Ace view on orgasms

[Tunes]

>< Gah! Everyone is posting so much faster than me! I'm behind~

 

7 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

The difference between cuddling and sex is that cuddling is generally static - there's no sensual build up and no physical arousal and release, with both partners enjoying that they can pleasure and be pleasured simultaneously by the same act.

 

Mostly asexuals say at this point 'but I don't get that'. Yup, we know. That's the point, it's the way physical and emotional intimacy and pleasure intertwine.

Yeah, but isn't the build up part of orgasm? I can understand two people getting pleasure from the same act. It's just the build up bit. 

[Telecaster68]

11 minutes ago, Tunes said:

It's intensely sensual.

It's not as intensely sensual as sex, if nobody's orgasming.

 

7 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

That kind of does make it about the orgasm, though...

It would be frustrating to always have the build up and no release (ie orgasm), but the manner of the build up, the foreplay, teasing, switching of who's in control is as important. It's equally frustrating to have sex and orgasm where one partner is checked out as to never orgasm. It's a slightly different frustration - emotional more than physical - but just as bad.

[Ceebs]

5 minutes ago, Tunes said:

I think the only thing I'm missing there is the build up and release. But isn't that related to orgasm? Or am I confused about what orgasm means? 

There's an emotional/psychological build and release besides the physical. And for sure, orgasm is clearly an intended goal; no one is denying that. It's just that if it doesn't happen, that doesn't mean it was automatically terrible sex and the experience was worthless or merely the same as cuddling.

[ryn2]

The interesting thing for me is trying to understand whether the ace experience itself is different... or whether it’s the same, but just not something aces find pleasurable.

 

Kind of like drinking coffee... if I love it but you think it’s horribly bitter, are we actually experiencing jt differently or do I just enjoy bitter tastes whereas you find them unpleasant?

 

By experience in this case I mean the whole package, not just the physical sensation.

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, Tunes said:

>< Gah! Everyone is posting so much faster than me! I'm behind~

 

Yeah, but isn't the build up part of orgasm? I can understand two people getting pleasure from the same act. It's just the build up bit. 

No more than the build up to the climactic chords at the end of a symphony is the same as the climactic chords. One doesn't really work without the other.

 

Or maybe, crossing the finishing line of race. You could physically cross the line by driving right up to one side of it, and stepping over it, then getting back in your car, but the point is to have run the race to get there. 

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

The interesting thing for me is trying to understand whether the ace experience itself is different... or whether it’s the same, but just not something aces find pleasurable.

 

Kind of like drinking coffee... if I love it but you think it’s horribly bitter, are we actually experiencing jt differently or do I just enjoy bitter tastes whereas you find them unpleasant?

 

By experience in this case I mean the whole package, not just the physical sensation.

From conversations with asexuals who say they enjoy sex I've had on here, it seems to me that most asexuals don't get as much straightforward physical pleasure from sex as most sexuals do, and they tend not to find physical intimacy increases emotional intimacy. In some case it seems as though they're just as stressed by emotional intimacy as they are by sexual intimacy, but that's just an general impression.

[Ceebs]

9 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

The interesting thing for me is trying to understand whether the ace experience itself is different... or whether it’s the same, but just not something aces find pleasurable.

 

Kind of like drinking coffee... if I love it but you think it’s horribly bitter, are we actually experiencing jt differently or do I just enjoy bitter tastes whereas you find them unpleasant?

 

By experience in this case I mean the whole package, not just the physical sensation.

I would imagine both, to varying degrees depending on the individual? If one is asexual, they won't be innately getting quite the same thing from the experience as a sexual person. They aren't coming to the activity with the same tendencies hardwired in their brain, essentially. And at the same time, I think many aces seem to have mentioned finding the experience not pleasurable or downright unpleasant. They're probably two sides of the same coin. With asexuals who say that they do end up enjoying it, I'm guessing it's more the former than the latter; they're just not innately too inclined to want to connect that way. Perhaps the orgasm aspect is still enjoyable though, or being close to someone they care about.

[Philip027]

25 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I think there's an element of AS in that statement, that conversation is an exchange of information.

Well, you got me there.  I'm indeed AS

 

25 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

A goal. Not the only one.

Again, never said the only one.

 

Consider also though, that to some people "goal" is more or less synonymous with endpoint.

 

22 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Generally good sex results in orgasm, but orgasm doesn't make sex good. It's possible to orgasm during sex and it still be really bad sex; and sometimes women orgasm during rape. It doesn't mean they've just had good sex, because orgasm is the point of sex.

Not been factoring quality of sex into anything I've stated.  Orgasm very obviously doesn't inherently mean "good" sex, whatever that means (like you said, rape being one prominent example).

[ryn2]

39 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

[...]most asexuals don't get as much straightforward physical pleasure from sex as most sexuals do, and they tend not to find physical intimacy increases emotional intimacy.

Is the former because of the latter?  Maybe this varies by gender, but is masturbation (with whatever toys make it ideal for you) as physically pleasurable as sex is?  If not, do you know why not?

[Ceebs]

2 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

Maybe this varies by gender, but is masturbation (with whatever toys make it ideal for you) as physically pleasurable as sex is?  If not, do you know why not?

Depends how you're defining "physically pleasurable". If you simply mean is the actual orgasm part technically as good, sure, sometimes it can be. Is the overall experience, which with sex is more of a full-body thing and encompasses the interplay of physical and emotional that comes with sharing the experience with someone else, as good with just masturbation? No, definitely not. The human connection provides an element that enhances the physical component.

 

So here's a perhaps TMI thing I've noticed that seems somehow relevant. Masturbation whilst interacting with a long-distance partner is much better -- more physically pleasurable -- than just, er, completely going it alone. There's technically no one else touching you, but there's still a major element of human emotional connection there, which makes it a somewhat different experience. So if that's true when you're not even physically with the other person, just because of that interpersonal aspect, then yeah, actual sex with someone else is a lot more intensely physically pleasurable than masturbation. Provided that connection is there. Without it, there's a missing element; I've had long-distance sexual interaction that's been more physically pleasurable than actual intercourse, due to the lack of connection in the case of the latter.

 

The physical and mental... they play off and enhance each other.

[Telecaster68]

52 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Again, never said the only one

How many primary factors can you have?

 

57 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Consider also though, that to some people "goal" is more or less synonymous with endpoint.

They'd need to check their dictionaries then.

 

And I know you're AS, that's why I made the point.

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, CBC said:

Depends how you're defining "physically pleasurable". If you simply mean is the actual orgasm part technically as good, sure, sometimes it can be. Is the overall experience, which with sex is more of a full-body thing and encompasses the interplay of physical and emotional that comes with sharing the experience with someone else, as good with just masturbation? No, definitely not. The human connection provides an element that enhances the physical component.

 

So here's a perhaps TMI thing I've noticed that seems somehow relevant. Masturbation whilst interacting with a long-distance partner is much better -- more physically pleasurable -- than just, er, completely going it alone. There's technically no one else touching you, but there's still a major element of human emotional connection there, which makes it a somewhat different experience. So if that's true when you're not even physically with the other person, just because of that interpersonal aspect, then yeah, actual sex with someone else is a lot more intensely physically pleasurable than masturbation. Provided that connection is there. Without it, there's a missing element; I've had long-distance sexual interaction that's been more physically pleasurable than actual intercourse, due to the lack of connection in the case of the latter.

 

The physical and mental... they play off and enhance each other.

You save me so much typing, CBC.

[Telecaster68]

38 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

Is the former because of the latter?  Maybe this varies by gender, but is masturbation (with whatever toys make it ideal for you) as physically pleasurable as sex is?  If not, do you know why not?

You mean the lack of getting anything emotional from sex means the physical pleasure isn't as heightened? Yeah, I think there's a good chance. It's pretty much how our brains work, as I understand it.

 

As for the masturbation vs partnered sex thing - exactly what CBC said. 

[Ceebs]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

You save me so much typing, CBC.

One of my many utterly delightful qualities.  

[ryn2]

That’s very interesting, @CBC.  I suppose there’s no way to know, but I still wonder if aces don’t feel the emotional connection, or do feel it but don’t find it pleasurable in the same way.

 

I do get a sort of contact high from someone else being turned on that helps me be turned on as well, but it doesn’t seem to be related to any emotional closeness with the person.  It’s even how porn “works” for me.  It feels more like a physiologic response, similar to how excitement, fear, and nausea are “contagious.”

[Ceebs]

Hrmm yeah, it's certainly not exactly the same as watching porn.

 

I assume asexuals don't have the same emotional response to partnered sex, no.

[Telecaster68]

5 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

That’s very interesting, @CBC.  I suppose there’s no way to know, but I still wonder if aces don’t feel the emotional connection, or do feel it but don’t find it pleasurable in the same way.

 

I do get a sort of contact high from someone else being turned on that helps me be turned on as well, but it doesn’t seem to be related to any emotional closeness with the person.  It’s even how porn “works” for me.  It feels more like a physiologic response, similar to how excitement, fear, and nausea are “contagious.”

That's mirror neurons. It's a thing. When we watch something, the same parts of our brains are activated as if we were directly experiencing it, normally. That's why we get drawn into sports and movies. 

 

So just following that logic... 

 

If someone doesn't have that much responsiveness to sex, either physically or emotionally, then maybe the neurons that mirror their partner, or whatever they're watching, won't be that responsive, so there'll be less of a connection to it. Their partner will pick up on the comparatively flatter reaction, which is what sexuals are talking about when they miss being desired, and there'll be none of the spiralling of responses that happens between two sexual partners.

 

And with porn... clearly the response will be less because we don't respond as strongly to video imagery as we would to a real person right in front of us.

[ryn2]

That’s the opposite of what I was saying, though.  I *do* get that reaction.  It’s actually essential to me having partnered sex at all.

[Ceebs]

But you're getting primarily the physiological response, correct? Not so much the emotional. Which seems to be the common denominator amongst asexuals.

[Telecaster68]

12 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

That’s the opposite of what I was saying, though.  I *do* get that reaction.  It’s actually essential to me having partnered sex at all.

I suspect you don't get the emotional or mental bit any where near as strongly as most sexuals, and in the way that mixes physical and emotional and reading that person.

[uhtred]

3 hours ago, Tunes said:

People keep mentioning bonding as being a bigger goal than orgasm, but is there really any bonding that goes on during sex that couldn't be achieved by non-sexual means? 

 

I mean, if you can get the same bonding experience from non-sexual means, then the bonding can't be the ultimate reason for having sex. Sex might be the way that they choose to go about bonding, but we still don't know why. It just diverts the question. Now the question becomes "why bond by having sex". Isn't orgasm the only thing that sets sex apart, that you cannot attain without sex? Or am I missing something else?

For me, nothing else is the same. Each causing the other intense pleasure is different from any other human activities.  Of course for someone who doesn't enjoy sex, this doesn't apply.

[Philip027]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

How many primary factors can you have?

More than one, hence plural "factors"

 

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

They'd need to check their dictionaries then.

There isn't anything necessarily inaccurate about that.  One of the definitions of goal (the first one, actually, in the source I just checked) is "end"

 

"But that's not the definition of goal that we mean!"

 

Yeah I know, but this topic is asking why asexuals might be confused over what you mean by it.  There's a possible reason.  It's really not some huge logical leap to make that when sex is typically seen ending at orgasm, orgasm is thereby assumed to be a typical "goal" of sex.

 

1 hour ago, CBC said:

So here's a perhaps TMI thing I've noticed that seems somehow relevant. Masturbation whilst interacting with a long-distance partner is much better -- more physically pleasurable -- than just, er, completely going it alone. There's technically no one else touching you, but there's still a major element of human emotional connection there, which makes it a somewhat different experience.

To expand upon this with my own potential TMI, for me at least, it's outright impossible without my partner being there taking part somehow.  Without the joined emotional component, any sort of masturbation attempt really isn't any different from touching my arm or something.

 

From my understanding, my experience isn't that common, but maybe it is among nonlib or virtually nonlib people.

[uhtred]

For me, orgasm for both partners is a almost necessary, but definitely not sufficient for good sex.  Sex can still be pretty good for me if I don't get off, but my partner has such intense O's that they can't do anything else.  I wouldn't want that all the time, but its good sometimes. 

 

In general though both have to have Os for it to be good - but that isn't nearly enough. The entire process needs to be enjoyable and needs to take time for both to enjoy what is going on.   It needs closeness, variety, fun.   The O is (almost) necessary at the end, but most of the fun is getting there. 

 

This has been one of the most difficult things to discuss with my wife.  She clearly feels that if both people get off, the sex was good- and tries to find ways to make that happen quickly, and when she finds them, wants to just do those things. To me that misses the point.  

 

 

[Philip027]

Another potential factor is that when one person potentially isn't used to achieving orgasm from a sexual experience (whether solo or partnered) and suddenly they start to do so, depending on their reaction to it, they could certainly start viewing any such experiences without it as inferior or incomplete.

[Philip027]

7 minutes ago, uhtred said:

This has been one of the most difficult things to discuss with my wife.  She clearly feels that if both people get off, the sex was good- and tries to find ways to make that happen quickly, and when she finds them, wants to just do those things. To me that misses the point.  

Not entirely sure this is an asexual thing, for that matter.  Maybe it's more common for aces, but I've encountered many people who are nevertheless not particularly fussed about drawing things out and want that "goal" as soon as possible, and the way they go on about sex I doubt any of them were ace.  Sounds to me like a standard sexual incompatibility that could happen with anyone.

[Ceebs]

On 9/17/2018 at 11:11 AM, Philip027 said:

To expand upon this with my own potential TMI, for me at least, it's outright impossible without my partner being there taking part somehow.  Without the joined emotional component, any sort of masturbation attempt really isn't any different from touching my arm or something.

 

From my understanding, my experience isn't that common, but maybe it is among nonlib or virtually nonlib people.

I definitely don't need a partner there (certainly preferable, though!), but I kind of understand. I would describe my own desire/libido in general as very responsive. Often due to stress, my level of interest is somewhat lower than average at times perhaps, when I'm not experiencing feelings for someone and being connected to them in that way. Probably a number of reasons for that, really. When I have that connection though, I've zero reason to believe I'm any less interested than the average sexual person. I've joked that I'm quite "easy", haha.

 

Only vaguely related I guess, but recently I've learnt how much my mental state takes a hit when that connection is lost, even if temporary. I'm a happier person when my sexuality is connected to someone else, which I imagine is not true of asexuals.

[binary suns]

I think it’s pretty straightforward. Sex doesn’t always include an orgasm for both partners, and doesn’t always stop at one orgasm.

 

 And if orgasm was the goal, people would just masturbate all the time, screw the complications of sex. 

 

 

[ryn2]

1 hour ago, CBC said:

But you're getting primarily the physiological response, correct? Not so much the emotional. Which seems to be the common denominator amongst asexuals.

I’m honestly not sure.  I don’t get the sense of closeness people reference... but I do get markedly more physical enjoyment out of sex when I can get that “contact high” (directly partnered, or via some sort of media/fantasy scenario) than I do without it.

[ryn2]

57 minutes ago, uhtred said:

She clearly feels that if both people get off, the sex was good- and tries to find ways to make that happen quickly, and when she finds them, wants to just do those things. To me that misses the point.  

 

This was one of the things my partner always did (that led me to incorrectly surmise he was ace).

[Lemon Ice Tea]

I think orgasm is the ultimate goal, or at least it is to me. It is also important for bonding.