Jump to content
mreid

Some questions for sexuals on they feel about sex

Recommended Posts

Anthracite_Impreza

Not to mention neural pathways that have been shaped over someone's lifetime, they have to be taken into account too. And someone's current and past surroundings, mood, hunger levels... You'd literally have to do a full scan and bloodwork, look at histories, conduct psychiatric reports etc. for millions of people over years to get even the tiniest logical reasoning behind it all. Ain't nobody got time for that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC
4 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Not to mention neural pathways that have been shaped over someone's lifetime, they have to be taken into account too. And someone's current and past surroundings, mood, hunger levels... You'd literally have to do a full scan and bloodwork, look at histories, conduct psychiatric reports etc. for millions of people over years to get even the tiniest logical reasoning behind it all. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Honestly, this in itself is logical reasoning, IMO. It answers the 'why' sufficiently and with actual science.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MaybeImANinja

im asexual and im gonna give this a shot  on behalf of sexuals to see how i do 

1) What emotional need/s does sex fulfil for you that everything else in a relationship doesn't?


for the most part it would be the physical pleasure of sex, However, if intimacy is defined by its closeness, you don't get much closer to an individual than physically either being inside of them or have them inside of you, i am assuming you mean sex between two people very much "in love"  However you question can easily be misinterpreted because i am pretty sure sex for sex sake is more common than sex for the sake of love 
 

2) Why do you feel like sex is important to be close to someone emotionally?


again no context on what the sex is,  but assuming it is sex for love, it would simply be because, again, you can't get closer to someone than physically being inside of them or them inside of you.  also the emotional range of the average person tends to either not be that high, or is limited to private times, sex and emotions are very much tied to each other, hormones and chemicals flooding everyone involved, "Personally speaking i get my rush of endorphins from a good cup of tea, but i am a simply man"

 

3) I assume that for many sexuals what makes a relationship with someone unique is the intimacy that they get from sex, because they are not supposed to be getting that kind of intimacy with anyone else at the moment. I assume this is why some sexuals think a sex-less/platonic relationship is pretty much the same as a friendship, as you can be friends with many people but (supposedly) only have one romantic partner. My question is, why does that have to be the case? Do you feel an exclusive Queerplatonic sort of relationship can't replace a sexual relationship? If not, then why not?


i feel the first two answers cover this pretty well, assuming again we are talking about sex for love, and we are talking about the average sexual in that scenario, To them,  because the emotional range of normal individuals is not that high, there are two types of people. People you have sex with" person in this case", and, friends, 



4) Do you feel that during sex you are allowed to express things you wouldn't normally express to your partner outside of sex? If yes, why do you think that is? What are those things and why can't you express them normally?

I would say sex itself is the expression, Sex is quite expressive in itself,  it allows you to be raw, primal, dirty, kinky, it allows you to be a base human, something that you can't be in public,  sex is an expression of an individual,  " I have always said that Asexuality is like atheism in the sense that it is lack of sexuality, but upon further evaluation i can tell you I am dead wrong,  sex and sexuality are not the same thing, an asexual may have little to no interest in sex, however as individuals they have a sexuality that is all their own a sexuality that is not intrinsically tied to sex.

 

5) I have seen sexuals suggest that when their asexual partner doesn't want to have sex a 3rd party could be involved to satisfy that need. However, if for a sexual sex is essential to have their emotional needs met, won't that cause them to develop feelings for the 3rd party? If not, doesn't that make their sexual needs a purely physical thing, or at least a self-serving thing?

"The problem with this kinda questioning is so often one answer just answers pretty much all the questions, "  "gotta speak personally again, if you are with an asexual as a sexual, Your sex life is to be dictated by the asexual, saying it,  If you are exclusive. and you walk in to it knowingly, if sex is that important, you need to leave that relationship, in this case i will take the ability for the asexual too consent to a third party away, as it would be out of guilt, And if that is the reason for adding a third party, its cheating"      Anywho. you are exactly right on the developing emotional feelings for the third party,  if sex is important for the intimacy for you, the sense of being a base human expressing something primal  by being inside or having someone in side of you, of course you will develop feelings for them.  sexual couples struggle enough with this one when they are having sex on the reg, adding a third party and completely destroying the relationship. Adding an asexuality element to that just does not really work.

 

6) Why isn't sex just a physical act that is only meaningful because you already feel close to the person before you do it, but something that gives you that closeness after you do it? In other words, why is sex meaningful in itself? Don't you feel like that's replacing real connection with hormones?

In every instance, all connections are based on hormones etc, that one can't be avoided, There is always some chemical at play 

 

7) From what I understand, much of the appeal of sex for sexuals is to be sexually desired. By this, I understand being physically desired  and/or desired because you fulfil the other person's emotional needs, not for who you are. What are your thoughts on this?

it is part of the appeal yes, again it goes back to being base and primal. Out of the 8 billion now on this planet, out of the possible hundreds or thousands around you at a specific time. out of the thousands of people that are available, a mate has chosen you,  as a base individual you are sexually dominant in the sense that it is you chosen, we all have our prehistoric instincts intact, during those times it just flairs up.

 

8.) Do you feel that being sexually desired by your partner is a way of ensuring they are emotionally committed to you (because they are supposed to desire you exclusively)? If so, why can't you just know them well enough to know that? Doesn't sexual desire become a replacement for a real connection in that case?

Because knowing them well enough and being inside of someone or having someone inside of you, are completely different things,  

 

9) Do you feel sex/ the other persons sexual attraction for you hinders/replaces their appreciation of who you are as a person? Does your asexual partner (if you have any) think so about you?   

No, Because a persons sexuality is a huge part of yourself, as i said, everyone has a sexuality all of their own. Not always involving sex, but sexuality is intrinsically tied to the self.

 

10) Do you feel that sexual market value influences your needs? In other words, since your partners attractiveness and their attraction to you influences how you are perceived by other people (ie how sexually attractive and/or successful you are considered by others) that can affect your self-esteem. Do you think that affects your relationship, if your asexual partner doesn't desire you?

If being with an Asexual partner damages your view of yourself, it just means that its not a relationship that is sustainable or should be continued,  you need to either walk away and be friends or just walk away. Both people are important in a relationship, both people need their needs met. and if you can't  find compromise, "because it is not possible to your own sexuality" you need to walk away the relationship is corrosive

 

11) I think one of the main things that sexuals like about being sexually desired is the emotional exclusivity of it. However, sexual desire can exist for many different people at the same time, and romantic feelings are not necessarily present when sexual desire is, nor are they necessarily not present when it isn't. If this is so, then why do many sexuals feel like their partners don't love them if they don't desire them sexually, since sexual desire does not necessarily imply love, nor is it even necessarily exclusive?

You need to seperate sex for sex and sex for love,  both may be primal however the receptors they tickle are very different, sex for sex is tickles the prehistoric, spread your seed instinct, bragging rights, etc. Sex for love again  yes primal, however it makes you feel acknowledged by something special, something exclusive,  something that belongs just to the two of you in the moment and no one else, sex for love is about having the prime, the perfect mate,  and in that instance, if you are not seen as sexually attractive, you are not the perfect mate, Its just how the base instincts work

 

12) If sex is essential to you in a relationship, then why stay in a sexless relationship? Since many sexuals seem to equate being sexually desired with being loved and their partners don't seem to desire them sexually, then a sexual person will probably perceive that as lack of love from the other person. Do they stay because they think there's a possibility of making the other person desire them, thus essentially changing their sexual identity? If so, does that mean they don't take asexuality as a genuine orientation seriously, as geniune orientations are not supposed to be able to be changed like that? Or if they do but the idea is to come to some sort of agreement, then doesn't that mean sexuals and asexuals are incompatible, as the sexual desire is always going to be one sided? In which case, what's the point of continuing in such a relationship anyway?

good question but its is to much of a blanket,   humans are all wired the same way. all the wires start from one place and go to another all the wires are arranged the same, However what the wires are connected to is not always the same. Some sexuals are satisfied with a sexless relationship, they can deal with it. and those relationships are fine. However you need to remember that  sexual, nonsexual. feelings change over time,  you fall out of love, sex becomes an issue,  does not matter what relationship you are in,  a relationship is not a constant, it is forever shifting.  that applies to every single relationship. so i counter ask, whats the point in starting a relationship at all in light of that risk ? 

 

13) If a sexual and an asexual come to an agreement where the asexual gives the sexual partner sex to keep them happy but there's no sexual desire then, following the logic of the previous question, what is even the point of such an agreement, since what sexuals want is to be desired? Is it the satisfaction of knowing your asexual partner is willing do to that sacrifice for you, despite not loving you (the way sexuals perceive love as involving sexual desire)? 

You are mistaking sexual attraction for the intimacy of sex.  in the scenario you lay out, there might be something missing for the sexual.   also, you are mistaking that it is thought that sex is love rather than an important part of it"  there are a lot of things going on with the mind here,  also, there has to be an attraction in a relationship for there to be a relationship.  does not have to be sexual,   but if they are in you or you are in them and one of them is sexual, one of you is feeling the intimacy.  the bond of sex,  plus people are very happy to ditch the emotional side of sex for sex,   and they need to in that situation because it is pain and despair otherwise. to their mind, they are having the intimacy, so something must be there, does not matter if they are not sexually desired, because if it did, as i said. pain and dspair. 

Heres hoping that answers all the questions well enough for everyone to garner something from helpful from it

Edited by MaybeImANinja
didnt add a break to the first part,

Share this post


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

Honestly, this in itself is logical reasoning, IMO. It answers the 'why' sufficiently and with actual science.

Some people like reams and reams of data *shrugs* Sadly in this case they aren't gonna get the definitive answers they crave.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic
On 9/30/2018 at 4:22 PM, mreid said:

12) If sex is essential to you in a relationship, then why stay in a sexless relationship? Since many sexuals seem to equate being sexually desired with being loved and their partners don't seem to desire them sexually, then a sexual person will probably perceive that as lack of love from the other person. Do they stay because they think there's a possibility of making the other person desire them, thus essentially changing their sexual identity? If so, does that mean they don't take asexuality as a genuine orientation seriously, as geniune orientations are not supposed to be able to be changed like that? Or if they do but the idea is to come to some sort of agreement, then doesn't that mean sexuals and asexuals are incompatible, as the sexual desire is always going to be one sided? In which case, what's the point of continuing in such a relationship anyway?

 

13) If a sexual and an asexual come to an agreement where the asexual gives the sexual partner sex to keep them happy but there's no sexual desire then, following the logic of the previous question, what is even the point of such an agreement, since what sexuals want is to be desired? Is it the satisfaction of knowing your asexual partner is willing do to that sacrifice for you, despite not loving you (the way sexuals perceive love as involving sexual desire)?

What starts as a survey seems to end with what appears to be an attempt at Socratic method.

I don't know why people stay the gender they were born when they could up and change their gender at any point. Maybe I should make a big questionnaire for cis people. People, why are you cis?? it makes noooo sense to meeeee

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

People, why are you cis??

They like to be difficult.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC
15 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

They like to be difficult.

Honestly this is a good portion of the reason for much of why I am the way I am. :ph34r:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
2 hours ago, Serran said:

If the OP wants a perfectly logical answer why sex is important to sexuals, 

There's no one answer though because it's so different for everyone.. that's why it always seems like sexuals are talking out their arse when they respond. None of the answers are the same so people think "oh they're just making it up" or whatever. It's super frustrating though when individuals go to heaps of effort to respond as clearly as possible, only to have some certain people saying respondents have gone to no effort because the answers don't adhere to what that particular member expects them to say.. or whatever.

 

We can explain until the cows come home but if some people refuse to read serious individual responses then just brush them all off with mocking comments, no one is going to get anywhere in this discussion 😕

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Most things that people enjoy or are important to them are difficult to describe rationally.  Why do certain combinations of musical notes sound good. Why are some stories enjoyable to read.  Why do some combinations of food taste good.   Why is it pleasant to stand on the beach and watch the waves crash, or by a stream in a deep forest and watch the water flow, or on a high windswept mountain top?   Not all people like all these things- and most could not describe why they are so wonderful. 

It’s also so subjective.  Questions like “which is better, coffee or tea?  Miller Lite or craft beer?  Knitting or crocheting?” often don’t have objective answers.  One alternative may be healthier, or more popular, or more socially acceptable, but none of that really gets at why people individually like things less or more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't know why people stay the gender they were born when they could up and change their gender at any point. Maybe I should make a big questionnaire for cis people. People, why are you cis?? it makes noooo sense to meeeee

People can't just "change" their gender, much like how they can't change their orientation.  The way you identify/express might change, but the gender itself does not.

 

Personally, never saw much point in fussing about gender.  People ultimately only give a shit about what body type and equipment you have anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anisotrophic
1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

People can't just "change" their gender, much like how they can't change their orientation.  The way you identify/express might change, but the gender itself does not.

 

Personally, never saw much point in fussing about gender.  People ultimately only give a shit about what body type and equipment you have anyway

Yes, I was making a silly parallel ^_^

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
4 hours ago, Moon Spirit ☽ said:

Well, I guess the sexuals have proved that there is no point asking them any of these types of questions because they're in deep denial.

I gave a very long and detailed answer. If you'd read it you might actually learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hecate
4 hours ago, Moon Spirit ☽ said:

Well, I guess the sexuals have proved that there is no point asking them any of these types of questions because they're in deep denial.

 

4 hours ago, Moon Spirit ☽ said:

Of anything that might make them feel insecure about themselves.

That's a rather sweeping statement and people can be insecure about any number of any things. 

 

As for insecurity around their sexuality, care to narrow it down? I'm certainly not insecure about mine or the fact that different types exist, but people don't appreciate it when there are baseless claims or implications that one is less valid than the rest or that because things cannot be so easily explained that it is illogical and not worthy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m guessing the above is what moon spirit was referring to in the below:

I'm still just amused that the first quote was so bad I thought it was sarcasm, and not particularly dry sarcasm at that. :lol:

 

Yeah, 99% of the human population experiences something you don't understand, so they must really just be in denial about their obsession and immorality. Sounds legit. (For clarification, that was sarcasm.) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
36 minutes ago, mreid said:

But doesn't that mean you perceive your body as being part of your overall self? 

Do you see your mind as something that exists separately from your body, as opposed to the product (or byproduct) of a series of electrical and biochemical processes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
8 minutes ago, mreid said:

Why is being beaten by your boyfriend a form of love to you? Not judging, just trying to understand. I have read about women who think that their partner's aggressiveness shows how much they want them, if you feel that's the case then why do you feel that way? Wanting to damage someone's body to me is a pathological fixation, not affection.

In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience trying to explain BDSM to someone who isn’t similarly kinky is at least as hard, if not harder, than trying to talk through differences in sexual orientation,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
4 minutes ago, mreid said:

I like to think so but even if it is just a byproduct of electrical and biochemical processes those processes are still not the same as those that make someone physically attractive, at least for the most part. You can judge a person by their looks but you won't be getting a good view of their minds, even more so if you judge their bodies sexually.

I was asking more in the context of dualism/monism/humanism, based on your question about the body factoring into a sense of self...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2

(“I’m not just my body” and “I’m not my body” are distinctly different)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moony Lovegood

Your feelings are all valid. :lol:

 

Does that phrase sound illogical to anyone else? Emotions aren't logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InquisitivePhilosopher
24 minutes ago, mreid said:

...Atheists have their own "Gods" too...

:huh: I don't understand what you mean by this. I was brought up atheist, don't and never had a "God" of my own. I don't think of anything as my "God." Are you, perhaps, thinking of agnosticism?

 

People don't appreciate being labeled, grouped, and having false or incorrect claims made about them without their knowledge or permission, as then, others might falsely or incorrectly believe those statements made by another person about them.

 

From a psychologist:

https://blogs.webmd.com/mental-health/2018/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-play-armchair-psychologist.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
6 minutes ago, Moon Spirit ☽ said:

Your feelings are all valid. :lol:

 

Does that phrase sound illogical to anyone else? Emotions aren't logical.

The usual usage of that phrase where I live is along the lines of “feelings/emotions are neither good nor bad; they just are,” meaning no feeling or emotion is better or worse than another, okay or not okay to have, etc.  So, “your feelings are valid” is saying “it’s okay to feel [however you feel].”

 

It has nothing to do with emotions being logical or illogical...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
2 hours ago, mreid said:

SNIP

1) Doesn't mean we can't understand it, nor that we don't experience it in different ways and/or under different circumstances, 2) your analogy does imply a disability. A more correct analogy would trying to explain a genre of music or an art style that is meaningful to you to someone who like a completely different genre of music and art style, or someone who doesn't like music or art at all. It doesn't mean the person can't understand that genre or style, nor that they can't appreciate the technique nor that they can't interpret it the way the artist intended, nor that they can't understand the artist's thought process. It only means it's not very meaningful to them.

 

 

SNIP

 

We crave different foods because of the nutrients in them, or if not the nutrients then the addictive components in them.

When I went off gluten I got cravings and I learnt that the difference between real hunger and a craving is that when you are hungry your stomach makes noise and you should eat, and when you have a craving you will feel compelled to eat non-essential things and you shouldn't eat. In my case, I had a craving for carbs even though I was feeding myself well, and also for sugary stuff. This was my brain going through the withdrawal symptoms, because gluten can have an opioid effect on the brain. Emotions can also cause cravings for sugary things. None of this is essential or healthy, it's just your brain craving a drug for one reason or another.

 

SNIP

 

Different sorts of music isn't right - that would be like explaining same-sex sexuality to a hetero  person - which is pretty straightforward.  Or maybe explaining kinky sex to someone who is vanilla.    In many cases asexuals do not feel sexual desire - at all.  So they really don't have anything to compare with.  Let me try a different example, since I do want to avoid implying disability.   How do you explain the love of engaging in extreme sports to someone who likes a quiet life.  How do you explain why it is so enjoyable to jump off  cliff in a bat-suit, or ride a kayak on a raging dangerous river.  Or weeks of physical misery climbing high mountains. These activities are dangerous, uncomfortable an can cause serious injuries, yet to some people they are worth the risk.   To people who enjoy these activities, the joy is obvious.   You can of course put it down to chemicals and hormones  - but that of course also applies to sex.

 

People enjoy foods for reasons that have nothing to do with nutrition. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
6 minutes ago, mreid said:

I don't know the exact answer to that, but regardless when someone appreciates another person for their body they are not appreciating them for their mind, however you define mind/soul. I think what I mean is clear.

It’s not necessarily either/or.

 

7 minutes ago, mreid said:

The "God" of atheists is usually the State. Or so I read.

You might want to read up on this one a bit more broadly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InquisitivePhilosopher
33 minutes ago, mreid said:

...The "God" of atheists is usually the State. Or so I read.

I'm wondering where you read that, whether if it was from others' political comments on the internet.

 

Atheism is simply "a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."  (source: google dictionary)

 

It doesn't have anything to do with politics or a person's political beliefs, government, etc.; there isn't any correlation. Some might not even like politics at all.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
37 minutes ago, mreid said:

I don't believe you can see a person's "mind" through their body, as in naked body and features which they can't change in any way and were born with.

Those who consider their bodies part of their selves may want to be seen/appreciated for their minds and their bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
14 minutes ago, Moon Spirit ☽ said:

@ryn2 So basically you would tell someone who wants to kill another person that their feelings are okay, because all feelings are okay?

 

Rotten people rely on everyone being ignorant and accepting of whatever.

Wanting to kill someone isn’t really a feeling or emotion, but let’s say someone feels “so angry they could kill someone.”

 

The point of the whole approach is that feeling that way is... nothing more than a feeling.  It’s fine to feel that way.  It’s not fine in most situations to act on it.

 

Rotten people rely on others accepting their actions... the way they behave, the things they say and do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
35 minutes ago, mreid said:

@InquisitivePhilosopher Atheistic tend to be communists, or at least left leaning. But please let's not derail this thread.

That may be true where you live but in the US it varies heavily by party.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/political-ideology/by/party-affiliation/among/religious-family/atheist/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
4 minutes ago, mreid said:

But how can they see their bodies as parts of themselves if they have very little control over their bodies? They can't change their bodies on a fundamental level to match their minds. And what if the image that their bodies show is very different from their minds? How can someone love two contradictory things in the same person simultaneously?

And what kind of appreciation are you refering to? Aesthetical? Sexual? If we have so little control over our bodies it doesn't really matter, because in the end our bodies aren't really "ours". They are not something we control (except to a small degree maybe, but not fundamentally), so why would someone care to be liked for something that isn't theirs and doesn't represent them?

 

And I am not just talking about people with some disease or self-esteem issues, I am talking about everyone. Good looking people surely most resent sometimes being seen as nothing but a nice body and pretty face.

I’m not trying to convince you to switch mindsets, just to point out that not everyone is a dualist.  If one the sexual posters wants to answer your above questions, that’s fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
15 minutes ago, mreid said:

But how can they see their bodies as parts of themselves if they have very little control over their bodies? They can't change their bodies on a fundamental level to match their minds.

As someone who isn’t a dualist all I can really say here is that to me my body is myself.  It’s how I experience the world and it’s what - through its physiology - gives rise to the consciousness and thought processes that makes me “me.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iff

The question of athiesm and belief system would make a really good topic in Philosophy, Politics and Science but let's not go further off topic in Sexual Partners, Friends & Allies

 

Please also as a general point, Remember to remain civil in your responses, and consider stepping away from a thread if it is frustrating you. 

 

iff,

moderator, sexual partners, friends & allies

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...