Jump to content

For the sexuals and everybody, honest opinion: Is sex really all that great?


Tyger Songbird

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, tygersongbird said:

So, I really want your opinions overall, so I desire your overall feelings and thoughts on this whole question.

For me, the closest description (particularly after the insight of being with my ace) is that sex is an ability like the ability to hug someone. It can be many things. It can be a meaningless hug to someone in a "hugging environment" (some parties where everyone seems to hug at entry/exit come to mind). It can be comfort, it can be togetherness, it can be discovery, it can feel good, convey acceptance, convey serious like/love and so on. Additionally, it can also be seriously exciting in a physical way that feels really good. I'd compare an orgasm with a good stretch. You feel cramped, need to stretch, then you stretch and aaah.... one moment you tense yourself in a specific way, the next you're really relaxed. Just in a much more better feeling way. lol.

 

Is it necessary? Not all the time. Sometimes you really need to stretch. Other times you do it just because it feels good after sitting cramped for a while. Or you don't and just stand up and start walking to the next thing. Some friends you hug, others you don't. Some friend narrowly escapes an accident and you just want to hold them for a while.

 

To a sexual, saying that sex doesn't matter can also be compared with how a romantic ace would feel if informed that hugging doesn't matter. Or that you don't need to say "I love you" ten times a day, you informed 3 years ago and no need to repeat it unless there is a change of status. Can it be avoided? Yes, but it sort of deadens things.

 

The most important thing, in my view is that if two people really want to be close, sex is among the most impactful ways of doing it. Obviously, unless you are ace. I see it as a matter of how close you can get to someone. Some have an intense intellectual relationship and may never touch. Or may shake hands. Others may hug. Or cuddle. Or sex. Or intensify the sex with something that further enhances the awareness of it with say kink or some other form of play.

 

From the perspective of my ace, who is sex neutral rather than averse, he doesn't want sex for himself, but STILL wants us to be sexual, because he likes the effect of that closeness in how I behave with him - beyond sex. Since I am sexual, not having sex means I'm not getting as close to him as I could and would want to. So I ACT differently when I'm really close to him as opposed to hugs and cuddles. Playfulness, flirting, eye contact, affection, simply more interactions.... he WANTS us to have sex so I am all that with him - as I am normally with someone I love and am attracted to - rather than being cautious and limiting the kind of contact I allow myself, which naturally inhibits my overall behavior with him, because I'm filtering how I act rather than simply being.

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

Better to be alone then, than talk about random things, in the post apocalyptic scenario?

 

I'm just trying to get my head round preferring no human company over some human company, assuming it's not actively malign.

It’s not about talking about random things (or not).

 

Some people grate on me.  Some  wear me out.  Some are fine in small doses.  Some are always a pleasure.

 

In person I am not awesome about enforcing boundaries in situations where someone likes me/likes talking to me more (sometimes much more) than I do them.  In a post-apocalyptic scenario that would be problematic for me if the lone other survivor was, say, a chatty extrovert who thinks company makes every conceivable thing better.

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

 

 

Society always seems to sell sex to us- saying that sex is something is oh, so great, and that it is a highly important thing you just can't go without- do you agree or disagree? Is sex something so great that you would say it's essential for each and everybody? Is sex all that it's really cracked up to be? What do you say?   Yay or nay?

 

I'm one of the ones who married before I found out I was ACE (I blamed my lack of sexual attraction on a religious background) Yes, it was good but not to the point where it took over my life and I  never initiated it. It didn't spark any kind of 'have to have it' mentality. I could go without it for months without noticing. 

 

A person could always choose simple plain food but go to a five-star restaurant once in a while and enjoy it, It would be good, but the thing is, that doesn't change the person's basic likes and dislikes. After a meal there they would be happy to go back to their simple way of eating and not miss the fine dining.  Good sex is good but for me, not all that 'great' so that I would re-arrange my lifestyle for more of it.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyger Songbird
2 hours ago, Lara Black said:

Of course, not. It’s just our secret plot specifically to piss off asexuals.

Ahem, honestly, what answer did you expect to hear from sexuals? We’re called that for a reason.

If you wanna know something special about what makes sex great for us, or whether we figured out it was great before or after we tried it for several times, then more specific starting message would be helpful. Or you could read the previous forum entries because I’m pretty sure there’ve been posts like that already.

OK. Well, I often don't check the forums and all that. So, I didn't know or anything. I don't know anything about this personally, nor have I ever really wanted to either. I just always am constantly hearing how "Everybody loves sex!" as if it's "Everybody loves Raymond" or something. I keep hearing that, and all I want to do is interject with "Everybody but me!" because I really don't want to get involved with sex. However, whenever you say that or mention that, you might as well have said that you are some sort of alien reptile with antennae on the head. It's almost as if sex is something so essential for everybody, and hearing statements like that make you wonder "What's wrong with me?". I don't know.

 

Being in a sexual world, I feel so out of place most days. I often feel like the broken one, dysfunctional at best, really. Sometimes you start thinking "Am I wrong and are they right?" "Is sex something so vital and crucial to the human experience?" "Do you have to have sex to be a human being?" "Do I have to have sex, like they say I should, then?"  "Can you be normal as an asexual?" "Is asexuality normal or abnormal?" "What if I'm not normal, then? Do I have to become normal, then?" "What do I do? Where do I go from here?"

 

Those are the questions that continuous run through my mind some days.

 

Sorry, there are simply days where I just feel defected, and that doesn't feel good, to be honest with you. So, I asked that question in complete honesty, especially since I have no idea what sex is really. I'm sorry if that was overboard or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would require some separation of duties to buy peace and quiet.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyger Songbird
19 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

My preferred responses to such "arguments" (even though I don't necessarily think that it will always persuade people, some people use such arguments just out of ordinary hostility to asexuals):

- Why should I do something which feels so unpleasant and discomfortable (discomfortable - more than just uncomfortable) to me?

- Why are other orientations, and especially heterosexuals, given the privilege of being able to know their orientation without testing it, but we are not? It's a double standard.

I like that response. If it is something that is patently discomforting, why should I ever attempt it then. I don't get that. I don't get why we have to do something just because everyone says it's necessary for them, so they assume the same for us?

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

OK. Well, I often don't check the forums and all that. So, I didn't know or anything. I don't know anything about this personally, nor have I ever really wanted to either. I just always am constantly hearing how "Everybody loves sex!" as if it's "Everybody loves Raymond" or something. I keep hearing that, and all I want to do is interject with "Everybody but me!" because I really don't want to get involved with sex. However, whenever you say that or mention that, you might as well have said that you are some sort of alien reptile with antennae on the head. It's almost as if sex is something so essential for everybody, and hearing statements like that make you wonder "What's wrong with me?". I don't know.

 

Being in a sexual world, I feel so out of place most days. I often feel like the broken one, dysfunctional at best, really. Sometimes you start thinking "Am I wrong and are they right?" "Is sex something so vital and crucial to the human experience?" "Do you have to have sex to be a human being?" "Do I have to have sex, like they say I should, then?"  "Can you be normal as an asexual?" "Is asexuality normal or abnormal?" "What if I'm not normal, then? Do I have to become normal, then?" "What do I do? Where do I go from here?"

 

Those are the questions that continuous run through my mind some days.

 

Sorry, there are simply days where I just feel defected, and that doesn't feel good, to be honest with you. So, I asked that question in complete honesty, especially since I have no idea what sex is really. I'm sorry if that was overboard or something.

OK, so that’s more of an emotional outcry. That’s understandable. And I know what you feel to some degree – it seems like society’s approach to any minority. And the more of a minority you are, the harsher it gets. I’m child-free, but I sometimes feel that everybody around me LOVES kids and I must do so, too. Luckily, there are more child-free people than there are aces, so I can find like-minded people and not feel completely outnumbered.

So, I guess, AVEN might help you quite some. There are many people here who don’t like or want sex and they are totally fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lara Black said:
Quote

Society always seems to sell sex to us- saying that sex is something is oh, so great, and that it is a highly important thing you just can't go without- do you agree or disagree? Is sex something so great that you would say it's essential for each and everybody? Is sex all that it's really cracked up to be? 

Of course, not. It’s just our secret plot specifically to piss off asexuals.

Ahem, honestly, what answer did you expect to hear from sexuals? We’re called that for a reason.

Hm.. I don't agree. If it were literally a thing you "can't go without", like food or shelter, then I'd consider it a massive human rights violation not to ensure that everybody has access to it. However, that's not the case, is it. You can easily go without. And by the very nature of how human sexuality works, a lot of people do, especially men.

 

From my perspective, I don't view sex as this "oh so great, highly important thing", but more as an unfortunate addiction. Could it feel nice? Absolutely. Would focusing on pursuing that nice feeling completely ruin my life? Absolutely.

 

I honestly think there's an issue in this society. This kind of "fuck you, got mine" attitude, where everyone is encouraged to seek the greatest pleasure and success for themselves, and sex is treated the same way in that context. Both asexuals and sexuals who aren't fortunate enough to find that sexual fulfillment, are hit in the same negative way by that kind of culture. I guess that's part of why I can relate to so much of what asexuals say on here.

 

Hence, my comment from before. When you've found someone who you'd actually like to share that experience with and it's reciprocated, I'm sure sex is nice. Otherwise, the need for it is a highly harmful thing, especially when going unmet over years and decades.

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

Hm.. I don't agree. If it were literally a thing you "can't go without", like food or shelter, then I'd consider it a massive human rights violation not to ensure that everybody has access to it. However, that's not the case, is it. You can easily go without. And by the very nature of how human sexuality works, a lot of people do, especially men.

 

From my perspective, I don't view sex as this "oh so great, highly important thing", but more as an unfortunate addiction. Could it feel nice? Absolutely. Would focusing on pursuing that nice feeling completely ruin my life? Absolutely.

 

I honestly think there's an issue in this society. This kind of "fuck you, got mine" attitude, where everyone is encouraged to seek the greatest pleasure and success for themselves, and sex is treated the same way in that context. Both asexuals and sexuals who aren't fortunate enough to find that sexual fulfillment, are hit in the same negative way by that kind of culture. I guess that's part of why I can relate to so much of what asexuals say on here.

 

Hence, my comment from before. When you've found someone who you'd actually like to share that experience with and it's reciprocated, I'm sure sex is nice. Otherwise, the need for it is a highly harmful thing, especially when going unmet over years and decades.

While I would not physically die without, the statement “you could easily go without “ is, for some people, myself included, laughable. Honestly, if I were to find out that the rest of my life would be without sex, I would seriously contemplate suicide. And I’m generally a very resilient person! Now the fact that I was contemplating suicide would prompt me to immediately seek help (I have lost friends to suicide and I couldn’t bear the thought of inflicting that pain on others), but I would be psychologically devastated. So while it is not a physical need, the fact that for some people, it is a need, is not hyperbole. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There definitely seems to be a range of importance amongst at least the sexuals that post here.

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

I've said this before Tar, but seriously, I think you need to comprehensively, enthusiastically, expertly laid.

I think you should back off.

 

Not everyone can get enthusiastically laid. They may have severe medical issues, like obesity (as well as more rare and purely genetic conditions), that are  enormous barriers to the chances of this happening.

 

Even if someone who doesn't have barriers like those, desperation is a well known turn off. What starts as bad luck turns into a curse.

 

Fixating on what one can't have is a great way to be miserable. There's a lot of peace and happiness when we turn towards the joys we can attain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic

 

10 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I've known Tar and his situation for years, thanks.

What you write gets read by others, many of whom won't have some hidden knowledge that you consider to be an ameliorating context for what you write. What purpose is there, then?

 

Because, in the absence of that, I'm not seeing a great general message in what your wrote.  Pivoting to make this an opportunity to play "you're an outsider" is also not super impressive.

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

What you write gets read by others, many of whom won't have some hidden knowledge that you consider to be an ameliorating context for what you write. What purpose is there, then?

Who gives a shit?  The message clearly wasn't intended for anyone else, and going by the "I've said this before" comment, it should be clear that the two posters have a history that you may not be privy to.

 

25 minutes ago, anisotropic said:

Because, in the absence of that, I'm not seeing a great general message in what your wrote.

Maybe because it wasn't a general message for everybody.

 

Who says there has to be one, anyway?  Who died and made you forum police?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Philip027, I agree that it was fairly clear that the message was more inside humor than serious broadcast, I don’t think it was bad for @anisotropic to stick up for someone if she really thought the intention was hostility. The world needs more people to confront things when they seem wrong. 

 

Either way, yeesh. I think maybe the both of you need to get comprehensively, enthusiastically, expertly laid. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your FACE needs to get comprehensively, enthusiastically, expertly laid! 🙄

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

😏

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic

Yeah I dunno. I'm outta here for a while. These forums here were my way of finding support for myself when I needed it (or maybe I should say, contextualizing my experience and understanding it). But I'm happy now & got a lot to do IRL.

I took Tar's message as a valuable statement on not obsessing over the value of something one doesn't have or can't experience, and I think it still is.

And, Chain, my pronouns are on my profile. I detest being referred to with female pronouns.

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

Yeah I dunno. I'm outta here for a while. These forums here were my way of finding support for myself when I needed it (or maybe I should say, contextualizing my experience and understanding it). But I'm happy now & got a lot to do IRL.

I took Tar's message as a valuable statement on not obsessing over the value of something one doesn't have or can't experience, and I think it still is.

And, Chain, my pronouns are on my profile. I detest being referred to with female pronouns.

I’m sorry, I never looked at your profile and just carelessly assumed. Thank you for your contributions to the various discussions that I’ve also taken part of. You’ll be missed, but it’s wonderful to hear that you’re happy enough to move on for now. Good luck IRL!

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

But I'm happy now & got a lot to do IRL.

Glad to hear you’re in a good spot and have gotten what you needed here.  I’ll miss reading your insights, though.

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

You can easily go without. And by the very nature of how human sexuality works, a lot of people do, especially men.

Easily???!!!

 

13 hours ago, Tarfeather said:

From my perspective, I don't view sex as this "oh so great, highly important thing", but more as an unfortunate addiction. Could it feel nice? Absolutely. Would focusing on pursuing that nice feeling completely ruin my life? Absolutely.

Personally, I find it rather easy to put sex out of my mind - IF - I don't have a trigger. In the sense, before I met my ace, I'd just come out of an abusive marriage and was overall pessimistic about men other than the sex and had decided that men were too much maintenance for a woman who wasn't domestically inclined. I was done. Self sex was the best sex and all that. I do fine when my ace is out of town. What makes it hard is sleeping next to him day after day KNOWING that sex is not likely and well, frankly, it may be a handicap, but it is among the key ways I get close to a partner, so I feel like I don't know what to do with myself come bedtime. 

 

Addiction speaks of an unhealthy obsession. At least, for me, it isn't like that. I simply lost desire for my ace altogether once I realized that he wasn't likely to be very interested in our relationship being sexual. We are actually struggling for me to be able to see him in a sexual manner, because otherwise I become too... indifferent to him on a personal level.

 

But even without being attracted to him, bedtime can still be fifty kinds of confusing for me, because I am really not into sharing my personal space with people I am not intimate with. So I have this person sleeping in my bed and I don't quite know what to make of it. Hug? Cuddle? Touch? How much is affection, where does sex begin? I have no freaking idea. I don't touch men I don't find attractive to begin with and I don't quite see the point of touching someone in a way that indicates physical closeness knowing that it is all that is going to be. Don't see what is okay about touching his face, back, arms, chest, thighs, feet but not nipples or penis, because I can so totally seduce with the right kind of touch anywhere and touching a penis or vagina can also be completely non-sexual! 

 

In the end it just totals to irritating, because there is no clarity. The distinction my ace sees between sex and the rest of the physical closeness is invisible to me.

 

What I am trying to say is that perhaps what you are calling the addiction to sex is more an obsession because it doesn't add up and is perplexing. So I may not be attracted to him, but my brain keeps trying to make sense of this arbitrary line - is it about anatomy or purpose? The urgency or eagerness of a caress appears to imply a desire to be closer, but if I act on that message, it is wrong. Then again lingering caresses on one part of the body are super and the other is sex. It keeps appearing like mixed signals and I end up thinking about sex far more around my ace than I have with actual sexual partners, including one spectacular relationship when we were literally at it several times a day if opportunity allowed - for years!

 

So which one is the addiction? One where I have sex several times a day for over half a decade or one where I am having it several times a year? And yet I can do without any at all if left to myself? Am I actually choosing to focus on sex? Actually not, particularly when I've actually moved on from my ace as a sexual partner. Yet the incongruity of the physical allowed/not can be a riddle that remains a threat to the relationship through violation or disengagement, because I don't actually understand what is going on and thus cannot protect my emotional stake.

 

Sorry for the excessive philosophy, just was trying to lay out some of the complexity that makes the desire to have sex a lot more faceted than an addiction. There usually is no aspect of addiction that is important to save. It is something that is usually of negligible utility and considerable harm. For example, if I toss out the drinks, I can refuse drinking situations, avoid pubs, dump alcoholic friends and so on without much harm. If I toss out the sex, I'm still going to have to walk a fine line to not toss out the partner and other affectionate contact that is distinguished by a line that is hard for me to isolate.

 

13 hours ago, Tarfeather said:

I honestly think there's an issue in this society. This kind of "fuck you, got mine" attitude, where everyone is encouraged to seek the greatest pleasure and success for themselves, and sex is treated the same way in that context. Both asexuals and sexuals who aren't fortunate enough to find that sexual fulfillment, are hit in the same negative way by that kind of culture. I guess that's part of why I can relate to so much of what asexuals say on here.

I am not able to see seeking greatest pleasure and success as a harmful expectation. The harm is in letting others decide what defines success or pleasure for us. It is like shooting the messenger to say success or pleasure should not be seeked by all. If we abdicate our duty to ourselves to identify and pursue what holds joy and meaning for us, the list of things that we will call bad is endless.

 

13 hours ago, Tarfeather said:

When you've found someone who you'd actually like to share that experience with and it's reciprocated, I'm sure sex is nice. Otherwise, the need for it is a highly harmful thing, especially when going unmet over years and decades.

I disagree. If our needs are unmet, it is our responsibility to see that they are met. Feeling deprived and then holding random grudges is not useful. The need for sex not being met once or a few times or consistently for a month or say a year... can be a circumstance. Choosing to stay in that circumstance and not alter it is a CHOICE. Blaming sex for the frustration in its absense is like blaming food for starvation when it is absent. It isn't the food that is bad, it is the starvation that is bad - whether food is available or not. The problem is not the food. The problem is that we have not made decisions that have ensured its availability.

 

Calling the grapes sour won't solve the real problem - that they are not within reach. And we can't even begin to solve our problems unless we identify them honestly. Food is necessary, therefore must ensure availability. Sex is desired, therefore to make choices that allow me to enjoy it. Grapes are tempting, therefore to find a ladder or a long stick with a hook or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2018 at 2:00 PM, ChainReact said:

While I would not physically die without, the statement “you could easily go without “ is, for some people, myself included, laughable. Honestly, if I were to find out that the rest of my life would be without sex, I would seriously contemplate suicide. And I’m generally a very resilient person! Now the fact that I was contemplating suicide would prompt me to immediately seek help (I have lost friends to suicide and I couldn’t bear the thought of inflicting that pain on others), but I would be psychologically devastated. So while it is not a physical need, the fact that for some people, it is a need, is not hyperbole. 

Context. The 'easily' was meant in comparison to truly essential things like food and shelter. I don't disagree with Telecaster at all that sex is something of equal importance as something like talking to a lot of sexuals. You can survive without it, indefinitely. Would you want to survive without it? That's a different question, and I share your sentiment. I personally don't see much positivity in the kind of life I'm living, and if I knew it'd be over soon, I wouldn't be very upset about that. But I also recognize that compared to the hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in this world, the people locked up in torture camps, and the millions of animals who are forced to live in torturous conditions for their whole lives, I have it pretty good. It's all relative, you know.

 

Also, yes, I very much consider it the height of irony for people who've never had to go without sex for extensive periods of times to claim they don't really need sex that much, and to look down on people who are struggling with the lack of sexual intimacy in their lives. So, again, I'm not denying what you say at all, I just don't think that sex, or conversation for that matter, are fundamental enough needs to constitute human rights, which a statement like "you just can't go without it" would imply.

 

21 hours ago, CBC said:

I dunno about Tar, but I wouldn't mind getting enthusiastically laid in the foreseeable future. Might take the edge off my daily existential nightmare a little bit. :lol: 

Neither would I. There's a sharp difference between not minding something and getting worked up over it.

 

22 hours ago, anisotropic said:

Not everyone can get enthusiastically laid. They may have severe medical issues, like obesity (as well as more rare and purely genetic conditions), that are  enormous barriers to the chances of this happening.

Or in my case, severe mental health issues. Sweet merciful Buddha, it took me a while, but very recently I realized that my problem can basically be boiled down to me being at the emotional level of maturity of a child, while being cursed with the body and sexual instincts of an adult. That generally doesn't go very well. I also now understand that my problems are not sexual in nature, but rather related to the very things that kept me from emotionally growing up. Not that any of the countless mental health professionals I consulted helped me reach this understanding. Took me 15 years to figure it out on my own in the end. It's a lot easier to navigate my situation now that I understand this, though.

 

Thanks for sticking up for me, but honestly, I don't mind what anyone here says. Caring about what strangers on the internet say is not a good place to be. As I hinted previously, there are some harmful thought patterns that are pretty much culturally embedded at this point, and pointing out the faults within that will get you outrage pretty much anywhere you go, including places like AVEN. Sure, AVEN challenges some of the wrong assumptions, such as that everyone likes sex, but there are many more such problematic assumptions which most AVEN members still have internalized. You have to work with that knowledge and accept that most people don't think very critically if you want to engage in public discussion.

 

11 hours ago, anamikanon said:

Easily???!!!

As I said, that was meant relative to something like food and shelter.

 

Quote

Personally, I find it rather easy to put sex out of my mind - IF - I don't have a trigger. In the sense, before I met my ace, I'd just come out of an abusive marriage and was overall pessimistic about men other than the sex and had decided that men were too much maintenance for a woman who wasn't domestically inclined. I was done. Self sex was the best sex and all that. I do fine when my ace is out of town. What makes it hard is sleeping next to him day after day KNOWING that sex is not likely and well, frankly, it may be a handicap, but it is among the key ways I get close to a partner, so I feel like I don't know what to do with myself come bedtime. 


Addiction speaks of an unhealthy obsession. At least, for me, it isn't like that. I simply lost desire for my ace altogether once I realized that he wasn't likely to be very interested in our relationship being sexual. We are actually struggling for me to be able to see him in a sexual manner, because otherwise I become too... indifferent to him on a personal level.

(emphasis mine)

 

And that's kind of exactly what I'm talking about. I can't speak for you, but let me just share my own experience, and you decide for yourself whether something like this might apply to you or not. Myself, I have strong mental health issues resulting from my childhood, when I was abandoned for a while as a 3 year old child by my mother. I've had a really big issue, with these kind of abandonment issues mingling with my romantic and sexual desire. Namely, it's like this big gaping hole of loneliness and need for intimacy in myself, and very often it felt like the only way to "fill that hole" was to fall strongly in love, get sexual with that person, stuff like that. I wasn't able to get intimate with other people outside of that kind of romantic / sexual line, yet at the same time I was unable to find that specific kind of intimacy, because neither am I that attractive nor female. It sort of became a cycle of low self-esteem, and constant repetition of that "abandonment" scenario which I experienced as a child, as I drove any woman away from me who I got remotely close to.

 

Lately, I made some very good friends, and I was able to make a very important experience, which is emotional intimacy without romantic or sexual desire. For these friends, I can experience a form of strong love, which is similar in nature to the kind of feeling I experienced as a child for my mother, and in this way I can to some degree "catch up" on the development I missed out on as a child. By pushing my romantic and sexual desires to the side and focusing on this kind of intimacy, it allows me to become much more stable and mentally healthy than would otherwise be possible for me. That's why, personally, I view my sexual desire as unhealthy and more akin to an addiction. I'm not saying that the same necessarily applies to you, just that it might, and actually the fact that you seem to be unable to become emotionally close to your partner without some sexual component is a big red flag there for me.

 

Quote

But even without being attracted to him, bedtime can still be fifty kinds of confusing for me, because I am really not into sharing my personal space with people I am not intimate with. So I have this person sleeping in my bed and I don't quite know what to make of it. Hug? Cuddle? Touch? How much is affection, where does sex begin? I have no freaking idea. I don't touch men I don't find attractive to begin with and I don't quite see the point of touching someone in a way that indicates physical closeness knowing that it is all that is going to be. Don't see what is okay about touching his face, back, arms, chest, thighs, feet but not nipples or penis, because I can so totally seduce with the right kind of touch anywhere and touching a penis or vagina can also be completely non-sexual!

That is not going to work. For a relationship with an asexual to work, you need to actually love them in some non-sexual manner. Sexual compromise can be used as a tool to make it easier on the sexual part, but it would only be in order to strengthen the component of romantic / platonic love. If that romantic / platonic component isn't there at all, this is doomed to fail.

 

Quote

Yet the incongruity of the physical allowed/not can be a riddle that remains a threat to the relationship through violation or disengagement, because I don't actually understand what is going on and thus cannot protect my emotional stake.

What you need is a shared desire. Like, for instance, if you both had the desire to cuddle platonically, then that could be a common ground, and the lines would be clear. But if you only ever experience the desire for something physical as a part of a sexual act, then of course physical acts will become difficult, if not impossible.

 

Quote

Sorry for the excessive philosophy, just was trying to lay out some of the complexity that makes the desire to have sex a lot more faceted than an addiction. There usually is no aspect of addiction that is important to save. It is something that is usually of negligible utility and considerable harm. For example, if I toss out the drinks, I can refuse drinking situations, avoid pubs, dump alcoholic friends and so on without much harm. If I toss out the sex, I'm still going to have to walk a fine line to not toss out the partner and other affectionate contact that is distinguished by a line that is hard for me to isolate.

... huh? Have you never heard of the term 'workaholic', i.e. someone with an unhealthy obsession for work? There are plenty of things which have a positive component, and yet you can obsess over them to the point of addiction. In fact, I'd argue those are the more dangerous ones, which one needs to especially watch out for.

 

Quote

I am not able to see seeking greatest pleasure and success as a harmful expectation. The harm is in letting others decide what defines success or pleasure for us. It is like shooting the messenger to say success or pleasure should not be seeked by all. If we abdicate our duty to ourselves to identify and pursue what holds joy and meaning for us, the list of things that we will call bad is endless.

Completely agree, and I live by that philosophy. For instance, I'm determined to, rather than seeking sex just for the sake of having it, to give myself time and wait for a person I'd truly like to share it with, and who reciprocates that feeling. And that may never happen, which I have to accept.

 

Quote

I disagree. If our needs are unmet, it is our responsibility to see that they are met. Feeling deprived and then holding random grudges is not useful. The need for sex not being met once or a few times or consistently for a month or say a year... can be a circumstance. Choosing to stay in that circumstance and not alter it is a CHOICE. Blaming sex for the frustration in its absense is like blaming food for starvation when it is absent. It isn't the food that is bad, it is the starvation that is bad - whether food is available or not. The problem is not the food. The problem is that we have not made decisions that have ensured its availability.

I wouldn't compare 'availability of sex' to something material like food. That would quite literally entail the objectification of people. Which is funny, usually when a feminist accuses someone of 'objectifying', that's a rather far fetched claim, but now in this case there's literal objectification going on, and it's coming from a woman.

 

So, yeah, already from a philosophical standpoint I would like to disagree that it's anyone's "responsibility" to ensure "availability of sex", because we are supposed to treat others with respect, not try to manipulate the odds to get us what we want.

 

But even if you disregard that point, and analyze sexual behavior from a game theory perspective, your point doesn't really stand. It's basically the same kind of worn down argument that the economic right makes about the poor. "These people just don't work hard enough", etc. The thing is, though, in the real world there are just fewer jobs available than people looking for work. Even if everyone were a model citizen, got a decent education, worked hard, there would still be people going without a job. Sure, with a higher quality of work, some more job opportunities might open, but not nearly enough to cover everyone. Factually, unemployment is an intended aspect of the labor market, because those in charge (corporations) can use it to get better bargains with the people who do work.

 

The same applies to sexuality. Factually, there are just fewer heterosexual women looking for sex less frequently than heterosexual men. Even if every single man worked hard to be as attractive as they could be, get out as much as possible, while this dynamic might shift a little, it wouldn't fundamentally change. There would still be plenty of male sexual frustration to go around. In other words, practically trying to "ensure the availability of sex" for a heterosexual man, boils down to trying to outcompete other heterosexual men. Every "success" you have, in the grand scheme of things probably means less success for others. You essentially enter an arms race with all the other men striving for the same thing. And I'm just fundamentally not interested in that. It's a game I fundamentally don't want to participate in at all, which is why I "lose by default", and end up without any kind of shot at sexual fulfillment.

 

And you know what? I totally prefer it this way. I'm not interested in competition. It's not in my personality. I don't want to perform the kind of actions which I know would practically raise my chances of having sex, because frankly, I'm not really interested in the kind of woman who would be susceptible to that sort of manipulation. I'd rather wait to find a woman who's different, and who is interested in me for who I am as a person. I know it's possible because it happened once. I just got pretty unlucky because that person was also asexual. But it can still happen. Might take years, might take decades, might happen never. In the meantime, I need to keep my sexual desire in check, and not let it drive me into actions which I know are unhealthy for me.

 

Quote

Calling the grapes sour won't solve the real problem - that they are not within reach. And we can't even begin to solve our problems unless we identify them honestly. Food is necessary, therefore must ensure availability. Sex is desired, therefore to make choices that allow me to enjoy it. Grapes are tempting, therefore to find a ladder or a long stick with a hook or something.

You are contradicting yourself. Just a few paragraphs before, you said that it is harmful to let others define pleasure and success for you. And here you are, trying to define pleasure and success for me. Also, I never called the grapes sour, nor do I think that no steps at all should be taken towards reaching them. I just don't think it's at all healthy to focus too much on the grapes when they are pretty much out of reach at this point.

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

I've had a really big issue, with these kind of abandonment issues mingling with my romantic and sexual desire. Namely, it's like this big gaping hole of loneliness and need for intimacy in myself, and very often it felt like the only way to "fill that hole" was to fall strongly in love, get sexual with that person, stuff like that. ... I made some very good friends, and I was able to make a very important experience, which is emotional intimacy without romantic or sexual desire. For these friends, I can experience a form of strong love, which is similar in nature to the kind of feeling I experienced as a child for my mother, and in this way I can to some degree "catch up" on the development I missed out on as a child. By pushing my romantic and sexual desires to the side and focusing on this kind of intimacy, it allows me to become much more stable and mentally healthy than would otherwise be possible for me. That's why, personally, I view my sexual desire as unhealthy and more akin to an addiction. I'm not saying that the same necessarily applies to you, just that it might, and actually the fact that you seem to be unable to become emotionally close to your partner without some sexual component is a big red flag there for me.

This doesn't really apply to me. I'm a loner out of choice. I also have friends with whom I have friendships and platonic relationships without feeling the slightest urge to share a bedroom with them. I also have an excellent relationship with my ace beyond the sexual. It is the sexual aspect that is the arbitrary line that I find hard to understand. For example, he loves it if I squeeze his bottom in passing. He doesn't see it as sexual, but it is an action I wouldn't do with anyone I wasn't planning to have sex with. He loves getting showered with small kisses and breathing on his skin and fairly intense cuddling. I see it as sexual. He doesn't. For him, it is just physical affection. I wouldn't mind sharing a bed with a visiting friend, but I would not plan to do that for life!!! To me, these are mixed messages. I don't have an issue being platonic with anyone, but I sure as hell don't go around getting personal with their bodies then and I'm sure you didn't do that with the friends you found who taught you about the joys of being platonic too. Unless of course you shared lingering kisses and naked skin to skin contact with them without having sex. That sort of thing just makes me wonder what the point is and where the lines are being drawn, because I don't have a context for what goes on in his mind and my idea of non-sexual is too distant for him.

 

Sorry if this comes across as snarky, but it is really strange that you read an inability to be close to someone without being sexual from what I posted. I thought the confusion was fairly clear - that the boundaries of what is considered sexual don't make sense to me. A squeeze of an arm can send a sexual message without getting anywhere near the genitals and genitals can brush without any sexual meaning if you're cuddling naked. What he sees as sexual and what is not can be completely alien to me and thus take up a lot of attention even when we are being platonic, because even to be platonic and not sexual you need to understand what is being defined as sexual, right? THAT is what I was taking about when I was saying that the effects are beyond addiction and there are effects even if completely platonic - my ace and I are currently platonic, but attempting to resume sexual relations - on his request.

 

Quote

That is not going to work. For a relationship with an asexual to work, you need to actually love them in some non-sexual manner.

He doesn't want my non-sexual love. He finds it.... less close than how I am with him when we are physically involved - which actually brings a lot of sexual undercurrents to the relationship as a whole - interactions, flirting...

 

Quote

Sexual compromise can be used as a tool to make it easier on the sexual part, but it would only be in order to strengthen the component of romantic / platonic love. If that romantic / platonic component isn't there at all, this is doomed to fail.

If there was no romantic love for my ace, why would I be in a relationship with him at all? It sure can't be for the mindblowing sex addiction!

 

Quote

What you need is a shared desire. Like, for instance, if you both had the desire to cuddle platonically, then that could be a common ground, and the lines would be clear. But if you only ever experience the desire for something physical as a part of a sexual act, then of course physical acts will become difficult, if not impossible.

What is cuddling platonically? That is the question. I cuddle my son platonically. You too have described a mother-child relationship. Pretty sure I don't do the things to my son that my ace likes doing with me when we cuddle. Kissing and touching each other's bodies doesn't count as sex to him, to me it is foreplay. And I hardly think I am the only one here at a loss to separate the sexual from the rest in a way an asexual can. I can be platonic with him, no problem, but my mind can't see the point of erotic touch if sex is not on the table. Erotic touch for its own sake too can be fine, but let us be clear about that then - also not likely, because he doesn't see it as erotic at all. I don't need to touch his skin extensively to feel an emotional bond with him. I have never kissed the lips of any of my platonic friends while having profound relationships with them. So what is going on here?

 

You are describing the fixation with sex as an addiction, but from a lot of stories we hear here, it is more often about not understanding where we stand. Are we desired? Are some things we do desired and others not? It takes considerable mental processing to wade through all that and it has little to do with wanting sex and more to do with protecting our hearts from what seems like shifting sands. That is the point I am making - unlike an addiction, the obsession with sex sexuals go through is not about simple dysfunctional wanting. That deep sense of not being able to know exactly where we stand and the extent to which we feel accepted can remain even after writing off sex altogether. Like I said - even to be platonic, you need to be able to identify what is considered sexual in order to eliminate it.

 

Quote

... huh? Have you never heard of the term 'workaholic', i.e. someone with an unhealthy obsession for work? There are plenty of things which have a positive component, and yet you can obsess over them to the point of addiction. In fact, I'd argue those are the more dangerous ones, which one needs to especially watch out for.

Workaholic is compulsive behavior, not addiction. Just like someone with OCD repeatedly checking to see if lights have been switched off in the kitchen is not addiction. 

 

Not commenting on the objectification of people and supply and demand type arguments mixed up with the economic right and what not, because I have no idea what to say. It appears to have wandered far outside the context of a sexual-asexual relationship and gone into ensuring that every person on the planet is provided with a sexual partner in an egalitarian manner or something as a counterpoint to our behavior in our relationship shaping what we are receiving and being denied. All that is way beyong the scope of my purpose.

 

The reason why I am arguing about the addiction is that it inherently sees sexual desire as unhealthy. Your examples of platonic relationships are actually friendships with no sexual context to begin with. It is great that you learned to appreciate people you don't have sex with, but I don't think that is either here or there in terms of the impact of sexual frustration. You don't feel sexual frustration over not having sex with people irrelevant to sex to begin with. I don't think this is a useful perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

@anamikanon Regarding sexual vs platonic touch, I can obviously see your partner's point of view more than yours because I am also ace (and have no experience in sexual matters). The idea that an arm squeeze or lingering kiss (not French kissing, just keeping lips there) is inherently sexual to you is something I don't understand either. I accept you see it differently, but to avoid any more confusion you're going to have to do a Sheldon Cooper-esque run down of what exactly different touches mean, or this frustration and confusion will continue to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every experience is different, but for me, a married man of 24 years. it has never been any good to me, Not earth-shattering anyway. I also, when younger, was with a guy or two and it was unimpressive to me as well.

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

@anamikanon  The idea that an arm squeeze or lingering kiss (not French kissing, just keeping lips there) is inherently sexual to you is something I don't understand either. I accept you see it differently, but to avoid any more confusion you're going to have to do a Sheldon Cooper-esque run down of what exactly different touches mean, or this frustration and confusion will continue to happen.

This lyric from the finest band of my youth from the town we're both from seems terribly apt
https://genius.com/Danse-society-heaven-is-waiting-lyrics

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
24 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

The difference is entirely to do with context (Google the Kuleshov Effect)... 

 

An arm squeeze could be consolatory at a funeral, medical from a doctor, aggressive from a bouncer, affectionate from a sibling etc. If it's from your sexual partner, there's going to be an element of erotic frisson to it, even if it's not primarily erotic. Sex is part of pair bonding, to sexuals. They just like touching you, even if it's not going to lead anywhere. But if we know it's not going to be reciprocated or escalated (as it would with a sexual partner) we just have to manage our expectations. 

Yeah but the problem is, if he's ace, he's probably gonna have the same mindset as me (which anamikanon has said already he has), so they're gonna have to blunty, spell-it-all-out talk about it and decide if touch is going to be ok or just frustrating. If touch is out of the question I can't see much of a future here tbh; even I need to snuggle with my bro.

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

Absolutely it needs to be talked to about, but rather than needing a compendious play book, asexuals could keep a few principles in mind and generalise from them

My autistic brain likes specifics :P

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

Touching us is never a bad thing. It won't cause us anxiety, repulsion, or anything apart from a warm melty feeling. Even if your timing is off, we appreciate you're thinking about it. 

This doesn’t seem to be universally true, though.  Several of the sexuals posting in this forum have withdrawn from/mentioned wanting to withdraw from touching as well if they aren’t (or aren’t regularly) engaging in sexual activities with their ace partners.

 

59 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

If it's from your sexual partner, there's going to be an element of erotic frisson to it, even if it's not primarily erotic. Sex is part of pair bonding, to sexuals. They just like touching you, even if it's not going to lead anywhere. But if we know it's not going to be reciprocated or escalated (as it would with a sexual partner) we just have to manage our expectations. 

Sounds like the question here is “what if it’s reciprocated, but never escalated?”  It’s likely part of pair bonding for the ace, too, but doesn’t indicate an urge to take things further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.  Most of the talk I’ve seen on here has been the other way around, from sexuals saying they are no longer interested/willing to engage in touch now that they know their ace partners do not desire them sexually.  From personal experience touching a sexual partner who does the touch equivalent of “starfishing” (no reaction at all, or pulling away) doesn’t send your above message that it’s likely to be fine and welcome.

 

Some of what anamikanon mentions above gets at what you and I talked about a while back re:  differences between romantic relationships and friendships from an asexual perspective.  When I listed off sharing a bed, you said friends do that (and I agree)... but I wouldn’t intentionally touch a naked friend in bed, or intentionally spoon a naked friend.  I say “intentionally” because once everyone is asleep moving around happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it still comes down to “it varies from person to person and situation to situation.”

 

I’m not sure I could even find the other thread at this point, but I’d listed off the things that - to me - still make my romantic relationship different than the friends/roommates relationship my partner says it is, and I’m sure I listed sleeping together (in the literal sense) among them because that’s one of the key things I would not do with a friend/roommate under normal circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it.  Emphasis added now.

 

Me:  “Also, while I would by definition live with a roommate/housemate I would not share meals whenever we were both home, do their laundry, hug them lots (not in the same way, anyway), or  do their grocery shopping... or sleep in the same bed with them.  When I lay that stuff out, though, it sounds 1) too dry and “clinical” and 2) a bit like complaining (which it isn’t).”

 

You (tele):  “I guess for a sexual, having sex is very much 'making that person a priority' in action, and easily the most important of the things we don't want to do with anyone else. When I've shared houses with friends, I have at times done all the other things with/for housemates from time to time.”

 

Me:  “Same with doing things for a friend/roommate - I might occasionally do most of the things I listed, but not every week for 20 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...