Jump to content

Sexual Entitlement in Asexual-Sexual Relationships


naturerhythms

Recommended Posts

On 12.03.2018 at 7:12 AM, vega57 said:

Maybe if we expanded our belief of what sex is, we might get a little bit farther in our 'quest'....?  

That’s an interesting idea. Actually, expanding the definition of sex could benefit quite some sexuals, too. For example, it could help negate the loophole, “I wasn’t cheating on you – I just gave him a blowjob!” or “I’ve never had sex – I’ve only had oral and anal”.

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

One of the biggest aspects of "sex" (putting in quotes for a reason...) is that it usually includes PIV (Penis In Vagina, for those who don't know) sex.

hah yeah I'd stiII be asexuaI if that's aII sex reaIIy was :P I have no interest in that. And Iesbians and gay guys wouId aII be virgins!

 

2 hours ago, vega57 said:

Forgive me for not responding until now, but I was out most of the day.

 

The difference between an asexual and a sexual is that an asexual has no sexual desire toward anyone.  So, to say that and asexual may like sex more than a sexual partner (I'm assuming you mean an LD sexual partner)

 

An asexual may offer sex to a LD sexual partner more than an LD partner may want it.  But the asexual doesn't do that because they "like" sex.  

 

If they actually "liked" sex, they wouldn't be asexual in the first place.  

 

ExactIy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturerhythms, you said "Hopefully, not too many of those who end up in relationships with sexual partners (at least ones who like sex regularly) fall into the "repulsed" category."

 

From what I've read on AVEN over about 10 years and what I've experienced as a lifelong asexual, most asexuals end up in the repulsed category after having sex over a period of time.  It simply becomes more impossible to, basically, put up  with something that you haven't wanted in the first place.  Since asexuality wasn't known years ago and many of us simply thought if we  just stuck with it, we'd "learn" to like it, now that we've recognized that we're asexual, it just hits us: why on earth am I forcing  myself to keep doing this?  I'm not messed up, I'm not abnormal, there are many others like me, and I'm tired of this."   And we tell our partners, and we stop.  Which of course causes a huge fuss in the relationship, and we get blamed for having lied  to our partner.   My partner finally realized that I hadn't lied, and we still  have a loving relationship without sex, but we're not 20 (or even 60) anymore.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Chimeric said:

Oh, no, I'm not asking this at all. For an ace person who's just been made to have sex with someone, there is no feeling of being more connected. Shoot, for a non-ace person who's just been made to have sex with someone, there is no feeling of being more connected. That feeling is within the allosexual individual who's just finished coercing/etc. his or her partner into sleeping with them. There is no doubt in my mind about that. The question comes from the idea that we would continually ask this scenario to occur.

That argumentation is rather lacking in nuance, which surprises me considering it's coming from you. If you're talking about literal coercion, we can close the discussion because then we've left the realm of healthy human interaction. But why would we even talk about that. Since that is such a preposturous thing to discuss, I was assuming that by "force" you meant the more subtle way any two humans who interact with each other pressure each other.

 

Simply by being with me, my partner is forced to consider my sexual needs. Even if I don't say a thing, just her awareness of those needs force her to take them into consideration. She may choose not to act on that. Or she may choose to do act on it. When she does the latter, I feel like we're more connected. That may be just on my side, but there's no reason to assume that she can not also feel more connected in those instances. In fact, there have been times when she explicitly said that she did.

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

I feel like we're more connected. That may be just on my side, but there's no reason to assume that she can not also feel more connected in those instances. 

Most asexuals do not feel any kind of connection from sex, in fact for many asexuals it drives a rift between any connection they feel. It makes you feel more alone (because your partner needs something that you do not want, and you give it to them to make them happy, but you've had to sacrifice your own comfort for them to have that happiness and that is NOT a good feeling). Sex for most asexuals is about as connecting as having to do a MASSIVE pile of very dirty dishes, with the dirt all baked on, and your partner is standing there not helping with the dishes but actively getting off and feeling really, really good watching you do them. Your partner NEEDS you to do this for them to be able to be happy. Imagine being in that situation, and think about how connected to your partner you'd feel during and after that even though you know you gave them something they need. That's what sex is like for most asexuals, though often it's easier at the start and gets harder as the relationship continues. Of course, the ace may lie to you to try to help you feel better and say they feel good afterwards, many are aware that it would just be cruel to give sex then say ''nah that actually sucked and I hated it'' - lies can be kinder in that situation even if you just had to do something that made you unhappy for the sake of the partner you're now lying to in the hopes they won't be unhappy.

 

19 minutes ago, Tarfeather said:

Simply by being with me, my partner is forced to consider my sexual needs.

Exactly, it might not be coercion in the sense that you're threatening her with violence or anything, but as they ace you still don't really have a choice but to know your partner needs something that you don't want, for them to be happy. Some asexuals choose to sacrifice their own happiness to give sex to their partner, or sometimes the sexual chooses to sacrifice their happiness to allow the ace to live in celibacy, but either way whichever partner is having to give up their needs is kind of being 'forced' into that situation unless they leave their relationship. That's the only 'real choice' available to anyone in this situation unfortunately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/03/2018 at 1:05 PM, FictoVore. said:

Difference is that an asexual will NEVER be 'in the mood for sex' for their own pleasure.

This does not appear to be entirely accurate for my ace. He does have sex for his own pleasure. In fact, that is the only reason he can have sex (PIV) - I am at best a maturbatory resource (this is crude, but more accurate) for what basically amounts to him being horny for his own reasons. For my pleasure, he will usually masturbate me - he will find it too stressful to attempt PIV, if at all he even can and he simply doesn't - and that is how I prefer it too.

 

I think women aces not having biological limitations may be able to accommodate sex that they don't want more easily. From my ace, I've seen that unless he is horny and wants sex for himself, he is usually not able to sustain an erection through the experience and has given up trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Hypothetically, what would be the difference between his approach to sex (shared by my wife, when she was interested in sex) and a selfish teenage sexual jock-type who was only interested in his own pleasure? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lara Black said:

That’s an interesting idea. Actually, expanding the definition of sex could benefit quite some sexuals, too. For example, it could help negate the loophole, “I wasn’t cheating on you – I just gave him a blowjob!” or “I’ve never has sex – I’ve only had oral and anal”.

LOL!  It's funny you mention this because it's kind of of why I started thinking about this in the first place!  

 

I think I mentioned before (months ago!) that there are some sexuals out there who would swear that they weren't cheating because even though they had intercourse with the affair partner, they used a condom...so it wasn't "really" intercourse, and hence, they didn't "really" cheat.  

 

But I agree that the 'loophole' could be closed if the "official" definition of sex stated something like, "...if there's any genital contact with at least one partner..."  

 

Wow.  I just thought of something...

 

Wouldn't the new definition almost be similar to what the definition of sexual harassment is...or even 'rape' is...but not presented in a negative way (such as, "unwanted" contact)?  

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

hah yeah I'd stiII be asexuaI if that's aII sex reaIIy was :P I have no interest in that. And Iesbians and gay guys wouId aII be virgins!

Yeah... I don't like the PIV = sex definition, really. Oral sex even has sex in the name! :lol:  Though, granted, most people aren't gonna say they had sex if they just give hand jobs.

 

 

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

Yeah... I don't like the PIV = sex definition, really. Oral sex even has sex in the name! :lol:  Though, granted, most people aren't gonna say they had sex if they just give hand jobs.

Yes but a husband is still going to feel like his wife cheated if she gave someone else a hand job (even if nothing else happened) and a wife will feel like her husband cheated if he met someone else give him a hand job!! It's a weird thing where a lot of people don't think it counts as sex, but it's still not something you do openly in a cafe in the same way you might shake someone's hand or even give them a quick hug and peck on the cheek.

 

Pretty much, as far as I'm concerned, sex is something done between two people for the purpose of the sexual stimulation of at least one person involved. I read that the idea that only PiV is real sex actually comes from old religious ideals that said anything other than PiV between a man and a woman is unnatural, even a man giving his wife oral (or vice versa) was considered sodomy/an unnatural sinful act for a while wasn't it? Pretty much if babies can't be made from it then you're bad and need to be punished!! This also meant they could punish homosexuals for literally any sex act Y_Y That idea (same with the idea that a girl will bleed on her first time - many do not) seems to have become part of cultural knowledge in a way that actually goes against reality in many ways. And back to the cheating, someone who says "a hand job isn't sex" almost certainly only applies that to themselves (like them getting one from a prostitute), but if their wife is giving other people handjobs then suddenly it's DEFINITELY sex!! Haha. When actually these ideas about "what's really sex" only stem from outdated religious ideals. 

 

Of course, a hand job won't satisfy many people sexually in the same way PiV would, but at the same time there are also people who are *more* sexually satisfied by say, giving someone else oral, or masturbating on someone else's feet or whatever. So it's not even just about overall satisfaction levels because  people have preferences for all sorts of different things.

 

Anyway, that wasn't at you specifically Serran, just a general musing regarding the definition of sex :P

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

I think I mentioned before (months ago!) that there are some sexuals out there who would swear that they weren't cheating because even though they had intercourse with the affair partner, they used a condom...so it wasn't "really" intercourse, and hence, they didn't "really" cheat.  

I've met people like this (my ex was one) and they only ever apply that standard to themselves and their mates, lol. They can have full penetrative sex with a condom and it 'doesnt count because I used a condom and didn't kiss her' BUT if their partner did the same thing with someone else then it's DEFINITELY sex and she's suddenly a 'dirty wh*re' and other awful names. Another common one is 'it doesn't count as sex because I don't have feelings for her, she's nothing to me' yet again, if their partner did the same thing (even with a stranger they'd never meet again so there's no feelings at all) it's still DEFINITELY sex all of a sudden. *sigh*.

 

I expanded more on my ideas about this in my response to Serran if you want to know my thoughts on the matter. I think of religious ideals have a lot to answer for when it comes to how we define sex. That, and people who only apply certain standards  of 'what constitutes sex' to themselves so they can get away with cheating (and even turn it around on their partner saying she's/he's being a psycho for being upset because 'it didn't even count as sex'), but as soon as their partner does that same thing then it's DEFINITELY sex. Lol!

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

This does not appear to be entirely accurate for my ace. He does have sex for his own pleasure. In fact, that is the only reason he can have sex (PIV) - I am at best a maturbatory resource (this is crude, but more accurate) for what basically amounts to him being horny for his own reasons. For my pleasure, he will usually masturbate me - he will find it too stressful to attempt PIV, if at all he even can and he simply doesn't - and that is how I prefer it too.

 

I think women aces not having biological limitations may be able to accommodate sex that they don't want more easily. From my ace, I've seen that unless he is horny and wants sex for himself, he is usually not able to sustain an erection through the experience and has given up trying.

How is that different than a regular sexual person (let's say a selfish teenage jock, like Tele's example) who is literally only interested in their own pleasure? Whenever you describe your partner and his sexual motivation, the things you say sound very similar to actual sexual people I have met (and even had sex with) in my life, your partner just seems to have a lower libido/motivation so it's not as often, and he will at least masturbate you if he's not in the mood (again, aces do that - it's just not also combined with a desire to have sex for their own pleasure sometimes). What is it about him that actually makes him asexual if he does desire and enjoy sex, but only when HE wants it? Using a human as a masturbation aid sounds exactly like my ex and he definitely wasn't asexual (though some people have tried to suggest that to me here in the past Y_Y). Low sex drive, and a lack of an emotional connection to sex (though still wanting it for pleasure sometimes) doesn't automatically make someone asexual. It's a lack of desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure that makes someone asexual. I disagree with the sexual attraction definition of asexuality (because it leads people to think asexuals  can love and want sex) but even AVEN defines sexual attraction as 'the desire for partnered sexual contact with someone else' so the definition OF their definition is at least correct. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Since @anamikanon isn't apart to be around, I'll offer my take, based entirely on what my wife's said. 

 

The difference is that an asexual wouldn't much care if it was partnered sex to get them off or not, whereas the jock would, but only in an objectifying or notch on a bedpost way. He might boast about the conquest, but would feel dissatisfied if he'd had to have a wank instead. The asexual would view it as a happy coincidence that their partner got something out of it as well, whereas the jock would assume their partner did, or if they didn't, it would be her own fault, or just that women don't like sex anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Since @anamikanon isn't apart to be around, I'll offer my take, based entirely on what my wife's said. 

 

The difference is that an asexual wouldn't much care if it was partnered sex to get them off or not, whereas the jock would, but only in an objectifying or notch on a bedpost way. He might boast about the conquest, but would feel dissatisfied if he'd had to have a wank instead. The asexual would view it as a happy coincidence that their partner got something out of it as well, whereas the jock would assume their partner did, or if they didn't, it would be her own fault, or just that women don't like sex anyway. 

I'm guessing it's more a ...

 

"My libido is active. I would usually just masturbate, but since you want sex, want to do that instead to satisfy it so you get something out of it?" Rather than a "my libido is active, I would prefer sex, so want to do it? If not, I'll just go masturbate to deal with it." 

 

Is that right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
29 minutes ago, Serran said:

I'm guessing it's more a ...

 

"My libido is active. I would usually just masturbate, but since you want sex, want to do that instead to satisfy it so you get something out of it?" Rather than a "my libido is active, I would prefer sex, so want to do it? If not, I'll just go masturbate to deal with it." 

 

Is that right? 

Yes. More or less the same thing really. 

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

Another common one is 'it doesn't count as sex because I don't have feelings for her, she's nothing to me' yet again, if their partner did the same thing (even with a stranger they'd never meet again so there's no feelings at all) it's still DEFINITELY sex all of a sudden. *sigh*.

 

*Spits 'adult beverage' all over the computer screen*  LOLOLOL!

 

OMG!  I completely forgot about that "rationale"!  

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

It's a lack of desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure that makes someone asexual. 

Ficto, I've seen you use this definition um-teen times, and I never really questioned it...

 

...until now.  

 

When you say, "it's the lack of desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure", can I assume that the definition of a sexual is, (in part), "to connect sexually with other people for pleasure"?  

 

I think (a dangerous thing for me at this time of day, lol) I'm wondering what "to connect sexually" means.  Are we talking about slapping sexual body parts together, slapping body parts together with an emotional connection or all of the above?  

 

It's obviously known that some sexuals can have sex on strictly a physical level.  While they may have a 'connection' to the sex they're having (kind of like and ego stroke for example; the idea that they may have talked someone into having sex with them, even though they have no 'feelings' for the person),they may feel no 'emotional connection' to the person they're having sex with.  

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

Of course, the ace may lie to you to try to help you feel better and say they feel good afterwards, many are aware that it would just be cruel to give sex then say ''nah that actually sucked and I hated it'' -

OMG!!  ROFLMAO!!!

 

I almost want to have sex again just to TELL my sexual partner this!!!!!!!!

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

How is that different than a regular sexual person (let's say a selfish teenage jock, like Tele's example) who is literally only interested in their own pleasure?

Well, one big difference would be that he is still interested in my pleasure, unlike a selfish partner. He will often simply remove my hand from him and masturbate me instead. There is no selfishness or even a desire for me to hurry up and finish or something. He can patiently give me all the orgasms I want without wanting it "over" as long as he is left alone. A selfish partner generally doesn't participate in your pleasure if they aren't interested in sex.

 

Quote

Whenever you describe your partner and his sexual motivation, the things you say sound very similar to actual sexual people I have met (and even had sex with) in my life, your partner just seems to have a lower libido/motivation so it's not as often, and he will at least masturbate you if he's not in the mood (again, aces do that - it's just not also combined with a desire to have sex for their own pleasure sometimes).

I have been with my partner and I have been with sexual people. There is no mistaking the difference. He has low libido, yes, but even with libido, he usually doesn't have sex on his mind AT ALL. As in not even comprehension beyond the basic pleasure of an orgasm. His own orgasm is his own thing and doesn't particularly make him feel close to me - masturbating me is actually more likely to achieve that, because on his end it is more of a loving touch than sex.

 

Aces do masturbate. In fact, there are entire threads on what sort of porn they prefer and so on. He has sex with me instead... because I suppose it is the only way we can have sex and he does want that for me.

 

Quote

What is it about him that actually makes him asexual if he does desire and enjoy sex, but only when HE wants it?

um... because it is fairly obvious and has been right from the start that he doesn't "get" sex? I don't see the point in the two of us arguing about him being asexual, because neither of us can speak first hand of what he experiences or doesn't, except to say that from what I see, he has low libido, he doesn't understand sex much at all, he genuinely does not appear to see masturbation as a sexual act for example - I defy any sexual to see masturbation in a non-sexual way. We just aren't wired like that. It is an intimate, sexual act, regardless of who is getting masturbated. The happy result for us does seem to be that I can ask to be masturbated as often as I like, and it doesn't bother him as asking for sex when he didn't feel mentally ok for it would, because he genuinely does it with all the warmth and love he gives me a back rub with. It would be hilarious, if it weren't so... awwww. His approach to sex is nowhere near as warm and caring and personal.

 

He also has other psychological issues that sort of tie in with this - alexythimia, for example. He is not able to sense his own or other's emotions easily and is very rarely able to express emotion - if ever. He literally can describe a relationship in a most pragmatic way, including saying things like "sometimes I wanted company so bad, I could literally feel it as a physical thing" but recognizing that as "loneliness" is beyond him. You ask him how he feels, and the reply is "alright" - whether something that thrilled him happened and he's bouncing off walls in excitement or whether something that would devastate him happened and he's all huddled into himself. Push him to really reply how he feels and the reply is more likely to be "hungry", "sleepy", "stomach upset" than "happy" "sad" "excited"

 

His awareness of himself is flakey overall. Sex is just one part of the jigsaw.

 

Quote

Using a human as a masturbation aid sounds exactly like my ex and he definitely wasn't asexual (though some people have tried to suggest that to me here in the past Y_Y).

Woman, your ex was a douche. There is no comparison here. Not to mention, there have been rare instances when he was in the mood and I wasn't, and we didn't have sex. I probably thought about the refusal longer than he did. He simply shrugged and moved on with life without a second thought to the missing sex. See your ex pulling that off?

 

Quote

Low sex drive, and a lack of an emotional connection to sex (though still wanting it for pleasure sometimes) doesn't automatically make someone asexual.

Last I checked, recognizing yourself asexual makes you one. He did that before I ever called him asexual, though the writing was on the wall always. His poor awareness of himself didn't get around to seeing it for this long. I saw it, but didn't see a need to label it till he felt the need. Either way, the impact of it on our relationship is the same, what we do about it remains the same.

 

Tomorrow, if he "disqualified" as an asexual because of some official definition not allowing people who enjoyed sex, our reality would not change.

 

Quote

It's a lack of desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure that makes someone asexual. I disagree with the sexual attraction definition of asexuality (because it leads people to think asexuals  can love and want sex) but even AVEN defines sexual attraction as 'the desire for partnered sexual contact with someone else' so the definition OF their definition is at least correct. 

I have said this several times. He is not able to feel desire for another person. Me included. There is no question of "connecting sexually". He is not able to. In fact, he probably desires he could. Perhaps desiring to makes him disqualify, whether he can or not. Or something. Your scepticism is really puzzling. He calls himself asexual. I've seen him first hand, know him probably better than he knows himself (given his alexithymia) and I can't dispute that he is probably as he says - asexual. You read some descriptions and no matter how many times it is clarified, you don't think he's real, because your experience disagrees - and you actually turned out to not be asexual. Is it possible that your "experience" of being asexual may not be accurate enough to disqualify others?

 

I am sorry if this sounds irritated, but seriously, the number of times you've brought this up has stopped being funny.

 

And frankly, for practical purposes, it does not matter. It is what it is. We manage. Keep the label. He's sexual. Happy?

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

Ficto, I've seen you use this definition um-teen times, and I never really questioned it...

 

...until now.  

 

When you say, "it's the lack of desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure", can I assume that the definition of a sexual is, (in part), "to connect sexually with other people for pleasure"?  

 

I think (a dangerous thing for me at this time of day, lol) I'm wondering what "to connect sexually" means.  Are we talking about slapping sexual body parts together, slapping body parts together with an emotional connection or all of the above?  

 

It's obviously known that some sexuals can have sex on strictly a physical level.  While they may have a 'connection' to the sex they're having (kind of like and ego stroke for example; the idea that they may have talked someone into having sex with them, even though they have no 'feelings' for the person),they may feel no 'emotional connection' to the person they're having sex with.  

 I mean that for sexual people, there is a desire to have sexual intimacy (for sexual and/or emotional pleasure) with certain people under specific circumstances. That's the one thing that ALL sexual people have in common,regardless of how or why they choose certain sexual partners over others and what KIND of sex they like.

 

I use the term 'to connect sexually' quite often because when we had a MASSIVE definition debate here years ago, people were saying that just saying 'to have sex' implies only PiV, where as to 'connect sexually' implies all sorts of different sex acts regardless of gender or orientation. 'Sex' being any partnered act involving the stimulation of at least one persons genitals for the sexual and/or emotional pleasure of both parties involved (or at the very least, ONE of the people involved).

 

Obviously people argue and say that the definition of sexual orientations is about sexual attraction and has nothing to do with who you desire sexual intimacy with, but watch what happens to a man who walks into a gay bar and says "I'm gay but I only desire sexual intimacy with women. I get nothing out of sex with men so never want to have it, but I couldn't be happy if I couldn't have sex with women".. they'll tell him he's not gay, at the very least, and probably throw him out of the bar as well. Because when it comes to defining sexual orientations who you desire partnered sex with is what's important. If you're sexual, you'll have a desire to connect sexually with certain other people under specific circumstances at least sometimes. The direction of that desire, your innate preferences as to whom you have sex with, that's your orientation (hetero, homo, bi, etc).

 

The desire to connect sexually with others can be just about the physical act of sex, just about the emotional intimacy, or most commonly a mixture of both. The word 'connect' is more there to identify the fact that it's TWO people together as opposed to one person alone. If that makes sense?

 

And yes, I have academic material that supports many the things I've said here, I just don't link it every time I make a comment like this as it's going to be a huge mission to get it all together. I need to start a thread with all the material that I have and link it in my signature or something so that people can read further.. just so they don't have to take my word alone for the things I am saying :)

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

I'm guessing it's more a ...

 

"My libido is active. I would usually just masturbate, but since you want sex, want to do that instead to satisfy it so you get something out of it?" Rather than a "my libido is active, I would prefer sex, so want to do it? If not, I'll just go masturbate to deal with it." 

 

Is that right? 

Yes. If he is horny, he'd like to get off. He knows I like sex and it is pretty much the only way we can have it, so he will initiate sex. Not to mention my interest in sex actually gives me skills with his body Mr. Clueless never bothered to learn for himself :P So I suppose if I'm around, I am better than he is at masturbating him as well - with any part of my body :P Which gives me an edge on the preference front (or maybe he says that to make me feel better - but I'll take it). It is still about the sensation being pleasurable enough to get off rather than any attraction to me, unless rating higher than porn or erotica counts.

 

But at the end of the day, it is the difference between watching porn to get off and porn actually being able to appear on your browser at will without you browsing to it and make you horny. He can enjoy sex with me if he is in the mood for sex. That doesn't mean I can seduce him - that won't work. Half the time he won't realize I'm seducing him, remaining half the time he'll wish I didn't.

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

 I mean that for sexual people, there is a desire to have sexual intimacy (for sexual and/or emotional pleasure) with certain people under specific circumstances. That's the one thing that ALL sexual people have in common,regardless of how or why they choose certain sexual partners over others and what KIND of sex they like.

O.k.....but, what is sexual "intimacy"?  I'm thinking along the lines of a 'john' seeking out a prostitute...or the teenage jock who wants another 'notch' on his baseball bat...

 

Quote

I use the term 'to connect sexually' quite often because when we had a MASSIVE definition debate here years ago, people were saying that just saying 'to have sex' implies only PiV, where as to 'connect sexually' implies all sorts of different sex acts regardless of gender or orientation. 'Sex' being any partnered act involving the stimulation of at least one persons genitals for the sexual and/or emotional pleasure of both parties involved (or at the very least, ONE of the people involved).

I get that.  I just wasn't (and still not...) sure about what the "connection" is.  I mean, I could have sex with someone, and they could have sex with me, but even though we're physically 'connected' (through PIV for example), that is, body parts touching the other's body parts, we may not be emotionally 'connected'.  

 

Quote

Obviously people argue and say that the definition of sexual orientations is about sexual attraction and has nothing to do with who you desire sexual intimacy with, but watch what happens to a man who walks into a gay bar and says "I'm gay but I only desire sexual intimacy with women. I get nothing out of sex with men so never want to have it, but I couldn't be happy if I couldn't have sex with women".. they'll tell him he's not gay, at the very least, and probably throw him out of the bar as well. Because when it comes to defining sexual orientations who you desire partnered sex with is what's important. If you're sexual, you'll have a desire to connect sexually with certain other people under specific circumstances at least sometimes. The direction of that desire, your innate preferences as to whom you have sex with, that's your orientation (hetero, homo, bi, etc).

Once again *scratches head*, I don't get what the "connection" is.  From the bottom of my heart stone cold thorny heart :lol: or put you on the spot, I'm really, really REALLY trying to wrap my head around what this "connection" is all about.  

 

Quote

The desire to connect sexually with others can be just about the physical act of sex, just about the emotional intimacy, or most commonly a mixture of both. The word 'connect' is more there to identify the fact that it's TWO people together as opposed to one person alone. If that makes sense?

Damn!  I should have read ahead to this before responding like I did before!  :lol:  *note to self-  Read the ENTIRE post before posting!*

 

And yeah, it makes sense...to a point.  

 

I mean, ONE of the two people involved can be "connecting" ONLY on a physical level (to 'get off' with someone because it's 'better' than masturbating) while the other may want...or believe...that there's an emotional 'connection' between the two...

 

...which makes it seem like there's not real 'connection' at all!   Or, at least, that there's some disconnection at a certain junction...

 

Quote

And yes, I have academic material that supports many the things I've said here, I just don't link it every time I make a comment like this as it's going to be a huge mission to get it all together. I need to start a thread with all the material that I have and link it in my signature or something so that people can read further.. just so they don't have to take my word alone for the things I am saying :)

Oh, I believe you.  I'm not challenging what you're saying, per se.  I already know that you're very thorough in what you talk about.  I'm just trying to understand what the "connection" is.  

 

I honestly don't believe that everyone who is having sex THIS moment of THIS day is "connecting" on the same level as their sexual partner.  And if they aren't, is there really a "connection"...at all?  

 

ETA:  I'm sorry, Ficto.  I'm probably not explaining myself 'right'.  J-j-j-just IGNORE me, k?  :lol:  And...

 

...carry on!  

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vega57 sexual mismatches are common. About two thirds of sexual relationships have some kind of mismatch or the other, usually related with libido or an emotional falling apart. In my view, (and observation of an ace) the difference would be the instinctive reaction to the idea of sex itself. The ones who think of it as something between themselves and another person are sexual. The mental image. My partner lacks it. His view of sex is more abstract or related to the sensations of his own body than it being something he does with someone else. Even when he does it with me often enough that he should remember. lol.

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

O.k.....but, what is sexual "intimacy"?  I'm thinking along the lines of a 'john' seeking out a prostitute...or the teenage jock who wants another 'notch' on his baseball bat...

Any sex act with another person! (and you're right, it's not always about intimacy, the emotional kind anyway) :)

 

38 minutes ago, vega57 said:

 I just wasn't (and still not...) sure about what the "connection" is.

Like when I worked at the brothel, the body of every man I had to have sex with was connecting to my body in some way. Like, touching. And if two people are on opposite sides of the room masturbating while looking at each other (or on Skype cam) they're still having sex TOGETHER even if their bodies aren't physically connected. You know how someone might say ''I connected with an old friend over coffee'', that means they were WITH that friend (whether in person or over Skype or whatever) and had coffee with them. Take away the coffee and replace it with sex, and that's what I mean by 'connection' in this context, haha. Two people, having sex together instead of coffee :P

 

38 minutes ago, vega57 said:

but even though we're physically 'connected' (through PIV for example), that is, body parts touching the other's body parts, we may not be emotionally 'connected'.  

Yes for some people you're physically 'connected' (as in, your bodies are touching) but there is no emotional connection, like me at the brothel. For some, it's a lot more about the emotional connection (like if you're having sex with your partner in text, the emotional aspect of that connection is really all there is!!) and for many more, it's a mixture of both. But the 'connection' was just trying to emphasize that there's two people involved instead of just one person alone (because then there would be no connection, haha)

 

38 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Damn!  I should have read ahead to this before responding like I did before!  :lol:  *note to self-  Read the ENTIRE post before posting!*

ahaha I just did the same thing, I was responding to you as I read your comment instead of reading it first, fail :P

 

38 minutes ago, vega57 said:

.which makes it seem like there's not real 'connection' at all!   Or, at least, that there's some disconnection at a certain junction

Yes I do agree, but at the same time most people who actively desire partnered sex desire it for some form of connection, be that just the physical pleasure of having someone else stimulate your body, or the emotional aspects of that partnered connection, or more often a mixture of both!

 

38 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Oh, I believe you.  I'm not challenging what you're saying, per se.  I already know that you're very thorough in what you talk about.  I'm just trying to understand what the "connection" is.

Haha yeah I know you're not really challenging me, I just thought I better put that as a disclaimer in case Pramana jumps in again and says I'm trying to spread propaganda because I have no academic resources to back up my claims. Sexual experience should be enough of a resource, but I made sure to get the academic material supporting my claims just in case :P 

 

38 minutes ago, vega57 said:

I honestly don't believe that everyone who is having sex THIS moment of THIS day is "connecting" on the same level as their sexual partner.  And if they aren't, is there really a "connection"...at all?

The way I try to word my definition of 'sexual' is usually along the lines of ''someone who has a varying level of desire to connect sexually with certain other people (for sexual and/or emotional pleasure) under certain circumstances''.. so that doesn't mean there is a connection every time, just that sometimes someone may desire that connection (ie: to have some form of sex with another person) for pleasure on some level, be that physical or emotional or a mixture of the two! And if they 'like' sex enough to actively want to have it with other people under some circumstances (even if only rarely) then that's not asexual (because asexual is: ''having no desire to connect sexually with other people for sexual and/or emotional pleasure, ever'').

 

Hope that cleared things up for you, though it may have just made them more confusing :P

 

edit: wow I didn't notice the epic tongue-face spam until I posted this comment, haha

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

Woman

Call the gender police, you didn't ask my pronoun preferences.

 

Lol jokes, I was just recently arguing about pronouns with someone in a different thread.

 

1 hour ago, anamikanon said:

Last I checked, recognizing yourself asexual makes you one.

Well, that depends on who you talk to. You can call yourself a pink fluffy banana until the cows come home but unless I see proof that you're a pink fluffy banana I'm going to be veeerery dubious for your claims. Jokes aside, it's relatively common for people who come here to be confused about what constitutes 'regular' sexuality, they base their asexuality around that lack of understanding, whereas if they didn't have that confusion they would have known they weren't ace. So just saying you're something certainly doesn't make you that thing automatically. These kinds of labels have definitions for a reasons, but that's a different topic.

 

1 hour ago, anamikanon said:

He did that before I ever called him asexual

 

1 hour ago, anamikanon said:

Your scepticism is really puzzling.

 

He's not here for me to ask him these questions though (which I would), hence why I end up asking you. If you're here speaking for him, while claiming he enjoys sex, you do need to be prepared to spend time explaining that stance as thoroughly as possible to avoid confusion. It's very common for people who absolutely love sex and couldn't be happy without it to identify as asexual based solely on hearing people say 'asexuals can enjoy sex'. People like me are here to ensure the ace label keeps its integrity and doesn't just become a free-for-all for anyone who wants a 'cool' sounding label. If homosexuality had been treated like that when people were beginning to become aware of it then it never would have been taken seriously. Homosexual people have more rights and respect now due to the fact that people were able to understand what it actually means to be gay it's not a mental disorder, not something that can be 'fixed', means you desire sexual intimacy with people of the same gender, etc etc). If 'gay' could be anything you want it to be, no matter who you desired sex with, then gay rights would never have come as far as they have (though in many places a lot more acceptance is still needed of course). I ask these things for the clarification of OTHER PEOPLE who are reading, because many prefer to remain lurkers or are just guests, and there are plenty more who have these same questions (or get confused over some of your comments) but are too scared to speak up. I ask for clarification for their sake, and for the sake of asexuality visibility and education.

 

1 hour ago, anamikanon said:

You read some descriptions and no matter how many times it is clarified, you don't think he's real, because your experience disagrees - and you actually turned out to not be asexual. Is it possible that your "experience" of being asexual may not be accurate enough to disqualify others?

Yet again with people claiming you're literally denying the existence of a whole human being just because you disagree with some things they've said. Did I at any point say I think you're lying about the existence of your boyfriend and that he doesn't exist? No.

 

You don't know me very well, but I have clarified many, many times here that some asexuals are capable of experiencing physical pleasure as a result of the stimulation of their genitals. No, not all can, but some do (in the same way some rape victims orgasm during an attack. No, I am not comparing sex with an asexual to rape, I'm just saying it's possible to have an orgasm even if you don't want the sex for your own pleasure). The reason we got onto this topic again was because you responded to me disagreeing with my statement that asexuals do not get 'in the mood' for partnered sexual intimacy for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasure. You said:

 

10 hours ago, anamikanon said:

This does not appear to be entirely accurate for my ace. He does have sex for his own pleasure.

Yet what you actually MEANT was that he can get aroused and have sex with you as opposed to masturbating because he knows you want that sex. It's a SACRIFICE he makes for the sake of your relationship, even though he can experience pleasure from the sensations. If you had no interest in having sex, he would just masturbate to get rid of arousal because he doesn't have an innate desire to instigate partnered sexual intimacy for himself, he does it for you.  The way you worded it though was more like ''when he gets horny he just uses my body for his pleasure'' which did NOT accurately or thoroughly explain the situation, hence why I responded the way I did. Now you have clarified, which will hopefully have helped other people reading to better understand what is actually being said here, because it's certainly nowhere near as basic as 'my partner does want sex for his own pleasure, he just using me like a sex toy' (which is different than asexuality).

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

You read some descriptions and no matter how many times it is clarified, you don't think he's real, because your experience disagrees - and you actually turned out to not be asexual. Is it possible that your "experience" of being asexual may not be accurate enough to disqualify others?

Just to clarify this part for others reading, I have spoken with hundreds of asexuals on AVEN over the years, and anyone who knows me will know I don't do 'casual' discussions. I am speaking of very in-depth discussions spanning many hundreds of pages of forum posts. I am NOT basing any of my opinions solely on my own personal experience, though I do have enough experience with both sexuality and asexuality to have a thorough understanding of this topic. These discussions were also undertaken with many sexual partners who had, at the time, been active in the asexual community for years, so it wasn't just asexuls whose experiences I was/am basing my conclusions from. I also was 'functionally' asexual, for all intents and purposes (including having a fully asexual relationship for 18 months) until the age of 28, at which point I discovered I could enjoy some forms of partnered sexual intimacy enough to choose to have them for my own pleasure. This is when I stopped identifying as asexual. This does not in any way discredit any of the knowledge I have surrounding the subject.

 

People also are free to disagree with me. There are a few different schools of thought regarding what actually constitutes asexuality, and I belong to only one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
naturerhythms
On 3/11/2018 at 8:58 PM, vega57 said:

The difference between an asexual and a sexual is that an asexual has no sexual desire toward anyone.  So, to say that an asexual may like sex more than a sexual partner (I'm assuming you mean an LD sexual partner), isn't really accurate.  

 

An asexual may offer sex to a LD sexual partner more than an LD partner may want it.  But the asexual doesn't do that because they "like" sex.  

 

If they actually "liked" sex, they wouldn't be asexual in the first place.  

This is exactly what I thought for a while, so I can appreciate your statement. It's one of the reasons I put an entire section discussing the differences b/t attraction, desire, libido, and arousal in the book, even at risk of boring some people. Even so, a number of people criticized the book out of fear that the original cover/subtitle alone would perpetuate the myth that asexuals never like sex. It's one of the reasons we revised it and released a new edition.

 

This quote is from a one-star Amazon review of the book's first edition, that 36 people voted as helpful: "asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction. Nothing more, nothing less. Asexuality has nothing to do with desire for sex. Asexuals can enjoy sex."

 

This quote is from another that got 43 helpful votes: "some asexuals even have and enjoy sex"

 

And another: "Written by someone who is an aphobe and doesn’t understand that we asexuals do not want sex. RESPECT OUR WISHES."

 

There is a small but very vocal % of people who identify as asexual (not gray or demi, but simply as asexual), who do not experience attraction, but who say that they do like sex . Attraction and desire seem to be connected for most people, but occasionally they're not. Related to this earlier I quoted the following from the 2015 Asexual Census report: "7.5% of the ace respondents had a favorable feeling about personal engagement in sex." I don't have time to check right now, but the earlier censuses had a more detailed breakout for that question (split into asexual, gray, demi). While the % was, not surprisingly, smaller for the asexual category, there was still a small % who have a favorable view of themselves having sex.

 

There still seems to be a range of opinions among the asexual community as to who should be calling themselves asexual vs. being in one of the other categories. I simply hope it gets clarified and worked out among the asexual community, because it does create a *lot* of confusion. In the meantime, I'm just doing my best to work with the definitions that seem to have the broadest consensus. If you want to get other input on this, try posting the statement "asexuals cannot like sex" on the Facebook Asexuality group, and see what kind of responses result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
naturerhythms
On 3/11/2018 at 9:12 PM, vega57 said:

Maybe if we expanded our belief of what sex is, we might get a little bit farther in our 'quest'....?  

Totally agreed. Just a few thoughts (which I also discuss in the book) are focusing on the full body, not being overly goal-driven by orgasm, and learning a bit about what Tantric and Taoist approaches to sex have to offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
naturerhythms
On 3/11/2018 at 11:27 PM, Lara Black said:

Actually, expanding the definition of sex could benefit quite some sexuals, too.

Very true! I appreciate terms like "outercourse" (just one of many examples) that are less heteronormative and open up the range of connective options for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, naturerhythms said:

Totally agreed. Just a few thoughts (which I also discuss in the book) are focusing on the full body, not being overly goal-driven by orgasm, and learning a bit about what Tantric and Taoist approaches to sex have to offer.

There's also a method you may want to look into (f you haven't already done so) called "karezza".  Karezza has a website and some of the discussions are interesting.

 

https://www.reuniting.info/wisdom/what_is_karezza

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...