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

[Beaver Boy]

It is interesting to read the responses to the original question. I never realized how different I am from so many people, including aces. For me, I would actually be more comfortable if I knew my allosexual partner was getting sex elsewhere. That way, I could have the peace of mind I am not depriving them and I would know they would not be wanting sex from me. As long as we're still friends and cuddle buddies, being in a poly group sounds great to me.

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, Beaver Boy said:

That's called emotional blackmail.

If an asexual says having sex makes them anxious and depressed, is that emotional blackmail too?

[Beaver Boy]

Just now, Telecaster68 said:

If an asexual says having sex makes them anxious and depressed, is that emotional blackmail too?

That just sounds like making a statement. Emotional blackmail is a way to manipulate someone by saying "If you really loved me, you would do ______ ".

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, Beaver Boy said:

That just sounds like making a statement. Emotional blackmail is a way to manipulate someone by saying "If you really loved me, you would do ______ ".

So if they said 'having sex makes me anxious and depressed, but I'm willing to have sex with you anyway because I love you', you'd say that was devoid of emotional blackmail?

[Beaver Boy]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

So if they said 'having sex makes me anxious and depressed, but I'm willing to have sex with you anyway because I love you', you'd say that was devoid of emotional blackmail?

That sounds like the ace might be being manipulated. I personally don't understand the idea of "I don't want to do this, but because I love you, I'll do it anyway". In my view, if people really love each other, no one should feel like having to do things they normally wouldn't want to.

 

For example, I really don't understand parents going to their kids' little league games if they would really rather watch MLB. It seems really dishonest to me to act like you enjoy some activity to simply please someone.

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, Beaver Boy said:

I really don't understand parents going to their kids' little league games if they would really rather watch MLB. It seems really dishonest to me to act like you enjoy some activity to simply please someone.

Pleasing someone is worth something, don't you think? Especially your kids, who need and crave your attention and approval, because that's how they're wired.

 

 

[Philip027]

Do you think it would please them to know that you actually didn't really want to be there, though?

 

Some folks really can't stand faking interest though, which I totally understand.  It feels like lying.  I couldn't do it myself.

[Telecaster68]

I honestly can't get my head round this. You're both saying it's find not to go to your kids' events if you don't like the sport?

 

The point is not that you're interested in the sport... it's that you're interested - to put it mildly - in your child, and letting them know you care about them.

[A firefly]

13 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I honestly can't get my head round this. You're both saying it's find not to go to your kids' events if you don't like the sport?

 

The point is not that you're interested in the sport... it's that you're interested - to put it mildly - in your child, and letting them know you care about them.

There's a fine difference between "I don't like the sport" and "watching said sport makes me feel really really uncomfortable/anxious/pained", though.

[Telecaster68]

And that wasn't what they were saying. 

 

2 hours ago, Beaver Boy said:

I really don't understand parents going to their kids' little league games if they would really rather watch MLB. It seems really dishonest to me to act like you enjoy some activity to simply please someone.

Essentially this is showing your child 'what you do doesn't matter to me'.

[Telecaster68]

To pick up on this ...

 

3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

So if they said 'having sex makes me anxious and depressed, but I'm willing to have sex with you anyway because I love you', you'd say that was devoid of emotional blackmail?

 

3 hours ago, Beaver Boy said:

That sounds like the ace might be being manipulated. I personally don't understand the idea of "I don't want to do this, but because I love you, I'll do it anyway". In my view, if people really love each other, no one should feel like having to do things they normally wouldn't want to.

It's the ace manipulating the sexual. They're ostensibly agreeing to sex, but making sure the sexual will feel bad about it. Most sexuals will turn down sex, so the ace gets to say they were willing to have sex, but doesn't have to actually have sex.

[MrDane]

I like supporting my child and be there and talk to her about stuff that interests her. I even find myself getting interested in their interests since this gives me an insigth on what is going on in their head. They know that deep down and on the top I love them. They know I wouldnt be there if it wasnt for their interest and enjoyment. Sometimes what matters the is seing the joy in their eyes as we prepare to go. The focus, when the game is on. The happy, relaxed feeling as we are heading home. 

[uhtred]

16 hours ago, James121 said:

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.

You can get into deep water quickly by trying to decide what is "natural" sex. 

[binary suns]

I wouldn't be ok with a non-monogamous relationship. 

 

Needs 

 

Quote

 

need
verb
1. require (something) because it is essential or very important.
"I need help now"
synonyms:    require, be in need of, have need of, want; More
2. expressing necessity or obligation.
"need I say more?"
synonyms:    have to, be obliged to, be compelled to
"you needn't come"

 

noun
1. circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity.
"the basic human need for food"
synonyms:    necessity, obligation, requirement, call, demand
"there's no need to apologize"
2. a thing that is wanted or required.

 

 

 

• "I need to sleep" - goes to bed right away. 
• "I need you" - romantic expression of missing between two who miss each other
• "What needs to be done" - a way to ask for direction/orders
• "Hi, how's the meal, do you need anything" - a waiteress asks to the table they're responsible for 
• "we need to move the car" - one housemate to another regarding road work scheduled for the morrow. 
• "I need to feel needed" - one partner to another who is acting resentful and avoidant about the relationship
• "I need my boundaries" - one person to another about having some space or having their "no" respected
• "we need to stop" - one partner to the other, expressing how sex has suddenly become not okay. 
• "why the H. does this need to be explained" - I mean come on. "You die if you don't breathe" - yeah and with practice, you can dive underwater for over nine minutes. You don't need food either - with the right preparation you can go over 380 days without it. People have lasted over two weeks without water. But be careful too - because people have died from too much of it. What is a need? nothing more than a strong desire, OR a condition that must occur for some outcome to happen. 

 

If you want my definition for "need" - it is, what is required to bring about some goal. It is an if-then scenario. it is one thing depending on another scenario. this is what "need" means!

nobody needs water. people need water to not be dehydrated. the ending phrase is implied. You don't need air. you need air to function and avoid organ failure. The sexual doesn't need sex. The sexual needs sexual forms of love to have sexual health and not suffer in the relationship. 

 

 

don't give me no fucking bullshit about my mental health not being a necessity.  I don't care if you think "oh but sexual folk are just whining" and honestly I really don't know as I'm not sexual. but god damn mental health needs exist. god damn well you better be sure that it's toxic to believe that people don't deserve a chance at happiness, and the avoidance of harmful and necessary suffering. What the fuck are you all thinking? Holy shit!  I don't know what to fucking say! 

 

"needs are only what kills you if you lack it" is some serious bullshit. 

[Sally]

6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

So if they said 'having sex makes me anxious and depressed, but I'm willing to have sex with you anyway because I love you', you'd say that was devoid of emotional blackmail?

I'd say that's compromise.  Just like if the sexual said "I really want sex every day because if I don't get it, I'll be unhappy, but I'm willing to have it twice a week because I love you" is compromise.   Neither is emotional blackmail,  just a statement of what the compromise is costing them.   And probably another proof that mixed relationships have big problems, even with good intentions.

[Telecaster68]

In a positive context, yes it could be that, although it's more likely to be framed in a 'what makes you happy, makes me happy' way I would think.

 

It could also be emotional blackmail though, particularly in the situation I was discussing.

[Laplace]

I’m likely aromantic and asexual, but I think if I was in a relationship, it’d be problematic for it to be an open one (multiple partners). Sure it’d ostensibly be fulfilling everyone’s needs, but I feel like it’s more of a bandage for a fundamental problem that really doesn’t be have a great or easy solution. Personally, although I’d like to feel like I could suppress any feelings of jealousy, I believe it’d breed resentment in me. What if I became the third wheel in the whole thing? Is the relationship sustainable? Even if it is just one night stands, there’s still the possibility it could become more regular. I mean, a sexual connection is likely a potential starting point for a relationship for the average person. It’s easy to say that you’d hypothetically have faith in an ideal partner, but that’s not how real life plays out for the most part.

 

I don’t really mind the idea of sex (it doesn’t seem intolerable or inherently awful as long as it remains fairly vanilla 🤔), and I likely won’t deal with this cause I’m probably aromantic and asexual; however, if I was sex-repulsed, this is probably how I’d feel. It could work wonderfully for some couples, but I really don’t think I’d be happy with it at all.

[binary suns]

if your partners says, “this makes me anxious and depressed but I’m going to do it because I love you” - just, full stop right ther. Something is unhealthy. It doesn’t matter who don’t bother blaming that’s just a waste of energy. Tell your partner that you don’t want them to suffer so you don’t want them to do it. 

 

And if you find yourself saying those words “this makes me depressed and anxious but I’m doing it because I love you” just please stop yourself before you finish that sentence. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[binary suns]

6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

To pick up on this ...

 

 

It's the ace manipulating the sexual. They're ostensibly agreeing to sex, but making sure the sexual will feel bad about it. Most sexuals will turn down sex, so the ace gets to say they were willing to have sex, but doesn't have to actually have sex.

You’re either reading too much into it or too little. It’s a bad situation tho that’s for sure. But sometimes people just don’t understand what boundaries are. The ace probably doesn’t realize what they’re saying. And the sexual is probably too blind to not realize it isn’t good to have sex with someone who says that to them. As in, it’s borderline taking advantage of them. 

 

 

Unless that that was your point. 

[James121]

19 hours ago, Wild Seven said:

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-.

I think in the interest of ending our exchanges with some agreement, I will concede that prolonged emotional trauma can lead to mental health issues or something that will badly affect a child’s life and may cause them to die earlier than if they hadn’t been traumatised. I still believe that this is not dropping down dead but I’ll accept it as almost a ‘slowly poisoned’ type of idea. 

Although the two things aren’t quite on the same level, I also still believe it is wrong for people to make statements such as ‘not having sex won’t kill you’ because the emotional trauma that this can have is being trivialised and disregarded as insignificant.

[MrDane]

25 minutes ago, float on said:

if your partners says, “this makes me anxious and depressed but I’m going to do it because I love you” - just, full stop right ther. Something is unhealthy. It doesn’t matter who don’t bother blaming that’s just a waste of energy. Tell your partner that you don’t want them to suffer so you don’t want them to do it. 

 

And if you find yourself saying those words “this makes me depressed and anxious but I’m doing it because I love you” just please stop yourself before you finish that sentence. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about the asexual saying: “I accept some degree of depression and anxiety, since I love you,  for the greater good = us being able to stay together, as I know you also have issues to deal with, depression, lonelyness, because of our incompatibility and you love me. Looking at the end results, we are both better off with this awkward deal, than with splitting up. How and how much will be a constant issue to talk about.”

This is not said in the beginning of a relationship, but when the wheels have been turning for years and you actually plan to stay together forever, though you have realized huge differences in your sexualities which pull in complete opposite directions.

[binary suns]

everyone is entitled to their own choices.

[James121]

8 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

I honestly can't get my head round this. You're both saying it's find not to go to your kids' events if you don't like the sport?

 

The point is not that you're interested in the sport... it's that you're interested - to put it mildly - in your child, and letting them know you care about them.

Unfortunately this is the way some individuals think.

Going to a child’s baseball game even though you don’t like baseball is being false! What?

In reality, you and I as compassionate parents (I assume you may be a parent) would see this as being truly supportive of your child and down to the fact that you love them.

A necessary act of love. A selfless act.

Some people clearly think it’s better to disappoint a loved one in order to achieve the misguided belief that they are ‘just being honest’ with them.

To me that is very very cold and selfish but to others.....absolutely fine.

 

[James121]

4 minutes ago, float on said:

everyone is entitled to their own choices.

And if a sexuals choice is to seek sex outside the marriage?

[binary suns]

1 minute ago, James121 said:

And if a sexuals choice is to seek sex outside the marriage?

well, is it a deal breaker for their partner? what are you trying to catch me saying? lol, that the ace should let them do it? the ace is entitled to their choice too. People deciding what they can accept is a choice. if your partner does something that is unacceptable. then don't accept it; leave. 

 

naturally emotions significantly complicate people's decision making though 

[James121]

2 minutes ago, float on said:

well, is it a deal breaker for their partner? what are you trying to catch me saying? lol, that the ace should let them do it? the ace is entitled to their choice too. People deciding what they can accept is a choice. if your partner does something that is unacceptable. then don't accept it; leave. 

 

naturally emotions significantly complicate people's decision making though 

I’m not trying to catch you saying anything. It’s merely the case that if a sexual says “I need sex, if you can’t participate ill go elsewhere” the common opinion appears to be that this is emotional blackmail.

[binary suns]

I don't understand what this "emotional blackmail" concept is. 

 

if I amn't willing to accept something my partner's done, well, that's that. I mean it's not as simple as "that's that" of course - you tell 'em you're hurt, and then ... really it depends on the situation. 

 

If my partner cheated on me, that's it, I'm out, 'cause cheating is not something that is a mistake - it's something that either happens because we aren't working. or it happens because their values don't rule it out. That's fine but, it ain't my values. so either we don't share values, or our relationship was already falling apart. 

 

but like I said... emotions can easily complicate decisions, lmao. 

[Philip027]

Quote

I honestly can't get my head round this. You're both saying it's find not to go to your kids' events if you don't like the sport?

Honestly?  Speaking from the kid perspective, if I knew my parent didn't actually want to be there, I'd rather they didn't come.  I've been dragged to enough things I'd rather not have been to in my life, and I know exactly what that feeling is like.

 

I imagine it's not all that different from how a sexual might feel about sex with a reluctant partner, so I would think you'd be able to understand this to at least some extent.  What are you really getting out of it if you know the other person isn't interested?

 

Quote

You don't need food either - with the right preparation you can go over 380 days without it.

Yeah uhh...

 

Throughout the entire period of 382 days, patient A.B. consumed water and had taken vitamin supplements, yeast for the first 10 months, potassium supplements (Day 93 to Day 162), and sodium supplements (Day 345 to Day 355)

 

 

That's still basically getting food, even if it's not really what most people think of as food.

 

Quote

I’m not trying to catch you saying anything. It’s merely the case that if a sexual says “I need sex, if you can’t participate ill go elsewhere” the common opinion appears to be that this is emotional blackmail.

Because it is?  What, you think it's not cheating anymore just because your make your intentions known?

[Telecaster68]

Emotional blackmail is playing on someone's guilt to get them to do what you want, so in this case, a sexual person saying 'you're a bad person if you don't have sex with me because it means you don't care about me', and an asexual person saying 'if you have sex with me, even though I've consented, I'll feel terrible and that makes you a bad person'.

 

The non emotional blackmail versions would be 'I feel unloved when you don't want to have sex with me', and 'no, I won't have sex with you because it'll make me feel terrible'. The difference is they're straightforward and not manipulative.

 

It's really down to intent and understanding how your words will be understood. A sexual can intend the statement about going elsewhere as entirely straightforward, but an asexual may hear it as a threat.

 

 

[Telecaster68]

4 hours ago, Philip027 said:

What are you really getting out of it if you know the other person isn't interested?

In the case of sex, that they care about you enough to do something selfless for your benefit. You haven't forced them to, or manipulated them. They want to, because they care about your feelings.

 

It's different in the case of the kid's game. That's about showing your child that you care about them, that you're there for them. Children need to feel secure or they get seriously fucked up. Not going out of some bizarre principle that spending a couple of hours doing something for someone else's sake would compromise your identity or selfhood looks very much to me like trying to rationalise selfishness and, worse, make it into the high moral ground.

 

I genuinely find it shocking.