Jump to content
mreid

Some questions for sexuals on they feel about sex

Recommended Posts

Baam

I'll have a go at answering these as a grey-sexual. But geez, I'm just wondering why certain people in here are getting so fired up and seem to be trying to start an argument... Sexual people aren't villains, they're just happen to have a different sexuality to asexual people. Difference is good. It's okay to be different.

Quote

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

Nothing, it's just a bonus. I like giving someone that I love pleasure.

Quote

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

It's not, I am capable of having platonic relationships. I'm just as close emotionally to my best friends.

 

Quote

 

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?

 

Someone not wanting sex in a romantic relationship isn't a big deal to me. I fall in love with the person, not with their ability to have sex with me. That's not really what makes a relationship with someone unique to me. My love for my friends is just a different type of love than for a 'partner'. You can have multiple romantic partners as well, there's nothing wrong with that as long as everyone is consenting.

 

I suppose I can only explain my feelings as similar to how loving your friends is different from loving your family. I personally don't see much of a difference between a romantic relationship with sex and one without. Different people like different things, doesn't make too much of a difference to me if my partner were not to like sex.

 

Quote

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?

 

Not really.

Quote

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?

Just because you have sex with someone, doesn't mean you have to have feelings for them. It can be a physical thing, or it can be an emotional thing, or it can be both. It's different for everyone, and situational. Just like someone can have a romantic partner for different reasons, one can have a sexual partner for many reasons. Some people simply can't deal with not having a romantic partner, even if they're not that emotionally invested in them for example. It also doesn't mean that sexual needs are 'self-serving'. Again, people have sex for different reasons. Some enjoy it because they enjoy pleasuring their partner. Some enjoy sharing the experience. There's many, many other reasons.

Quote

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?

I think I've already voiced why it's meaningful to me in particular. Again, it's different for everyone. But for me I enjoy giving a partner pleasure. It makes me happy. Have you ever cooked for your friends, or just done something nice for them, and felt pleased when it makes them happy? Drawn happiness from their happiness?

Quote

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?

That's not the appeal of sex for me personally. I've already covered this, though. I'm sure it's true for some people, it's not for me to pass judgement on other people's desires.

Quote

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?

No, not for me. This doesn't make much sense to me, because a person can sexually desire more than one person, so why would that ensure that they're emotionally committed to you? If you are monogamous, a romantic connection with your partner is what makes you trust that they are emotionally committed to you alone, I'm not sure how sex comes into this.

Quote

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? I'm quite confused by this question. Why would someone desiring me sexually hinder their appreciation of my personality? I'm honestly confused, not having a go at you.

Quote

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?

I'm confused again, maybe I'm just getting tired. How 'sexually attractive I am' (completely subjective, not an objective measure) does not influence how I am perceived by other people. The vast, vast majority of my interactions are professional, and I dearly hope my professors and colleagues are not treating me differently based upon how attracted they are to me... And although I currently don't even have a partner, I really don't see how their level of attraction to me is going to influence how other people see me. I'm probably just confused by this question, I apologise if I'm misinterpreting things. I've never had an asexual partner before, so I wouldn't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't give a shit if someone not capable of sexual attraction wasn't sexually attracted to me. It's not like I would be expecting them to be attracted to me (I'd have to be pretty dumb otherwise).

Quote

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?

Again, that's not one of the main things for me. I don't care whether or not I'm sexually desired. It's the romance of a relationship that is more desirable for me. In answer to your question, for most sexual people, sexual and romantic attraction is not separate. They are used to it occurring at the same time, so if one is not present, it leads them to question if the other is also not there. Most people are not familiar with the split-attraction model and it tends to not affect them; I do not think it is fair to judge them harshly for thinking along these lines.

Quote

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?

It's not. But someone who is in love with another person will still hold out hope for the relationship even if the sex is important to them but stops. I don't think there's anything wrong with hope, even if it is misplaced. Especially if they don't even know about asexuality. Plus, not every couple that doesn't engage in sex has at least one member that is asexual. People stop sex for many reasons, and even if it is important to them doesn't mean they should just end the relationship. If you love someone, you can stay with them. It's not fair to judge everyone with the same set of rules. Everyone's situation, beliefs, culture... So different. You can't just think so black-and-white. Again, this is not a criticism aimed at you, we're all guilty of black-and-white thinking sometimes; I just think that this question doesn't take into account everyone's differences. Not all sexual people have the same set of rules applying to their potential relationships.

Quote

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)?

Not all sexual people just 'want to be desired'. Again, it's not so black-and-white. It's more complicated than that. Some people literally just like the physical aspects of sex. There's nothing wrong with that. For some people, such an arrangement would be perfectly fulfilling. With other people you're right, it's pointless and would amount to nothing.

 

 

 

I just want to end up by saying that I clearly don't speak for all sexual people (especially since I'm grey-sexual), and everyone's views on sexuality differ. What I've said here just reflect my personal feelings on sexuality. Tensions seem to be quite high on this thread, so I apologise in advance if I've somehow managed to pour additional oil on the flames...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jetsun Milarepa

😄Thanks all!

Share this post


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

"I love you so much, here's a chocolate bar for your soul."

That'd work for me; marriage or civil partnership? ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jetsun Milarepa

@Baam, thanks, very interesting and comprehensive reasons. Quite an insight. I've been researching around the Biological stance on things, so been thinking at atom level for a while. Good to see it panning out to the psychological results. That's what I meant by the selfish gene (title of the famous Dawkins book).

Share this post


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

I know you are not, we are just debating. You said earlier that you is something that is created from your physical body. This implies that you believe the "soul" (so to speak, whatever you want to call it) and the body are separate things. Here you seem to state that your "self" plus your body are what constitutes you, so I will assume that to you both things are you.

However, what if who you are psychologically doesn't match what you look like physically? That way no one could love the whole you, they could only love either your body or your mind. Or, the person you are psychologically matches what you look like physically, in which case your whole "self" is defined by your biology.

Sorry, I upgraded to iOS 12 last night and can no longer multiquote.

 

1)  You’re debating.  I’m just giving my thoughts/opinion.

 

2) I’m neither a dualist nor religious/spiritual.  To me consciousness arises out of bodily processes and does not exist separate from the body.  We’ve been asked by the mod not to talk about this here, though, so I won’t further elaborate.

 

3)  I’m not sure what you mean by what one looks like not matching who one is psychologically.  I agree that someone can find others nice/interesting/intellectually compatible but also physically unattractive (or find them physically unattractive and not like them personality-wise), but to me that’s on the beholder’s end.  It’s not the person’s body and mind “not matching up.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2

I don’t think transgender is a mismatch between “who you are psychologically” and who you are physically.  From what I understand it’s more an issue with societal expectations around gender (that everyone who is born with “x” primary sex characteristics will also possess “y” gender).

 

That said I can see how a dualist transgender person might view it that way.  It’s certainly not something I would argue with them, and it’s not like any of us can prove it either way.

Share this post


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

we are just debating.

I think that's where the issue lies, to be honest mreid. You are the one debating everyone else when they are trying to explain the truth of how they feel in answer to your question. It's like if I asked ''what food do you like?'' and you answered ''When I get hungry I sometimes crave pasta''. Then I started debating you on how you can't be correct about the fact that you crave pasta, that you probably don't understand what craving is, and you possibly don't understand what 'hungry' means, and actually I'm not sure if you really even understand what pasta is.. When all you were trying to do was answer my question. Now you're trapped in this debate about how you're confused about how and why you like certain foods and you're just like ''wtf? How did this even happen?''.

 

Most people who you end up debating with on AVEN weren't trying to debate you initially: They were trying to answer a question that you asked about their own personal experience.

 

40 minutes ago, mreid said:

No, but she is allowed to give her opinion on the matter isn't she.

There's a difference between giving a personal opinion (sex doesn't make me happy personally) and answering for someone else who the question was aimed at (saying it doesn't seem to make other people happy, after those exact people have just been explaining why it makes them happy). The next comment about doing some research around it was what I was responding to though, not the fact that she gave an opinion about sex.

 

Again, I still need to respond to your questions (I'm finally home). It will take a while though so won't be until later today.

Share this post


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

This being said, sexual desire could only "love" the whole "you" if the whole you was purely made of biology if your body and your mind didn't differ and if there was nothing more to you than sexuality.

Sexual desire isn’t an entity that has its own emotions.  It doesn’t love (or not love) any part of people.

Share this post


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

Bravo. It's beautiful and full of meaning, like a trash bag and tree leaves flying in the wind. Or like an inverted urinal.

You're welcome. It was meant to be ridiculous. Although I have a good command of the English language, from an emotional standpoint I have no idea how to write a poem about the matter, and even if I did and seriously wanted to attempt such a thing, I wouldn't be sharing it publicly. Least of all on AVEN. Want me to send some nudes, too? (ALSO. A. JOKE. They'd be wasted on an asexual anyway, plus I'm not that indiscriminate.)

 

And my phone doesn't want to let me quote anything else for some reason, I can't highlight it, but no, actually I was completely sober in terms of when I wrote anything else you quoted. Nor was I "high as a kite" at any point, just enough to take the edge off a pretty terrible day of, you know, things like suicidal thoughts. I don't like the strains that make me feel mentally slowed down and never smoke them. I was quite clear-headed actually. I'm assuming you're trying to paint me as a stupid loser druggie. Nice try. :) Lol, the people on this site have some funny ideas about cannabis use... but that's another topic.

 

And you seem to be "debating" sexual people on every point they make, rather than accepting and attempting to understand, as though to prove that you know better. So that does seem a bit like telling people what it's like when you're just doing it over and over.

Share this post


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

And my phone doesn't want to let me quote anything else for some reason, 

This just started happening to me today as well.  I was blaming iOS 12, since I upgraded last night, but perhaps it’s actually a change or issue on the site end.

Share this post


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

This just started happening to me today as well.  I was blaming iOS 12, since I upgraded last night, but perhaps it’s actually a change or issue on the site end.

I'm an iPhone user as well, just updated to iOS 12 last week. You could very well be right, it started for me recently too. Was fine before that. If I reload the page it works again, but only once. Won't allow me to quote any more text after the first bit.

Share this post


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

I'm an iPhone user as well, just updated to iOS 12 last week. You could very well be right, it started for me recently too. Was fine before that. If I reload the page it works again, but only once. Won't allow me to quote any more text after the first bit.

It could be that, then.  I upgraded last night and I don’t think I had occasion to multiquote again until today... but it was definitely working yesterday afternoon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

Yeah it's probably the iOS 12 compatibility with the site, given that AVEN's software has not changed recently. It's pissing me off because that was quite a convenient feature.

Share this post


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

Yeah it's probably the iOS 12 compatibility with the site, given that AVEN's software has not changed recently. It's pissing me off because that was quite a convenient feature.

Same!  I don’t want to try to respond to a solid textwall on my phone (oh, the scrolling!) but I’m not a giant fan of spamming everyone with tons of separate mini-replies.

Share this post


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

I know you are not, we are just debating. You said earlier that you is something that is created from your physical body. This implies that you believe the "soul" (so to speak, whatever you want to call it) and the body are separate things. Here you seem to state that your "self" plus your body are what constitutes you, so I will assume that to you both things are you.

However, what if who you are psychologically doesn't match what you look like physically? That way no one could love the whole you, they could only love either your body or your mind. Or, the person you are psychologically matches what you look like physically, in which case your whole "self" is defined by your biology. But there is more to a mind than sexually titillating stuff, the same way that there is more to a body than sexuality. However, if someone feels sexually attracted to you, they are still not loving your whole self, they are just loving the sexual part of yourself. Wanting to be sexually desired is wanting to be loved only in that way, in my view. And the sexual part of you is always biological.

 

So it doesn't really matter if you see your mind and your body as different things, or if your mind and your body are what constitutes "you". In the end there is always the biological and the... rational? and sexual desire undeniably only concerns the biological.

 

This being said, sexual desire could only "love" the whole "you" if the whole you was purely made of biology if your body and your mind didn't differ and if there was nothing more to you than sexuality. Not saying that's the case, just following the logic here.

Sexual desire is not really about the body (well, not for some). Some people sexually desire others without even ever seeing them (online relationships, phone romances, letter romances, etc). They fall for the personality and that makes them desire the person. So, why does it matter if your body matches "who" you are as a person? 

 

If my spouse changes their body, then I will still sexually desire them. Even if they change from one sex to the next, or otherwise get major plastic surgery. It isn't their body that sparked it. It's the emotional connection we have. It has nothing at all to do with their body. I love who they are and that makes me desire them. 

 

And wanting to be sexually desired means wanting to be loved in the ways that are important to you. The same as ... basically everyone does. I knew a lady that didn't feel loved if her husband didn't buy her expensive gifts. I knew a lady that didn't feel loved if her husband never did the chores. We each have a certain act (or acts) that makes us feel loved and cared for and for many people, sex is part of that emotional/psychological need to feel loved/cared for. 

 

Personally, I don't have that need. But, it does feel nice, so I understand why losing that would be an issue for some people. Just like I don't personally feel an emotional need to have kids, but I get why some people do and thus couldn't be with someone who didn't share it  - even if they loved them and would be devastated to have to break up over it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Isn't that the very definition of transgender? Why would they want to transition if that wasn't the case?

People sometimes want to transition physically to address dysmorphia, but often they want to “pass” societally.

 

Plenty of transgender people don’t physically transition in any way at all.

 

I’m not transgender (and from what you’ve posted elsewhere, neither are you) so we should probably leave anything more than speculation to those who are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Since they are so eager to share their opinions I would expect that they would actually like me asking them about their experiences.

There is a difference between sharing/being asked about something and debating it.  Not everyone here has debate training, and not everyone with debate training here wants to debate these topics.  Some people come here for support, to feel camaraderie, and/or to help others.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Does that make things clearer for you?

The word you should be looking for is discussion, mreid, that's what the people who respond to you are trying to have. You'll get the hang of doing it in a way that doesn't offend people eventually I hope. ;) 

 

25 minutes ago, mreid said:

Since they are so eager to share their opinions I would expect that they would actually like me asking them about their experiences.

@ryn2's answer sums it up perfectly. The Hot Box is actually the place designated for heated debates and many members avoid that place intentionally as they want to avoid debating topics that may be offensive or hurtful (which is how most of yours turn out). People who respond to you in other areas of the forum (outside of Hot Box) are not looking for heated debate, but discussion. There is a way to ask people questions without it coming across like you're trying to force them into a 'gotcha', or to twist their experiences into something that fits your preconceived notions of how life is supposed to work. 

 

25 minutes ago, mreid said:

To me she was just giving her personal opinion and sharing her experiences. This is my thread and I think she is free to do it.

You possibly need to glance over ToS again. Just because you started a thread doesn't mean those responding are free to tread dangerously close to breaking the rules if you say they are. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
1 minute ago, mreid said:

And why is that a bad thing?

Because heated debates where you offend everyone you respond to are meant to be reserved solely for the Hot Box. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

In other words, you lost the debate and didn't like it. And I don't have "debate training" either, whatever that is.

Nope, sorry.  As I said earlier, I wasn’t debating you to start with.  I also wasn’t trying to win anything, and am not particularly invested in the topic so there’s nothing not to like.  I was just curious about some of your opinions based on what you had already stated, and you clarified.

 

Debate training - courses in logic, for example, or training to participate on a debate team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

People who are humble and asking questions in an attempt to learn generally avoid asking those questions in condescending ways. Also though, if you don't know something and you're asking people with actual experience to tell you about their experiences, it's just kind of... weird... to try to counter what they tell you as if your theories override that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

It's not speculation, it's the very definition of transgenderism, as defined by transgender people. They are free to correct me if I am wrong.

The definition you posted doesn’t defend your opinion, though.

 

I think Wikipedia’s choice of language is actually clearer and more modern:  “Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.”  The term birth sex (as opposed to “sex assigned at birth”) is a bit dated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

You're insisting sexual desire is susceptible to logic. It isn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Because it's instinctive.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

It can, as long as you view the mind as being biological in that it's an emergent property of the brain, but you don't. You're a dualist.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

It can, as long as you view the mind as being biological in that it's an emergent property of the brain, but you don't. You're a dualist.

That, and - while emotions have their source in brain electrochemisty - the experience of emotions themselves isn’t logical.  In other words, knowing that fear likely arose as a protective mechanism doesn’t disarm it when it fires off inappropriately.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Actually I never said explicitly that I was a dualist, or that I even believed in souls

...which is the difference between debate and sharing of personal viewpoints.  The purpose of debate is to defend a statement.  You don’t have to agree with or believe in it... just use whatever means you can to defend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Are you not a duallist then?

 

To sexuals, sexual feelings aren't purely about physicality and reproduction. They're just as much about expressing emotions. As an asexual, you don't experience this, but your lack of experiencing it doesn't mean it's untrue for sexual people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I do know that sexuality does not belong to the "soul" or the "mind" however you define it.

It does if one is not a dualist.

 

And it conceivably could even if one is a dualist, if one experiences sexual desire the way a few sexuals have posted here today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Sexuality absolutely does belong to the mind. Where else could it possibly exist?

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...