Jump to content
uhtred

What is typical and does it matter

Recommended Posts

ryn2
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

The realities of that choice are hugely swayed in the asexual's favour though. The situation defaults to what they want: no sex. Mostly, asexuals are quite okay with that, from what I've seen, and able to tolerate the unhappiness it apparently brings by basically ignoring it.

Even allowing for the fact we can’t see inside people’s heads, I doubt most of them like getting dumped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

Will it? Not for many on here, and asexuals can pretty much guarantee it'll take a few years for the birds to come home to roost, with a mix of intermittent reinforcement and unfulfilled promises.

Which is my point.  If you (not you personally) really want sex as part of your relationship, enough that it’s a show-stopper, you are in control of how long you tolerate not having it, how long you put up with excuses, etc.

 

If you put up with them forever, it wasn’t really a show-stopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

Even allowing for the fact we can’t see inside people’s heads, I doubt most of them like getting dumped.

But in the meantime, most sexual partners report their partners seem fine as along they don't bring up the nasty sex thing; and plenty of asexuals evince utter surprised that sex was such a big deal.

Share this post


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

But in the meantime, most sexual partners report their partners seem fine as along they don't bring up the nasty sex thing; and plenty of asexuals evince utter surprised that sex was such a big deal.

Well, it doesn’t look like a big deal when someone mentions it on occasion with no teeth behind it, does it?

 

I suppose the “advantage” is that “everyone knows” forcing sex is illegal (so there’s a known downside) whereas conveying the downside of going without sex means actually having to communicate effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

If you put up with them forever, it wasn’t really a show-stopper.

So if a sexual person was saying 'well if you want to stop me raping you every night, you can just leave. Otherwise, it's clearly not the show stopper you claim', would that be okay?

 

(Not that I'm saying refusing to have sex is like rape. I'm saying the mere fact it's clearly wrong is a really stark illustration of the power imbalance going on here, and the way asexuals refuse to acknowledge it exists is what annoys me whenever this topic comes up).

Share this post


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

comveying the downside of going without sex means actually having to communicate effectively.

... and then many asexuals just flat out don't believe you, or refuse to listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2

Saying “I need sex every x days or I cannot continue in this relationship” is okay.  It’s the up to the ace/low-libido partner to decide if it’s achievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

... and then many asexuals just flat out don't believe you, or refuse to listen.

...so you stay if it balances out that way, or leave if it doesn’t.

 

Conversely, the ace partner meets your requirements or decides it’s not worth it and leaves.

 

Unfortunately (for me personally, as well) there is no extra credit for being the more tolerant one/the bigger pushover.

Share this post


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

 It’s the up to the ace/low-libido partner to decide if it’s achievable

And that is my point.

 

The sexual partner doesn't get a say.

 

Why is it so hard for an asexual/lower libido partner to say 'yes, actually, short of the relationship ending, I control both of our sex lives', do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

A priori most sexuals would not knowingly begin a mixed orientation relationship and most asexuals would. Sexuals have better prospects of a more compatible relationship in the future if they leave. Asexuals are more likely to be so desperate to hang onto the relationship that they will submit to horrible abuse. Mixed relationships where the sexual uses this desperation to gain power are very rapey indeed, except that the asexual never actually says no. It's very upsetting what some asexuals will endure in preference to leaving. So there's no point in the sexual waiting around for the asexual to leave a more or less tolerable marriage. If the sexual is not happy with the mixed relationship as it is they will just have to be the one to leave and that is all there is to it.

Share this post


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

And that is my point.

 

The sexual partner doesn't get a say.

 

Why is it so hard for an asexual/lower libido partner to say 'yes, actually, short of the relationship ending, we control both people's sex lives', do you think?

They both get the exact same say.   If it’s not achievable, and it’s a deal-breaker for the sexual, the ace’s deciding they can’t tolerate it is breaking the deal (ending the relationship).

 

If someone on either side says “this is a deal-breaker” but then hangs around when told “sorry, I can’t accommodate that,” then it wasn’t really a deal-breaker.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, nanogretchen4 said:

A priori most sexuals would not knowingly begin a mixed orientation relationship and most asexuals would. Sexuals have better prospects of a more compatible relationship in the future if they leave. Asexuals are more likely to be so desperate to hang onto the relationship that they will submit to horrible abuse. Mixed relationships where the sexual uses this desperation to gain power are very rapey indeed, except that the asexual never actually says no. It's very upsetting what some asexuals will endure in preference to leaving. So there's no point in the sexual waiting around for the asexual to leave a more or less tolerable marriage. If the sexual is not happy with the mixed relationship as it is they will just have to be the one to leave and that is all there is to it.

You're implying most sexuals are quasi-rapists?

 

It seems from most posts on here asexuals are very capable of saying outright 'no' or manoeuvring situations so the question seldom arises, once they're in an established relationship, for long periods of time, and sexual respect that, for very obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
3 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

If the sexual is not happy with the mixed relationship as it is they will just have to be the one to leave and that is all there is to it.

If someone (either side, really) is finding their deal-breakers not met, it does fall to them to end the relationship.  The person whose deal-breakers ARE being met doesn’t have a reason to do so.  That’s universally true.

 

You can say “if xyz, I’m out,” and then go... but if you say it and don’t go, your partner probably won’t leave for you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 It’s the up to the ace/low-libido partner to decide if it’s achievable

and

 

3 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

They both get the exact same say.

... are contradictory, given the reality that the sexual will always be wanting more, and the asexual has a non-negotiable 'no'.

 

4 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

If someone on either side says “this is a deal-breaker” but then hangs around when told “sorry, I can’t accommodate that,” then it wasn’t really a deal-breaker.

Asexuals seldom say that they can't accommodate it, ever. They say 'not tonight', or 'because of contingent reason x' or 'I'll try to be more sexual'. For years, often. The fact of a dealbreaker isn't made clear and the sexual partner ends up having to figure it out.

Share this post


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

 The person whose deal-breakers ARE being met doesn’t have a reason to do so.  That’s universally true.

And in a mixed relationship, whose dealbreakers are being met over sex?

 

So the underlying attitude here is "well, they claimed they couldn't deal with 'x', but I've done 'x' and they're still here, so clearly they're fine".

 

Is the world really that simple to some people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

And in a mixed relationship, whose dealbreakers are being met over sex?

 

So the underlying attitude here is "well, they claimed they couldn't deal with 'x', but I've done 'x' and they're still here, so clearly they're fine".

 

Is the world really that simple to some people?

If the relationship is ongoing, no one’s deal-breakers have been hit.

 

Either party (or both) could be near the point of not being able to tolerate things, though.  As I asked above, how do we value which is “worse”?  If a couple is having sex every six months, who is that harder on?  Every six days?  Every six years?  Is it the impact the same for every (or even most) sexual(s)?  Every ace?

 

I don’t see how it can fall outside the individual to decide what is a dealbreaker and what is not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Asexuals seldom say that they can't accommodate it, ever. They say 'not tonight', or 'because of contingent reason x' or 'I'll try to be more sexual'. For years, often. The fact of a dealbreaker isn't made clear and the sexual partner ends up having to figure it out.

That’s true both ways, because the sexual is going without it.  If they really aren’t willing or able to go without it, going without it doesn’t convey that message.

 

Likewise, saying (or thinking it’s understood and not actually saying) having sex is a dealbreaker and then having it anyway doesn’t convey the message that it’s a dealbreaker.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I'm not saying there's a universal rule, but in a relationship, if there are mutually exclusive needs, and one partner is consistently not getting their needs met, and the other is, wouldn't it be pretty clear that even if the unsatisfied partner is biting the bullet they're probably not happy, and probably getting unhappier? And the satisfied partner should maybe do something about that without an explicit demand being made?

 

This isn't mind reading or co-dependency, it's just empathy and kindness. It's definitely not 'well, you haven't left, so you must be happy, and if you're not, it's hardly my problem'.

Share this post


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

If they really aren’t willing or able to go without it, going without it doesn’t convey that message.

Really? Initiating sex and getting turned down doesn't spark a thought of 'hmmm, they seem really keen on this thing. Maybe me preventing them ever doing it might have some long term consequences'?

 

5 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

saying (or thinking it’s understood and not actually saying) having sex is a dealbreaker and then having it anyway doesn’t convey the message that it’s a dealbreaker.

One more time. The key difference is that the asexual can just stop having sex, and in doing so stop their partner having sex (short of infidelity or leaving the relationship). There is no comparable thing the sexual can do to improve the relationship for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

Really? Initiating sex and getting turned down doesn't spark a thought of 'hmmm, they seem really keen on this thing. Maybe never doing it might have some long term consequences'?

That’s a completely different discussion, around “is it reasonable to claim you got dumped out of the blue with no warning?”

 

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

One more time. The key difference is that the asexual can just stop having sex, and in doing so stop their partner having sex (short of infidelity or leaving the relationship). There is no comparable thing the sexual can do to improve the relationship.

An ace who refuses to have sex when it’s a dealbreaker for the sexual is not “improving the relationship.”  They are choosing freedom from having sex over the relationship, just like a sexual who opens the relationship unilaterally or leaves is choosing the freedom to have sex over the relationship.

 

You can only have your desired outcome within the relationship with the cooperation of both parties.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

An ace who refuses to have sex when it’s a dealbreaker for the sexual is not “improving the relationship.”

They're improving their side of the relationship by keeping sex out of it. If it no sex wasn't an improvement for them, they'd be having sex. 

 

For the other part - we were talking exactly about conveying messages. Repetition in itself is a message - either of request or turning it down. It often seems that asexuals view each sexual rejection as completely detached from all the others, and everything else in the relationship, so it has no actual meaning. Sexuals see a pattern, across time, and across the whole relationship, and take a meaning from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred

A few things:

1) Other than sex, our relationship is very good.  Other than sex, I am generally very happy with my life.  Sex is important to me, but it is not the only important thing, or even really the most important thing in my life.

 

2) Based on long experience, I think I might get more frequent sex by threatening to divorce, but I am unwilling to do this.  One important part of sex to me is being desired, and the idea of needing to bargain / threaten for sex is not acceptable .  (this is the same reason I'd never hire an escort).  Pride is a more important sin to me than lust. 

 

3) I actually love my wife and am not willing to hurt her. 

 

That leaves me with little option. I'm not really that unhappy - I just get on a roll when I start posting. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
4 hours ago, uhtred said:

1). no.  2) yes - she almost always appears to enjoy sex when we have it - at least physically. She doesn't indicate any retroactive unhappiness afterwards - but of course she might feel that way.  She claims she really enjoyed the weekend (but good money says it doesn't happen again).

 

3). Two nice afternoons spend cuddling, sex and sleeping next to each other in bed .

Ok, so to be clear and factual then. Your wife declines sex because she is asexual and thus has no innate desire for partnered sex. This makes you very miserable.

When you kick up enough of a stink she participates. Not only does she participate, she is not distressed by it and shows evidence of enjoyment from the act. This is an act that puts a great big smile on your face! The financial implications of her participation are £0 and 0 pence and the time implications of her have sex on those 2 occasions probably amount to no more than an hour if that!

It makes you wonder, what they f**k is she thinking withholding sex in the first place? I quite agree with others that this is not deliberately malicious but I mean FFS talk about selfish.

Is it any wonder people like you can become resentful and end up cheating? 

Its simply ludicrous!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
49 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Why is it so hard for an asexual/lower libido partner to say 'yes, actually, short of the relationship ending, I control both of our sex lives', do you think?

A married couples sex life is THEIRS. It shouldn’t belong and be controlled by the low libido/asexual partner alone. However, it always always is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
8 minutes ago, uhtred said:

One important part of sex to me is being desired, and the idea of needing to bargain / threaten for sex is not acceptable . 

Couldn’t agree more. But you shouldn’t have to threaten or bargain. She should be willing to make the effort to keep her husband happy.

Unfortunately there are far too many people in this world that whilst in a relationship considerate to be a happy relationship if they are happy. They haven’t a care in the world as to whether their spouse is happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
12 minutes ago, uhtred said:

3) I actually love my wife and am not willing to hurt her.

It’s a shame she doesn’t adopt the same stance.

 

You aren’t alone. My wife was like this for years and years! It’s better now (not great) but it’s why I have such a strong opinion on this stuff.

Share this post


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

For the other part - we were talking exactly about conveying messages. Repetition in itself is a message - either of request or turning it down. It often seems that asexuals view each sexual rejection as completely detached from all the others, and everything else in the relationship, so it has no actual meaning. Sexuals see a pattern, across time, and across the whole relationship, and take a meaning from it.

Some people see patterns, some don’t.  What they take from them, and what they choose to do based on that assessment, varies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

2) Based on long experience, I think I might get more frequent sex by threatening to divorce, but I am unwilling to do this.  One important part of sex to me is being desired, and the idea of needing to bargain / threaten for sex is not acceptable .  (this is the same reason I'd never hire an escort).  Pride is a more important sin to me than lust. 

I didn’t mean to imply people should threaten (or promise) steps they don’t intend to take in order to exact change; just that if someone can no longer tolerate a situation they have the opportunity to end it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
55 minutes ago, James121 said:

A married couples sex life is THEIRS. It shouldn’t belong and be controlled by the low libido/asexual partner alone. However, it always always is.

It only is if the higher-libido partner chooses to accept a compromise and stay.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James121
1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

It only is if the higher-libido partner chooses to accept a compromise and stay.

Agreed. The road runs both ways with that word ‘compromise’ though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...