Jump to content

Is she ....


Roanch

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Roanch said:

she gave up on us.

Sounding very much like your next move will have to be solo. Whether being reconciled to your situation or initiating a discussion/notice that you'd meet your sexual needs elsewhere or divorcing.

 

From what you describe of her family, it appears that she may simply never have been exposed to physical demonstrations of affection and operates on a transactional level. Regardless, as someone on the receiving end of her relationship preferences, you are the last person on the planet who could influence a change in that. This is difficult to give the reasoning for, but it is my observation. Someone in a position of disadvantage/powerlessness in a relationship cannot directly influence change in the dynamic. Or at least it is very hard and I have not seen it happen. One of the reasons why you need counsellors, because it takes a third authoritative party to state thingsfor the dominant person to listen.

 

About the question of whether people sleep in separate beds. Some do, others don't. Most of those who do are loving relationships. Most of those who don't generally lack other affectionate touches between the couple as well - of course, exceptions exist. My grandparents died with my grandmother in her late eighties and my grandfather in his nineties. I was born after he retired, so I don't have almost any memories of them being apart. They slept together in the same bed every single night they were under the same roof. As a young child, I have co slept with them next to my grandmother, but never between them.

 

My parents usually slept separate - and theirs was a terrible relationship.

 

My ace sleeps with me if we are in the same home, and if he were not sleeping with me, it would immediately feel like a dramatic downgrade in our relationship from the loss of intimacy. When we went through a bad patch and I was contemplating asking him to sleep in his own room (because I was frustrated and kept getting attracted and restless - there are some posts here too about it), I couldn't go through with it. When he came to know I contemplated it, his exact words were "I would prefer to have sex till my dick falls off rather than lose the right to sleep next to you". If sexual frustration can make me want distance between us, he will do all he can to ensure I never feel it. Even if he is ace. - of course, he is never pressured for sex, and he knows it too, but it was a statement of the importance he places on being able to sleep next to me.

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

They'd have left it for  20 years, with their regular checkups highlighting it? Come off it. 

Excuse me?  

 

Look, I had a female friend who was HIGHLY sexual.  Known her since we were 12.  But when she started having headaches at 53 years old, sex was the LAST thing on her mind.  She didn't want to feel better so she could "have sex again".  She wanted to feel better so she could LIVE again.  Yes, having sex was included...but it wasn't the MOST important reason WHY she wanted to "feel better".  

 

Alas, she was diagnosed with an advanced form of brain cancer, and passed away 8 months later.  

 

During her last days, sex was NOT on her mind...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Eight months. And that's a brain tumour, not pain associated with sex. 

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

That is sooooo untrue.  

 

Being a sexual woman does NOT mean that your ONLY priority or even MAJOR priority in life is sex.  You may have family, work, children, church, friends, and they can ALL become priorities over sex many times over.  

My sexual relationship with my ace started when he showed a romantic interest in me, and I was unsure of reciprocating, because toward the end, sex with my ex-husband had been painful. I was fairly certain it was because I was sex repulsed (it was marital rape) and he was rough, but I couldn't be certain.

 

So. We had sex to find out. I was not at all aroused. In fact, at that point, I wasn't even attracted sexually, only emotionally. He was a virgin and him initiating sex was out of the question (he's also ace, remember). Our first sexual experience was initiated in a pretty cold blooded "let us first find out if I can even handle having sex again before I get around to considering a relationship".

 

But knowing whether I could have sex or not without pain was important enough to engage in sex and find out and I would have seeked treatment if it hadn't worked. Period. It worked, different matter. 

 

As a sexual, I assure you, it is important. A sexual wants sex. A problem in that area will either be suffered through or treated. I don't know of any sexual woman who suffered pain to the point of having to reuse sex and didn't bother to have it treated. It does not work like that.

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

Excuse me?  

 

Look, I had a female friend who was HIGHLY sexual.  Known her since we were 12.  But when she started having headaches at 53 years old, sex was the LAST thing on her mind.  She didn't want to feel better so she could "have sex again".  She wanted to feel better so she could LIVE again.  Yes, having sex was included...but it wasn't the MOST important reason WHY she wanted to "feel better".  

 

Alas, she was diagnosed with an advanced form of brain cancer, and passed away 8 months later.  

 

During her last days, sex was NOT on her mind...

Sometimes I don't know whether you are that clueless about distinctions in sexual situations, or whether you are pulling our leg. [where is an eyeroll emoticon when I need one?]

 

In case you were serious, pain from a brain tumor is not caused by sex or prevents sex, for that matter, if there is desire, which there wasn't with your friend.

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

My sexual relationship with my ace started when he showed a romantic interest in me, and I was unsure of reciprocating, because toward the end, sex with my ex-husband had been painful. I was fairly certain it was because I was sex repulsed (it was marital rape) and he was rough, but I couldn't be certain.

OMG...

 

I hear/read crap like this, and my first instinct is to wanna GRAP their 'attacker' by the throat and 'squeeze'....

 

Quote

So. We had sex to find out. I was not at all aroused. In fact, at that point, I wasn't even attracted sexually, only emotionally. He was a virgin and him initiating sex was out of the question (he's also ace, remember). Our first sexual experience was initiated in a pretty cold blooded "let us first find out if I can even handle having sex again before I get around to considering a relationship".

So, sex was the priority; the rest of the relationship was not.... ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, anamikanon said:

Sometimes I don't know whether you are that clueless about distinctions in sexual situations, or whether you are pulling our leg. [where is an eyeroll emoticon when I need one?]

 

In case you were serious, pain from a brain tumor is not caused by sex or prevents sex, for that matter, if there is desire, which there wasn't with your friend.

No, not clueless.  And, I never said it was.  

 

Pain from the tumor wasn't caused by sex, and I never alluded to that.  Pain OVER RIDED her desire for sex.  Pain can distract (some of) us from the mere thought of sex.  

 

It doesn't have to be intense pain.  It can be this dull ache in the back of your head.  Yeah, you may be able to function to a point.  But not to the point you'd LIKE to be able to function.  

 

And, it's CONSTANTLY on your mind.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vega57 said:

So, sex was the priority; the rest of the relationship was not.... ?

We were already in a friendly relationship. He wanted more. He was way ahead of me when it came to falling in love. I cared about him, but to have a more intimate relationship, I don't have a concept of limited relationships. I knew I'd be horny, and if I couldn't handle it because of pain, it would definitely be a problem. At that time I assumed it would be a problem for both of us. We didn't know he was ace. But regardless, it would be a problem for me if I couldn't have sex without pain!

 

I suppose we could have tried a QPR type thing, and he, frankly even said that he didn't care if we never had sex because I found it painful. I didn't want a relationship like that! For me, sex is intimacy!!! I would want it and I would be frustrated even if he was being "noble" (as I thought of it at that time, and probably he too). I definitely wanted to know where I stood in terms of what I could promise in a relationship.

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

OMG...

 

I hear/read crap like this, and my first instinct is to wanna GRAP their 'attacker' by the throat and 'squeeze'....

I'd have screwed his happiness if it weren't for my innocent son also being his biological son. I really don't do martyr well, and being forced into the role did nothing for my temperament.

 

Quote

So, sex was the priority; the rest of the relationship was not.... ?

Another attempt to explain this.

 

For a sexual, there isn't sex and rest of relationship. It is one whole. As I said in the other thread, "intimacy" is the closest you can pleasurably get with a partner, even though all closeness is enjoyed. For a sexual, it is sex. It isn't like sex is the priority and the relationship is not, it is more like sex intensifies the entire state of the relationship - from shared glances across the room to evening walks. Completely non-sexual activities. But how I experience them, how they matter to me, how much I enjoy them, EVERYTHING will be far more pleasurable to me with a partner I have sex with, than someone I don't.

 

It adds a zing to the relationship, for lack of a better description. Everything is vivid. Better. So what you call "rest of the relationship"... rest of the relationship will feel better when we are having sex than not. Even if it is exactly the same. And frankly, sometimes even if the sex itself is not that fantastic. Not even sure if that makes sense to an ace. It is like a romantic dinner being more fun with someone you cuddle than someone you shake hands with. Even if the menu and restaurant is the same. Heck, even if the person is same, except one dinner is when your relationship didn't include cuddles and when it did. That person is closer. It is the role the person plays in your life that is more important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, anamikanon said:

For a sexual, there isn't sex and rest of relationship. It is one whole. As I said in the other thread, "intimacy" is the closest you can pleasurably get with a partner, even though all closeness is enjoyed. For a sexual, it is sex. It isn't like sex is the priority and the relationship is not, it is more like sex intensifies the entire state of the relationship - from shared glances across the room to evening walks. Completely non-sexual activities. But how I experience them, how they matter to me, how much I enjoy them, EVERYTHING will be far more pleasurable to me with a partner I have sex with, than someone I don't.

See...THIS is what confuses me.  EARLIER you wrote (and I'm paraphrasing because my damn 'thingy' isn't cooperating right now...) that the OP had to decide where SEX was important OR the relationship was important.    

 

This is one reason WHY a lot of sexuals have issues with an asexual.  While the rest of the relationship is "great", the ONLY complaint they have is the lack of sex. They're torn between the 'great' relationship AND the lack of sex.  Some decide to stay...others decide to leave.  

 

I've said it before and I'll say it AGAIN...is it SEX that you love, or your PARTNER that you love?  If you love your partner MORE than sex, you'll stay.  If you love SEX, MORE than your partner, you'll leave (even if it's to have an affair, you've basically 'left').  

 

No "right" and "wrong" to all of this.

 

It just....IS...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

The choice is about whether the lack of sex makes the rest of the relationship bad enough to leave. It's not an either/or. 

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

See...THIS is what confuses me.  EARLIER you wrote (and I'm paraphrasing because my damn 'thingy' isn't cooperating right now...) that the OP had to decide where SEX was important OR the relationship was important.    

Because sex isn't happening, so there is an artificial (for sexuals) split.

 

Quote

This is one reason WHY a lot of sexuals have issues with an asexual.  While the rest of the relationship is "great", the ONLY complaint they have is the lack of sex. They're torn between the 'great' relationship AND the lack of sex.  Some decide to stay...others decide to leave.  

Yes. It will vary from relationship to relationship. If you don't have a lot going other than the sex - for example a relationship that is relatively new, or relatively superficial or not very close in terms of time/proximity... it may be more desirable to ditch the relationship and seek a relationship with sex for the enjoyment. On the other hand, if there is a lot going on in the relationship, the relationship will definitely be dimmer without the sex, but it will still be a lot more than they'd have with a fresh start, so staying might be better, or at least less worse, so to say.

 

This is also why a lot of people cheat on their partners rather than honestly separate and seek new relationships. Because they can't bear to lose what they have built beyond the sex, but they also can't bear a lack of sexual intimacy. I don't approve. i think it is dishonest, but it is a reason.

 

I would hazard a guess that when sexual-ace relationships break off, the sexual would be more likely to break off early into the relationship while the ace would be more likely to break off later. Because if a sexual can't adjust, they'll figure it out pretty quickly. If they can - whether because they sacrifice or the ace does, they will get used to that level of intimacy. Even if sex is slowly withdrawn, they will likely slowly adapt, or the relationship will have built to the point ditching it no longer looks feasible. While for an ace, the demands can pile up and look less and less appealing with time. It is just a guess based on observations of human behavior. No data to prove it, but could be interesting going through stories here to see if it is proved or disproved.

 

Quote

I've said it before and I'll say it AGAIN...is it SEX that you love, or your PARTNER that you love?  If you love your partner MORE than sex, you'll stay.  If you love SEX, MORE than your partner, you'll leave (even if it's to have an affair, you've basically 'left').  

It is the partner we love. Sex is something we share with them. Sharing is better than not sharing. Everything else is basically a weighing of options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Sexuals can also hang on for ages hoping something will change, if sex was there initially. The realisation it won't will build up over time, just as an asexuals resentment over sex never stopping will.

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

Because sex isn't happening. 

But that's not the point.  The point is, that if it comes down to either spending a lifetime (or SOME amount of time) with someone who's 'perfect' VS. someone you can have sex with, will the sexual usually pick the latter?  

 

Quote

Yes. It will vary from relationship to relationship. If you don't have a lot going other than the sex - for example a relationship that is relatively new, or relatively superficial or not very close in terms of time/proximity... it may be more desirable to ditch the relationship and seek a relationship with sex for the enjoyment. On the other hand, if there is a lot going on in the relationship, the relationship will definitely be dimmer without the sex, but it will still be a lot more than they'd have with a fresh start, so staying might be better, or at least less worse, so to say.

O.k, I can get that, BUT (you KNOW there had to be a 'but' in there, lol!) 

 

It's not the SEX that's the issue.  It's MOST OFTEN, the FREQUENCY of sex.  New relationships can be very sex 'enhanced', even with an asexual.  The asexual won't seek it for their own pleasure, but they'll oblige for someone else's pleasure.  

 

But after doing this over and over again, the asexual may feel like they've already 'compromised' for long enough.  Meanwhile, the sexual is left scratching their heads..."Gee...they wanted sex before... and not NOW.  What's up with THAT?"

 

And both people are left feeling like, they either have to compromise...or...end it.  

 

I

Quote

would hazard a guess that when sexual-ace relationships break off, the sexual would be more likely to break off early into the relationship while the ace would be more likely to break off later. Because if a sexual can't adjust, they'll figure it out pretty quickly. If they can - whether because they sacrifice or the ace does, they will get used to that level of intimacy. Even if sex is slowly withdrawn, they will likely slowly adapt, or the relationship will have built to the point ditching it no longer looks feasible. While for an ace, the demands can pile up and look less and less appealing with time. It is just a guess based on observations of human behavior. No data to prove it, but could be interesting going through stories here to see if it is proved or disproved.

Yeah,, you're probably right.  I'd still want to know WHY in BOTH cases...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Just now, vega57 said:

It's MOST OFTEN, the FREQUENCY of sex.

It seems to me it's most often the complete absence of sex which is the issue. 

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

But that's not the point.  The point is, that if it comes down to either spending a lifetime (or SOME amount of time) with someone who's 'perfect' VS. someone you can have sex with, will the sexual usually pick the latter?  

This got answered in the rest of the post!

 

The ideal situation is sharing sex with the person you love. If not, you weigh your options. If the relationship is something you believe is extraordinary and you cannot easily get something as precious, you accept the "dimmed" version anyway as the best of choices available to you, given your preference is not on the table. If you don't see much else in the relationship and think what you have, you could share with anyone you got into a relationship with, you probably move on.

 

I suppose another way of looking at it is how much do you love your partner. I don't see love as a relationship status. It is a feeling. If you are feeling it a lot, all sacrifices may look good. If it is a rather dull thing, it may not seem worth going through discomfort for.

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

It seems to me it's most often the complete absence of sex which is the issue. 

Unless you NEVER had sex with your partner, it's about frequency...

 

Heck, I could have NO PROBLEM with sex...

 

...as long as it happened once in a blue moon (about 2.5 years).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

It is very often 'never', or at least 'never again' in the posts from sexuals on here. 

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

This got answered in the rest of the post!

 

The ideal situation is sharing sex with the person you love. I

But it's NOT just sharing sex...it's sharing sex at a certain frequency...in a certain way...under certain situations....

 

If everything was 'perfect' (as I just posted to Tele), I'd have NO PROBLEM 'sharing sex'...

 

...as long as it was every blue moon...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

It is very often 'never', or at least 'never again' in the posts from sexuals on here. 

But it didn't start that way,, did it...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

So sexuals should be just be satisfied they had sex many years ago? How long would it have to go before you accepted 'never again' as effectively the same as 'never'? 

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

But it's NOT just sharing sex...it's sharing sex at a certain frequency...in a certain way...under certain situations....

 

If everything was 'perfect' (as I just posted to Tele), I'd have NO PROBLEM 'sharing sex'...

 

...as long as it was every blue moon...

I am not Tele. You may keep the poly response relationships separate :P

 

Sharing sex is sharing sex at a certain frequency. Your feeling of closeness from sharing sex lasts for a while. How long that while is differs for everyone. Once that feeling is gone, you feel like your partner is getting distant. It is like a partner who hugs you daily not hugging you for two days in a row. Your brain starts going "what is wrong? Is he unhappy? Is he upset with me in some way...." This is basically insecurity - your partner is not as close as you wish. In an excellent sexual relationship, both partners will be having sex frequently enough to never encounter this. in a sexual mismatch, you'll run into this. The more you run into it, the more twitchy and frustrated your sexual will be if they can't make it happen and feel reassured about the state of the relationship.

 

I look at it as everyone having a bare minimum, an optimum and a max. If the ace's max and the sexual's bare minimum overlap in action, there won't be a problem. But of course, it is more complicated than that. It is about nature of the sex and so on. An aloof attitude from a disinterested partner can make sex feel like it didn't happen at all, even when it did. On the other hand, I'm hypersexual and prefer sex almost daily, while left to himself my ace is.... well, he's ace. He'll get a random arousal maybe once in several weeks. BUT I call our relationship excellent, because I don't need PIV sex and he doesn't see masturbating as sex, but more a part of stroking me in a manner I like during cuddling. So... we are in business. :D I can get off as often as I need to, and he can not get off at all, if he doesn't want to. Pure gold. Massive overlap because we both end up in each other's optimal frequencies through this "hack".

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, anamikanon said:

In an excellent sexual relationship, both partners will be having sex frequently enough to never encounter this.

Here the "excellent" sexual relationship is basically about compatibility. Two aces in a relationship may never have sex and that is "frequently enough" to not have a problem too. Or two hypersexuals may be going at it all day and not have a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:
6 hours ago, vega57 said:

Did everyone miss this?  

 

If sex is painful for her, then something else might be going on.  She may have a serious underlying medical condition that needs attention, pronto!

True, and she should. It wasn't painful when she wanted children though, apparently.

Er, she was obviously still having the sex even though it hurt her, regardless of whether or not she wanted kids at the time. You don't have to be loving the sex to get pregnant, obviously. I have vestibulodynia (it sounds like she has something similar) and have two kids, so yeah. Experiencing sexual pain doesn't stop you from being able to get pregnant, or even from initiating sex if you're actively trying to get a baby growing inside you. I didn't initiate the sex that led to my pregnancies myself, but I've known other women with vestibulodynia who actively tried to make sex happen no matter how much it hurt so they could pregnant.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Put it together with all the rest - when she wanted to have sex for reasons that suited her, she could get past it. The rest of the time, when it was about finding reasons to laugh at and dismiss her partner, it sounds more like it was the excuse du jour. 

 

Someone who basically wanted to have sex but found it painful wouldn't have let it go on for 20 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's like proper coffee vs decaff. 

And here I'm just like "they both suck"

 

Guess I really am asexual 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Surely the point of counselling is to communicate this stuff, and if your wife chooses not to divulge something, she's communicating 'I don't care about the situation enough to communicate my feelings' - which tells you something in itself.

This is NOT the truth.  

 

There can be a number of reasons why his wife isn't divulging something at the time.  She may be terrified to reveal her feelings OR, she may be unsure as to what her feelings actually are, and she has to 'work them out' first before she says anything.  She also may believe that what she's thinking/feeling might be hurtful to the OP, and she's trying to figure out a way NOT to hurt him, or if she can at least word it in such a way that it will be easier for him to handle.  

 

Finding the 'right' words often isn't easy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...