Jump to content
Mary Lambert

I think, my ACE husband has ruined sex for me?

Recommended Posts

Telecaster68
4 minutes ago, vega57 said:

if someone wanted you to give them something you owned, but you didn't want to, they could just as easily cry 'foul!' (as you're attempting to do)...and say, "Why is it o.k. for Tele to say 'no' to giving me this 'thing', but it's not o.k. for me to say 'yes' to having it?"

Completely agree. But then I wouldn't argue that somehow I wasn't controlling whether that person had something that I owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

During that distressing relationship, the thing that's ultimately making it distressing is the presence or lack of sex. Asexuals' preference is 'no sex', and (short of rape) they get to have no sex, or have sex. So they, by themselves, can remove one of the main distressing factors from the equation. Sexuals preference is 'sex', so to remove that distressing factor, they would have to have sex. But they need asexuals to agree to it, so by themselves, they have no control over removing it, so the distressing factor for sexuals will most likely remain.

But you do have control.  You can remove yourself from the situation and leave to find sex with someone else!  We keep telling you that, and you keep ignoring that.  Just because you don't like the option doesn't make it any less of an option.  

 

Quote

The other is that having agency to make your own choices (as asexuals do in this situation) is known to greatly reduce stress, regardless of the situation or the actual choice made. Sexuals don't have this agency.

Once again, yes they do.  They can leave and find sex elsewhere.  

 

Quote

Every time this issue of who gets to say whether sex happens comes up, asexuals jump to the 'but it's still horrible', as though that means they don't have the choice. It may be horrible, but sexuals have parallel awful situations - stay or go, unhappy partner, etc. That's why I'm focussing in on the one that's different which is who controls the underlying issue, which logically, is asexuals. It seems very simple to me, and not particularly allotting blame, but something that some asexuals just don't want to concede.  

The only thing that asexuals are "controlling" is themselves.  

 

Of course, you could try not putting so much weight on sex and maybe then you wouldn't care as much...? (don't shoot me.  It was just a suggestion.)

Share this post


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

you mean I could choose to withhold sex from my gf and she would be forced to stay, but then she's the one making the choice - whether to leave or continue.

Yes, I did mean that. But then you could make the choice to leave too, so in terms of where control lies, it's equal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's a hypothetical. Can't you imagine yourself in such a situation? I can imagine how I'd probably feel if I won the lottery, which is vanishingly unlikely as I don't buy tickets. 

 

People do. Don't minimise.

 

I'm sure you would, because it's diverting from my point. I'd wonder why you are diverting my point in the first place?

 

More directly, they feel that because humans are social animals, generally, like all primates. We form groups, families, we interact, we help, support, and have conflicts with each other. There's a good argument it's a our main evolutionary advantage.

 

If you're not unhappy about it, why would it need working out?

 

So you're letting another person dictate your happiness, if only for a while, which is the flaw you bring up about sexuals who are unhappy because they feel rejected by their partners. 

 

This is the parallel I've been working towards.

The more I read from you the more I'm convinced that you really don't have any idea what happiness is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, vega57 said:

 You can remove yourself from the situation and leave to find sex with someone else!

Yes, and the asexual could leave too. Power is equal there, as I've said umpteen times.

 

2 minutes ago, vega57 said:

he only thing that asexuals are "controlling" is themselves.

So the sexual partner is free to have sex within that relationship even if their partner doesn't want it? How would that work?

 

Quote

Of course, you could try not putting so much weight on sex and maybe then you wouldn't care as much...? (don't shoot me.  It was just a suggestion.)

Or, the asexual could try not putting so much weight on not having sex being so important in a relationship so you wouldn't care as much (just a suggestion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, vega57 said:

The more I read from you the more I'm convinced that you really don't have any idea what happiness is.  

Maybe.

 

Would you like to actually address what I'm saying?

Share this post


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

The other is that having agency to make your own choices (as asexuals do in this situation) is known to greatly reduce stress, regardless of the situation or the actual choice made. Sexuals don't have this agency.

Hm, i think that's fair to say... but on the other hand, this sort of choice is also kind of a burden/responsibility. While I'm in my relationship, I am constantly monitoring my partner's sexual moods, trying to figure out my own capabilities, and trying to balance my needs and hers - which is 100% up to me, as the person whose consent is needed for any sex to occur. 

 

I think it's difficult, and a huge thing to agree to take on. Yes - It's difficult for my partner because she's subject to my whims, but I've made a commitment to try and make her happy, so I have to take on that responsibility and make sure I meet her needs, otherwise I have failed in my commitment entirely and the relationship does not work.

 

On the other hand, someone who has decided they must be celibate, knows 100% that nothing will happen, or they can leave.

 

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

Yes, I did mean that. But then you could make the choice to leave too, so in terms of where control lies, it's equal. 

Also, yeah, I can choose to leave too, which is what I will have to do if I am unable to shoulder the burden of both people's needs. 

Share this post


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

if I am unable to shoulder the burden of both people's needs. 

I don't understand how you're shouldering both people's needs. Isn't your girlfriend compromising too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
21 hours ago, vega57 said:

After all, are we all supposed to say 'yes' to sex just because someone wants it?

Within reason......yes

 

When I got married I pledged to make my wife happy and would endeavour to do so, so long as it was physically possible and not at the expense of my own happiness.

 

If I didn’t feel like that, I shouldn’t have got married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
14 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Completely agree. But then I wouldn't argue that somehow I wasn't controlling whether that person had something that I owned.

But you're not "controlling" them; you're controlling what you own, which you have a right to do.  Just because you're controlling what you own doesn't mean that you're being "controlling".  

Share this post


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

But you're not "controlling" them; you're controlling what you own, which you have a right to do.  Just because you're controlling what you own doesn't mean that you're being "controlling".  

I'm controlling whether they have the thing they want, and I have every right to. But I'm not going to deny I'm controlling whether they have it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
5 minutes ago, James121 said:

When I got married I pledged to make my wife happy and would endeavour to do so, so long as it was physically possible and not at the expense of my own happiness.

Did you tell her that?  

Share this post


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

I don't understand how you're shouldering both people's needs. Isn't your girlfriend compromising too?

Put it this way - I have made myself responsible for her needs and am shouldering them as the person who must consent in order for her needs to be met at all.

 

Yes, she has to compromise too, in that sometimes I won't be able to give her everything she wants, but it's up to me to make it work by compromising whenever I feel like I can. If what I can do isn't enough, then I have failed at shouldering her needs and the relationship fails. 

Share this post


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

I'm controlling whether they have the thing they want, and I have every right to. But I'm not going to deny I'm controlling whether they have it or not.

Again, no.  You're controlling whether you have it.  That's it.  

Share this post


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

I have made myself responsible for her needs and am shouldering them as the person who must consent in order for her needs to be met at all.

I agree, and that it absolutely goes both ways, in whatever version works for you two as a couple.

 

The bit I'm arguing against is this assertion that because an asexual finds some aspects of a relationship uncomfortable, they can't possibly be restricting their partner's choices. It just doesn't follow at all.

Share this post


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

Again, no.  You're controlling whether you have it.  That's it.  

And by controlling whether I have it, I'm controlling whether they have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
15 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Maybe.

 

Would you like to actually address what I'm saying?

Oh crap.  Looks like the rest of my post didn't go through.  :o

Share this post


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

The bit I'm arguing against is this assertion that because an asexual finds some aspects of a relationship uncomfortable, they can't possibly be restricting their partner's choices. It just doesn't follow at all.

I agree I am restricting her choices in the sense that she cannot choose to have sex with me whenever she wants because I have to consent - but that restriction of choice still happens in any relationship, not just a mixed one. It's just that, as an asexual person, I am less likely to consent on a regular basis than a sexual person and I have to consider whether doing so is good/bad for me at that moment, given that sex is something that takes a lot out for me.

 

It's a tough thing. I don't think that it's easy for either of us, but as the person who does hold the choice about whether sex happens or not, my feeling of responsibility in this relationship is not something that should be downplayed. It's also not easy for my partner who is subject to my needs and whims, which are more onerous than they would be in another relationship, but my commitment to do what needs to be done to make the relationship work is kind of important.

 

I feel this isn't much different than the commitment of someone who decides that celibacy is the way forward... though yeah, in celibacy, there isn't the same need for the sexual to juggle their partner's needs because yea, the ace does get everything they want there and the sexual gets nothing or has to leave :T 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

And by controlling whether I have it, I'm controlling whether they have it.

The only way you could be 'controlling' them is if they have a right to possess what you have.  No right=no control.   

 

When people talk about how the person in the relationship doesn't want sex, they're being "controlling" or "withholding" or "denying".  All three of those words implies that the person who doesn't want sex is somehow keeping something away from someone who has a right to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
17 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I agree, and that it absolutely goes both ways, in whatever version works for you two as a couple.

 

The bit I'm arguing against is this assertion that because an asexual finds some aspects of a relationship uncomfortable, they can't possibly be restricting their partner's choices. It just doesn't follow at all.

The asexual is NOT restricting their partner's choices.  You still have those 4(?) choices available to you, no matter what your partner says.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, vega57 said:

The only way you could be 'controlling' them is if they have a right to possess what you have.  No right=no control.   

 

When people talk about how the person in the relationship doesn't want sex, they're being "controlling" or "withholding" or "denying".  All three of those words implies that the person who doesn't want sex is somehow keeping something away from someone who has a right to it.  

I'm not saying the asexual is being 'controlling' in the abusive/dysfunctional sense. I'm saying over that specific thing - whether sex happens or not - the person who says 'no' controls whether or not it happens, and therefore whether the other person has sex in that relationship. Clearly this happens in normal relationships between sexuals, but because both partners are sexual, it tends to be more equally distributed, and when it gets too skewed the same thing happens as in mixed relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
2 minutes ago, vega57 said:

The asexual is NOT restricting their partner's choices.  You still have those 4(?) choices available to you, no matter what your partner says.  

Sexual: Let's have sex.

Asexual: I don't want to.

 

What choices about having sex in that relationship does the sexual then have?

 

or

 

Sexual: Let's have sex.

Asexual: Yes, let's.

 

What choices about having sex in that relationship does the sexual then have?

Share this post


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

Sexual: Let's have sex.

Asexual: I don't want to.

 

What choices about having sex in that relationship does the sexual then have?

Masturbate.

Don't masturbate.

Cheat.

End the relationship.

Learn to be happy without it. 

 

To name a few.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

None of those are about sex within the relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

None of those are about sex within the relationship.

*heavy sigh*.  

 

Relationships have to be mutual.  The relationship has to either be win-win for both or a compromise OR, "NO DEAL"!  

 

Forget about who's controlling what, who's denying what to whom, who has the 'power', who's 'withholding', who has 'obligations' or duties, yadda, yadda, yadda.  

 

Either the relationship has to be a 'win' for BOTH parties, or at least ONE of those parties has to have the strength to walk away.  If you can't negotiate...if you can't compromise...if you can't 'give a little' to 'get a little'...then the only reasonable option that you have is to walk away.  While it may suck initially, you just might end up getting MORE than you wanted from someone else.  

 

I mean, think about it, Tele.  If your partner 'gave in' to you knowing fully well that she would be doing it to 'please' you...to hold the relationship together (possibly because of her OWN fears of being alone...), would you REALLY, TRULY be happy with that...arrangement?  

Share this post


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

Forget about who's controlling what, who's denying what to whom, who has the 'power', who's 'withholding', who has 'obligations' or duties, yadda, yadda, yadda.  

Don't try to change the subject.

 

All that stuff is exactly about a relationship being mutual, and when one partner has all the control about an important element of it, claiming it's 'mutual' is ludicrous. I understand why you're having to try to shift the argument though, as it's clear your position is completely untenable.

Share this post


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

Do you have a link to the study?  All I can find online is the abstract.  

Just remembered this. It's only available through a subscription to the journal, so you have to have academic access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
26 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Don't try to change the subject.

*Slaps forehead*

 

Quote

All that stuff is exactly about a relationship being mutual, and when one partner has all the control about an important element of it, claiming it's 'mutual' is ludicrous

Tele, if you're looking at a relationship as who has 'control', then you probably shouldn't be in a relationship.  After all, it would be ludicrous to stay in a relationship that wasn't mutually beneficial to BOTH parties.  

 

Quote

I understand why you're having to try to shift the argument though, as it's clear your position is completely untenable.

Wrong again.  However, *your* position seems to be that it's somehow unfair that your partner gets to say 'no' to sex but you don't have the same right to say 'yes' to it.  If that's what you believe then you surely don't understand what mutuality is all about.  

 

Sex isn't a 'right', Tele.  It's not an individual right because it involves (at least) 2 consenting people.  Someone can't simply walk out of their house and decide, "Hmm.  I think I'll have sex tonight.  After all, I have the right to have it. " and have sex with the first person they lay eyes on.  

 

Maybe your answer lies in getting a sexbot....?  After all, sexbots don't have any rights!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
9 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Just remembered this. It's only available through a subscription to the journal, so you have to have academic access.

Have you read it yourself?  

Share this post


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

if you're looking at a relationship as who has 'control', then you probably shouldn't be in a relationship.

I'm not. I'm asking that you recognise the logic that if one person can stop something happening, they control whether it happens it or not.

 

6 minutes ago, vega57 said:

However, *your* position seems to be that it's somehow unfair that your partner gets to say 'no' to sex but you don't have the same right to say 'yes' to it.

No, my position is as above. I've never said what you're attributing to me, in fact I've frequently said it's right that 'no' trumps 'yes'.

 

What I have said is that if one person routinely has all the control of whether sex happens because they're always the one who says no, then over time clearly there's an imbalance of power, and that feels unfair.

 

6 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Sex isn't a 'right',

I agree, and I've never said it was.

 

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

 

And yes, I've read that paper I cited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...