Jump to content
ryn2

Another comparison...

Recommended Posts

ryn2

I’m still trying to really get my head around how “sex isn’t everything”/“it’s not *all* about sex” and yet the lack of sufficient sex/the presence of sex without desire poses such a problem.

 

Is it the combination of sex being very personal with its oft-expected exclusivity?

 

I.e., many people engage in activities that are very important to them (and are even their absolute favorite ways of spending time) but, generally, it’s okay if their partners don’t share that same fervor (as long as the partner is respectful... no mocking, derision, etc.).  What makes sex so different?

 

One thing that might account for some of the difference is that sex is a personal performance; if you’re with someone who doesn’t share your love of baseball, horse-racing, or theatre, especially if you just spectate, perhaps it’s easier to really accept that it’s the thing they dislike/tolerate and not you personally.

 

Sex isn’t the only activity that’s a pretty deeply personal performance, though - e.g., singing, writing, other artistic pursuits - and yet those don’t seem to cause the same issues.  Could that be because sex is one of the few (maybe the only?  Nothing else springs to mind) personal-performance-type activities that the majority of people expect will be undertaken only within the committed relationship where one exists?  If your spouse doesn’t like your singing, that’s okay - you can sing for your friends.  If you’re good you can sing for an audience.  If my spouse doesn’t/wouldn’t appreciate my writing, no problem; I’m already sharing it with several hundred thousand people on the internet.  So, again, it’s probably easier (to draw pleasure/validation from engaging in the activity, and) separate the partner’s dislike of the activity in general from a dislike of you (or me) individually.

 

Does that make any sense?  Am I getting closer to understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another Small Potato
51 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

many people engage in activities that are very important to them (and are even their absolute favorite ways of spending time) but, generally, it’s okay if their partners don’t share that same fervor (as long as the partner is respectful... no mocking, derision, etc.).  What makes sex so different?

I don't think anyone really knows why people hate us asexuals. As for why someone may dislike their asexual partner after the partner came out to them or set boundaries in place for the relationship, I can only imagine this is due to insecurities. For example, as though they aren't good enough to warrant your affection. 

I'm not defending these people by any means, just pointing out some possibilities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 hour ago, ryn2 said:

I’m still trying to really get my head around how “sex isn’t everything”/“it’s not *all* about sex” and yet the lack of sufficient sex/the presence of sex without desire poses such a problem.

 

Is it the combination of sex being very personal with its oft-expected exclusivity?

 

I.e., many people engage in activities that are very important to them (and are even their absolute favorite ways of spending time) but, generally, it’s okay if their partners don’t share that same fervor (as long as the partner is respectful... no mocking, derision, etc.).  What makes sex so different?

 

One thing that might account for some of the difference is that sex is a personal performance; if you’re with someone who doesn’t share your love of baseball, horse-racing, or theatre, especially if you just spectate, perhaps it’s easier to really accept that it’s the thing they dislike/tolerate and not you personally.

 

Sex isn’t the only activity that’s a pretty deeply personal performance, though - e.g., singing, writing, other artistic pursuits - and yet those don’t seem to cause the same issues.  Could that be because sex is one of the few (maybe the only?  Nothing else springs to mind) personal-performance-type activities that the majority of people expect will be undertaken only within the committed relationship where one exists?  If your spouse doesn’t like your singing, that’s okay - you can sing for your friends.  If you’re good you can sing for an audience.  If my spouse doesn’t/wouldn’t appreciate my writing, no problem; I’m already sharing it with several hundred thousand people on the internet.  So, again, it’s probably easier (to draw pleasure/validation from engaging in the activity, and) separate the partner’s dislike of the activity in general from a dislike of you (or me) individually.

 

Does that make any sense?  Am I getting closer to understanding?

Kind of. Some of the reason the 'audience' isn't interchangeable is societal, but for most people it's because it's not a performance, it's an interaction which is intertwined with the rest of the relationship. The other person isn't a receiver, they're a participant. 

 

I've found conversation works best as an analogy. You can't separate conversation out as separate from the relationship, it's mutually enjoyable in itself, it builds the relationship, and it's a two way thing. If one partner was completely passive, or grudging, or even trying to be involved but clearly their heart wasn't in it, the conversation would be unenjoyable for both. If people aren't talking, generally it's a sign something's wrong. Everything else could be great, but few people would choose to spend their life with someone who didn't want to talk to them, ever. 

 

The difference of course is even if your partner had decided never to talk to you again, you'd miss conversations with them, but nobody would think twice about you talking to others, whether casually or more intimately. You'd still have social and work conversations. 

 

That doesn't work for sex. If you seek sex outside your relationship, society raises an eyebrow at the very least. Chances are your partner won't like it. And you can't just create multiple sexual relationships the same way as you can fall into conversations with people. 

 

Yes, I know there's polygamy and open relationships, but they're not the norm in the way that talking to anyone you like is. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
max9701

I can only speak for myself. Sex isn't an enjoyable activity, it's part of who I am, and part of how I interact with other people. In a sexual relationship, for me, there's a progression - meeting, conversation, spending time together, touching, sex. It's all entwined, and impossible to separate sex from the rest of the communication and sharing that goes into it.

 

I like telecaster's analogy with conversation, but really I think analogy can only go so far. Sexual attraction is a unique thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Sex isn’t the only activity that’s a pretty deeply personal performance, though - e.g., singing, writing, other artistic pursuits - and yet those don’t seem to cause the same issues.  Could that be because sex is one of the few (maybe the only?  Nothing else springs to mind) personal-performance-type activities that the majority of people expect will be undertaken only within the committed relationship where one exists?  If your spouse doesn’t like your singing, that’s okay - you can sing for your friends.  If you’re good you can sing for an audience.  If my spouse doesn’t/wouldn’t appreciate my writing, no problem; I’m already sharing it with several hundred thousand people on the internet.  So, again, it’s probably easier (to draw pleasure/validation from engaging in the activity, and) separate the partner’s dislike of the activity in general from a dislike of you (or me) individually.

 

It's because partnered sex is an activity that requires TWO people, but if you're innately monogamous  (like I am) you can ONLY desire it with your partner.. you're only physically capable of wanting to engage in sex with that person while you have that desire/attraction for them. And part of the desire and pleasure is them wanting it just as much. They also wouldn't be okay with you just going out and having sex with someone else, which doesn't apply to almost any other partnered activity (tennis, for example). Even many asexuals profess deep discomfort with the idea of their sexual partner having sex with other people because they know how personal and intimate sex is even if they don't desire it themselves. 

 

Also for many sexual people, once a romantic/emotional  bond has formed the desire for sexual intimacy with that person specifically becomes very, very strong. It's different than a desire to write or play tennis or whatever, those pursuits can be explored and enjoyed regardless of whether you have a partner. Sure many people may still desire sex when they're not in love with someone (and when they're not attracted to anyone), but the romantic feelings you get that make you want to be in a relationship cause your body to literally start longing for that person and its much stronger than it would be if the love wasn't present.. and if they don't experience that desire back it can cause an almost physical kind of pain.

 

The reason for all of this is science :P haha. Humans have very long, difficult pregnancies, we have young that stay weak for longer than any other animal, we have no natural defences, and we're often not *that* motivated.  So evolution needed to give us that chemical cocktail that would make the need for sex with a genetically compatible person almost impossible to resist. The feelings associated with 'love' are our bodies going into survival mode, in a way,preparing ourselves for breeding while creating a bond that will ensure the father will stay around long enough to help provide protection and safety while the young make it through infancy.  And humans would almost certainly not go to the effort to have sex if they didn't want or enjoy it (imagine if everyone was ace, no sex would be happening!) so evolution had to make this desire to have it, and the pleasure gained from it, very very strong!!

 

That's why sex is different from all the other activities someone might enjoy and why a sexual person can become deeply unhappy if their partner doesn't desire the sex: Their bodies have been programmed to deeply desire it physically and emotionally and it can be VERY difficult (because of all the hormones and chemicals etc that are going mental in your body) to come to terms  with the idea that the person you love doesn't want it.

 

It's like if you're very angry or afraid (both emotions that cause physical reactions in your body like love does) and someone said "turn that off, you're not allowed to feel that".. you literally can't just turn off the emotion and stop your heart from racing etc ..the physical reaction to fear won't stop until the fear has gone. Love and romantic desire are exactly the same, but they last a LOT longer than fear or anger - love can last for months or years and with that, for most sexual people, is the desire to connect sexually with the person they love. 

 

Despite all this, these days we have a lot more to consider in a relationship than just sexual compatibility so no, most healthy and balanced relationships are certainly not *all* about sex. But our bodies still can't help desiring it with the person we love because, like a heart pounding with fear, our bodies can't STOP themselves from reacting to that particular emotion in that specific way.

 

3 hours ago, Another Small Potato said:

I don't think anyone really knows why people hate us asexuals. As for why someone may dislike their asexual partner after the partner came out to them or set boundaries in place for the relationship, I can only imagine this is due to insecurities. 

No one was talking about hating asexuals 😛

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The difference of course is even if your partner had decided never to talk to you again, you'd miss conversations with them, but nobody would think twice about you talking to others, whether casually or more intimately. You'd still have social and work conversations. 

Yeah, I guess that’s why I can’t get my head around it as an analogy.  My partner has depression and sometimes goes weeks without really engaging in conversation with me.  That’s sometimes frustrating but not break-it-off frustrating.  Most people talk/communicate in so many other ways, though, that even if a partner banned me from talking it would be impossible to avoid while still working/going about normal daily business.

 

Given that some sexuals go years between relationships it’s hard to equate a loss of sex to a complete loss of all communication with everyone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
7 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

It's like if you're very angry or afraid (both emotions that cause physical reactions in your body like love does) and someone said "turn that off, you're not allowed to feel that".. you literally can't just turn off the emotion and stop your heart from racing etc ..the physical reaction to fear won't stop until the fear has gone.

This isn’t exactly that, though.  No one is (well, I’m not... maybe some people are) saying “stop feeling the feelings.”  Isn’t it more like feeling fear but *not* running away even though your innate programming wants you to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

 That’s sometimes frustrating but not break-it-off frustrating.

What if you knew he would never ever talk to you or want you to talk to him again, and didn't want you to talk to anyone else either? Just hypothetically, obviously - that couldn't realistically happen. In other words, you're done talking for the rest of your life, through no choice of your own, short of ending the relationship? Would it be break it off frustrating then? 

 

It's worse being in a relationship with no sex than just not in a relationship in many ways. There's an expectation of what a relationship will be which is being profoundly unmet, a specific person you want but can't have, and unless you end that relationship, you can't take up any other opportunities even if you wanted to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 Isn’t it more like feeling fear but *not* running away even though your innate programming wants you to?

And all the time the 'fear' is getting worse... 

 

It's like that (ever present) to the extent you have to always remember not to put any moves on your partner absolutely all the time you're with them, yes. So every night with no sex is an unwanted event you're having to deal with, in the same way asexuals have to deal with nights they *do* have sex as unwanted events. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What if you knew he would never ever talk to you or want you to talk to him again, and didn't want you to talk to anyone else either? Just hypothetically, obviously - that couldn't realistically happen. In other words, you're done talking for the rest of your life, through no choice of your own, short of ending the relationship? Would it be break it off frustrating then? 

I’m not sure, because I can’t picture the hypothetical.  I go right to all the questions - does writing count?  If so, who would pay my bills.  Could I still read?  If I could not read or write I would probably have to end it, but not so much out of frustration as not being able to get money or food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2

That all makes sense.  It’s just hard to rationalize against “but I’m not leaving over sex.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Imagine not having said a word from now till Christmas and knowing it's not going to change. Or by your birthday. You'll never speak on holiday. You'll never say good morning to anyone ever again. Nobody will ask you if you're okay, nobody will offer a sympathetic ear if you're down, you'll never share a joke with anyone. For the rest of your life... 

 

Imagine the isolation. 

 

Does that help at all? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
23 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

This isn’t exactly that, though.  No one is (well, I’m not... maybe some people are) saying “stop feeling the feelings.”  Isn’t it more like feeling fear but *not* running away even though your innate programming wants you to?

You might not run away, but if the feeling is growing more and more powerful and you're starting to sweat and shake it'll become very unpleasant! So you might not be running away... but you're still in a lot of pain and turmoil. That's same with the sexual person who is experiencing that kind of desire (which comes automatically with romantic love for a LOT of people, and grows a lot stronger the stronger your love is).. They are still feeling these overwhelming emotions that cause what feels like a version of pain physically and emotionally, even though it's not the same pain as hitting your finger with a hammer or whatever. It's still pain, longing, need. And you can't just stop it in the same way you can't just stop the reactions your body has when you're afraid. So while the person may be able to force themselves not to have sex, that does mean they're living in turmoil.

 

7 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

I’m not sure, because I can’t picture the hypothetical.  I go right to all the questions - does writing count?  If so, who would pay my bills.  Could I still read?  If I could not read or write I would probably have to end it, but not so much out of frustration as not being able to get money or food.

if you had to feel perpetually like you needed to pee, or perpetually hungry, as the price for staying with your partner. You can still pee and eat (masturbation) BUT the true underlying desire (the desire for partnered sexual intimacy that evolution has programmed into you)  is never satiated. You're still left perpetually with an almost painful need to urinate, or you're always very, very hungry but no amount of food (masturbation) eaten on your own can ever satiate the hunger. And that's the price you have to pay to be with the person you love. Everything else is fine in the relationship, but there's this one thing they can't want that leaves you with this perpetual almost painful urge that will never be satiated. And you know if they said ''okay I'll give you this thing'' that you couldn't enjoy it because they don't want it in the same way you do. So you'll never be free from this unless you leave them. But otherwise you have a healthy relationship and you love them deeply, and you don't want to lose that. So you're stuck :o

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SusannaC

 I love those analogies.   They are so close to the thoughts and feelings I have struggled with, for so damned long!😰

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

Imagine not having said a word from now till Christmas and knowing it's not going to change. Or by your birthday. You'll never speak on holiday. You'll never say good morning to anyone ever again. Nobody will ask you if you're okay, nobody will offer a sympathetic ear if you're down, you'll never share a joke with anyone. For the rest of your life... 

 

Imagine the isolation. 

 

Does that help at all? 

Well, it’s kind of how my life is now...

 

...but it does make sense.  I just don’t get how that’s still “not all about sex.”  If I broke up with someone over not talking with me, that’s what it would be about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

You might not run away, but if the feeling is growing more and more powerful and you're starting to sweat and shake it'll become very unpleasant! So you might not be running away... but you're still in a lot of pain and turmoil. That's same with the sexual person who is experiencing that kind of desire (which comes automatically with romantic love for a LOT of people, and grows a lot stronger the stronger your love is).. They are still feeling these overwhelming emotions that cause what feels like a version of pain physically and emotionally, even though it's not the same pain as hitting your finger with a hammer or whatever. It's still pain, longing, need. And you can't just stop it in the same way you can't just stop the reactions your body has when you're afraid. So while the person may be able to force themselves not to have sex, that does mean they're living in turmoil.

 

if you had to feel perpetually like you needed to pee, or perpetually hungry, as the price for staying with your partner. You can still pee and eat (masturbation) BUT the true underlying desire (the desire for partnered sexual intimacy that evolution has programmed into you)  is never satiated. You're still left perpetually with an almost painful need to urinate, or you're always very, very hungry but no amount of food (masturbation) eaten on your own can ever satiate the hunger. And that's the price you have to pay to be with the person you love. Everything else is fine in the relationship, but there's this one thing they can't want that leaves you with this perpetual almost painful urge that will never be satiated. And you know if they said ''okay I'll give you this thing'' that you couldn't enjoy it because they don't want it in the same way you do. So you'll never be free from this unless you leave them. But otherwise you have a healthy relationship and you love them deeply, and you don't want to lose that. So you're stuck :o

Hah, I’m a bad (as in ineffective, not as in trigger) person to use those particular analogies on as I have panic attacks, anxiety, and bladder spasms/microstones - oh, and an eating disorder history that’s always lurking just out of sight - so the life you’re describing is my normal one.

 

I get why someone would prefer not to live it given the choice though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Wouldn't it really be about the effect not talking had on your relationship and possibly on your mental wellbeing?

 

Then again, if you said you broke up because 'he never talked to me', you'd probably get sympathy. If you said 'because he refused to have sex' people would... have questions at least, and quite possibly think you were being incredibly shallow. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
max9701
1 hour ago, ryn2 said:

That all makes sense.  It’s just hard to rationalize against “but I’m not leaving over sex.”

Sexuals also have to deal with social programming, just as asexuals do. Though modern society may be hyper-sexualized, it's frequently packaged and sold as a cheap thrill, and it's expected that people see other aspects of their relationships as more critical. Though sex may be everywhere, one is expected to view it as simply fun, and not that important to love.

 

So, when lack of sex damages a relationship, some people are keen to blame something else, to avoid seeming petty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

Well, it’s kind of how my life is now...

 

...but it does make sense.  I just don’t get how that’s still “not all about sex.”  If I broke up with someone over not talking with me, that’s what it would be about.

Would it be about the fact that they won't talk to you, or that it's nigh impossible to sustain a relationship with someone that refuses to communicate with you on the most basic level? If your partner talks to you all the time and then abruptly stops, there's a reason. You ask why and they grunt excuses. You try leaving them alone, you try asking in different ways, and finally they straight up say they just don't want to talk to you and actually never did. I'm not sure how anyone could hear that and not assume the relationship is over, but it's not because they wouldn't talk to you, it's because they don't want to talk to you and all that that implies. (That you're uninteresting, that they don't care about you, that you bother them, that they wish you weren't there, etc.) And that's gotta be a really shitty feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

Wouldn't it really be about the effect not talking had on your relationship and possibly on your mental wellbeing?

 

Then again, if you said you broke up because 'he never talked to me', you'd probably get sympathy. If you said 'because he refused to have sex' people would... have questions at least, and quite possibly think you were being incredibly shallow. 

 I guess the difference there is that I just say “he didn’t want to be in a relationship with me anymore” or similar and don’t provide any details.  I’ve had a number of past relationships end for a variety of reasons and the only people who get any detail are friends I know will sympathize.  If no one will, I just don’t elaborate.

 

People are going to think what they’re going to think.  One of my besties (a sexual leaving his no-sex wife for other reasons; she disagrees that she is ace), when we were talking about our situations earlier in the week, said “well if you don’t want him to leave why don’t you just f**k him already?”  People are bound to trivialize and misconstrue (“who wouldn’t leave a frigid wife?”).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
4 minutes ago, max9701 said:

Though sex may be everywhere, one is expected to view it as simply fun, and not that important to love.

So maybe this just feels more true to us because we don’t feel differently...

Share this post


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

Would it be about the fact that they won't talk to you, or that it's nigh impossible to sustain a relationship with someone that refuses to communicate with you on the most basic level? If your partner talks to you all the time and then abruptly stops, there's a reason. You ask why and they grunt excuses. You try leaving them alone, you try asking in different ways, and finally they straight up say they just don't want to talk to you and actually never did. I'm not sure how anyone could hear that and not assume the relationship is over, but it's not because they wouldn't talk to you, it's because they don't want to talk to you and all that that implies. (That you're uninteresting, that they don't care about you, that you bother them, that they wish you weren't there, etc.) And that's gotta be a really shitty feeling.

I guess I’ve stopped looking at it that way after 20+ years with someone who behaves this way regularly.  I understand it is him/his illness and not me.  But, like I mentioned in my original post, I also have the reassurance of other people clearly enjoying talking with me all the time... which is different than monogamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

You also know he'll start wanting to talk you again after a while, based on experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
10 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

I guess I’ve stopped looking at it that way after 20+ years with someone who behaves this way regularly.  I understand it is him/his illness and not me.  But, like I mentioned in my original post, I also have the reassurance of other people clearly enjoying talking with me all the time... which is different than monogamy.

Fair enough, though 'regularly' implies that sometimes it's not the case, which I imagine are the good parts that makes it all worth it. If he didn't talk to you ever, for the rest of your lives together, hated every word he was forced to exchange with you, and (for some reason) you weren't able to talk to anyone else... I have a hard time imagining anyone being okay with a relationship like that. But maybe that's me being unable to put myself in another's shoes now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You also know he'll start wanting to talk you again after a while, based on experience. 

Or at least tolerate listening to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic

I appreciate the conversation tangent, but to get back to…
 

9 hours ago, ryn2 said:

“sex isn’t everything”/“it’s not *all* about sex” and yet the lack of sufficient sex/the presence of sex without desire poses such a problem

Here's my take, I guess.

Sex can have a lot of feelings of vulnerability. Not just physical, but an emotional vulnerability in being pulled by a current of strong desires, yearning for a partner to help complete them – and wanting to complete your partner's desires. I think some symmetry helps make it okay: partners can trust each other because they are both under a spell. To highlight that vulnerability... one could imagine being tricked, someone just playing along and giving what is desired, to gain trust for other ends – manipulated by one's desire.
 

So... my partner does offer intimacy. (I mean, I have to initiate, and ask at the right times, but it's available.) But for me, knowing my partner does not feel that desire is a painful asymmetry. It's not just sex. I struggled with feeling rejected and insufficient. It became very hard to want sex with him – I felt exposed, it felt unfair. It might feel impossible to get past it. (I think I have, I hope I haven't fooled myself.)

I say all this because to me it feels like your examples of personal performance don't capture this vulnerability. The analogies also don't capture the physiological experience... which might be intense and entangled with vulnerability. These differences might make the examples feel off.

When I thought about my children and the playground, I was also thinking about how intense emotions are for children. The asymmetry in intensity of emotion is part of why that analogy worked for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
19 minutes ago, anisotropic said:

I say all this because to me it feels like your examples of personal performance don't capture this vulnerability.

There’s some vulnerability involved in sharing art but it may not be the same.

 

That sense of exposure (emotional, not physical) is actually one of the things I personally dislike about sex.

 

I grew up in a family where intense childhood emotions were punished.  I wonder if that’s somehow a factor...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred

Complicated topic because sex means different things to different people, so if you combine responses from multiple people  you can end up with something that doesn't make sense.  For me:

 

Sex isn't the "most important" but it is one link in the chain of things that form a loving bond.  I can't feel love without sex. I also couldn't feel love with someone who wouldn't have conversations with me, or share life's work and and fun with me, or care about my well being, or enjoy my happiness as I enjoyed theirs, or want non-sexual affection, etc etc. 

 

Its just that sex is one of the most common problems and for me the overwhelming problem in my marriage.

 

Replace my wife with someone who is everything I want sexually but misses some of those other things and I would not be happy. Many marriages are unhappy for some of these other reasons, even if the sex is great. 

 

To me, it just seems that sex is so... well easy. Its what makes it so frustrating. We have everything else, if only she wanted that one additional thing (which she seems to enjoy when it happens) things would be perfect.  We go through phases where things are perfect - just very rarely. 

 

When sex falls apart, I need to build a mental wall, or maybe more like a callous to protect myself from the pain of being rejected (even if I don't actually ask). Unfortunately I can't make that wall just about one thing, it blocks all of the love and romance.  We become a functional couple.  I go through the actions, but I don't really feel love.  We go on "dates',  we take, kiss good night, but I feel like an actor in a play, pretending to love someone. Often deep down I fantasize about catching her in bed with another man or woman so that I could justify leaving to myself.   But then things briefly get better, and once again she means everything to me.  (or if she is hurt in some way, I will do anything to help her, and realize I could never hurt her by leaving her).

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I'd completely endorse what @anisotropic and @uhtred say. No analogy will tick every box and they all have parts that don't work. 

 

I write (and have sold) work, and I've played in bands. There's some kind of performance anxiety about acceptance there, but it's not in the same league as sex. Sex is far more intimate, not mediated by something you've created. The rejection is unequivocally of someone you ache to accept you refusing to be that close physically and emotionally. There's no buffer and it's one on one. 

 

I too grew up in an environment where showing emotion was punished and I can see how it could make intimacy scary. I developed my own sexuality fairly late, and after a lot of confused, terrified avoidance, and because of that it's one of the few areas where I now feel those intimacy issues don't apply. My family hasn't managed to fuck that up, and as a result it's probably more important to me than a lot of people. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrDane

...or if you a hilariously funny, but your wife thinks you are dull and boring, but she allows you to tell those stories anyway. They just never make her laugh. 

 

To me, sex is a primal thing. It is like a drug. I lose myself and trancends into a cosmic frame where all that exists is a mix of love and a freeflowing unison of my wife and I. Afterwards my batteries are charged. I believe in myself and feel worth something. It clears my mind of stress and worries. But thats just me!

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...