Would you leave

[James121]

34 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

What I meant was, if for 40 years people where you live have been taught that message, how did you mistake the relationship you were getting into for one that was more typical sexwise?

Because normal relationships involve sex.

[James121]

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

And yet you fault others for not hurrying out the door based on sexual differences alone, and imply they are staying for the assets...

I haven’t applied any such fault. I have reminded people that the asexual (assuming having sex is so so emotionally destroying as you all seem to suggest) can also choose to leave. I raise the point that isn’t it funny that you never tend to hear that scenario unfolding.

[James121]

1 hour ago, Serran said:

It could be cultural as well as gender, honestly.

 

@James121 - You are aware in the U.S spousal rape wasnt illegal until 1993? Meaning, when most of us were growing up, we legally were obligated to give sex to our husbands if they desired it and if we said no, they legally could take their "property" which was our bodies. That is the culture everyone giving me advice grew up and married in (I thankfully didnt begin dating until after that law). My female family members even had to get their husbands signed permission for life saving surgeries, because their bodies belonged to the husband at that time. That is probably why so many women my age and older I know still follow the gender role of owes man sex, even if you dont want it. 

 

Of course, as a 19 year old kid I didnt realize the societal programming going on or the toxicity of the idea. I just knew these women were older and experienced and thus should know more than me. Now I can recognize the reasons behind why people say it. But, our churches still preach the idea the wife owes their spouse sex or she is helping him sin by lusting after other women...and religious people put a lot of value into that, which is part of why my current social circle of women say it. 

We live in two very different countries then.

 

I don’t believe with what the church says over your side of the pond but I do believe that a spouse be that husband or wife owes their partner effort!

[ryn2]

23 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

The bit that rankles, still, with me, is that sexual partners have no choice but to accept the underlying problem - no sex - is out of their control and will always be part of that relationship, and that loss of agency is a big contributor to their distress; frequently, the asexual seems able to pretty much put the whole thing out of their mind most of the time, presumably because in their world, sex really isn't a big thing, and if it does come to mind, instantly feels they're under threat. They might feel that, but their partner has already capitulated, let alone feeling threatened.

For some people it is a constant threat, though, or at least feels like one... because any time it comes up in any way is a reminder that the problem really isn’t solved and cannot be solved.  Dwelling on that means dwelling on how it’s likely the relationship will end... and even people who don’t mind doing that know there’s some risk of self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

Silence may look like peace but it isn’t... just like commiseration after capitulation may not look like a threat but is.

[James121]

2 hours ago, Philip027 said:

So it's more like "you are under zero obligation to say yes... but if you never say yes, you're just wasting the other person's time and shame on you for doing that"

That’s basically true. Why would anyone stay faithful to someone who has no desire or intention to say yes.

To me it’s a really simple mathematical equation. It’s similar to a newly formed couple discussing children. One wants 3 children ideally but definitely at least 2. The other doesn’t like or want children. Do they stay together? Of course not.

[ryn2]

28 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Maybe a version of one of those mental health questionnaires, administered to each partner, with questions like, answered on a Likert scale:

• How much has the absence/presence of sex affected your ability to concentrate?
• How often have you self medicated in any way to deal with the absence/presence of sex in your relationship?
• How much do you feel bad about yourself because of the state of your sexual relationship?

... just an initial stab.

Something like this could be useful... but there’s also the quantity question from a compromise standpoint.  How much of what type of effect - good or bad - does one act cause and how long does that take to wear off/diminish back to baseline?  Does it return to baseline, or end up above or below?

[nanogretchen4]

My philosophy is, I don't think anyone should have unwanted sex. No one should be pressured to have unwanted sex, and no one should use unwanted sex strategically. Asexuals should not be in any relationship they can only start or maintain by having unwanted sex. Even less should asexuals pretend to want sex in order to pass as sexual. That's not compromise sex, it's deceit sex. Sexuals should not be in any relationship in which they feel tempted or entitled to pressure their partner to have unwanted sex. Also they should work on that attitude because it's not okay to do that with other sexuals, either. And people should not cheat. I don't care if they want to agree on ethical nonmonogamy, but people should not be deceitful. And with all of this damaging ugliness going on, no one should be trying to shame people for leaving relationships that should never have existed in the first place. 

[Philip027]

Quote

That’s basically true. Why would anyone stay faithful to someone who has no desire or intention to say yes.

To me it’s a really simple mathematical equation. It’s similar to a newly formed couple discussing children. One wants 3 children ideally but definitely at least 2. The other doesn’t like or want children. Do they stay together? Of course not.

So for someone that actually wants to maintain any of their relationships, you can kinda see how telling them "you're under no obligation to say yes" feels like empty words that mean nothing, right?  Which makes me question why you even brought them up.

[GoneForGood]

1 hour ago, ryn2 said:

So, as Ficto mentioned, if you raise concerns with friends and doctors you get advice on how to find sex you’ll enjoy... and, yes, there is still a strong cultural message that sex is the price women pay for companionship and companionship is the price men pay for sex.

This exactly. For the past 20 years I even stated it explicitly that I was trading sex in order to find someone who could pretend they cared about me for even 15 minutes, and still never got it. The only message I kept getting was to keep trying.

[nanogretchen4]

I really don't think anyone should maintain a relationship that they can only maintain by having unwanted sex. Neither of the partners should be in that relationship. And sex should not be traded for love and companionship. If the sex is not in itself a desirable bonding activity, look for love and companionship from someone who does not want sex from you.

[Philip027]

Quote

I really don't think anyone should maintain a relationship that they can only maintain by having unwanted sex. Neither of the partners should be in that relationship.

Unfortunately, in the eyes of most asexuals (or people who don't want sex), what that will basically be interpreted as is that you think they should live and die alone.  Because as far as many of them know, there isn't anyone else that's like them in not wanting sex.

 

Until I stumbled upon asexuality randomly on tvtropes (I was 25 when this happened, so not exactly that young), I never had the indication that ANYONE was like me in not wanting sex.  It's all over the place and it somehow seemed to be the driving force behind relationships.  If you couldn't offer that, you were worth nothing in a relationship context.  If I had no idea that asexuality was a thing actually experienced by other people and I heard you saying what I quoted above, to me that would essentially mean that you think I should never be with anyone.

 

You really don't seem to realize what kind of negative picture you're (inadvertently?) painting for aces, and by this point I'm wondering if you even can.  Nothing for it but to keep trying to demonstrate it, I guess.

[Telecaster68]

34 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

Sexuals should not be in any relationship in which they feel tempted or entitled to pressure their partner to have unwanted sex.

I agree, but in practice this creates the problem that (per several discussions I've had on here with asexuals and former asexuals), some asexuals experience just knowing their partner is sexual as pressure, even when the sexual has explicitly said they have no expectations for sex. Sexuals have no control over this, at all, but it plays out as though they are actively doing some pressuring. 

[nanogretchen4]

PhiIip, I think you are the one who is painting the negative picture. You are the one saying that asexuals shouldn't hope for a loving relationship with someone like themselves, who wants the same type of relationship that they do. No, you keep exaggerating the difficulty and telling asexuals they should just give up and resign themselves to using unwanted sex as currency to buy love. A great deal of the difficulty asexuals are having finding each other right now is a direct result of the attitude of the asexual community. A few asexuals are trying to do it the right way, but the asexuals they are looking for aren't looking for them. When asexuals start truly wanting to find each other, they will find each other.

[nanogretchen4]

Telecaster, that is why mostly think sexuals and asexuals do not belong in relationships with each other.

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

Telecaster, that is why mostly think sexuals and asexuals do not belong in relationships with each other.

It's probably best. 

 

I think there's also a perception problem - simply raising the topic of sex, however kindly and occasionally it's done can be experienced as pressure too. But then... if we don't raise it, as seen on this thread, asexuals assume it means it's not that important after all, whatever the sexual said, and nothing happens.  It's another way the sexual partner has their agency removed, but still, AVEN insists on the narrative that asexuals are always the innocent victims.

[Philip027]

Quote

You are the one saying that asexuals shouldn't hope for a loving relationship with someone like themselves, who wants the same type of relationship that they do.

That's not what I am saying.  I'm trying to give the perspective of what many asexuals think, myself included before I realized there was anyone else in the world like me, which again, most aces DON'T realize.  Sure, everyone that's here on this website will realize it, but what you see here is only an incredibly small proportion of how many aces that are out there (which aren't that many to begin with).

 

Quote

No, you keep exaggerating the difficulty and telling asexuals they should just give up and resign themselves to using unwanted sex as currency to buy love.

Again, not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that is what many asexuals are driven to feel like they HAVE to do if they want any of their relationships to last.

 

All you can say is "oh, that's easy; just go be with other aces."  News flash, many aces have never knowingly met any other aces before, so what you're essentially telling them is that they just shouldn't be with anybody.  Probably not how you mean it, but that's how it's going to be heard.  You have drawn comparisons to gay people, but gay people are everywhere.  Everyone knows they exist, and they aren't difficult to find.  It's just not like that with asexuals.  If it wasn't for my random tvtropes stumbling a few years ago, today I would probably still be thinking nobody else was like me.

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

You have drawn comparisons to gay people, but gay people are everywhere.  Everyone knows they exist, and they aren't difficult to find

It wasn't always like that though. Growing up in the 1970s, I wasn't aware of any gays in the entire county, let alone village.

 

Nano's point (I think) is that this situation for asexuals can change, and that would be great for everyone. But if asexuals continue to look to sexuals for a happy relationship, it won't change because they have no incentive to make the effort to find other asexuals, and the miseries will continue. 

[nanogretchen4]

I don't think the number of gay people is all that much larger that the number of asexuals. By most estimates there are maybe three times as many gay people as asexuals. They certainly aren't all over the place in anything like the way heterosexuals are. A city that has 30,000 gay people should have 10,000 asexuals. The main difference is that gay people are more visible because they choose to be. Gay people had to risk a lot to get to the point of being so visible. Asexuals would risk nothing but the ability to remain stealth so they can date sexuals who are not giving informed consent to a mixed orientation relationship. 

[Telecaster68]

1 hour ago, ryn2 said:

Something like this could be useful... but there’s also the quantity question from a compromise standpoint.  How much of what type of effect - good or bad - does one act cause and how long does that take to wear off/diminish back to baseline?  Does it return to baseline, or end up above or below?

It'll vary from person to person, couple to couple, even encounter to encounter. Better to measure as externally as possible; so one act (if we include rejection, or self-censoring over even bringing it up as 'acts') might have almost no effect or an intense effect. That way, we're measuring effects not subjective descriptions of subjective experiences.

[Ceebs]

2 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

I don't think the number of gay people is all that much larger that the number of asexuals.

I do. I'm willing to bet there are exponentially more homosexual than asexual folks.

[Telecaster68]

I think you two girls should decide the question by mudwrestling.

[Ceebs]

I'm a committed lady, you know that Tele.

[Philip027]

Quote

It wasn't always like that though. Growing up in the 1970s, I wasn't aware of any gays in the entire county, let alone village. 

 

Nano's point (I think) is that this situation for asexuals can change, and that would be great for everyone.

Woo, in a generation or two, things could be different, woooo.  That's of little comfort to the asexuals alive today.  Especially for the ones that won't be procreating, like I imagine many gay/trans people wouldn't.

 

Still a long fucking way to go though.  As it is, most people nowadays, even asexuals themselves, aren't even aware of the existence of asexuality, and a number of the people who do know about it don't really have an accurate understanding of it.  Realistically speaking, I still really don't see asexuality ever becoming as "mainstream" (massive airquotes around this word) as homosexuality ever, no matter how many generations we give it, because there just aren't enough of us.

 

Quote

I don't think the number of gay people is all that much larger that the number of asexuals.

That certainly explains all the gay people I run into irl on a regular basis, with establishments, organizations, and hangouts made just for them, whereas I have not knowingly met a single asexual person that I didn't already know from the internet, and I can pretty much guarantee there aren't any ace bars or anything like that for us here.  It also explains why even though gay people might still run into oppression and ostracization nowadays, you very rarely will get someone claiming that homosexuality outright doesn't exist... whereas it isn't hard at all to find people who will readily claim asexuality isn't a thing.

 

The numbers are nowhere close unless you have a ridiculously loose definition of asexuality.

 

Quote

Gay people had to risk a lot to get to the point of being so visible. Asexuals would risk nothing but the ability to remain stealth so they can date sexuals who are not giving informed consent to a mixed orientation relationship. 

How wonderfully close-minded of you.  Certainly not at all dismissive toward the experiences of aces or anything.

 

Have you considered that another reason asexuals might prefer to remain closeted is because people like you are obsessed with dragging their name through the mud and suggesting they all have this big Agenda™ against sexuals and are just out to shackle them to dreary sexless relationships?

 

Seriously, give the smear campaign a fucking rest.

[anisotrophic]

1 hour ago, ryn2 said:

Something like this could be useful... but there’s also the quantity question from a compromise standpoint.  How much of what type of effect - good or bad - does one act cause and how long does that take to wear off/diminish back to baseline?  Does it return to baseline, or end up above or below?

I'm reminded of efforts to measure disability weights with DALYs. That is to say, there are existing techniques to compare and quantify different suffering.

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, anisotropic said:

I'm reminded of efforts to measure disability weights with DALYs. That is to say, there are existing techniques to compare and quantify different suffering.

Do go on. I don't know about those.

[Telecaster68]

4 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Woo, in a generation or two, things could be different, woooo.  That's of little comfort to the asexuals alive today. 

Right. So let's all sit on our arses so nothing changes, instead.

[Philip027]

Quote

Right. So let's all sit on our arses so nothing changes, instead.

Again, not what I said.  You people and your straw mans today, jeez.

[nanogretchen4]

What are you saying then, Philip? Because it sounds so much like you are saying that it's hopeless, and also that it's just not fair that gay people have put so much more work into their community than asexuals have. 

[anisotrophic]

11 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Do go on. I don't know about those.

Maybe I should have said QALYs, anyway, time is short so here's a Wikipedia link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year#Weighting

[Philip027]

Quote

What are you saying then, Philip? Because it sounds so much like you are saying that it's hopeless, and also that it's just not fair that gay people have put so much more work into their community than asexuals have. 

Sorry, I've grown tired of explaining to you over and over again what I'm saying when it seems that all you're interested in doing is misrepresenting me and claiming I said things I never said.

 

Your posts only make it clear that it's in one ear and out the other with you and you just make up whatever you want to think it is that I Really Meant, so what's the point in saying it all again?  You're clearly not actually interested in what it is that I'm saying, so what is the point of this conversation?