Jump to content
ryn2

Another comparison...

Recommended Posts

Telecaster68
4 minutes ago, TryingWife said:

Probably also depends on how transparent the "feeling lousy"  party is with their wants and needs.  When I am just plain sick or if life is kicking me in the head, I definitely don't have the energy or courage to stand up for myself. The least difficult path to the solitude I want is to suck it up and go along to get along rather than potentially start a fight and add him being pissed at me to my list of problems.  So while he may be very aware that I feel like crap,I am probably not clear that fondling is not what I want in that moment and that he is actually making me feel 1000x worse.  Until today, I thought it should be obvious that I wouldn't want that because who the heck wants to screw around when they feel like shit?

I'd say he ought to be able to read that mood and not push things. It doesn't sound like you're putting on a fake front, or at least you don't have the energy for a convincing one. There's responsibility on both sides, and communication very often isn't explicit and verbal, however much 14 year olds on AVEN advocate that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'd say he ought to be able to read that mood and not push things. It doesn't sound like you're putting on a fake front, or at least you don't have the energy for a convincing one. There's responsibility on both sides, and communication very often isn't explicit and verbal, however much 14 year olds on AVEN advocate that. 

TryingWife has a good point, though... communication patterns build up over time.  If all along I put up with [thing I don’t want to do], without having at some past point made that dislike explicitly clear, why would my partner read my behavior as a sign not to proceed?  He can’t see the “what person in their right mind does this when sick” thoughts in my head.

 

If the partner has made it clear in the past, especially repeatedly, yes - continuing to push every time is a bit over-the-top.  If not, though, it’s a lot less clear.

Share this post


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

TryingWife has a good point, though... communication patterns build up over time.  If all along I put up with [thing I don’t want to do], without having at some past point made that dislike explicitly clear, why would my partner read my behavior as a sign not to proceed?  He can’t see the “what person in their right mind does this when sick” thoughts in my head.

 

If the partner has made it clear in the past, especially repeatedly, yes - continuing to push every time is a bit over-the-top.  If not, though, it’s a lot less clear.

You're right, but that same familiarity ought to allow someone to read when their partner doesn't mean what they say. 

Share this post


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

TryingWife has a good point, though... communication patterns build up over time.  If all along I put up with [thing I don’t want to do], without having at some past point made that dislike explicitly clear, why would my partner read my behavior as a sign not to proceed?  He can’t see the “what person in their right mind does this when sick” thoughts in my head.

 

If the partner has made it clear in the past, especially repeatedly, yes - continuing to push every time is a bit over-the-top.  If not, though, it’s a lot less clear.

He must be able to see that she isn't.. well.. enjoying herself though. It seems more that he knows he can get an easy lay without much resistance when she's feeling down/unwell etc. I can't imagine she's groaning in ecstacy and begging him to go deeper or whatever when she's in that kind of mood - he'd be able to pick up on that if he was concerned with how she's feeling and not just his own pleasure. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You're right, but that same familiarity ought to allow someone to read when their partner doesn't mean what they say. 

Yes and no.  If they’ve always reacted pretty much the same to sex, how does the partner know this time is different?

Share this post


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

I can't imagine she's groaning in ecstacy and begging him to go deeper or whatever when she's in that kind of mood - he'd be able to pick up on that if he was concerned with how she's feeling and not just his own pleasure. 

I’m picturing a scenario where she doesn’t really do that anyway, and is probably also going along with sick sex to some degree in order to have it over with faster, so there isn’t a big contrast between “sex when not feeling good” and “all other sex.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TryingWife
2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
On 6/9/2018 at 3:48 PM, Telecaster68 said:

If you said 'because he refused to have sex' people would... have questions at least, and quite possibly think you were being incredibly shallow. 

And...why do you think that some people would believe that breaking up with someone because of the lack of sex would be 'shallow'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vega57
23 hours ago, MrDane said:

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!

What is it about sex that causes you to feel this way?  

 

What you described here almost sounds a bit...self-centered.  I don't mean that in a 'mean' way, but it seems that there's a point when sex becomes (if not already), all about how *you* feel.  I mean, does your wife transcend into a cosmic frame, yadda, yadda, yadda?  Are HER batteries charged?  Does SHE believe in herself and feel like she's 'worth something'?  Does it clear HER mind of stress and worries?  

 

It seems while the two of you may be sharing bodies, you're definitely not on the same page mentally or emotionally.  

 

Yet, you'll continue to have sex...*scratches head*

Share this post


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

And...why do you think that some people would believe that breaking up with someone because of the lack of sex would be 'shallow'?

Because they have no idea how deeply it affects the whole relationship. 

Share this post


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

Because they have no idea how deeply it affects the whole relationship. 

Well, if they break up with someone because of the lack of sex, then obviously it affects the whole relationship!  

 

But the reason they may see that reason (lack of sex) as 'shallow' is because...?  

 

I'm sorry Tele, but even a number of sexuals would see a break-up because of the lack of sex as 'shallow'.  I'm just wondering why they would think that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

They'd see it that way because romantic ideals hold up an ideal of souls meeting, happy ever after as true love. However ask those same people if they'd be happy never having sex again, let alone put them in that situation, and they'd almost certainly rethink. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
1 hour ago, vega57 said:

Well, if they break up with someone because of the lack of sex, then obviously it affects the whole relationship!  

 

But the reason they may see that reason (lack of sex) as 'shallow' is because...?  

 

I'm sorry Tele, but even a number of sexuals would see a break-up because of the lack of sex as 'shallow'.  I'm just wondering why they would think that.  

It is an interesting question. I think it is because asexuality is pretty rare.  More commonly when someone's partner doesn't want sex, it is a sign of some sort failure in the person (not the partner).  Its deeply built into culture that if you love someone and they are a good person and behave in the right ways, then they will want to have sex with you as part of a romantic relationship. 

 

In other groups, look at all the posts telling people who's partners don't want sex to:  "man up", or "work out more", or "learn to be sexier", or "be more adventurous in bed',. or "do more chores" or "do less chores",  "get a better job", "take care of your appearance",  and on and on and on.  It is clear that for most people *you* must be doing something wrong if your partner isn't sexually attracted to you. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2

People feel most comfortable “othering” the partner who is being denied sex, too, so they can feel reassured it will never happen to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
On 6/9/2018 at 12:49 PM, 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.

It's difficult to get your head around it because it's a hypocritical, nonsensical argument (assuming the same person is fitting into both groups).  Such arguments have a tendency to cause that.

Share this post


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

 

In other groups, look at all the posts telling people who's partners don't want sex to:  "man up", or "work out more", or "learn to be sexier", or "be more adventurous in bed',. or "do more chores" or "do less chores",  "get a better job", "take care of your appearance",  and on and on and on.  It is clear that for most people *you* must be doing something wrong if your partner isn't sexually attracted to you. 

This reminds me of all the "fix your marriage" experts that insist that lack of sexual interest from the wife means that she's not enjoying it enough, because obviously if she could reliably orgasm then she would want sex all the time.  So the focus is various versions of " learn to relax and teach your husband how to pleasure you".  This philosophy is especially popular with the Christian marriage advice crowd.  

 

How much inadequacy does that whole industry create....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's difficult to get your head around it because it's a hypocritical, nonsensical argument (assuming the same person is fitting into both groups).  Such arguments have a tendency to cause that.

There's a thing known as 'necessary but not sufficient'. A bathroom is necessary in a house but not sufficient to make it viable house. Brakes are necessary on a car but not sufficient to make it a viable car. For most people sex is necessary in a relationship but not sufficient to make it a viable relationship - hence it's not all about sex but the lack of it is a problem. 

 

It's neither hypocritical nor nonsense. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
45 minutes ago, mzmolly65 said:

Let me ask you all this; if your spouse was sexual but then suddenly injured and no longer able to move or feel anything from the neck down would you still feel this way?  Would you still feel inadequate, unloved, undesirable?  Would you still consider leaving the marriage?

I wouldn't feel exactly the same way, but it would clearly be a problem - a lot of marriages do break up over serious illnesses, and many others seem to be discreetly open. It's idealistic to think that love is always enough (and the same for asexuals: if love was enough they'd be willing to have lots of sex forever, for the sake of love).

 

The difference is that they may well still have the desire, just not the ability to do anything about it, and that desire matters as much as the act itself. That's why asexuals going through the motions is also frequently not a long term solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2

So an ill/injured spouse is the flip

side of the willing ace issue (desire but no sex, rather than sex but no desire) but, as desire is more important than sex, it’s a 51% yes situation rather than a 49% yes one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I'd honestly struggle to put numbers on it. 

 

Thinking of about it some more, I think the implications of a spouse who was still a sexual person and understood the issue on a visceral level, as opposed to asexuals who can grasp the problem only in a more intellectual level, makes a big difference. Life changing illness or injury always has a kind of grieving process for what's no longer possible, and that's something both sexual partners could share, not just for sex but for whatever else is no longer possible. For me, that would make it easier to bear. However sympathetic an asexual partner is, there would still be a fundamental lack of shared understanding of what's lost for the sexual - and of course asexuals have no loss of their own to grieve in the these terms. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

However sympathetic an asexual partner is, there would still be a fundamental lack of shared understanding of what's lost for the sexual - and of course asexuals have no loss of their own to grieve in the these terms. 

I think the loss of the relationship ideal is shared by both partners.  I doubt most aces enter into LTRs (especially marriage/contractual domestic partnership) with the hope that their partners will be terribly unhappy and ultimately opt to leave them.

 

What the ideal relationship comprises obviously differs between the two, but they both have a mental picture of one and neither of them has any hope of achieving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

In general, yes, but specifically relating to the absence of sex because of illness vs because of asexuality, the asexual can't be grieving the loss of sexual intimacy for themselves, because they never had it, and they don't fully understand their partner's loss in the way a sexual would. 

Share this post


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

In general, yes, but specifically relating to the absence of sex because of illness vs because of asexuality, the asexual can't be grieving the loss of sexual intimacy for themselves, because they never had it, and they don't fully understand their partner's loss in the way a sexual would. 

Agreed.  I just didn’t agree that the grieving in a mixed relationship is one-sided.

Share this post


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

There's a thing known as 'necessary but not sufficient'. A bathroom is necessary in a house but not sufficient to make it viable house. Brakes are necessary on a car but not sufficient to make it a viable car. For most people sex is necessary in a relationship but not sufficient to make it a viable relationship - hence it's not all about sex but the lack of it is a problem. 

 

It's neither hypocritical nor nonsense. 

If the lack of any one thing disrupts the relationship to the point where it terminates, then yeah, it kinda does mean everything (as far as the preservation of the relationship goes), and it's absolutely stupid to try to pretend that it isn't so, which is what these "sex isn't everything" messages are attempting (and failing) to convey.

 

It is the very definition of hypocrisy and nonsense.

 

If, as you say, what you are trying to say is more like "more than just sex is necessary for me to maintain a relationship"... then you could just say something like that instead, rather than a more ambiguous statement that tries to pass off sex as something that isn't THAT important to you (when it actually is).

Share this post


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

If the lack of any one thing disrupts the relationship to the point where it terminates, then yeah, it kinda does mean everything (as far as the preservation of the relationship goes), and it's absolutely stupid to try to pretend that it isn't so, which is what these "sex isn't everything" messages are attempting (and failing) to convey.

 

It is the very definition of hypocrisy and nonsense.

All you mean is some things are deal breakers; it doesn't mean they're 'everything' in a relationship, in the sense that sex is all that matters. We could equally say that incompatibilities over trust, life aims, moral outlook etc. are dealbreakers. It's just that this forum is about asexuality, so sex tends to be the focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2

Sex does seem to be one of the top cases where, in a list of potential deal-breakers, it is the one that takes precedence above all other factors.

 

That could be true here since it’s a sex-related forum, sure... but some of the other deal-breakers you listed might also stand a better chance of being adjusted/repaired.

Share this post


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

Sex does seem to be one of the top cases where, in a list of potential deal-breakers, it is the one that takes precedence above all other factors.

 

That could be true here since it’s a sex-related forum, sure... but some of the other deal-breakers you listed might also stand a better chance of being adjusted/repaired.

They might, because there isn't the hardline 'this thing cannot be changed or even challenged' as there is with sexual orientation; there are very few people who'd be okay with 'I'm untrustworthy, live with it'; 'I'm a racist, live with it'; 'I plan on travelling the world though you don't, live with it'. If the person with that attitude was unable or unwilling to change, I can see a relationship ending over it. 

 

But none of that means that the other person is making a relationship entirely about trust, or morality or life aims in the way that Philip is claiming sex is everything about a relationship to sexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

I'm not claiming that.  I'm responding specifically to the example in the OP; as in someone who would say sex isn't everything to them yet they would still break a relationship over it.  As far as I'm concerned, such a person is outright lying.

Share this post


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

As far as I'm concerned, such a person is outright lying.

Your logic is flawed.

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...