Would you leave

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, Winged Whisperer said:

don't know what you're trying to get at, but at best it shows that sex is part of a relationship. It's not shown to be vital or critical. It's not shown what happens if it's not there.

If something is shown always as part of a relationship, doesn't that imply that to most people, it's a necessary part of the relationship?

 

Cars always have engines, even though we don't see how they work. However it's a reasonable inference that cars need engines.

 

Quote

It's not shown to be part of love, but something that occurs alongside love.

This may be the difference. Sexuals understand that it's not alongside, but integral to. 

[Winged Whisperer]

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Sex is always involving two people, and it's a dramatic trope in sealing a relationship. It's ludicrous to claim sex is portrayed as something separate to relationships. 

Well exactly, and that's how I saw it too. The seal that wraps the deal. Not as a continuous activity required that would make people miserable if it stopped happening.

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, Ceebs. said:

It's not so much the portrayal of relationships I don't think, it's the playing off basic human sexual instinct. More akin to casual sex than loving relationship sex. So they don't get that it is important to relationships.

But that doesn't explain why the media does this in the first place. Why portray something so unimportant so much?

 

Actually it would imply the exact opposite: the media use sex because it presses most people's buttons. Which is in fact the correct conclusion to draw.

[Ceebs]

1 minute ago, Winged Whisperer said:

Well exactly, and that's how I saw it too. The seal that wraps the deal. Not as a continuous activity required that would make people miserable if it stopped happening.

Wait, so... you thought people consummate a relationship and then the sex stops?

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, Winged Whisperer said:

The seal that wraps the deal.

So in your head, why was sex being used as that?

 

I ask because to sexuals, it's pretty obvious that these people have reached a point of intimacy where sex will be a part of the relationship, and this is to be celebrated. Did you think it was just some random cultural rite, like singing 'For He's A Jolly Good Fellow'?

[Ceebs]

7 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

But that doesn't explain why the media does this in the first place. Why portray something so unimportant so much?

 

Actually it would imply the exact opposite: the media use sex because it presses most people's buttons. Which is in fact the correct conclusion to draw.

Agreed, no argument there. I'm just assuming that many asexuals don't take it beyond the idea that sex can't possibly be that big a deal and they see it portrayed in kind of a base, porn-y way in the media, and can't even conceptualise it in a different context. Thus it must not be that big of a deal.

 

Honestly I don't really understand, it's hard for me to argue what asexuals might think since I'm not one myself. I kind of assume a combination of naivety and a defiant unwillingness to try to understand due to their own... issues. Blinders or plugging their ears and going "la la la can't hear you".

 

(And there are, of course, asexuals who do understand.)

[Winged Whisperer]

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

If something is shown always as part of a relationship, doesn't that imply that to most people, it's a necessary part of the relationship?

Not really. Most media representation of sex is like once between each couple. Sure it's inferred that it happens more than the one time that's shown on screen, but again, the type of importance is never revealed.

 

Forget about sex, it's analogy time! Material selection is really important in engineering. So is quality control, and so is operating temperatures. But these are important HOW? Obviously the effects of these in the process are all different. Salt is important in cooking and so is pepper, but they serve totally different functions. Likewise we can see through media that relationships have got some aspects to them. Kissing, caring, caressing and sex too. But the differences in effect and importance of them are not explored.

 

 

[Telecaster68]

Just now, Ceebs. said:

I kind of assume a combination of naivety and a defiant unwillingness to try to understand due to their own... issues. 

Yeah, I agree. I'd honestly love to hear a coherent explanation from an asexual, but every time the question comes up, you can't see asexuals for dust.

(With a very very few exceptions).

[ryn2]

14 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

What is portraying sex as part of relationships getting you to buy?

Again, most “over-sexualized” US

media content is aimed at making onself sexy (appealing) to the others.  It doesn’t depict sex as a part of healthy relationships; it says “sexy people are popular people - see the chicks climbing all over this guy? - and the way to be more sexy is to do/buy this thing I’m selling.”

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, Winged Whisperer said:

Not really. Most media representation of sex is like once between each couple. Sure it's inferred that it happens more than the one time that's shown on screen, but again, the type of importance is never revealed.

 

Forget about sex, it's analogy time! Material selection is really important in engineering. So is quality control, and so is operating temperatures. But these are important HOW? Obviously the effects of these in the process are all different. Salt is important in cooking and so is pepper, but they serve totally different functions. Likewise we can see through media that relationships have got some aspects to them. Kissing, caring, caressing and sex too. But the differences in effect and importance of them are not explored.

 

 

I'm not an engineer, but I would grasp that quality control, operating temperature, salt and pepper must be important and not being invented by the media, and that if I want to do some engineering or cooking, people are going to expect me to grasp that they are important.

 

Many asexuals are doing the equivalent of saying 'yeah, I didn't think welding was really that important in holding the bridge up, despite every bridge ever involving welding. I thought the media just made that shit up because arc welding looks cool on camera'.

[ryn2]

35 minutes ago, James121 said:

If I was to date a woman who used to be a man......I have a right to know! Before it got anywhere near potentially a sexual relationship I absolutely have every right to know.

If it concerns you, ask.

[Ceebs]

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Yeah, I agree. I'd honestly love to hear a coherent explanation from an asexual, but every time the question comes up, you can't see asexuals for dust.

(With a very very few exceptions).

People can convince themselves of almost anything to suit their own hang ups and resulting preferred worldview, so they don't have to take on the daunting responsibility of dealing with them.

 

(On that note I gotta bow out of this discussion for a bit, I'm a tad under the weather and looking at my phone has started to make me feel nauseated.)

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

Again, most “over-sexualized” US

media content is aimed at making onself sexy (appealing) to the others.  It doesn’t depict sex as a part of healthy relationships; it says “sexy people are popular people - see the chicks climbing all over this guy? - and the way to be more sexy is to do/buy this thing I’m selling.”

But if the media is inventing sex's importance, why would this technique work?

 

It's not actually what's happening btw - the sexy person with product trope works because humans associate things they see together, and 'sexy' rubs off on 'product'. Next time they see the product, it retains the positive feelings of 'sexy' in their head. There is research to back this up.

[Winged Whisperer]

Just now, Telecaster68 said:

I'm not an engineer, but I would grasp that quality control, operating temperature, salt and pepper must be important and not being invented by the media, and that if I want to do some engineering or cooking, people are going to expect me to grasp that they are important. 

You understand they're important, you don't understand how they're important, and here I am repeating myself. What's the point, you keep circlejerking over how asexuals are idiots who can't understand subtext in media.

[Telecaster68]

4 minutes ago, Winged Whisperer said:

You understand they're important, you don't understand how they're important, and here I am repeating myself. What's the point, you keep circlejerking over how asexuals are idiots who can't understand subtext in media.

Nobody's asking asexuals to understand how sex is important in a relationship, just accept that it is important and not a media invention. It's not even subtext in the media. It's a very strong, very consistent, implication.

[ryn2]

23 minutes ago, Ceebs. said:

It's not so much the portrayal of relationships I don't think, it's the playing off basic human sexual instinct. More akin to casual sex than loving relationship sex. So they don't get that it is important to relationships.

Yes, it’s largely portrayed as an individual need that requires someone else to properly meet.

 

US media portrayal of sex in established relationships tends to be as dull and boring.

[ryn2]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Nobody's asking asexuals to understand how sex is important in a relationship, just accept that it is important and not a media invention. It's not even subtext in the media. It's a very strong, very consistent, implication.

That isn’t the message we get here in the US, though.  The message we get here is that sex is (or should be) important to individuals.

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

it’s largely portrayed as an individual need that requires someone else to properly meet.

This I can start to understand. Mainstream western drama pretty much always focuses on the protagonist achieving something they need, and sometimes this is a sexual relationship. I guess to sexuals, it's obvious that this need has to be mutual - there's a moment when the heroine kisses the hero right back, and that's the magic, not the fact that she's stood still long enough for him to plant one on her lips. Do asexuals not see that mutuality going on, do you think?

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

That isn’t the message we get here in the US, though.  The message we get here is that sex is (or should be) important to individuals.

I'm struggling to think of a US drama where a happy relationship has sex portrayed as one character using the other to get off, with no mutual pleasure in each other.

[ryn2]

11 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

But if the media is inventing sex's importance, why would this technique work?

 

It's not actually what's happening btw - the sexy person with product trope works because humans associate things they see together, and 'sexy' rubs off on 'product'. Next time they see the product, it retains the positive feelings of 'sexy' in their head. There is research to back this up.

It works because (many) people want to be sexy.  I’m not disagreeing with that.

 

The girls climbing all over the guy with the hawt car/suit/deodorant  brand don’t convey anything connecting sex with love or healthy relationships.

[Winged Whisperer]

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Nobody's asking asexuals to understand how sex is important in a relationship, just accept that it is important and not a media invention. It's not even subtext in the media. It's a very strong, very consistent, implication.

Like FFS, when have I ever denied its importance? I just said that even when watching media I did learn that it was important, I just didn't understand how, in what manner and to what degree! I'm sure you'll think climate change is important. How is it important? What are the implications of not dealing with it? How much is it important? Otherwise the mere recognition of something being abstractly "important" isn't too hard, but also not too useful either.

 

It took me making a partner miserable and getting educated by my therapist until I actually understood that importance in a concrete sense, understood the degree of importance and the effects of it.

[ryn2]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

This I can start to understand. Mainstream western drama pretty much always focuses on the protagonist achieving something they need, and sometimes this is a sexual relationship. I guess to sexuals, it's obvious that this need has to be mutual - there's a moment when the heroine kisses the hero right back, and that's the magic, not the fact that she's stood still long enough for him to plant one on her lips. Do asexuals not see that mutuality going on, do you think?

I think if you don’t experience it that way, it reads more as two people conveniently meeting their individual needs similtaneously.

[Winged Whisperer]

1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

I think if you don’t experience it that way, it reads more as two people conveniently meeting their individual needs similtaneously. 

And that's honest to god how I saw it too! Like going to the movies together. A fun activity for both. Or maybe just one while the other is happy to make the other happy/be with them.

[Telecaster68]

6 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

It works because (many) people want to be sexy.  I’m not disagreeing with that.

No, it's the other way round.

 

This is what peer reviewed psychological research says happens.

1. Image of sexy dude brings good feelings to straight women. 
2. Sexy dude is holding deoderant.
3. Audience associates deodorant with good feelings
4. Audience sees deodorant in supermarket.
5. Audience remembers (probably subliminally) good feelings last time they saw deodorant.
6. Audience is more likely to buy deodorant.

Which makes far more sense than thinking 'if I wear the same deodorant I too will be sexy', if you think about it.

[Telecaster68]

3 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

I think if you don’t experience it that way, it reads more as two people conveniently meeting their individual needs similtaneously.

.... which is pretty much how my wife viewed sex, apparently. A convenient coincidence.

 

Still doesn't explain how the media is creating these needs though.

[James121]

17 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

If it concerns you, ask.

That’s not good enough. Sometimes things aren’t obvious and people have a right not be left in such a position. It’s about where your morals are really.

I’m just judging this based on my own morals and I firmly believe that I would disclose something as significant as a completely different sexuality. 

[Telecaster68]

6 minutes ago, Winged Whisperer said:

t took me making a partner miserable and getting educated by my therapist until I actually understood that importance in a concrete sense, understood the degree of importance and the effects of it.

In which case you didn't actually understand the importance in the first place, or you wouldn't have needed someone else to explain it to you.

 

I agree having a model of the mechanics of the 'how' helps, but it's not necessary.

 

I also agree you haven't denied the basic importance, but the discussion was more about how many asexuals in general seem to simultaneous think society is oversexualised but not really understand it's of major importance to most of the population.

[ryn2]

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I'm struggling to think of a US drama where a happy relationship has sex portrayed as one character using the other to get off, with no mutual pleasure in each other.

There’s a significant difference between “any given act of sex is best when both people are into it” and “sex is integral to sustaining a healthy, happy long-term relationship.”

 

Like, I think most prople know tennis works a whole lot better with a partner... but they (rightfully) wouldn’t assume partnerships without tennis are somehow fundamentally lacking.

 

Someone for whom tennis is a big part of life might feel that way... but “the rest of us” wouldn’t.  With sex, the tennis die-hards are just the majority.

[LeChat]

36 minutes ago, Ceebs. said:

Agreed, no argument there. I'm just assuming that many asexuals don't take it beyond the idea that sex can't possibly be that big a deal and they see it portrayed in kind of a base, porn-y way in the media, and can't even conceptualise it in a different context. Thus it must not be that big of a deal.

 

Honestly I don't really understand, it's hard for me to argue what asexuals might think since I'm not one myself. I kind of assume a combination of naivety and a defiant unwillingness to try to understand due to their own... issues. Blinders or plugging their ears and going "la la la can't hear you".

 

(And there are, of course, asexuals who do understand.)

34 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Yeah, I agree. I'd honestly love to hear a coherent explanation from an asexual, but every time the question comes up, you can't see asexuals for dust.

(With a very very few exceptions).

 

Perhaps, there aren't many asexuals in this forum/thread because it's the "For Sexual Partners, Friends, and Allies" forum, and they thought it really wasn't supposed to be for them to read and respond to, but more for "sexual partners, friends and allies" to discuss their own issues with other sexual partners of asexuals, etc. I don't check in here, often, myself, partially for this reason.

 

I haven't been following the discussion, recently, but, if both of you are asking "Why are asexuals unaware of why sex is important to other people of sexual orientations?" I guess I could say it's complicated, because aseuxals don't all grow up the same way, in the same family, etc. For example, with my relatives' troubled relationships, where not much affection was expressed or shown, and because my parents didn't like the romance portrayed in movies (and would change the channel or fast-forward through films when my sibling and I were around), I probably got the idea--as a kid--that the romance portrayed in films wasn't reality. My parents also used to tell me that "people being nice to each other isn't reality/real life/unrealistic, etc."

 

17 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

...I guess to sexuals, it's obvious that this need has to be mutual - there's a moment when the heroine kisses the hero right back, and that's the magic, not the fact that she's stood still long enough for him to plant one on her lips. Do asexuals not see that mutuality going on, do you think?

 We definitely grow up seeing that portrayed in movies at a young age, but some asexuals don't understand it (due to their asexual orientation and not feeling sexual attraction); some grew up in dysfunctional households, where their parents argued and didn't model affectionate behavior; and/or, in my family's case, my parents thought my sibling and I shouldn't see characters kiss, be romantic, etc., that it was too inappropriate for us to watch at a young age. Some also grew up in religious families, so they thought their lack of attraction was just them following their religion and being abstinent and "saving themselves."

 

Also, if other, teen peers don't bother expressing interest in dating or having sex with an asexual, growing up (the way other teens of other orientations date and have sexual relationships), then, I suppose it's possible that that might be another reason why an asexual might not understand that sex is important to others.

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

There’s a significant difference between “any given act of sex is best when both people are into it” and “sex is integral to sustaining a healthy, happy long-term relationship.”

So we're back to the happy coincidence theory. 

 

Thinking about what asexuals do and don't pick up from media representations of sex: there are very obviously (to me anyhow) different kinds of sex represented on TV and films, and often used to show something about the people involved as individuals and/or the state of their relationship. For instance: exciting first date sex; intensely emotional love making; playing out wider power dynamics sex; make up sex; bored marital sex; selfish sex; fun sex.

 

Would you say a lot asexuals tend to miss what's going on beyond the obvious fact of 'sex'?