A question for asexuals

[vega57]

6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

 

Finally. Why was it so hard?

 

Well, you DID say that it wasn't "wrong", so why bring it up in the first place?  

 

Quote

I never said it was a right.

I said that you may see it as a right.  Besides, what difference does it make, really?  The point is, that the person who doesn't want to have sex doesn't have to have it, just like the person who don't want to 'sell' something isn't obligated to sell.  

 

Quote

No it isn't. It's just recognising where the power in a situation lies,

The "power" doesn't always lie with the person who doesn't want to have sex.  As @FictoVore. and others have pointed out several times, the power USED TO LIE at the hands of the person who wanted sex.  Look at these forums, Tele.  How many people have had sex with their partner out of a VERY REAL FEAR that if they don't, their partner will leave them?  Who has the "power" in those situations?  

 

Quote

So consistently expecting anything of your partner is wrong? What if your partner finds the constant expectation of conversation too much even though you've agreed only to have conversations a couple of times a week?

My, my, how you like to twist words, Tele.  You went from the expectation of sex from a partner to the expectation of ANYTHING from your partner.  

 

First of all, chances are that my partner and I probably never "agreed" to have conversations a couple of times a week, just like we probably didn't "agree" to have sex a couple of times a week.  There is no 'implied' agreement in either case.  It would also depend on what your reasons are for not wanting to converse.  And, if you throw asexuality into this little mix. (comparing it to conversation), then my partner wouldn't be conversing with ANYONE; not just me.  

 

Conversation has a purpose; to communicate information, whether it's about who is going to take the kids to the game on Saturday, or that *I* have to work overtime this evening, or that my partner feels like he's having a heart attack, and needs to get to the hospital.  

 

My late husband told me that sex was a "higher form" of communication.  I asked him, "When you were having sex with all of those prostitutes, what exactly were you 'communicating'?"  He just laughed.  He had no answer.     

 

Quote

Marriage, or a marriage-esque relationship, implies sex.

Maybe for some people.  For others it doesn't.  But even if it did imply this, it doesn't imply HOW OFTEN  or WHAT KIND.  

 

Quote

This is why lack of sex is effectively a reason for divorce in most places.

It's not that cut-and-dry.  As of 2010, all 50 states offer some version of no-fault divorce.  This avoids costly trials.  The reasons (or "grounds") don't even matter anymore most of the time.   Yes, there are some divorce cases that still go to trial, but those cases are becoming more and more like dinosaurs.  

 

Divorce world-wide is a different animal.  While most countries have provisions for obtaining a divorce, their divorce regulations are quite different than from other parts of the world.  For example, in many Muslim societies, a no-fault divorce can be easily obtained by the husband, but the wife must give a specific reason, such as impotence.  (Talk about a power imbalance!)

 

As for the US, you'd have to define what "lack of sex" means, plus, there may be justifiable reasons for the "lack of sex" (for example, emotional neglect).  *YOUR* definition of "lack" may not be the same as the courts'...

 

Quote

It doesn't mean both partners have to say yes every time on demand and it's certainly not a licence for marital rape, but where one partner unilaterally always says no, and says it will always be that way, there's a clearly a problem for the relationship if that wasn't the explicit agreement from the start.

What exactly was the "explicit" agreement from the start?  Sex occurs in all different shapes and sizes.  A couple may begin their marital journey both being virgins and having 'vanilla' sex.  Meanwhile, 10 years later, the wife (for example) wants to try some new positions.  The husband may be adamantly against this practice.  At the time of the marriage, the husband nor the wife may have had any idea that she would eventually become bored with the same old dull routine. There was no "explicit" agreement that after 10 years of marriage, things were going to change.  It's not something that one can easily predict.  

   

Quote

Sex in a relationship isn't about the ability to provide orgasms. You know this.

But just try having sex repeatedly without having orgasms.  I'm sure it wouldn't take too long before your frustration level would be through the roof.  

[Guest]

On 3/6/2018 at 6:31 AM, Telecaster68 said:

And you've just agreed with me that it does. The person who doesn't want to have sex has the law on their side when they say no.

And if the person doesn't say no because they know their partner will leave them if they do, and they love their partner and don't want them to leave? So they let the sexual partner dictate when sex will happen, how it will happen, and how often it will happen? You seem to have a really black and white view of sex and relationships that I'd never really noticed until we had this conversation.

 

On top of that (though this is a different subject) 'marital rape' is something very rarely reported to the cops. Just because someone can run to the cops if they've been raped and the cops MAY help (though you may also be put through the ringer, called a liar, and they support the partner and not you, seen it happen) doesn't mean people always will. There's shame, humiliation, a feeling of duty, knowing your family will be ripped apart, all sorts of things keep the raped person in the relationship with their rapist. Just because someone can say no does not mean they will always see that as an option, and they may prefer to live with the consequences of sex than the consequences of not having it. And that's regardless of whether or not it's rape.

 

On 3/6/2018 at 3:39 AM, Thea2 said:

I agree.

 

@Serran and @FictoVore.  I deeply respect your giving nature, the love that motivated you to sacrifice yourself. And I am very happy you stopped it. Love has made me blind to abuse too, in the past, and I stopped it. But I do not see it as an issue that has to do with the average compromise within a mixed relationship. 

Tele must have it too then because he's still with his wife even though he's unhappy with her. Stockholmes is keeping him in a relationship where his needs are never met and he suffers emotional pain (or did for a long time, maybe he's numb now, which often ends up happening in abusive relationships after too much pain).

 

Serran and I weren't even saying that our partners weren't abusive (mine definitely had other abusive characteristics as some here know well), but that the REASON we stayed was not because of abuse, the reason we let our partners dictate how much sex happened was not because of abuse. We reasoned, just as many asexuals do, that we'd rather have a happy partner than a miserable one who would leave us. The rest of it isn't as important as the POINT of what we are trying to say, which is that sometimes the asexual will give up their own needs completely for the sake of the sexual partner.  And we aren't two magical extremely rare impossible cases. Asexuals come through here all the time who were/are in situations like ours (where they have sex whenever their partner wants to keep their partner happy and keep the relationship, and feel like their own needs are going completely unmet). So while sometimes the sexual will give up all their needs, sometimes the ace will instead. It's not rocket science and it can be just as painful on either side.

[vega57]

24 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Because it took 8 pages of posts for any asexuals to concede, and for sexuals, the loss of all agency over their sex life is not something to be shrugged off. It feels callous and also a bizarre denial of basic logic. 

 

 

Sexuals can have a sex life, Tele.  They may not be able to have the one they want with WHO they want it with, but doesn't mean they can't have one at all.  You may believe that you want sex, but you can't have it, and therefore your spouse has more "power" over you.  You don't have the "power" to have sex anytime you want, just like I don't have the "power" to get money from a certain source.  I need money.  The bank has money, yet they're refusing to give it to me.  Is there a "power imbalance"?  If I look at it like there's a power imbalance then yes.  To *me*, there is one.  I can get mad at society because society isn't 'giving' me what I so desperately "need".  I can get so mad that I go out and rob the bank.  After all, I *deserve* that money, simply because I want it! 

 

But alas...reality takes  hold of me, and I realize that I don't *deserve* money, just like anyone doesn't *deserve* sex or a relationship for that matter.  I don't get to *earn* the banks money any more than anyone gets to *earn* sex.  It's not a "given" that the bank should give money to someone who needs it, like it's not a "given" that anyone should give you sex because you say you "need" it.  

 

If you want to make this about some power struggle, then that's up to you.  But the truth is this:  It's not about "power" and "control" over *YOU* or over *sex*.  It's about power over ourselves.  Sex is a mutual thing, Tele, much like playing tennis with someone.  If someone doesn't want to play tennis with me, I have options.  I can bat the ball against a handball wall at the park...or, take up a new hobby, for example.  But I'm not going to sit there and feel sorry for myself, blaming the other person for not playing tennis with me, claiming that they're preventing me from playing tennis at all.  

 

Find a new partner, if it's THAT important to you.  

 

Quote

You were trying to escalate what I was saying. I was correcting you.

Sorry.  Don't see it that way at all.  

 

Quote

It does. And you've just agreed with me that it does. The person who doesn't want to have sex has the law on their side when they say no. Rape and its consequences - if that were even countenanced by any of the sexuals on here, which it definitely isn't - is a very different thing from ending a relationship. 

Yup, and for THOUSANDS of years the law wasn't on their side.  Does that piss you off, now that it is? 

 

Quote

There's no imbalance over ending a relationship either. Both people can equally do that. 

You're right.  

Quote

 

You were saying the problem was to do with constancy and expectations in principle. Now it's clearly just about expecting sex to be a constant part of a marriage, again. 

 

Which is it? 

 

Please re-read what @FictoVore.wrote.  She explained it best.  

 

Quote

 

I wouldn't use the term 'higher' form of communication, but *in a relationship* sex can certainly be a far more intense and intimate form. Outside a relationship, it can be just getting your rocks off, but it's still more satisfying than masturbation. Sex can be a lot of different things with different people at different times, so that kind of 'gotcha' you quote illustrates your lack of understanding more than his illogic. 

 

It can be "just getting your rocks off" inside of a relationship also, and that happens more often than you would want others to believe.  Whether it's "more satisfying" than masturbation does not give one 'license' to expect it.  I have the ability to scratch my own back.  If my spouse offers to do it, it may "feel better", both physically and psychologically.  But that doesn't meant that I should expect him to do it constantly, and that *I* should not "have" to do it myself. Even if he offered every time my back itched, I would still turn him down most of the time, even if it felt 'better' when he did it.   

 

Why?

 

Because in my mind, I "should" be able to take care of my own needs, AND, if he's not around, I would HAVE to take care of them AND, I don't want to take advantage of him.  

 

It may be more satisfying when he does it.  But it's not less satisfying if he doesn't.  My itch still gets 'scratched'.  

 

Quote

I'm not engaging with your whole 'marriage doesn't imply sex' schtick. It's silly. Does it fly anywhere else apart from AVEN? 

It's not that it doesn't imply sex.  However...

 

It doesn't imply how often and what kind.  It doesn't imply endless blowjobs (sorry if that's TMI). sex 'X' amount of times per week, month, etc., or certain positions, places, etc.  It doesn't imply that when you have it, it's going to be a 4 hour 'marathon'.  It doesn't imply that one partner wants to include the use of 'toys' or watching porn together.  It doesn't imply that if one partner doesn't want it that it will be forced upon them, or that they'll be 'coerced' into having it.  It doesn't imply constantly hearing about it, or the crude 'sex jokes' about it.  It doesn't imply that you'll get to use sex as a 'sleep aid', or to 'get your rocks off' because you don't feel like masturbating.  

 

In fact, it doesn't imply that you'll never have to masturbate again. 

 

Quote

It's about more than orgasm. Again, as you know. 

Like I said before, go forth and have sex without the orgasm, time and time again.  I'm sure you'd lose interest in having sex pretty quickly...

[vega57]

9 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

And if the person doesn't say no because they know their partner will leave them if they do, and they love their partner and don't want them to leave? So they let the sexual partner dictate when sex will happen, how it will happen, and how often it will happen? 

And this is a very REAL fear because in so many cases, it's the TRUTH.  The partner WILL leave if *we* don't have sex with them.  It's not some 'irrational' fear.  

 

This is why so many women (especially) are told to WAIT to have sex with a man in order to determine whether or not he's in the relationship for sex for for *you*.  If a woman was 'seeing' (no sex) 6 men in 6 months, MOST of them would 'drop out of the race' BEFORE 6 months.  ONE might stay in the race because he's having sex with someone else, while the other might be 'worthy'.  

[vega57]

Just now, Telecaster68 said:

I'm not really interested in discussions with someone implying I'm a wannabe rapist. 

LOL!  I'll give you this, Tele.  You have quite the imagination!  

 

 

[anamikanon]

Maybe relevant, maybe an aside. I'm not a big believer in unconditional love. Love must be earned. In the sense of I'd go to great extents to ensure the comfort of my ace in the relationship - but not at the cost of him being fine with my discomfort. I'd go through a lot of discomfort to keep a sexual partner happy in the relationship, but not at the cost of him being fine with my discomfort. Caring MUST go both ways. I suppose that is my condition.

 

In my view, it is the care of a partner who will call a halt or meet you halfway or whatever that keeps you from self destruction in giving and giving when you see a need. You can safely give to a relationship when someone also cares about you, or the giving is not safe. Or wise. Or adequate to keep the relationship alive.

 

Also, while I'd go to great extents to keep a partner happy in the relationship, I wouldn't so much as lift a finger - even when it isn't a problem for me to keep a guy in the relationship. They have to want to be there based on what is on offer. If that is not enough, they don't have to be in the relationship.

 

Frankly, a partner who would leave unless I did something specific, even if I were willing to do that specific thing, I'd hold the door open for him to go. No point wasting time.

 

This isn't about having sex or not having sex or eating weekly in a restaurant or watching the same sport on TV or ANYTHING. If there is a condition I must meet to "keep" my partner and me being myself is not enough.... it may be arrogant of me, but I don't want that guy.

 

I lack the martyrdom gene.

[iff]

locked for 24 hour cool down

 

iff

moderator, sexual partners, friends & allies

[iff]

the thread is being reopened. please note, if there is any more personal attacks, the thread will be permanently closed

 

iff,

moderator, sexual partners, friends & allies

 

 

[Sweet Potato]

On 3/4/2018 at 2:17 PM, FictoVore. said:

I had a choice 'does he suffer, in which case our relationship will end because he won't be with someone who won't have sex with him, or do I suffer and give him sex to keep this relationship working?'. I made the choice to suffer. I also didn't know about asexuality back then and if I had, things would have been different because I would have known I could seek love with an ace. I was under the belief that sex is an aspect of romantic love and that literally every person alive, other than me, wanted and enjoyed sex, so if I wanted a romantic relationship I had to give sex or be alone. I truly believed I was somehow 'broken' sexually because I couldn't want or enjoy sex (even though I had a high libido and could masturbate to orgasm whenever I wanted, as long as no one else was involved). It wasn't my partners fault that I was 'broken' and couldn't function properly (that's just what I thought at the time), so why should he have to suffer as a result of my flaws? and why should I have to be alone if I could instead make the sacrifice to give him sex even if it hurt me?

wow, that was my experience exactly. not enjoying it, thinking Im doing it wrong, or something is wrong with me, trying to meet his desires and utterly failing because he wanted so much more than I could do without going insane. In the end I chose to end the relationship. I dont think I will try to make it work with a sexual person ever again. I know not all sexuals are the same, and relationships have a tendancy to be full of compromise but for me sex vs. no sex is too much of a compromise to ever make it work.

Major kudoos to those in mixed relationships who can make it work.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sweet Potato said:

wow, that was my experience exactly. not enjoying it, thinking Im doing it wrong, or something is wrong with me, trying to meet his desires and utterly failing because he wanted so much more than I could do without going insane. In the end I chose to end the relationship. I dont think I will try to make it work with a sexual person ever again. I know not all sexuals are the same, and relationships have a tendancy to be full of compromise but for me sex vs. no sex is too much of a compromise to ever make it work.

Major kudoos to those in mixed relationships who can make it work.

Something really strange happened for me after leaving my ex. I'd never enjoyed sex before meeting him or any time while I was with him, I just got nothing at all out of it and would be waiting for it to be over as soon as it began. Since leaving him, I've been physically celibate for 6 (almost 7!) years but during that time, at the end of 2016, I met a guy on AVEN who was also IDing as asexual. We were both absolutely fine with never having sex with each other as it's something I've never enjoyed and he's never been interested enough in it to even try to have it (he was 19 when I met him and had never had the vaguest interest in trying to seek a relationship), but weirdly our total lack of expectation of sex made us both realize we can desire and even enjoy certain sexual activities with each other  So far it's all been online, but I'm even enjoying just that in a way I never have before or never thought I'd be able to. But yeah regardless of what happened with me and my partner, I think if you know you're ace (or at least, really don't enjoy the expectation of sex in a relationship) you're soooooo much better off seeking for partners who are asexual or at the very least grey-asexual. It can seem like it's so much harder to find someone when you're restricting yourself like that, but it's so much better for you being single and looking for someone who is right for you than settling for someone who is sexual if there's a high chance neither of you will be able to make it work. @Chimeric is sexual and her and her ace partner (@Evil )very happy, but that's quite a rare case!! Often there is a lot of compromise and emotional pain on  both sides, yet you can experience so much happiness (and total relief!) being with an asexual, it's definitely worth the wait! And hey, as has happened with both me and Serran (not with each other, with our own partners we met on AVEN), finding 'the right ace' switched on something sexy in us that we never knew was there and switched it on for our ace partners too, so you never know!

 

I'd also like to clarify that you don't need to be afraid that you might find an ace and it turns out they want sex. It seems to be something that ONLY happens if you both slowly become more open to it mutually. I had another ace partner a few years back and he's 100% asexual so it never got 'sexy' for either of us. It seems to only happen if BOTH people realize they are slightly open to more than total sexlessness with each other, and there's no pressure ever on either side because you both know exactly what it feels like to not want sex, and can remain very happy without it when/if necessary

[Carly_]

I've been reading through this thread and from my experience I would agree that it's not automatically coercion that results in an asexual having sex as much as their partner desires. If your choice is to make your partner happy, you learn to read and anticipate him/her and then you go above and beyond if you must, out of love, or simply out of the will to please and give pleasure to another you care about. As a women interested in men, I've known plenty of very nice men who believe that a monogamous relationship is defined by sex, otherwise it is just a friendship. They would downgrade that relationship to a friendship and feel free to move on and then date someone else monogamously. And then in reality (as in what actually happens rather than what is planned in theory) the friendship is usually gone too, because, basically, it's over in the cases with these particular men---what they had in the form of a connection is over to make way for something new. The friendship usually loses all previous investment and dwindles to an acquaintanceship. This suspected threat of loss is enough for some asexuals to have sex, so as not to lose the monogamous relationship, as well as to not lose the connection altogether. I do not believe this is extreme or think that these men are poorly behaved. They are simply more assertive about maintaining a certain quality of life for themselves and are not prone to be self-sacrificial. This means they prioritize their investments, and with men who assert a certain quality of life in their own choices, they then usually don't invest in that connection anymore. You can say that these men aren't nice, but I find that they are nice, and treat those they choose very well. They simply are more self serving in their priorities they choose for their own life, which is not a bad thing. It just doesn't double as service to another's priorities. Let that person have their own priorities, as people are separate from each other, meaning people are individuals---even if they are good in relationships.

 

However, I would agree that there is a loss of agency when a sexual person decides not to leave an asexual partner who does not want sex, but instead decides to be celibate for them. It's self-sacrificial and one of the sacrifices is their agency in this way. Yet you cannot also say that in a case when an asexual decides not to leave when a sexual partner wants sex, but decides to provide sex to them, that there is the same loss of agency. That is not quite accurate. In the second case the asexual chose to have sex, while in the first case the sexual person did not choose to not have sex. In the first case they chose to have sex, but didn't do it. While you can't say in the second case that they chose to not have sex, but did. Otherwise, yes, there is more going on like coercion. It's a fine distinction, but it's there.

 

This does not amount to being the sexual gatekeeper though. For starters, the underlying impression of such a thing is right vs wrong scenario, as though one person is controlling the other. That's how such a scenario feels to people when presented as gatekeeping in this way, which is probably why anyone cares to challenge this point---because of how the point feels when accused of it. I'll admit I was offended by that characterization. However it's also not exactly true either. The asexual in this situation is merely the gatekeeper of their own body, not of their partner's body or of sex for their partner (though I'll admit it would be cruel to assume it would be easy for their partner to simply find a new partner, or have some other good option for their body---it's true, according to these terms they are SOL). Yet it's important to recognize that their partner would have to choose the sacrifice of maintaining monogamy with the asexual, under these conditions, in order for the asexual to have that kind of power (as they are only the gatekeeper of their body and not of sex). If the sexual partner chooses to be self-sacrificial then they suffer the sacrifice and will continue suffering the sacrifice as long as they choose to live in a monogamous relationship according to these terms. Because this sacrifice is a choice, to feel not the choice, but the powerlessness, and to feel it like a victim is actually the sign of a war with oneself and with their own choice---not a conflict between each's agency. This loss of agency is part of the terms of the chosen sacrifice---and the sexual partner does have the agency of that choice. One part of them chooses sacrifice while another part conflicts with it because it's painful. To illustrate how this choice is not very self-serving, it's a bit like a martyr complex. They're not gonna be happy and they're going to see the power the other person has and see the power they don't have and feel the pain of it rather than labeling it "the sacrifice I've chosen" which is actually where they do have agency. It's really not a matter of not having agency, actually, it's a matter of where that agency lies. It lies outside the territory of the asexual's body. They choose the sacrifice and its terms. The asexual is the gatekeeper of their own body and the sexual partner wants what they can't have according to these terms---intimate interaction with the asexual's body. They are SOL and it stinks, but as long as they make this choice they are the claimant of these terms. To claim it and disclaim it is a personal battle, not a conflict between each's agency. I know how I would feel because I've felt powerless too in a relationship. Basically it's a whole other level to which this situation is painful, because it hurts and you don't get to be "right." Believe me I know how painful it is to want to choose something that hurts, and to feel how wrong it is without being right about it. When something this wrong happens usually you get to be right. But just because it is an indignity does not mean it's an injustice. It's just a crappy set of choices. It just sucks without righteous relief from how much it sucks. It's not their agency vs yours which would be a right vs wrong scenario. It's your agency self-sacrificially invested in painful terms. It's out of recognition of this that the gatekeeping analogy isn't quite accurate, and not quite a fair assessment of the roles played.

[GLRDT]

On 3/4/2018 at 3:17 PM, FictoVore. said:

Anyway, that's another very common aspect of all this - many asexuals who end up in mixed relationships didn't actually realize they were asexual to start with. They often assume it'll just work when they meet the right person and when it doesn't, they start blaming themselves for being 'broken'. Some aces go through many sexual relationships assuming eventually it'll 'click

This wuz me!

[GLRDT]

On 3/5/2018 at 2:13 AM, Telecaster68 said:

So consistently expecting anything of your partner is wrong?

I don't really know what the definition of wrong would be. Like morally? Probably not. However, I've learned that with any situation having continuous expectations for a partner when they cannot or do not want to change is unhealthy and that you either have to find away to accept that person how they are and be ok for yourself or you have to remove yourself from the situation. Because sticking around and hoping, expecting, or trying to get someone to change when they don't want to will lead to unhappiness on both sides. And I'm not just talking about when it comes to sex. Sex and anything.

 

So while continuous expectations for someone else may not be like morally wrong, I think if the person doesn't have the same views on those expectations, it can be harmful to a relationship. 

[GLRDT]

On 3/5/2018 at 1:27 PM, vega57 said:

On 3/5/2018 at 1:09 PM, FictoVore. said:

And if the person doesn't say no because they know their partner will leave them if they do, and they love their partner and don't want them to leave? So they let the sexual partner dictate when sex will happen, how it will happen, and how often it will happen? 

It sounds to me that both telecaster and Fictovore are making valid points. The issue lies in the fact that Fictovore is ONLY talking about control on an emotional and psychological level and telecaster is ONLY considering control from a moral and lawful level. You both have good points but are both only acknowledging one part of the argument. 

[GLRDT]

10 hours ago, Carly_ said:

I've been reading through this thread and from my experience I would agree that it's not automatically coercion that results in an asexual having sex as much as their partner desires. If your choice is to make your partner happy, you learn to read and anticipate him/her and then you go above and beyond if you must, out of love, or simply out of the will to please and give pleasure to another you care about. As a women interested in men, I've known plenty of very nice men who believe that a monogamous relationship is defined by sex, otherwise it is just a friendship. They would downgrade that relationship to a friendship and feel free to move on and then date someone else monogamously. And then in reality (as in what actually happens rather than what is planned in theory) the friendship is usually gone too, because, basically, it's over in the cases with these particular men---what they had in the form of a connection is over to make way for something new. The friendship usually loses all previous investment and dwindles to an acquaintanceship. This suspected threat of loss is enough for some asexuals to have sex, so as not to lose the monogamous relationship, as well as to not lose the connection altogether. I do not believe this is extreme or think that these men are poorly behaved. They are simply more assertive about maintaining a certain quality of life for themselves and are not prone to be self-sacrificial. This means they prioritize their investments, and with men who assert a certain quality of life in their own choices, they then usually don't invest in that connection anymore. You can say that these men aren't nice, but I find that they are nice, and treat those they choose very well. They simply are more self serving in their priorities they choose for their own life, which is not a bad thing. It just doesn't double as service to another's priorities. Let that person have their own priorities, as people are separate from each other, meaning people are individuals---even if they are good in relationships.

 

However, I would agree that there is a loss of agency when a sexual person decides not to leave an asexual partner who does not want sex, but instead decides to be celibate for them. It's self-sacrificial and one of the sacrifices is their agency in this way. Yet you cannot also say that in a case when an asexual decides not to leave when a sexual partner wants sex, but decides to provide sex to them, that there is the same loss of agency. That is not quite accurate. In the second case the asexual chose to have sex, while in the first case the sexual person did not choose to not have sex. In the first case they chose to have sex, but didn't do it. While you can't say in the second case that they chose to not have sex, but did. Otherwise, yes, there is more going on like coercion. It's a fine distinction, but it's there.

 

This does not amount to being the sexual gatekeeper though. For starters, the underlying impression of such a thing is right vs wrong scenario, as though one person is controlling the other. That's how such a scenario feels to people when presented as gatekeeping in this way, which is probably why anyone cares to challenge this point---because of how the point feels when accused of it. I'll admit I was offended by that characterization. However it's also not exactly true either. The asexual in this situation is merely the gatekeeper of their own body, not of their partner's body or of sex for their partner (though I'll admit it would be cruel to assume it would be easy for their partner to simply find a new partner, or have some other good option for their body---it's true, according to these terms they are SOL). Yet it's important to recognize that their partner would have to choose the sacrifice of maintaining monogamy with the asexual, under these conditions, in order for the asexual to have that kind of power (as they are only the gatekeeper of their body and not of sex). If the sexual partner chooses to be self-sacrificial then they suffer the sacrifice and will continue suffering the sacrifice as long as they choose to live in a monogamous relationship according to these terms. Because this sacrifice is a choice, to feel not the choice, but the powerlessness, and to feel it like a victim is actually the sign of a war with oneself and with their own choice---not a conflict between each's agency. This loss of agency is part of the terms of the chosen sacrifice---and the sexual partner does have the agency of that choice. One part of them chooses sacrifice while another part conflicts with it because it's painful. To illustrate how this choice is not very self-serving, it's a bit like a martyr complex. They're not gonna be happy and they're going to see the power the other person has and see the power they don't have and feel the pain of it rather than labeling it "the sacrifice I've chosen" which is actually where they do have agency. It's really not a matter of not having agency, actually, it's a matter of where that agency lies. It lies outside the territory of the asexual's body. They choose the sacrifice and its terms. The asexual is the gatekeeper of their own body and the sexual partner wants what they can't have according to these terms---intimate interaction with the asexual's body. They are SOL and it stinks, but as long as they make this choice they are the claimant of these terms. To claim it and disclaim it is a personal battle, not a conflict between each's agency. I know how I would feel because I've felt powerless too in a relationship. Basically it's a whole other level to which this situation is painful, because it hurts and you don't get to be "right." Believe me I know how painful it is to want to choose something that hurts, and to feel how wrong it is without being right about it. When something this wrong happens usually you get to be right. But just because it is an indignity does not mean it's an injustice. It's just a crappy set of choices. It just sucks without righteous relief from how much it sucks. It's not their agency vs yours which would be a right vs wrong scenario. It's your agency self-sacrificially invested in painful terms. It's out of recognition of this that the gatekeeping analogy isn't quite accurate, and not quite a fair assessment of the roles played.

Hallelujah!

[GLRDT]

10 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

My fingers are twitching but I will resist. 

Teehee. I don't know if they are twitching in a good or bad way from what I wrote, but okay! Resist away!

[Chimeric]

8 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

 

It's true that the sexual has agency over whether they stay or go - but so does the asexual. There's no imbalance there.

There's no imbalance in terms of leaving, yes. But then consider what happens once you've left? In terms of dating options, this is a scenario that an asexual individual can reasonably expect to repeat basically forever. They are left with the options of eventually having to have sex, always losing their partner, or being alone, if they don't find someone compatible with their lack of sexual desire. Strictly in terms of "fish in the sea," there is less pressure for an allosexual individual to maintain a relationship. 

 

This isn't to say that non-ace folks don't struggle with sexual compatibility in their relationships, because they do, but the emphasis is not quite the same as it is for an asexual person. And this isn't meant to discredit the very real emotional impact that ending a relationship has on both people involved.

[GLRDT]

11 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

.

[anamikanon]

18 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

There's no imbalance in terms of leaving, yes. But then consider what happens once you've left? In terms of dating options, this is a scenario that an asexual individual can reasonably expect to repeat basically forever. They are left with the options of eventually having to have sex, always losing their partner, or being alone, if they don't find someone compatible with their lack of sexual desire. Strictly in terms of "fish in the sea," there is less pressure for an allosexual individual to maintain a relationship. 

I am not ace, so I have not faced this situation, but my ace had 2 relationships without any sex before he met me AND attempted to establish a poly relationship while he was with me (it failed only because she was highly sexual and completely wrong for him - he ended it, she stalked him, actually, for a while). He is with me, who is fairly sexual, and has no intentions of dumping him over his aceness and he has actually put me through some very rough times over the years because of his various issues.

 

On the other hand, I know many sexual people who can't get someone to talk to him, let alone be in a relationship. 

 

I think whether you find a partner or not is more about your personality and how you approach people and be with them than sexual orientation. There are plenty of sexual people with a relatively low sex drive who would be fine without sex if the person was right in other ways. Frankly, a lot of committed professionals don't meet their sex drive often.

 

I think it is more about entering a relationship in an honest and up front manner without leaving surprises to be found down the road. Someone knowingly entering a relationship with an asexual is far less likely to expect sex from the relationship than someone led to believe that this is a "normal" relationship and then find that they are in a relationship and sex is not on offer and they will basically either have to seek it elsewhere or ditch their needs.

[vega57]

1 hour ago, anamikanon said:

There are plenty of sexual people with a relatively low sex drive who would be fine without sex if the person was right in other ways. 

I agree.  I also see that it is most often the higher sex person who struggles with the relationship, even if the relationship is "perfect" in every other way.  

 

Quote

I think it is more about entering a relationship in an honest and up front manner without leaving surprises to be found down the road. Someone knowingly entering a relationship with an asexual is far less likely to expect sex from the relationship than someone led to believe that this is a "normal" relationship and then find that they are in a relationship and sex is not on offer and they will basically either have to seek it elsewhere or ditch their needs.

Every aspect of a relationship can NOT be predicted ahead of time.  What is "perfect" today, may change tomorrow.  In fact, change is inevitable.  People gain weight, get wrinkles, change their hair style, lose their hair, etc.  And sometimes, these factors can play a significant role in whether or not they will maintain a physical...therefore sexual attraction toward their partner.  

 

So, what is a "normal" relationship?  It seems that one big complaint that many sexuals have is that they were having "regular" sex before having children, and once the children came, the sex slowed way down or came to a halt completely.  Since this seems to be a "regular" occurrence, it would seem (to me) to be more "normal" than not, and if it's fairly common, they why would anyone have that expectation that may very well be going against the 'odds'?  

 

 

[Chimeric]

1 hour ago, anamikanon said:

I think whether you find a partner or not is more about your personality and how you approach people and be with them than sexual orientation.

Yes and no. What if your partner was patently unwilling to compromise on sex? What if it got to the point where it was completely off of the table? Forever?  

 

That said, there are individual quirks associated with finding a partner, of course. I just mean that asexual people will have to grapple with the idea of compromising on sex more than a sexual person will, by simple virtue of being asexual. 

[GLRDT]

1 hour ago, anamikanon said:

I think it is more about entering a relationship in an honest and up front manner without leaving surprises to be found down the road. Someone knowingly entering a relationship with an asexual is far less likely to expect sex from the relationship than someone led to believe that this is a "normal" relationship and then find that they are in a relationship and sex is not on offer and they will basically either have to seek it elsewhere or ditch their needs.

I hope this is true. I've been in a relationship for three years and I found out about asexuality during this time. We will be together until the end of May and then for reasons not related to asexuality, we will sadly be splitting up. Anyhow, I feel that it will be difficult to know how to go about looking for a partner that has a low sex drive. Like how do you do that?  It's hard to know until you know, but yes if I state off the bat that I'm gray asexual maybe that will help attract the right kind of people for me. Not that I'll be looking for a while. Pretty sad about having to break up with my current love.

[anamikanon]

Just now, GLRDT said:

I hope this is true. I've been in a relationship for three years and I found out about asexuality during this time. We will be together until the end of May and then for reasons not related to asexuality, we will sadly be splitting up. Anyhow, I feel that it will be difficult to know how to go about looking for a partner that has a low sex drive. Like how do you do that?  It's hard to know until you know, but yes if I state off the bat that I'm gray asexual maybe that will help attract the right kind of people for me. Not that I'll be looking for a while. Pretty sad about having to break up with my current love.

Maybe by dating and seeing who feels right to you? I don't know if aces can sense sexual interest of others in them. I imagine someone who has been in a sexual relationship should be able to. So if someone seems to be horny right off the bat, they will not "feel right" - those who seem to base the relationship off other things will likely feel like they fit better. Then, you can, of course have the talk as needed, when the relationship progresses enough for it to be relevant... I don't know. Just guessing.

[vega57]

1 minute ago, Chimeric said:

That said, there are individual quirks associated with finding a partner, of course. I just mean that asexual people will have to grapple with the idea of compromising on sex more than a sexual person will, by simple virtue of being asexual. 

I'm not too sure about that, Chimeric.  Seems to be an awful lot of sexuals out there who are also compromising when it comes to sex, by simple virtue of being sexual.  Can't tell you how often I've heard/read from sexuals that their partner "only" wants sex once a week, but the sexual would want it 4 or 5 times a week (or more).  

 

Sexuals who are more highly driven than a partner often seem to be confronted with the constant struggle of consistently "getting their 'needs' met".  If they don't, they're either miserable in the relationship, or...they cheat...or...they leave.  The reasons they don't get their needs met can vary.  They can be with an asexual partner (for example) or they can be total jerks without realizing it, and the people they're with eventually lose interest in sex with them.  

[Chimeric]

20 minutes ago, GLRDT said:

Anyhow, I feel that it will be difficult to know how to go about looking for a partner that has a low sex drive. Like how do you do that?

I wouldn't. 

 

I'm sorry that your current relationship will be ending, that is never easy. 

 

In terms of starting a new one - I wouldn't focus on the sex drive issue. I would look for someone that enjoys the same things you do (hobbies, interests, etc). Don't be afraid to approach people that you find interesting, but also be open about your asexuality right off the bat. That way, when the other person responds with interest, you can feel more confident about your compatibility in that regard - and you already know you have a lot of other things in common. =)

 

That's how my partner found me, anyhow! 

[vega57]

15 minutes ago, GLRDT said:

I hope this is true. I've been in a relationship for three years and I found out about asexuality during this time. We will be together until the end of May and then for reasons not related to asexuality, we will sadly be splitting up. Anyhow, I feel that it will be difficult to know how to go about looking for a partner that has a low sex drive. Like how do you do that?  It's hard to know until you know, but yes if I state off the bat that I'm gray asexual maybe that will help attract the right kind of people for me. Not that I'll be looking for a while. Pretty sad about having to break up with my current love.

LOL!  Seems that sexuals and asexuals have the same problem, but on opposite ends of the sexual spectrum!  An asexual would probably want a partner who consistently didn't want sex, whereas, a sexual would want a partner who would consistently want sex.  

 

Almost seems like asexuals would almost have a slight 'edge' over sexuals.  After all, for two asexuals the subject of sex wouldn't be an issue at all.  But as for sexuals, well...two people can be sexual, but if one has a higher drive than the other, there are going to be problems, even though both of them are "sexual".  

[Chimeric]

5 minutes ago, vega57 said:

I'm not too sure about that, Chimeric.  Seems to be an awful lot of sexuals out there who are also compromising when it comes to sex, by simple virtue of being sexual.  Can't tell you how often I've heard/read from sexuals that their partner "only" wants sex once a week, but the sexual would want it 4 or 5 times a week (or more).

Yes, there are issues regarding sexual incompatibility across the board. It isn't a given, though, in quite the same way that a mixed relationship is almost guaranteed to have sexual incompatibilities. 

[GLRDT]

10 minutes ago, anamikanon said:

Maybe by dating and seeing who feels right to you? I don't know if aces can sense sexual interest of others in them. I imagine someone who has been in a sexual relationship should be able to. So if someone seems to be horny right off the bat, they will not "feel right" - those who seem to base the relationship off other things will likely feel like they fit better. Then, you can, of course have the talk as needed, when the relationship progresses enough for it to be relevant... I don't know. Just guessing.

That would be nice but sadly I don't think it works that way. I'm good at reading people and all of the men I've dated wanted to get to know me as a person because they value me as a person. But you can value someone for who they are and still want to have regular sex with them.

[GLRDT]

7 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

I wouldn't. 

 

I'm sorry that your current relationship will be ending, that is never easy. 

 

In terms of starting a new one - I wouldn't focus on the sex drive issue. I would look for someone that enjoys the same things you do (hobbies, interests, etc). Don't be afraid to approach people that you find interesting, but also be open about your asexuality right off the bat. That way, when the other person responds with interest, you can feel more confident about your compatibility in that regard - and you already know you have a lot of other things in common. =)

 

That's how my partner found me, anyhow! 

Thank you! I have no problem finding people I like and who like me. The sex part has just never matched up. I think mentioning I'm asexual right off the bat should help. Thanks for your encouragement!

[Carly_]

2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Yes, expectations can cause problems. 

 

In context though, I think Vega's point was that expecting anything of one's partner was wrong. I don't think it is, or that it's even possible to expect nothing. 

I think your expectation is what is considered the norm, and what is natural for the the norm, but it's in a whole other context if you step into the world of asexuality. All of a sudden it's expecting something that's in opposition to what's natural.

 

I don't want this to come across as flippant because I think I'm understanding, now, your mindset. Are you saying you want as a part of a marital relationship, as part of a marital expectation, another option: to stay together and have heartfelt sex like a marriage traditionally thrives upon?---especially for them to do it for you out of what is usually natural and expected of love and commitment and relationship and not out of the threat of leaving?  

 

I think the ability to relate from the point of view of an asexual made it hard to see past the fact that, to me, I just assumed it looks partially over---that it seems unlikely a sex life will still blossom out of it. Like a limb from the tree is already dead and gone. But I can see that all of that seemed such a fundamental assumption to myself, based on my own point of view, l that I didn't recognize I was assuming that. And it is just an assumption on my part.

 

But, yeah, as an asexual I would say it looks like a place that would be hard to come back from, sexually. That's where all of the stories come in about how hard it is to maintain a sex life when not personally into it. If you're not into the moment it's awkward positions and tedious exercises. So it's difficult for much to blossom from that but unhappiness and frustration.

 

Or are you saying you have accepted that you've lost an option and you are exercising your right to protest this in a marriage?