Jump to content

Can asexuality be a choice?


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

There is a massive difference between being able to enjoy some of the sensations of partnered sex, and loving partnered sex to the extent you are unhappy without it.

Yes; the fact that they would be perfectly content going through life never having sex is part of what sets asexuals apart from sexuals.

 

18 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

The inaccurate 'visibility' I was referring to was when people say things like 'Asexuals can love and desire sex just as much as anyone else, they just don't care about appearance!', that kind of nonsense. That's implying that to be sexual, appearance has to be more important than anything else to you, when actually appearance means nothing to some sexual people.

Wow, I didn't even know people made this claim! Yeah, appearance has nothing to do with any orientation (as far as I know). And asexuals definitely don't desire sex the same as a sexual - that is literally the definition. Can they enjoy it and love doing it? Sure. Do they feel the same desire to do so to the same degree as a sexual - no; that's the point. It's not that they can't have sex (or even that they can't enjoy sex), but if they want it in the same innate way that a sexual does, then that kind of goes against the very definition of asexual...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

However I myself am a lot older (than I once was I mean) 

Aren't we all.  :lol:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
11 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

The inaccurate 'visibility' I was referring to was when people say things like 'Asexuals can love and desire sex just as much as anyone else, they just don't care about appearance!', that kind of nonsense.

 

10 hours ago, Tunes said:

Wow, I didn't even know people made this claim! Yeah, appearance has nothing to do with any orientation (as far as I know). And asexuals definitely don't desire sex the same as a sexual - that is literally the definition.

I'm still not sure whether an esthetic attraction with sexual component is "sexual atraction" if one still explicitly doesn't desire to actually have sex with that person. Which is why I also prefer to define asexuality as "not experiencing sexual desire". "Preference for celibacy" sounds good too because it says pretty much the same.

I believe that the "some aces love sex" rhetoric could have been born of some kind of "Chinese whispers" or "telephone game" (in Polish it's called "głuchy telefon" - "deaf telephone") - you know, the game where one person whispers a phrase to another, that person repeats it to the next and so on... In the course of such discussions, spread over multiple blogs and fora, misunderstandings over "WHAT THE F*** IS SEXUAL ATTRACTION" started accumulating and finally skewing the discussion.

"Sexual desire" clearly has the advantage of being more simple. "Sexual attraction" has been confusing to a lot of people. I recall someone wondering whether he is asexual because he doesn't feel like he desires sex, but feels some arousal when looking at boobs (I remember the username too, but let's not frustrate a person by being used as a very slightly ironic example)... I mean, people can have lots of doubts about what it is: "finding someone hot"? arousal? bodily reactions? desire to have sex? In contrast, for an average person it's much easier to answer the question "Do you experience a desire to have sex?".

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

my partner is as happy with me without sex as he is with sex

You're extremely lucky then aren't you, to find a partner like that. Many couples are not so lucky.

12 hours ago, Tunes said:

But you chose to stay while knowing she won't have sex. This means it was not forced on you. You may not have chosen directly to not have sex, but you chose to continue with a relationship that does not include sex. That lack of sex is not forced on you.

Well, we have to disagree on that one I think. Giving an umbrella to given choices doesn't necessarily mean that one or other of the partners agrees to that choice. Leaving a relationship to some is a failure to understand the partners' issues and live with them. I couldn't divorce or leave my marriage for reasons as previously described. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was never a 'choice' to be asexual for me but I did make a choice to stop questioning it and just accept it. It's hard to determine that you don't experience something because, obviously, you've never experienced it. It's like saying you've never seen the color green. You can say that you haven't because you haven't seen it but because you've never seen it, you don't exactly know what it looks like and because you don't know what it looks like, all you can base your facts on is lack of facts or lack of seeing it.  Sexual attraction was the same for me. I have no idea what it feels like. Everything I know about it is from what those who do experience it have told me. I can determine from those "symptoms" (for lack of a better word) and my lack of experiencing those that I don't feel sexual attraction. When I first started figuring this out, I continued to question it. What if I do one day? What if what I felt at this time period was sexual attraction? What if what if what if? But then I made the decision to stop questioning myself. I knew I was asexual and I had to accept that. So no, asexuality isn't a choice. I didn't choose to be ace but I choose to accept it and stop questioning myself. As far as relationships go, friendships are fulfilling enough for me. I've always wanted a relationship with a guy, a step above friendship but no strings attached, sex, or marriage type of thing. An alterous type relationship if you will. QPR, all that. Though I know that might be hard to find and complicated so my friends are fine for me. I've never wanted children or a family and all I've ever wanted to be was the weirdly cool aunt to my brothers' and my best friends' children. I think that your life can be fulfilling and happy without the traditional concepts of having a family or a marriage or whatever. That's my plan anyway. I focus on my career and my art forms where most people would focus on finding a spouse and forming a family. At times, you feel ostracized because people do and will find it strange that you don't want the traditional life but you kind of just need faith in your purpose. What you want is totally attainable. 

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

You're extremely lucky then aren't you, to find a partner like that. Many couples are not so lucky.

I'm saying I won't settle for anything less than that in a future relationship. And no it's definitely not luck. It's a willingness to get to know someone inside out as friends before it ever gets to the point of a relationship (even if that takes years) and a perfect contentment with long term celibacy while I wait. If I just jumped at every potential partner who came along (there are many of course) I'd end up in a relatively incompatible unhappy relationship and while in that relationship I would not be able to be actively looking for the 'right' person (due to my innate preference for total monogamy). I'd be stuck. I'd just rather be single and looking than settle for someone who may not be right for me in the long run. Yes my last partner was very sexually compatible with me on all levels, but I'm not sad or anything thinking he's the only one out there. There are many men who would work sexually with me, we just need to both be single so we can find and be available for each other. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Apostle said:

I couldn't divorce or leave my marriage for reasons as previously described. 

Except you can because you are not so physically or mentally disabled as to be prevented from doing so, and it might even be better for everyone involved if you do, as previously described. I’ll agree that we can disagree about whether it counts as choice or not, but psychology has proven time and time again that viewing things as choices whenever possible leads to more success and better overal mental health. So it would still be better for everyone involved if you did view it as a choice. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

I'm saying I won't settle for anything less than that in a future relationship. And no it's definitely not luck. It's a willingness to get to know someone inside out as friends before it ever gets to the point of a relationship (even if that takes years) and a perfect contentment with long term celibacy while I wait. If I just jumped at every potential partner who came along (there are many of course) I'd end up in a relatively incompatible unhappy relationship and while in that relationship I would not be able to be actively looking for the 'right' person (due to my innate preference for total monogamy). I'd be stuck. I'd just rather be single and looking than settle for someone who may not be right for me in the long run. Yes my last partner was very sexually compatible with me on all levels, but I'm not sad or anything thinking he's the only one out there. There are many men who would work sexually with me, we just need to both be single so we can find and be available for each other. :)

It's luck to find a partner that is compatible with your levels of trust, understanding of your level of sexuality, willingness to work hard at a relationship etc. A high proportion of couples cannot find this in a partner hence the divorce rate being high. An increasing number of people never find anyone to be compatible with in their lifetime so I stand by my previous comment on this subject.

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

Except you can because you are not so physically or mentally disabled as to be prevented from doing so

Really? You don't know the situation that I found myself in so you cannot make that statement. And are you seriously saying that if you had a young family of 3 children all under the age of 2, one with serious disabilities that you would leave the relationship purely based on the fact that sexual incompatibility was making you feel bad?

It would take a pretty heartless person to do that, wouldn't it? And that's not me.

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

if you had a young family of 3 children all under the age of 2, one with serious disabilities that you would leave the relationship purely based on the fact that sexual incompatibility was making you feel bad?

It would take a pretty heartless person to do that, wouldn't it? And that's not me.

If you knew your partner was absolutely miserable and was only staying with you because of your children, wouldn't that make you feel sad? Wouldn't you want your partner to be happy and do what's best for her, even if it meant leaving you as a husband as long as she continued to help you with the kids?

 

I think partners who want their spouse to stay with them despite being super unhappy are selfish and heartless themselves. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "choice" stuff around staying in relationships seems to be overly simplistic.

In some cases, someone is "choosing" to stay because they fear what will happen to themselves, if they leave.

In other cases, they "choose" to stay because what they fear what will happen to others, if they leave.

Those are *very* different situations. I think it's important to try not to conflate choices around "personal strength" or "personal benefit vs. pain" with a choice where we're confronted with abandoning responsibilities we have taken on and/or likely to hurt others. If a "choice" is a decision which we didn't "choose" to find ourselves in the position of making – well – that "choice" might be between living in some pain vs. doing something likely to hurt others in pretty serious ways – I think it can feel dismissive to be told it's a choice like other choices.

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

And are you seriously saying that if you had a young family of 3 children all under the age of 2, one with serious disabilities that you would leave the relationship purely based on the fact that sexual incompatibility was making you feel bad?

Yes. Because as time goes on and you feel more and more bitter towards your spouse, those children are going to notice that things are not going well between you. You are going to be miserable, which will lead to less stamina, bad choices, and the tendency to snap under less pressure. It’s going to turn you into a bad parent and your children will suffer greatly. You might even make a mistake that causes you to lose custody entirely. 

 

Leaving the relationship does not mean leaving the children. It means putting yourself in a situation that is less weighing on you so that you can dedicate MORE and BETTER for your children. By staying, you could potentially harm them. Sure, maybe you will get over it and it will hurt less over time and you can be a fine parent. But maybe it will be the opposite. Is it heartless to play it safe or is it the responsible choice? As Ficto pointed out before, you cannot raise a child correctly if you are not emotionally stable yourself, much less three children and a disability. 😕 Staying in the relationship is an irresponsible choice that could put your children at risk. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Apostle said:

A high proportion of couples cannot find this in a partner hence the divorce rate being high. 

No in the vast majority of those cases it's because they settled for someone too fast before they truly got to know them. Either that or they both changed over time. But so many of the divorced couples I've ever met (and men in unhappy marriages I've spoken to, there have been many as I used to work in a brothel), ended up where they are due to settling far too quickly. Also getting married based on hormones (great sex, very in love) then when those things fade there is no underlying friendship to bind them together but by that time it's too late and they're already married, often with a kid or two. People just dive into it far too quickly a lot of the time.

 

5 hours ago, Apostle said:

It's luck to find a partner that is compatible with your levels of trust, understanding of your level of sexuality, willingness to work hard at a relationship etc. 

If you spend a long time establishing a friendship with someone before getting sexual with them, then get into it already knowing you're 100% compatible after much experimentation and communication etc, then it's not luck - You literally made an active attempt to find someone truly compatible before settling which is extremely rare in this day and age. Sure compatibility can fade over time, but finding the right person in the first place takes putting in an active effort instead of just settling for someone as a result of hormones and romantic love.

 

 

5 hours ago, Apostle said:

An increasing number of people never find anyone to be compatible with in their lifetime so I stand by my previous comment on this subject.

Because they settle for someone who isn't compatible with them early on and end up stuck in a relationship with someone they're unhappy with. You can't find that perfect someone if you're still stuck in the relationship you formed solely as a result of hormones and 'romantic love' when you were 23 or whatever. If you stay in that one relationship you're unhappy with long term of course you're not going to find someone compatible. And that's what happens in so many cases. People just aren't willing to remain single, then put actual time and effort into forming a solid friendship long before the sex even begins, then building a relationship from there. This process may take months or years, and you don't decide if you'll marry or not until AFTER you've gone through that process and waited a few years at least to

 establish longer term compatibility. 

 

My last 3 (healthy, happy) relationships were formed this way and in each one, during this process, we worked out there were things that didn't work between us long before it got to the point of even considering marriage, so we broke up and remained friends. If we'd got married early on (based on our happiness, sexual compatibility, and chemistry) and had kids we'd be stuck together and possibly miserable. But instead we got to enjoy our time together, enjoy the hormones (ie fucking, lol) and enjoy the establishment of a strong friendship, with the full knowledge the relationship aspect may not last but the willingness to put the time in if it did last. And also a willingness to go our separate ways and remain friends if the relationship aspect didn't last (which in two of those 3 relationships came down solely to distance, the rest was fine). 

 

So yeah, in my case anyway it's just a matter of putting in the time and effort, and just not settling with someone because they seem perfect for the first year or whatever. So many people get trapped by the latter aspect of that (and it sounds like you did too) but it's vital not to let happiness and perceived compatibility dictate whether or not you'll marry someone. That's where so many people get trapped unfortunately. I'm not in any rush to get married, I've got my whole life ahead of me. There's no way I'm settling for someone just because we get on great for a year or so lol. If I did that I'd end up on a forum like this being miserable 20 years down the line. That's a massive nope for me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get this back on topic, Involuntary Celibacy is an official term which means someone has become celibate through reasons outside their control, but it's still something that happens to someone (like if a hetero man was forced to have sex with another man, that's not homosexuality it's something that's happening to him). Asexuality is something you're born with, celibacy is something you can choose or that can happen to you. You can't choose asexuality but you can choose celibacy. Not all celibacy is chosen, but you can choose it under some circumstances which is something you cannot do with asexuality.

 

Though to be honest it seems like the OP gave up on this discussion long ago 😛

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

 And are you seriously saying that if you had a young family of 3 children all under the age of 2, one with serious disabilities that you would leave the relationship purely based on the fact that sexual incompatibility was making you feel bad?

It would take a pretty heartless person to do that, wouldn't it? And that's not me.

I had a young family of two, one with serious disabilities, and I left a marriage for another reason that you might find frivolous.  I was not heartless.  My husband had frequent access to our children after the divorce and did not want custody (as is most often the case).  My now-adult son has told me that he definitely felt the unhappiness of both parents when we were together.   You may be fooling yourself about what is best for your partner and your children.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, gaogao said:

If you knew your partner was absolutely miserable and was only staying with you because of your children, wouldn't that make you feel sad? Wouldn't you want your partner to be happy and do what's best for her, even if it meant leaving you as a husband as long as she continued to help you with the kids?

 

I think partners who want their spouse to stay with them despite being super unhappy are selfish and heartless themselves. 

 

You are doing a lot of assuming here though, aren't you? She wasn't miserable, and neither was I to the extent that we both wanted to end the partnership. She just didn't want to discuss, full stop, even though I wanted to.

 

Left in limbo land.

 

I certainly wasn't fooling myself as you suggest. I knew I had to look after and nurture the children in a calm and loving atmosphere, unlike others.

 

Comments made by some on these posts are very assumptive sometimes, most being made from ace's who cannot hope to understand the importance of physical intimacy, so they may wish to consider what they say before posting unsubstantiated comments.

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

In some cases, someone is "choosing" to stay because they fear what will happen to themselves, if they leave.

I agree. I would say this is quite common, even in abusive relationships.

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

Yes. Because as time goes on and you feel more and more bitter towards your spouse, those children are going to notice that things are not going well between you. You are going to be miserable, which will lead to less stamina, bad choices, and the tendency to snap under less pressure. It’s going to turn you into a bad parent and your children will suffer greatly. You might even make a mistake that causes you to lose custody entirely. 

 

Leaving the relationship does not mean leaving the children. It means putting yourself in a situation that is less weighing on you so that you can dedicate MORE and BETTER for your children. By staying, you could potentially harm them. Sure, maybe you will get over it and it will hurt less over time and you can be a fine parent. But maybe it will be the opposite. Is it heartless to play it safe or is it the responsible choice? As Ficto pointed out before, you cannot raise a child correctly if you are not emotionally stable yourself, much less three children and a disability. 😕 Staying in the relationship is an irresponsible choice that could put your children at risk. 

 

 

In my particular case I was understanding of my SO's condition and acted accordingly. Leaving the relationship was not an option as generally we both got on. That is what a marriage is about, getting on and working together. There are more facets to a marriage than many people realise. Just because my SO was not interested in a physical relationship didn't mean the end of the marriage. I took the hit because there was more to our relationship than pure sex. Any understanding partner would probably acknowledge that. Sure, it's a bugger for the sexual, frustrating even but as I said, not the end of the world.

We have rarely shouted at each other and talking with my kids as they have grown up has not damaged them in any way, them now being in their mid twenties now.

 

Besides, leaving and finding another partner can lead to exactly the same situation so it is pointless. I would rather be single, as many in the younger generation are as they are also finding it a lot trickier to finding a partner. With the genie opening the bottle on all sorts of differing genders it is increasingly difficult to understand where the next generation are heading sadly.

 

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

Because they settle for someone who isn't compatible with them early on and end up stuck in a relationship with someone they're unhappy with

I know a lot of couples for whom this is not the case, mine for a start where my SO acquiesced to a sexual union at first but changed after her ambition of having children materialised . People change as they get older as well and both partners have to adapt. The financial constraints on females has been lifted to a certain degree by more of the female population working so they are now more independent. The male population (in the Western world at present) is having to come to terms with female emancipation although the rest of the world is still largely male dominated.

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

did not want custody (as is most often the case).

Wow, I don't think that is most often the case, not in the UK anyway! Mostly, the children get to stay with their mothers. Yours appears to be an anomaly.

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

You are doing a lot of assuming here though, aren't you? She wasn't miserable, and neither was I to the extent that we both wanted to end the partnership. She just didn't want to discuss, full stop, even though I wanted to.

 

Left in limbo land.

 

I certainly wasn't fooling myself as you suggest. I knew I had to look after and nurture the children in a calm and loving atmosphere, unlike others.

 

Comments made by some on these posts are very assumptive sometimes, most being made from ace's who cannot hope to understand the importance of physical intimacy, so they may wish to consider what they say before posting unsubstantiated comments.

I was not assuming anything about your relationship. I was talking about a hypothetical situation where if you could see your partner was suffering, wouldn't you want to discuss it and work it out with her instead of letting her suffer just for your children?

 

NOTE::: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR REAL RELATIONSHIP. THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.  USE SOME CREATIVE THINKING AND IMAGINE YOU WERE THE SATISFIED ONE IN YOUR SITUATION IN ANOTHER TIMELINE AND UNIVERSE WHILE YOUR WIFE WAS THE ONE WHO WAS SUFFERING. WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY?

 

The fact that your wife is refusing to discuss it while expecting you to  just tolerate your problems and stay is heartless, imo. So why not leave someone who refuses to talk to you about something that is clearly important to you? The issue here isn't just  the fact that your wife doesn't want to have sex with you. It's that she doesn't want to have sex with you and refuses to communicate about it or work out a solution or let you go for your own happiness.

 

Not sure where you're getting all the rest of this from. Sure is nice that you're dismissing me just because I am ace and therefore you have your own assumptions of what I'm talking about, without actually reading what I'm saying.

 

Honestly, if you're so dedicated to your victimhood that you don't understand what I'm talking about and have tried to talk to your wife with this sort of attitude, that'd explain why she's stopped trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, gaogao said:

Honestly, if you're so dedicated to your victimhood that you don't understand what I'm talking about and have tried to talk to your wife with this sort of attitude, that'd explain why she's stopped trying.

I think that applies to more than one of the people commenting in this thread, to be honest. There seem to be some commenters here (no names though) who seem to desire to suffer above all else, and to let everyone else know all about just how impossible if could ever be for them to escape this suffering that they seem to actively want to create. This isn't the only thread where I'm seeing people do this at the moment either. It's pretty much "god my life is so hard not having sex there's an empty hole inside me a void that can never be filled and it's all his/her fault. I get so sad that I'm crying myself to sleep every night and some days I struggle to see the point in living. But don't you dare suggest that I could be happier. I am happy!! My relationship is extremely healthy and balanced and I couldn't be happier with it. You're asexual you just can't understand how happy and content I am. Don't you dare suggest that my relationship isn't perfect!". It's this weird escalation between extremes that is continuing to baffle me. How can someone write graphic descriptions of how unhappy they are, then the next moment fail to take everything they've just said into account and start arguing saying they're not unhappy at all and actually they're very content.. it's beyond me. Then they use the "you're ace so you can't understand" thing to deflect. Well I'm not ace, but all I see are people totally dedicated to suffering to the extent they want to defend it and insist it's happiness but without forfeiting the right to complain about it at every possible opportunity. And it's certainly not just in this thread either. *sigh* Y_Y

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

The financial constraints on females has been lifted to a certain degree by more of the female population working so they are now more independent. The male population (in the Western world at present) is having to come to terms with female emancipation although the rest of the world is still largely male dominated.

So females aren't forced to dedicate themselves sexually to a male anymore because women are allowed to go out and earn money too now? That's a damn good thing and while I was attempting be civil and engage in a constructive conversation, this comment of yours especially has kind of shown me that it's pointless and I'm not going to get anywhere. *shrugs*

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

if you could see your partner was suffering, wouldn't you want to discuss it and work it out with her instead of letting her suffer just for your children?

Okay, you didn't mention the hypothetical situation. 

Still, if an asexual partner doesn't want to talk about the intimacy situation, what then? You mention that she is suffering (hyperthetically). Shouldn't you be mentioning both partners? After all, the sexual is doing the compromise here by abstaining from intimacy. What is the asexual abstaining from?

 

I realise that it is virtually impossible for asexuals to understand the situation that sexuals may find themselves in, MALE or FEMALE. It's just not on their radar and there is always seems to be a justification as to why sexuals are whining all the time.

 

There are no sexuals apart from me on this thread. It would lead to a more balanced discussion I think if more joined in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

So females aren't forced to dedicate themselves sexually to a male anymore because women are allowed to go out and earn money too now? That's a damn good thing and while I was attempting be civil and engage in a constructive conversation, this comment of yours especially has kind of shown me that it's pointless and I'm not going to get anywhere. *shrugs*

No, you misunderstood me, I agree with you. I'm just stating facts. I too abhor the male dominated world where women are treated as chattels. I too abhor the people like Harvey Weinstein and others in power. I'm disgusted at their behaviour.

All I'm saying is that men have to change their behaviour. Nappy changing, food shopping, housework...........most men nowadays accept this in the western world. I've travelled all over and see the behaviour of many men in third world countries and it saddens me. That's what religious indoctrination and lack of education does for them. 

But that's nothing necessarily to do with mixed sexual and asexual relationships.

 

 

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

 

There are no sexuals apart from me on this thread. It would lead to a more balanced discussion I think if more joined in. 

You're literally ignoring the fact that @FictoCannibal. is sexual and she posted right above you in the thread saying that she is not ace.

 

Quote

Still, if an asexual partner doesn't want to talk about the intimacy situation, what then? 

Then the asexual partner is not being a good partner because they are refusing to communicate. Communication is essential in every relationship and their partner has every right to leave them for not communicating.

 

My hypothetical situation does not say anything about the sexuality of the people involved in the relationship NOR what the issue is. Just that if someone in a relationship is suffering, regardless of what the suffering is, it's the mark of a good partner to support them by communicating with them and trying to find a solution, whether that solution is ending the relationship amicably or coming to some sort of compromise.

 

You're so hung up on the sexualities of the parties involved you're not seeing the point of my hypothetical situation at all. Sexuality in my hypothetical situation is irrelevant.

 

Pretend you are in a perfectly happy sexual relationship but you never do the housework. Pretend your wife is suffering because you never do the housework and every time she talks to you about it you say you don't see the problem, leaving her to do all the cleaning and she can barely cope. Can't you see how refusing to communicate is being shitty? Would you blame her if she left? What if we flipped this around and she was the one who never did the housework and refused to talk about it when you begged her to at least do the dishes maybe once a week? Would you still stay in your relationship because you have kids and continue to do the housework for her forever? Would you consider leaving?

 

As a person in a relationship regardless of sexuality, your partner should not want you to be suffering for any reason. If you are suffering, whether it's because your partner doesn't have sex with you or because they never do the dishes, both people need to talk about it.

 

If they decide not to communicate that's a shitty thing to do and then you need to make the choice whether to accept that or not. If you stick around, then you are making the choice to give up on communication and take the situation as is. 

 

If you can't understand what I'm trying to say here I despair.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna pop in and remind everyone that it's a lot worse for children to watch a dysfunctional relationship than it is for them to watch a divorce (so long as, you know, the divorce is handled responsibly). And yes, I know that you said your relationship isn't that bad. I'm talking about if it were to ever get to that point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2018 at 6:22 AM, Apostle said:

To be denied a sexual relationship is not a choice for the sexual as it is a bi-product of that relationship. 

No, being denied a sexual relationship is a biproduct of the sexual’s decision to stay in the relationship.  By staying, the sexual is saying “I am willing to accept sexlessness in order to maintain [other good things about the relationship] and/or avoid [bad things leaving the relationship will entail].”

 

I can’t multiquote so I can’t clip your last section but the same would apply in reverse for an asexual partner whose sexual partner denies him/her/them love; the asexual can either (accept that, and choose to) stay in the relationship or (reject it and) leave the relationship.

 

The partner laying down a “law” in the relationship (whether that’s “no more sex ever,” “sex every day,” or nothing to do with sex at all) isn’t making a unilateral decision.  That partner is saying “I will only continue this relationship under these conditions.”  The other partner also gets to choose whether or not to continue the relationship. The other partner can also counter, or specify additional conditions... and then the original partner gets to choose whether or not THAT is acceptable.

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

Just because my SO was not interested in a physical relationship didn't mean the end of the marriage.

Until you started making comments about how this situation can ruin sexuals’ lives and how you feel like you are living in a void and how you can’t see a way forward. These are not healthy feelings in marriage. 

 

6 hours ago, Apostle said:

I would rather be single, as many in the younger generation are as they are also finding it a lot trickier to finding a partner. With the genie opening the bottle on all sorts of differing genders it is increasingly difficult to understand where the next generation are heading sadly.

It’s not trickier finding a partner because gender and sexuality has not changed. All that has changed is that people are being more open and honest about how they feel, making it EASIER to find a compatible partner faster. As stated before, people jump into relationships before they really know their partner already (and the best way to counter that is to avoid committed relationships until you know each other better, thus staying ‘single’ longer), and if peope have more ways of explaining the way they feel, it can only make it easier to express those things that are important for compatibility. You seem to think that the having the vocabulary to express yourself is what causes these differences to exist, but in truth these differences would exist whether or not we had ways of explaining them. So it’s pretty apparent that the next generation (at least those who accept and acknowledge the differences regarding gender and sexual/romantic orientation) are heading toward a deeper understanding and the importance of compatibility.

 

6 hours ago, Apostle said:

them now being in their mid twenties now.

If your kids are adults, why are you using them as an excuse to continue your marriage (whether or not you have other reasons to stay, adult offspring should not be one of them...)?

 

6 hours ago, Apostle said:

Wow, I don't think that is most often the case, not in the UK anyway! Mostly, the children get to stay with their mothers. Yours appears to be an anomaly.

Unfortunately, this is a common problem in the US, particularly among lower income families. 

 

5 hours ago, gaogao said:

The issue here isn't just  the fact that your wife doesn't want to have sex with you. It's that she doesn't want to have sex with you and refuses to communicate about it or work out a solution or let you go for your own happiness.

This.

 

4 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

This isn't the only thread where I'm seeing people do this at the moment either. It's pretty much "god my life is so hard not having sex there's an empty hole inside me a void that can never be filled and it's all his/her fault. I get so sad that I'm crying myself to sleep every night and some days I struggle to see the point in living. But don't you dare suggest that I could be happier. I am happy!!

I definitely see this frequently. Tbh, sometimes I accidentally fall in a similar category, but I can clarify when it’s pointed out. I often end up making my relationship sound worse than it is because I’m focusing on the parts that I don’t like. For example, there will always be some level of incompatibility between people, even if it’s something as simple as your partner being a neat freak then criticizing you every time you so much as leave a towel on the floor because you are a slob and it gets on her nerves. It’s frustrating and it makes you want to complain. But it’s not something that ruins the entire relationship. In my case, it’s very similar. The situation could end up being more serious for the relationship (due to the nature of the disagreement), so I need to keep an eye on it, but my level of discontent is about equivalent to the towel issue. I still would never claim that I’m miserable overall or that my relationship lacks all intimacy (though I will get upset if my problem is minimized or denied all together - that’s very rude), and I certainly wouldn’t say I see no way forward - if those words ever came out of me, it would be a clear sign that I need to reassess my situation. I would also never imply that my unhappiness is my partner’s fault or that my relationship is flawless. Complaining gets sympathetic responses (which remind me that I’m not the only one who gets it and helps me keep it in perspective), and it gives me the chance to overlook my rant and analyze my circumstances from the perspectives of other people (who comment) to get a more rounded view of what’s really happening. But I think most of the people referenced here go beyond that point - if I got responses like the ones in this thread, for example, I would clarify the good in the relationship and see if any opinions changed and if not, rethink my situation. That’s the point, is to get other perspectives, perspectives of people not living my life. But to keep insisting everyone is wrong and insist that you are happy after extremely depressing statements with no clarification of what you are happy with - you are not giving anyone anything to work with and just look like you are in denial. I think that’s just an unwillingness to take a serious look at your relationship. Whether the person is happy and just wants to complain or unhappy and doesn’t want to do anything about it, it just feels immature. 

 

4 hours ago, Apostle said:

Okay, you didn't mention the hypothetical situation. 

The word ‘if’ makes this implication. 

 

4 hours ago, Apostle said:

You mention that she is suffering (hyperthetically). Shouldn't you be mentioning both partners? After all, the sexual is doing the compromise here by abstaining from intimacy. What is the asexual abstaining from?

No, you still misunderstand - this is exactly the point being made here. The hypothetical aspect is the fact that the roles are being switched. Because she is not communicating and working with you, there is no compromise. Yes, you are the one suffering. And the fact that you are suffering should bother her, meaning that staying and continuing to suffer for her sake isn’t doing her any favors. You can see that because if you imagine the opposite - if you were content and she was the one sacrificing - you would feel bad being the ‘cause’ of her suffering, and her continuing to suffer ‘just for you’ would not feel good to you and would not make you feel any better about the situation. So likewise, you staying for her sake while really suffering actually doesn’t make her feel any better about it either. 

 

4 hours ago, Apostle said:

There are no sexuals apart from me on this thread. It would lead to a more balanced discussion I think if more joined in. 

Ficto has reminded you multiple times that she is sexual. You are not the only sexual on this thread. It’s just that the other sexual happens to disagree with you, contrary to your hypothesis. The fact that she disagrees with you does not make her asexual.

 

4 hours ago, Apostle said:

All I'm saying is that men have to change their behaviour. 

Agreed. I also didn’t read that as condescending. There was an injustice, and when that injustice was corrected, the world changed. The fact that it changed for the better doesn’t mean that no one needs to adapt to those changes. The fact that women are no longer desperate and socially required to marry the first person who can replace their parents and support them means that women can look for compatible lovers instead of rich caretakers. As a result, men aren’t gifted wives anymore - they have to start giving a fuck. That is still a change. And it’s not like men are incapable of the change or even that they would rather be given wives like the old days. But it does change the way dating and marriage works in the culture, and the point he was making was just that it’s different, not worse. I’m still not sure why this change is relevant in the context of the conversation, but technically he never implied that this was a negative thing.

 

4 hours ago, gaogao said:

Then the asexual partner is not being a good partner because they are refusing to communicate. Communication is essential in every relationship and their partner has every right to leave them for not communicating.

 

This. 

 

4 hours ago, gaogao said:

Just that if someone in a relationship is suffering, regardless of what the suffering is, it's the mark of a good partner to support them by communicating with them and trying to find a solution, whether that solution is ending the relationship amicably or coming to some sort of compromise.

Yes, which is what makes my lacking-but-happy situation different from yours and what makes my situation a compromise and yours closer to abuse. 

 

4 hours ago, gaogao said:

Can't you see how refusing to communicate is being shitty? Would you blame her if she left? What if we flipped this around and she was the one who never did the housework and refused to talk about it when you begged her to at least do the dishes maybe once a week? Would you still stay in your relationship because you have kids and continue to do the housework for her forever? Would you consider leaving?

This.

 

4 hours ago, gaogao said:

If they decide not to communicate that's a shitty thing to do and then you need to make the choice whether to accept that or not. If you stick around, then you are making the choice to give up on communication and take the situation as is. 

Yes. 

 

2 hours ago, Starlit Sky said:

Just gonna pop in and remind everyone that it's a lot worse for children to watch a dysfunctional relationship than it is for them to watch a divorce (so long as, you know, the divorce is handled responsibly). And yes, I know that you said your relationship isn't that bad. I'm talking about if it were to ever get to that point.

Precisely. And it can. Like I said in my post, maybe it won’t get that bad, but choosing to leave so that you don’t risk it is not irresponsible. 

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

No, being denied a sexual relationship is a biproduct of the sexual’s decision to stay in the relationship.  By staying, the sexual is saying “I am willing to accept sexlessness in order to maintain [other good things about the relationship] and/or avoid [bad things leaving the relationship will entail].”

We have all said this so many times. I really don’t know why you can’t grasp this concept...

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

The partner laying down a “law” in the relationship (whether that’s “no more sex ever,” “sex every day,” or nothing to do with sex at all) isn’t making a unilateral decision.  That partner is saying “I will only continue this relationship under these conditions.”  The other partner also gets to choose whether or not to continue the relationship. The other partner can also counter, or specify additional conditions... and then the original partner gets to choose whether or not THAT is acceptable.

Yes. By staying, you are accepting the conditions. Even if you don’t like them, you accept them. You can reject them at any time by leaving the relationship (or telling your partner that if something doesn’t change, then you WILL leave the relationship, at which point it’s up to her whether to work with you or choose to lose the relationship instead, just like her demands left you with the choice to comply or leave). As long as you choose to stay, you are choosing to accept the conditions (not choosing to like them, not saying they should be there, not saying they are fair - but accepting them regardless). And that is a choice. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

god my life is so hard not having sex there's an empty hole inside me a void that can never be filled and it's all his/her fault. I get so sad that I'm crying myself to sleep every night and some days I struggle to see the point in living. But don't you dare suggest that I could be happier. I am happy!!

ok yeah admittedly this stuff is weird to me too. sometimes I'm like "are you ... talking to them about this??"

I mean I guess to me I have this urge to say "just TALK!" which I'm told is oversimplifying? maybe in the way that "just LEAVE" is also felt like oversimplifying? maybe I'm just exceptionally lucky to have a partner that is pretty kind to me about my strange desires for sexual intimacy... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Like 2
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...