has demonstrably significant negative effects.

 

Here's a BBC report on it because it pulls it all together, and the studies are online with a bit of googling.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39055704

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

Technically, monogamy at all is selfish.

No more selfish than any other agreement between two people.

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

O.k.  If anal sex isn't a 'need', then what about oral sex?  Handjobs?  Intercourse?  Seems like just about any kind of sex can be classified as a 'want' and not a 'need'. 

The particular act is less important than there's something sexual going on to create and maintain that connection. That's why things like compromising round what both partners can live with in terms of what and how frequently is so frequently brought up.

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

If they've been having undesired sex all those years in order to keep the sexual 'happy', maybe it's about time that the sexual reciprocates.

They probably have been. If the asexual doesn't want sex, they're unlikely to be having it at the frequency the sexual would like, or with the same kind of enthusiasm or passion. There's been an unspoken compromise going on for years in other words, and now the asexual is saying they've had enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As I've just thoroughly explained using multiple sources, the word "need" doesn't mean what you think it does. Words don't have inherent meaning, they take on meaning through the people who use them. Your refusal to accept the common meaning of the word while simultaneously not being able to bring forth any argument in favor of your definition other than asserting that you're right, quite literally means that you're being intellectually dishonest and we've left the realm of rational debate. I'm no longer interested in this discussion.

k

 

It never really was up for discussion or argument or debate though, so not sure why you seem convinced that it was.

 

People use the term "literally" wrong all the damn time too, but that literally doesn't change what literally means.

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

But where is the line drawn?  If I have a partner who believes that they "need" anal sex, and I refuse to participate, am I going to be held responsible for his 'depression'? 

 

Seems to be a convenient way to get all the sex you want under the guise of becoming 'depressed' if you don't. 

That's called emotional blackmail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...