Jump to content
Mary Lambert

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

Recommended Posts

Username_2017

It's been commented on that perhaps I am grey sexual because I have and can desire and enjoy (sort of- I have self esteem issues and past issues with abuse) sex. I can't relate to a lot of sexual posts on here. It's not an emotional need for me and I am very much of the same opinon as vega in that happiness is found from within rather than an outside source 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
4 minutes ago, Username_2017 said:

What I was never taught or learned was that sex was an emotional need for some people and they need it regularly to function 

I notice you're in the UK, like me, so you weren't subject to the uniquely terrible US sex ed; I honestly find it hard for anyone to not realise sex was just as an emotional part of a relationship as things like communication, time spent together, trust etc.

 

It's not so much needing it regularly to function, it's that the implicit and explicit rejection of being in a relationship with someone who never wants sex will do a number on your self-confidence that's hard to get past. It's the same with inner vs outer happiness. Sex won't necessarily  make you happy, but lack of it in a relationship will probably make you unhappy, if you're sexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
3 minutes ago, Username_2017 said:

The attitude I honestly grew up around was that men were sex obsessed and women weren't. What I was never taught or learned was that sex was an emotional need for some people and they need it regularly to function 

Same.  I now know that at least some of that rhetoric was intended to provide a loophole for “woman who like sex are sluts” (which was obviously equally inaccurate), but at the time it made sense with my personal experience and I didn’t have occasion to question it.  Most of my close friends were men, so the fact they seemed to like and value sex more than I did didn’t set off any “huh, that’s weird” alarms in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

...subject to the uniquely terrible US sex ed....

That’s me!  1970’s US sex ed.  I even went on to take college (uni outside the US) level “human sexuality” and still didn’t learn anything that helped me figure out where I fell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bronztrooper
19 minutes ago, Username_2017 said:

The attitude I honestly grew up around was that men were sex obsessed and women weren't. What I was never taught or learned was that sex was an emotional need for some people and they need it regularly to function 

Yeah, same here.  And it didn't help that I didn't have any evidence going against that until I was in my junior/senior years of high school.

 

And I was never taught that it was an emotional need either- but then, I had the trash US sex ed course which only really covered safe sex and abstinence.  I did have 2 years where I had 1/4th of the year devoted to health class which primarily focused on STDs/STIs, birth control, and pregnancy, but both years had the same exact course.  I even had the exact same teacher.  Seriously, WTF?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Username_2017
4 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

I notice you're in the UK, like me, so you weren't subject to the uniquely terrible US sex ed; I honestly find it hard for anyone to not realise sex was just as an emotional part of a relationship as things like communication, time spent together, trust etc.

I don't really like that someone needs sex from me to fulfill their emotions. I need them to be able to do that for themselves and then sex just enhances the relationship, so it's not 'I need this from you or I will become unhappy'

 

I'm still confused because I know the way I think isn't dissimilar to 3 other close female friends of mine. Surely we're not all asexual/gray-a??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I'd say it's the rule rather than the exception to want to be fancied by your partner and feel hurt when you're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
10 minutes ago, Username_2017 said:

I need them to be able to do that for themselves and then sex just enhances the relationship, so it's not 'I need this from you or I will become unhappy'

This idea is excellent in theory however for the most part, when someone is happy or at least getting by without being unhappy without the sex, it’s all too often that the lower sex drive person (be them asexual or other) falls in to a trap of utter complacency i.e. he/she seems perfectly ok so I won’t bother. 

It’s not being rejected once that causes an issue, it’s being rejected and dismissed for weeks/months/year’s that creates resentment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Even if one is less keen than the other, on some level both want it - it might be because they know it will please their partner, or it's maintenance sex, but they still, on balance, want it, for whatever reason. Short of coercion, which means rape, there's consent. It's like saying I don't want to go to the gym because in an ideal world I'd rather not; on balance, I do want to go.

 

But that's separate from the point I was making. The control of any situation lies with the person who can impose their will, and with sex, the one who says 'no' imposes their will (rightly) because they have the backing of the legal system, and few sexual partners want to have sex with someone who's unwilling. Of course there are external factors why asexuals may feel they don't want to exercise that power, but they do have it. But sexuals, under no circumstances, can say 'I don't care what you think, say, or consent to, we're having sex'.

Having read your posts for some years, Tele, you often mention "power".  The only power one really has is over one's body.  If I'm in a relationship and I say no to sex with my partner, you may deem that I have power over my partner.  But all I have is the power to say that my body will not be having sex.  That does not mean that I have power over my partner's body -- he (in this case) is free to have sex with someone else.  Again, you may deem that he does not  have that power -- but that's specious; it's  his body.  

 

TLDR:  No one owns anyone else's body, and claiming that someone owns yours is, to  me, not taking responsibility for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
1 minute ago, Sally said:

Having read your posts for some years, Tele, you often mention "power".  The only power one really has is over one's body.  If I'm in a relationship and I say no to sex with my partner, you may deem that I have power over my partner.  But all I have is the power to say that my body will not be having sex.  That does not mean that I have power over my partner's body -- he (in this case) is free to have sex with someone else.  Again, you may deem that he does not  have that power -- but that's specious; it's  his body.  

 

TLDR:  No one owns anyone else's body, and claiming that someone owns yours is, to  me, not taking responsibility for yourself.

That’s not the spirit of marriage though is it. You are supposed to own yours and your partners bodies. They are shared, you are one! And no you are not free to just go and have sex unless you commit adultery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I hadn't noticed, but if I do, it's not because I want power over anyone else, it's because it often seems that many asexuals just don't accept something that seems very simple and obvious to me, to most therapists, to most sexuals, and some asexuals: the person who says 'no' has power over whether sex happens in a relationship.

 

It is very, very frustrating for this to not only not be acknowledged, but to then be thrown implications that I'd like marital rape to be legal, or I'm some kind of toddler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Username_2017
18 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I'd say it's the rule rather than the exception to want to be fancied by your partner and feel hurt when you're not.

Yes but fancied as in wants to spend time with you because you're funny, intelligent and attractive. Not always in the context of sex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

No, fancied sexually, for most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Username_2017
2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

No, fancied sexually, for most people.

Yes but not all the time, sometimes we want a break from sex and for our partners to want us for our personality

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Most people want to be wanted for both reasons, and they tend to cross fertilise. It's certainly not mutually exclusive. You can think someone's a fantastic, generous, smart,  kind, funny person and want to nail them. In fact most people wouldn't want sex with someone they didn't feel warm towards as a person.

 

There's a difference between fancying someone and wanting to jump them all the time. You can want to not be jumped on, say, while you were washing up, but still be hurt if your partner said they didn't fancy you in general.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Username_2017

Okay but just because you partner doesn't feel like having sex one night or maybe even for a week or month it doesn't mean they no longer fancy you? It means they didn't feel like having sex

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Of course not, but when they never want to have sex then clearly they don't fancy you, by definition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Username_2017

Okay I have looked up the definition for fancy and it does say attracted to someone.. especially sexually, but I genuinely thought fancied just meant attracted to, in a wholesome sense without so much bearing on sexually. I would like to think that in your partners mind they did still fancy you but in their way which doesn't involve sex. Whch i see would come across strange after looking up the actual definition.

 

Sometimes I feel like we are on the same page but I read the messages as if you're talking about relationships in general rather than an asexual/sexual relationship. Even as someone who has occasionally desired partnered sex (I don't have any long term experience) sex can be really draining sometimes.

 

I also feel fairly average until I decide to log onto AVEN and get myself all confused

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ability and willingness are two different things.  Willingness usually relates to a state of mind.  Ability usually relates to the mechanical aspects.  I I have a broken leg, I might be willing to run, but I don't have the ability to do so.  I have the ability to have sex.  My 'lady parts' work, save for a little lube, and no pain is involved.  But even though I have the ability, I don't have the will to do so.  

OK, in that case I agree about having sex  - or some other physical function.  For "happiness" its a different story. Is happiness something people can choose?  Could you choose to be happy if you had to spend a lot of your time doing something you found extremely distasteful, but which wasn't physically harmful? I think that would count as "unable" to be happy, not unwilling. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
1 hour ago, James121 said:

That’s not the spirit of marriage though is it. You are supposed to own yours and your partners bodies. They are shared, you are one! And no you are not pfree to just go and have sex unless you commit adultery.  

Perhaps from a specific religion's oint of view (since that's what your post sounds like).   But we don't all share that religion's dictates.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

I hadn't noticed, but if I do, it's not because I want power over anyone else, it's because it often seems that many asexuals just don't accept something that seems very simple and obvious to me, to most therapists, to most sexuals, and some asexuals: the person who says 'no' has power over whether sex happens in a relationship.

 

I'd agree with that.  However, you have often said that the person who says "no" has power over whether their partner has sex.  That is definitely not true, and sounds like one person's power over another person.  That's what this asexual objects to.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
2 hours ago, Sally said:

Perhaps from a specific religion's oint of view (since that's what your post sounds like).   But we don't all share that religion's dictates.

 

Marriage is religious full stop. And no the spirit of marriage is the spirit of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
2 hours ago, James121 said:

Marriage is religious full stop. And no the spirit of marriage is the spirit of marriage.

Marriage may be religious to you.  Don't expect everyone to agree with your opinion, especially the many millions of people who were legally married outside of a religious institution and are just as married as anyone else.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

Yeah, I'll be getting married eventually.  Neither of us are religious.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'd agree with that.  However, you have often said that the person who says "no" has power over whether their partner has sex.  That is definitely not true, and sounds like one person's power over another person.  That's what this asexual objects to.  

I try to remember to include 'within this relationship' and it's always what I mean. And it is true within that relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
7 hours ago, Username_2017 said:

I genuinely thought fancied just meant attracted to, in a wholesome sense without so much bearing on sexually.

There's nothing unwholesome about fancying someone sexually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
3 hours ago, Sally said:

Marriage may be religious to you.  Don't expect everyone to agree with your opinion, especially the many millions of people who were legally married outside of a religious institution and are just as married as anyone else.  

It’s not religious to me it religious full stop. You can’t have Christmas is religious to him but not her. Christmas is also religious full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Quote

You can’t have Christmas is religious to him but not her.

Nothing religious with how I've celebrated Christmas either, so yeah, you kinda can.

Share this post


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

EXACTLY!! Coming to this understanding takes a lot of maturity.  One really  needs to understand if your values etc. aren't in sync and that it can cause a lot of turmoil down the road.  Too many, however, don't want to be the one to 'give up', even though giving up is probably what's best for both people, even if both of them don't see it now.  

 

I actually don't fully agree with most of your points in this thread, Vega, so I don't really know why you're agreeing with me..? I take your points here, and most of them are fine because yeah, a lot of these understandings take maturity, but considering all the other stuff you've been arguing in this thread, did you actually read everything I said..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gaogao

Also, I've kind of lost the plot here with what people are arguing . There is such thing is civil marriage / non-religious marriage, and this is more important for day-to-day life because it deals with taxes, property ownership, visitation, legal rights, etc.

 

Because of that, marriage these days is more of a legal institution than a spiritual one. So many people get married without the marriage having any religious significance, just because they want the legal rights that being married gives two people.

  • Like 2

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...