Jump to content
ryn2

Another comparison...

Recommended Posts

TryingWife
3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Yeah, I wouldn’t say she’s the one and only but it seems rarer? Or maybe most of the ace-initiating couples aren’t here?

My gut reaction is something along the lines of "the best defense is a good offense" .  I can totally see the less sexual partner initiating sex to allow themselves to try to meet their partner's needs but on their own timetable.  If you have no organic urge for sex, it can be difficult to shift gears just because somebody else has the idea.   It may be easier to be thinking "it's Tuesday, let's have sex" rather than crawl into bed planning to sleep and have that plan disrupted by a horny partner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic

Broadly speaking, I'm not a fan of vaguely adversarial language/models for sexual intimacy in mixed relationships.

 

Just putting this out here. I think I sometimes get this vibe from both "sides". I'm sure it reflects a reality for many, but it's not universal, and surely isn't ideal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
5 hours ago, Philip027 said:

I've heard people say it, and I don't necessarily agree with it.  Most people who do say such a thing haven't even tried going for a while without it.

Right. So by your logic, money is the only thing you care about. Is that true? 

Share this post


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

Broadly speaking, I'm not a fan of vaguely adversarial language/models for sexual intimacy in mixed relationships.

 

Just putting this out here. I think I sometimes get this vibe from both "sides". I'm sure it reflects a reality for many, but it's not universal, and surely isn't ideal.

Both the sexuals and asexuals on this thread are (mostly) the ones in their relationships who are trying, and willing, to compromise; we all have partners who are less willing or able to compromise. So a sexual says 'but why don't they follow through?' and asexuals who are following through counter accuse sexuals of being over demanding or unreasonable, because their partners are more like that. There's a lot of shouting past each other going on. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Both the sexuals and asexuals on this thread are (mostly) the ones in their relationships who are trying, and willing, to compromise; we all have partners who are less willing or able to compromise. So a sexual says 'but why don't they follow through?' and asexuals who are following through counter accuse sexuals of being over demanding or unreasonable, because their partners are more like that. There's a lot of shouting past each other going on. 

Agreed, based on our collective experience there’s a fair amount of “if only my spouse would...” followed by “...but I *do* and in my house it gets me nothing.”

 

For example, uhtred’s wife is doing *exactly* what my husband says he wants.  I can’t make those things work.  I can, however function under a model that might well work for uhtred; in my own household it’s unacceptable.  So close, but so far.

 

That said, @anisotropic, you spoke (understandably) a bit too broadly for me in that I’m not quite sure what you were referring to...

Share this post


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

That said, @anisotropic, you spoke (understandably) a bit too broadly for me in that I’m not quite sure what you were referring to...

Oh, I don't get this vibe from you. You seem similar to my partner, and it helps a lot to read what you write. Thank you.

 

To be clear, I don't mean when frustration is about a partner's communication issues. In some posts (that are not yours) it feels like this frustration can leak into generalizations like "aces don't want to understand", "sexuals are selfishly demanding".

Share this post


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

Oh, I don't get this vibe from you. You seem similar to my partner, and it helps a lot to read what you write. Thank you.

 

To be clear, I don't mean when frustration is about a partner's communication issues. In some posts (that are not yours) it feels like this frustration can leak into generalizations like "aces don't want to understand", "sexuals are selfishly demanding".

Gotcha.  That frustrates me too, as it’s clear even from this small sample that - while we may have some very general things in common (or in difference) - we are individuals first.  The only thing we can know for sure from any given ace’s (or sexual’s) statement is that anyone claiming “all aces/sexuals do/think/feel [enter the polar opposite here]” is incorrect.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Right. So by your logic, money is the only thing you care about. Is that true? 

No, but trying to brush it off like it isn't important isn't going to fool anyone with sense.

 

I cannot make a statement like "money isn't everything" with a straight face, because if I were without it, the situation would not be maintainable.  It's needed for food, it's needed for my rent, it's needed for my internet bill to be able to communicate with my fiancee, it's needed for plane fare to be able to see my fiancee, it's needed for gas/fares to be able to get to work to be able to get more money... almost everything we do involves the transit of money in one way or another.  Its absence would be unacceptable, so as far as I'm concerned, it pretty much does mean everything.

 

If sex is something on a similar level of importance to you (to the point where the absence of that one thing is a dealbreaker), it just does not make any sense to me why you would try to say it isn't everything, because that statement conveys the idea you don't think it's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
12 hours ago, Philip027 said:

I've heard people say it, and I don't necessarily agree with it.  Most people who do say such a thing haven't even tried going for a while without it.

I think you interpret the phrase "isn't everything" in a different way than most people do.  When someone says "money isn't everything" they mean that money is not the only,important thing, and maybe not the most important thing, but it doesn't rule out money still having importance.

 

I would agree that "money isn't everything", I have not lived my life to maximize the  amount of money that I have - but I do consider it important and do make significant decisions based on money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

But money isn't everything about that relationship. There are other things about maintaining it, wanting to maintain it, enjoying it, benefiting from it, that are nothing to do with money. Presumably the absence of some of those would be unacceptable too, to the point where you'd want to finish the relationship.

 

Sex is the same thing - there are other things about the relationship that are valuable and necessary and the absence of one of them would make the relationship unacceptable. None of them, individually, is 'everything', by definition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
12 hours ago, anisotropic said:

I think it confuses me too. I mean, how can someone be initiating (in a non-deliberate way)... and ace?

 

It sounds painful and frustrating in different ways.

 

It kind of sounds gray/ace-spectrum rather than ace? This list has the term "burstsexual"??

 

I think its easy to get caught up in the terminology.  My wife isn't really "asexual" she is something for which there may not be a well defined term.  She has a lot of traits associated with asexuality, in particular a low interest in sex under conditions where the majority of people would be interested. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

But money isn't everything about that relationship. There are other things about maintaining it, wanting to maintain it, enjoying it, benefiting from it, that are nothing to do with money. Presumably the absence of some of those would be unacceptable too, to the point where you'd want to finish the relationship.

 

Sex is the same thing - there are other things about the relationship that are valuable and necessary and the absence of one of them would make the relationship unacceptable. None of them, individually, is 'everything', by definition.

If the absence of it makes the situation unworkable regardless of any other conditions, then as far as I'm concerned, it's an "everything".

 

No shit, there are still other things that are vital too.  But saying something isn't everything primarily conveys the idea that you don't think it's important.  If you would leave over that one thing, sounds like it's pretty damn important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
10 hours ago, TryingWife said:

My gut reaction is something along the lines of "the best defense is a good offense" .  I can totally see the less sexual partner initiating sex to allow themselves to try to meet their partner's needs but on their own timetable.  If you have no organic urge for sex, it can be difficult to shift gears just because somebody else has the idea.   It may be easier to be thinking "it's Tuesday, let's have sex" rather than crawl into bed planning to sleep and have that plan disrupted by a horny partner.

I can see that, but it can come across as controlling. To the sexual in the relationship, it feels like they have no control whatsoever over their sex life.  The asexual decides what and when.   Keep in mind that most sexuals don't want sex *all* of the time. Sometimes my wife initiates when I'm not particularly in the mood, but I don't wan to turn her down because it may be the only chance for a long time. 

 

In my case its not "sleep disrupted", I'd never wake her up or anything like that.  Its more that if we have an evening with nothing particular we want to do, I'm almost certain to be turned down if I initiate, I have to wait and see if she happens to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
3 hours ago, anisotropic said:

Oh, I don't get this vibe from you. You seem similar to my partner, and it helps a lot to read what you write. Thank you.

 

To be clear, I don't mean when frustration is about a partner's communication issues. In some posts (that are not yours) it feels like this frustration can leak into generalizations like "aces don't want to understand", "sexuals are selfishly demanding".

I think there is a background of some deeply frustrated /  unhappy /  frustrated people.  They may not consciously blame their partners, but beneath the surface there is a lot of resentment that leaks out into posts. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
3 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

If the absence of it makes the situation unworkable regardless of any other conditions, then as far as I'm concerned, it's an "everything".

 

No shit, there are still other things that are vital too.  But saying something isn't everything primarily conveys the idea that you don't think it's important.  If you would leave over that one thing, sounds like it's pretty damn important.

By your definition there can be multiple things that are "everything".   Food,  shelter, money, etc etc?  If so, your definition is very different from what most people use. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, Philip027 said:

But saying something isn't everything primarily conveys the idea that you don't think it's important.

No, it primarily conveys the idea it's the only thing, that there's nothing else. That's what the word means. 

 

Merriam Webster:

 

Quote

Definition of everything
1 a : all that exists
b : all that relates to the subject


2 : all that is important - 'you mean everything to me'

The second definition is clearly a figure of speech. It's a description of how someone feels in the moment. No one would seriously understand that the speaker meant their parents, their friends, their work, the rest of their life was meaningless.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
12 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

No, it primarily conveys the idea it's the only thing, that there's nothing else. That's what the word means

I don't think you will usually be getting read the way you think you are.

 

Bottom line, saying something isn't "everything" when it's clearly still vital to you only serves to be misleading and confusing.  In my book, it's outright lying.  *shrug*

 

12 minutes ago, uhtred said:

By your definition there can be multiple things that are "everything".   Food,  shelter, money, etc etc?  If so, your definition is very different from what most people use. 

Strongly disagree.  Just look at the example above.  People say other people/things mean "everything" to them all the time even when it's quite obvious there are other people/things that are still important, maybe even as important, maybe even more important.

 

Most people absolutely do not mean the term 100% literally, as though there can only be one thing that is "everything".  That's absurd, most people know it would be absurd, and therefore most people know the word isn't meant to be taken that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SusannaC

This entire conversation has been very depressing.  In my book- sex and money are both VERY important- and while it may not be exactly accurate to say each is “everything”, there have been times in my life where they feel like everything( I.e.-more important than anything else)!😁. Clearly not everyone feels the same here.  Furthermore, if my statements are confusing or misleading, I hope you don’t think I’m LYING.  Cause I’m not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Okay. Philip is right, Merriam Webster is wrong.

 

There's not a lot of point in continuing this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

Dafuq did I just read?

Share this post


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

Dafuq did I just read?

Philip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

Hey, I am all for dictionary definitions where appropriate, but you yourself admit it is often employed as a figure of speech and presumably isn't meant to be taken 100% literally, so I'm not sure as to why you're treating the dictionary definition like it is unshakable gospel.

Share this post


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

But money isn't everything about that relationship. There are other things about maintaining it, wanting to maintain it, enjoying it, benefiting from it, that are nothing to do with money. Presumably the absence of some of those would be unacceptable too, to the point where you'd want to finish the relationship.

 

Sex is the same thing - there are other things about the relationship that are valuable and necessary and the absence of one of them would make the relationship unacceptable. None of them, individually, is 'everything', by definition.

Probably the clearest option is to say “sex is a deal-breaker.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Because in this particular case, it was being used at the primary meaning, according to MW. It's not some archaic, rare use of the word.

 

Even if you break it into constituent parts 'every' and 'thing', the word clearly doesn't mean 'important'.

Share this post


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

Probably the clearest option is to say “sex is a deal-breaker.”

Yeah, I agree. But asexuals (not all, just frequently) interpret it as being the only dealbreaker, despite sexuals explaining it's one of a bunch of things that are dealbreakers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
46 minutes ago, uhtred said:

They may not consciously blame their partners, but beneath the surface there is a lot of resentment that leaks out into posts. 

As long as we all try to keep in mind that this blame is likely both completely understandable and simultaneously often unfair we should be able to talk together about it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yeah, I agree. But asexuals (not all, just frequently) interpret it as being the only dealbreaker, despite sexuals explaining it's one of a bunch of things that are dealbreakers.

It doesn’t really matter, though, if you have one deal-breaker or 100.  The one that’s being summoned to break the deal is the only one that matters at that particular moment.

 

Some aces hear the situation more like “I need these eight things to be fully satisfied with my relationship.”  In that case having six out of eight sounds pretty good, and even five might be fine.  If the truth is actually “these eight things are my deal-breakers,” even seven out of eight is actually a failure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
10 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Because in this particular case, it was being used at the primary meaning, according to MW. It's not some archaic, rare use of the word.

 

Even if you break it into constituent parts 'every' and 'thing', the word clearly doesn't mean 'important'.

Yet that is how the word is used, particularly in this sort of context.

 

9 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

But asexuals (not all, just frequently) interpret it as being the only thing that matters,

If you will leave over that one thing when everything else is fine, what else is there to be assumed, exactly?  It obviously matters enough.

 

Who gives a shit if there are other things you'd leave over too, really?  We aren't stupid; we know that, and that isn't the point.  It's like that for just about everyone, ourselves included.  Point is, that one thing is still important enough to most sexuals to the point where it won't even matter that everything else is fine if that one thing is lacking.  And it doesn't help us or anyone else recognize that fact when you try to mask it by saying it "isn't everything".  That's all I'm saying here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
15 hours ago, max9701 said:

Ever hear someone say "money isn't everything?" It's very true. That doesn't imply that it's unimportant, or even unnecessary. 

If someone left you because of your lack of money, I'm willing to bet that you would be confused if they initially told you that "money isn't everything".

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...