Jump to content
tygersongbird

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

Recommended Posts

ryn2
2 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Feeling the emotions of a story, RP, character, etc. is integral to me. I can see and feel them - if they're sad, I'll feel sad. I end up crying or feeling sick if a character does (in a recent RP I was poisoned and ended up feeling properly ill!). My heart rate goes up when they're angry and if they get hurt, I can physically feel that injury. I cry at the idea of having to kill my characters off, both on my behalf and other characters. All this time I'm also visualising the text, not just reading. In fact I don't think I can read without visualising, I don't understand how that even works...

This is true for me as well.  I visualize (and react emotionally) while reading and while thinking.  It’s like watching a movie, more or less, the kind where you’re really engrossed and it’s very much like experiencing the situation for real.

 

Afterwards I feel a little disoriented when I realize it didn’t actually happen... like dreaming you had a fight with someone/got cheated on/lost a pet or family member and then struggling upon waking to shake off the bad feelings.

Share this post


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

when I realize it didn’t actually happen

I don't think I ever get this stage, because to me it does happen, even if only in my head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
29 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I don't think I ever get this stage, because to me it does happen, even if only in my head. 

I guess what I meant was... the physical world wasn’t changed by it.  The character isn’t sitting at my kitchen table and I can’t text them to go out for a beer.  My arm isn’t broken.  That sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Treesarepretty

In response to the OP:

 

I feel like I need sex or the possibility of sex to feel good about myself. It is intimate, and also validating. I would not voluntarily go a lifetime without sex for $1,000,000. That is a laughably small amount of money for me to give up the ability to feel good about myself. Add 3 or 4 more zeros  to it, and I would take that money, donate it to charity, and then kill myself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC
On 5/4/2019 at 6:21 AM, Treesarepretty said:

I feel like I need sex or the possibility of sex to feel good about myself. It is intimate, and also validating.

Absolutely, yes. The difference it makes to my self-worth -- being wanted and desired in that way, when it's connected to love -- is massive. Intimacy and vulnerability (when you trust someone with such things) are vital to genuine connection, connection is good for feeling validated as a person, and validation is good for self-worth and thus beneficial to our overall mental health. I don't want to go a lifetime without sexual intimacy in a way similar to how I wouldn't want to live in a world with no music or the ability to spend time in nature. All of those things make what sometimes feels like the abject horror of existence (lol sorry, I'm coming from a background of decades of mental illness) a little less harsh, and often what I can really only describe as straight-up beautiful. If something makes me so happy it makes me cry -- and all of those things sometimes do -- why in the hell would I ever live without them for any amount of money.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrumesEtPluies
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CBC said:

Absolutely, yes. The difference it makes to my self-worth -- being wanted and desired in that way, when it's connected to love -- is massive. Intimacy and vulnerability (when you trust someone with such things) are vital to genuine connection, connection is good for feeling validated as a person, and validation is good for self-worth and thus beneficial to our overall mental health.

You can get that validation and connection in many other ways. Therapists for example are supposed to understand and connect with their clients without any kind of intimate contact.

As for genuine connection, that's psychological, not sexual. Sex can be a means to it yes, but so can many other things.

Besides, when you connect with someone through your sexuality that's only a part of who you are. I suppose there's more to a person's whole self than that part that they show when they are vulnerable during sex and that side itself shows in non sexual ways too. I think that putting so much emphasis on sex limits intimacy. It says the greatest connection you can have is with people you have sex with.

Edited by BrumesEtPluies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

Did I say anywhere that sex is the only way I receive validation?! Good lord, no. That would be incredibly unhealthy. And yes I know how therapy works, I've seen a number of therapists and haven't jumped into bed with any of them, so I'm aware there are different means to validation. 

 

And of course genuine connection is psychological, absolutely agreed. If it wasn't clear, I was referring to the psychological benefits of the vulnerability, intimacy and trust involved in sex, especially in the context of a loving relationship. At no point did I say that the purely physical component of fucking someone, stripped to its most clinical definition, was the part that leads to connection. No way.

 

And finally, if I considered my sexuality to be the be-all and end-all of who I am... that would spell massive trouble. I most certainly do not.

 

This feels like one of those sexual-asexual barriers that can't be explained.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrumesEtPluies
2 hours ago, CBC said:

Did I say anywhere that sex is the only way I receive validation?!

You did say it is a big part of it. I addressed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

I did not at all say that specifically. I said it makes a massive difference. The definition of "big part" in my mind would be if I said "75% of my self-worth comes from someone wanting to fuck me". Which I didn't, and which isn't the case. Does being wanted by a partner who loves me, in the context of a whole relationship, make a significant difference? Yes. And it's not about whether they think I have nice tits, it's about wanting to share that experience with me.

 

Not the same thing.

 

But ok, sure. Another one of these cases where asexuals tell sexuals how sexuality should work and to what degree we should value it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrumesEtPluies
2 hours ago, CBC said:

The definition of "big part" in my mind would be if I said "75% of my self-worth comes from someone wanting to fuck me".

 

3 hours ago, CBC said:

I don't want to go a lifetime without sexual intimacy in a way similar to how I wouldn't want to live in a world with no music or the ability to spend time in nature. All of those things make what sometimes feels like the abject horror of existence (lol sorry, I'm coming from a background of decades of mental illness) a little less harsh, and often what I can really only describe as straight-up beautiful. If something makes me so happy it makes me cry -- and all of those things sometimes do -- why in the hell would I ever live without them for any amount of money.

Ok. Maybe I misread. I don't want to argue. Just pointing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

There's no place I said "big part" in that second quote. I listed off three things in the world that that bring me a sense of deep happiness, things that I find beautiful. I didn't say they were the only things, but yeah, sure, they're easily some of the things that bring me significant positive emotions. What's wrong with finding beauty or happiness in a loving relationship? I'm not talking about getting my self worth from stuffing my bra so men whistle at me on the street and proposition me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrumesEtPluies
2 hours ago, CBC said:

What's wrong with finding beauty or happiness in a loving relationship?

Nothing. I never said there was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrumesEtPluies
2 hours ago, CBC said:

I'm not talking about getting my self worth from stuffing my bra so men whistle at me on the street and proposition me.

Nothing wrong with getting validation from that either, as long as someone doesn't make that their sole source of validation, or their main one. Things like that are like junk food, nothing wrong with having them every now and then with moderation.

 

That remark sound awfuly like slut shaming to me though. What's wrong with a woman getting a sense of empowerment from showing off her body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

@BrumesEtPluies You're completely misunderstanding CBC here; she isn't slut shaming at all. She's saying she doesn't get anything from it.  Plus, we aces can't tell sexuals how much validation they're "allowed" to get from sex, it's just... not our place.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

Oh wow yeah no, that wasn't meant as slut shaming whatsoever. More that it sounded like you had some sort of sense that sex in general was kind of a "cheap" place to get validation from, so I took the stereotype of what people think of as meaningless sex (and -- though I think there's nothing wrong with it whatsoever, it's all fine with me if it's safe and consensual -- it's not exactly the epitome of emotional depth) and contrasted it with something that I find personally meaningful.

 

Nothing wrong with any type of sex as long as everyone involved is enthusiastically consenting and of legal age.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrumesEtPluies
2 hours ago, CBC said:

More that it sounded like you had some sort of sense that sex in general was kind of a "cheap" place to get validation from

Let me clarify my position then: I understand perfectly well the sense of vulnerability and the intimacy that people get out of sex. I understand exposing that hidden side of you. My point is that that kind of connection is psychological, which means sex isn't the only way of getting it, and that there's more to a person's self than what can be shown through sex. Hence why I say putting too much emphasis on sex hinders intimacy, instead of furthering it. Maybe I misunderstood how much value you put on sex, I admit I could have gotten the wrong idea from your posts. Apologies if I have. I think we both agree that sex can be important, but it's not all there is.

Share this post


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

that kind of connection is psychological, which means sex isn't the only way of getting it,

Sex provides it in a very particular way which other ways don't, just as other intimate interactions do things sex doesn't. They're not interchangeable, and sex in a relationship for most people is one of the most powerful ways, because it's physical as well as emotional, and they're intertwined.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
On 8/23/2018 at 9:25 AM, Telecaster68 said:

Aces on the other hand (again as a general tendency) seem perpetually baffled by the whole concept of physical touch in relationships. 

 

Baffled?  If you're talking about aces on AVEN (which you must be, since I doubt if you have a huge acquaintance of asexuals IRL), I've been here longer than you, and have read at least as many threads as you have, and what I've seen is asexuals being either disturbed by touch, or wishing for touch if it can be given with sexual expectations.  Bafflement, no.   And I'm talking about asexuals over the age of say 25, not very young asexuals who are baffled by the whole thing anyway.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic

All my feet do is provide a variety of physical purposes... support and leverage, some adjustment stuff to help me balance, but all that can be done in other ways. There's people that live their whole lives without feet and it doesn't hold them back. There's things I could use instead of my feet, I can use my hands to balance me, get leverage from my knees... I don't really need my feet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

what I've seen is asexuals being either disturbed by touch, or wishing for touch if it can be given with sexual expectations.  Bafflement, no. 

In the first case, they often seem baffled by why touch is so important and what it does, and in the second their baffled by the whole concept that for most people, touching a partner almost always has sexual overtones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred

Many things are better described by the "links in a chain" model than by "different weights".  

 

In order to feel love / romance, I need a number of things.  One of those things is a good sex life.  Is it the "most' important?  Is food,or air, or shelter "most'" important.   You need them all. Or is the heart more important than the brain?  

 

Since this is an asexuality discussion groups, when sexuals come here, it is usually because of issues in their sex life.   If they had other issues, then they would likely be in another group 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
11 hours ago, uhtred said:

Many things are better described by the "links in a chain" model than by "different weights".  

Maybe “strands comprising a rope” makes more sense for some people?  Each of the strands twisted together to form a rope is equally important to the strength and integrity of the rope.  If one breaks/is severed, the rope is not instantly destroyed... but it’s weakened, and the loss of that one strand puts additional stress - potentially so much that they will eventually break as well - on the remaining strands.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

I've nothing original to add, but I really like that analogy, @ryn2. It seems to me like a good way of explaining it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
4 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Maybe “strands comprising a rope” makes more sense for some people?  Each of the strands twisted together to form a rope is equally important to the strength and integrity of the rope.  If one breaks/is severed, the rope is not instantly destroyed... but it’s weakened, and the loss of that one strand puts additional stress - potentially so much that they will eventually break as well - on the remaining strands.

For me links in a chain is different from strands in a rope. In a rope, a strong strand can compensate for a weak strand, but in a chain the weak link is what matters.  For some people (including me),  if one of those links is missing, it doesn't matter how good the others are.  

 

Of course reality is always between the parallel and series type situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2

To me they imply two different things:  the chain is a quick, guaranteed, and complete failure; the rope is a more gradual one where the final outcome isn’t so predictable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
5 hours ago, ryn2 said:

To me they imply two different things:  the chain is a quick, guaranteed, and complete failure; the rope is a more gradual one where the final outcome isn’t so predictable.

 

I wasn't thinking in terms of time constants, but of an "and" rather than an "or" sort of situation.   Shows how simple analogies can mean very different things to different people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2

Hm.  I don’t really see the two as and v. or.

 

The chain would be a clear or.  A failure of any link breaks the chain.  The failed link has no effect on the other links, nor do they have any effect on the failed link.  A failure in any area is a complete failure.

 

The rope is still initially an or, in that the failure of any strand affects the whole rope.  Unlike the chain, though, the failure of one strand affects each of the others.  The remaining strands may be strong enough to hold the load, or they may not.  Either way, the overall rope is weaker than it was before.

 

You could potentially see the rope as an and in the sense that all strands must fail before the rope fails.  I see the failing rope as a multiphase failure, where each failing strand further weakens the others until - in a subsequent phase - the whole rope is destroyed.

 

From a relationship standpoint, to me, the chain is more of a “dealbreaker” situation.  A dealbreaker happens/doesn’t happen, and the relationship ends.  The rope, to me, better represents the complexity of all the different things you need to stay in love with someone.  If any one is removed, the others have to make up for it.  It’s most likely - after one aspect fails/withers/goes away - that you will gradually fall out of love over time, but it’s not a sudden thing like a dealbreaker would be.

  • Like 1

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...