Jump to content

Think my bf may be asexual, unsure if there can be compromise


Sookie

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

if they were in relationship with basically no touch of any sort for a couple of years, and no prospect of that changing

For me this would be nore comparable to “if the sex dries up it’s a sign that something serious is wrong.”  If my partner used to touch me often and then stopped without explanation, I’d worry about the reason behind the change (as opposed to developing an urgent need for touch).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Well the same applies doesn't it? Most people would do both: worry about the reason, and the longer they went without, the more the need would build up. Like worrying about why your water supply wasn't working and getting thirstier at the same time.

That’s why I said “for me.”  It doesn’t work that way for me, personally.  For me, personally, I would (only) be concerned about why my partner was behaving differently than normal.  The need would not build up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

And mostly we're right, because most people want to be touched more rather than less, and definitely 'some' rather than 'not at all'. I don't think it's projection, but basing our expectations on experience.

It’s all basing our expectations on experience, in a way.  Initially the only experience we have to go on is our own.  Over time we deal with more and more people.  If our likes and dislikes are similar to theirs, our own experience is validated.  If not, we start to learn people have a variety of likes and dislikes and we need to ask.

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

Or we learn that almost everybody wants some kind of physical contact in their relationship, whatever we personally want, because... they do.

I think people who are in the majority learn that faster, though.  People in the minority 1) may think their first (few) encounters with others happened to land them a weird one, before the numbers are big enough to be convincing, and 2) may react oddly enough that others tone it down and make the contrast less clear.

 

It also depends on the people you grow up around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And mine is that it starts as projection - especially if you grow up in a household where the majority preference matches yours - and then you learn over time, through experience, whether your initial impression was correct or not.

 

My experience has actually been pretty varied.  I grew up in a household where no one liked touch.  If I look back over people I dated more than a few times, there’s only one I would say had a strong need for touch in general.  One was quite touch-averse.  A couple of others equated all touch with sex and didn’t seem to want or need non-sexual touching.

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

I think people who are in the majority learn that faster, though...It also depends on the people you grow up around.

Yes. For those who grew up surrounded by relatives in seemingly heterosexual relationships who weren't touchy-feely with each other or other relatives; whose friends weren't touchy-feely, didn't date (because their parents didn't want them to and/or because they weren't interested in it); and who had parents who didn't like being touched or given hugs by their children and who didn't encourage them to date or act romantic towards other people, it's not easy for them to automatically just know what is most common in relationships, since the people they grew up surrounded by either were dysfunctional and unhappy in their relationships; dealing with mental health issues; and/or grew up in religious families where dating and sex was expressed as something a teen shouldn't do, etc.

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

it's not easy for them to automatically just "know" what is most common in relationships.

Right, because it isn’t what was common in their experience.

 

Someone who craves touch but grew up in a low-touch environment probably finds “the norm” faster because they’re motivated by the need to find it.

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

But we're talking about adults. 

Adults have to get there somehow, though.

 

I grew up in a family that wasn’t into most sports, but I ran into sports everywhere that wasn’t home.  I didn’t regularly run into people purposefully touching me, or touching one another, without sexual intent until much later.  It wasn’t like sports - I didn’t see and hear people excited about it every time I left my parents’ house.

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

This theme - that asexuals and other people under the general asexual umbrella are somehow unable to spot things that pretty much all straight people do, however otherwise boorish or insensitive they are - seems to come up a lot.

Perhaps you have to be looking for certain types of things in order to notice them (and take them seriously), especially if no one calls your attention to them?

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

And mine is that it starts as projection - especially if you grow up in a household where the majority preference matches yours - and then you learn over time, through experience, whether your initial impression was correct or not.

 

My experience has actually been pretty varied.  I grew up in a household where no one liked touch.  If I look back over people I dated more than a few times, there’s only one I would say had a strong need for touch in general.  One was quite touch-averse.  A couple of others equated all touch with sex and didn’t seem to want or need non-sexual touching.

I'm a weird one in my family. I love touch. Adore it. Want it all the time. I will literally touch my spouse 24/7 if I am allowed. When we're out, I gravitate towards them for casual touch for comfort (I hate crowds, so just the touch of the familiar helps). I am so physically clingy my wife calls me a limpet (google it if you don't know what that is :P ). I just honestly can't get enough of touching her, even if it's just my leg against hers when we're sitting near each other. 

 

But... growing up, my family wasn't very touchy. My grandmother hugs, but I pretty much go most my life without touching another human being if I'm not around my spouse. I don't want to touch most people, either. Only my spouse gets that special status of "I want your touch". I grew up where a hand shake is an annoyance, a hug is an evil. Couples around me didn't touch, or kiss, or hug, or otherwise act affectionate. They just... were together cause people said they were. And PDA in social circles wasn't that allowed, as it was a highly conservative religious circle where hand holding was to be reserved for after you were engaged, so don't dare hold hands or kiss your boyfriend (scandalous!)

 

Which, of course, lack of touch probably leads to my loving it so much from my spouse. But, I also struggle a lot with what appropriate levels of touch are. I have to fight back the urge to try to comfort anger with touch, cause that's what I want ... I want a "I still love you, I'm sorry, lets talk" hug and make up. But, a lot of people hate being touched at all when annoyed. I have to remind myself when around other people it's not polite to be too close to your spouse. I never actually have seen couples being affectionate, it's either sit at opposite sides of the room from each other, or making out (in college), I've never experienced an in between level. So I try to mentally remind myself to not touch my spouse in certain social situations, sit apart, etc. But, it's tough. :lol: I never know where the line is, I accidentally cross it a lot apparently (I've been lectured about holding my partner's arm at certain social events before, cause it's not polite to be that attached to your partner...). I'm hopeless at it, honestly.

 

I think the only time I ever saw couples touch each other IRL, beyond making out in college and the like, was my Uncle and Aunt who got married as HS sweet hearts and... they are considered weird and sickening by everyone I know, to the point people don't much like being around them cause they use pet names and sit snuggled up together, etc. 

 

So... I mean. I think how much touch is normal depends on how you're raised/socialized. If you're around a lot of affectionate couples, you'll consider it normal. If you're around couples that usually keep an entire room between them, you will consider it strange. If you are touch averse and been around nothing but couples that keep the room between them, you probably will be pretty confused when your touch adoring partner (LIKE ME) thinks the room between you is an issue. 

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

Maybe. My point is that the working assumption that most people like touch in a relationship isn't based on projection, because it's factually the case. It's a heuristic, and the point about heuristics is that they mostly give you broadly the right answer.

Probably cultural also. Or may vary from home to home etc. I know a LOT of awesome couples who aren't demonstrative. Between me and my ace, he's the cuddler. I hug and cuddle my son a lot, very demonstrative affection, but I don't recall anyone doing that to me when I was his age (or any age that I have memories of) though I was raised with a lot of love, attention and respect.

 

My friend gets hugs from her mom at age 60 and watching her and her husband is like a "newly married" title floating on their heads - but I've almost never seen them touch casually or hug. Not even after things like cutting a birthday cake, now that I think of it. The only hug I remember seeing between them is when a close friend of theirs died. Not affection. It was grief, comfort. They are all about glances and shared laughter 24/7. It is like they have a continuous conversation going on between them even whem among a crowd and they haven't said a word. Amazing and special to witness, but almost no physical touch. In fact most of the time they tend to sit facing each other, or she's standing and hovering in a doorway. No idea what goes on in the bedroom. But I guess their intimacy not being tactile is more a cultural thing where being romantically demonstrative isn't so common, than any lack of love.

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

Why would sexuals be looking for touching in a relationship more than asexuals?

I didn’t say they were.  I said people who like touch would be.

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

How did you figure out you liked touch then Serran, if nobody around you was doing it?

 

My background is much the same really; not quite as extreme non-touching, but definitely not the default. I figured out when I was in my first relationship that I just loved touching, in the same way as you, as a response to anger, or when having a difficult conversation as a kind of reassurance that we were still basically okay with each other, etc. It doesn't feel like I've learned it from anywhere outside.

I figured it out when I started dating my first boyfriend. I was lucky enough to have a very, very patient guy as my first dating attempt. We started out LDR, met up in person and for the first 24 hours I was terrified of being near him, sat on opposite sides of room, would barely look at him, would barely talk. After I went to bed (I was 15, but we were staying with his family as it was LDR, my mom took me to visit) I ended up sitting outside the bedroom I was sharing with my mom beating myself up for being unable to interact at all with him, cause he probably thought I didn't like him... and he happened to get up to go to the bathroom and saw me. He offered his hand, I took it and he took me to his room, sat me in a chair and kissed me. After that we talked and he offered to cuddle in his bed. And every touch was amazing. I loved it. He taught me quite a lot, honestly. I would be a very different person if I had a different first relationship experience and we're still friends now (though we don't talk too much, we check in every so often and have met up within the last two years in person to catch up). I used to be a very bitter, anti-sexual, anti-male ... well, anti- a lot of things person. He got rid of a lot of that and taught me a lot of what I know about healthy interactions, I had no role model for that growing up, he showed me a lot of the good parts of interacting with people. We didn't work out as a couple, but he's one of those I'll always be grateful to have in my life sorts of people. 

 

But, if you naturally aren't a touchy person and you grow up around people who just don't touch each other, I can see it being pretty confusing when faced with "Touch is normal in a loving relationship!" ... cause it's not your normal. And normal tends to be pretty subjective based on who you are around, what culture it is, etc.

 

I've actually had plenty of arguments with exes about my amount of need for touch. Because, honestly, it's high. And most people get bored of me wanting so much physical affection. My ex husband would tell me "don't touch me" and it was such a frickin hard thing to not do. If I can't have at least touch the arm, or hug, or something I feel like I've been cut off from a partner completely. So, best way to "punish" me is to just not let me touch you - which, has been used before to "teach me a lesson" in less healthy relationships. It's worse than the silent treatment. I just can't take it. 

 

Thankfully, my wife doesn't mind (so far) my high levels of touch needs. And, if we argue, she doesn't cut me off from it too long (more the "no, I'm angry right now, don't" and then calm down in a few minutes and it's OK). 

 

I still don't really like touch with anyone else though. I tolerate it with some people, but I don't want it. It's very much a romantic desire for me, platonic touch I just don't really care about and it's more "Eh, OK, you can do that if you want... I'll be polite". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Serran said:

If you are touch averse and been around nothing but couples that keep the room between them, you probably will be pretty confused when your touch adoring partner (LIKE ME) thinks the room between you is an issue. 

*nods*

 

27 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I figured out when I was in my first relationship that I just loved touching

Right, but you had the capacity to like touch and evidently found a first partner who did as well.

 

35 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

as a response to anger, or when having a difficult conversation as a kind of reassurance that we were still basically okay with each other, etc.

Yeah, I get - and can (honestly, at least) deliver - none of that.  My instinct in these situations is to back away.  Anyone who tries to touch me when I am upset will get a completely rigid response - or shrugged/pushed off - and someone who tries to touch me when I’m angry is really taking their chances.  I don’t feel like it means we’re basically okay...  I feel cornered and trapped, and like they are needy.

 

If someone is comforted by touch and I am not involved in the reason they need comforting (we’re not fighting), then I’m happy to hold them or whatever but I’m 100% doing it for them.  I feel good if they’re comforted, but no differently than I would if we just talked or I brought them a cookie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Serran said:

But, if you naturally aren't a touchy person and you grow up around people who just don't touch each other, I can see it being pretty confusing when faced with "Touch is normal in a loving relationship!" ... cause it's not your normal. And normal tends to be pretty subjective based on who you are around, what culture it is, etc.

*nods*

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

Sure families, or maybe the whole social group may not be touchy. But unless you're Amish, your horizons will be broader than that, and it becomes clear that 'touch' is a thing.

I think you over estimate how broad peoples social exposure can be. 

 

Example, growing up, my social circle was basically just family. My grandmother attempted to get me some friends my age, but I rejected that, since the children annoyed me. Beyond that, I was raised Jehovah's Witness for the most part... meaning, you aren't allowed to socialize outside the religion, it's "tempting yourself to sin". I was also home schooled. So, I literally was not exposed to very much beyond a very narrow section of the population. And the section I had exposure to, considered hand holding unless you were engaged to be a sin. So, really, the only way I figured out touch was a thing like that was to date someone I met online, that my mom actually let me date, took me all the way to England to meet and allowed me to go into his bedroom at 3am alone. I mean, yay my mom wasn't strict, but if she had been... 

 

Actually, the only way I've learned basically anything about human interaction is from moving away at 15 (she let me stay in England by myself for 6 months), 17 (I was allowed to stay with another boyfriend right outside NYC) and 19. If I had stayed at home, I would have never learned a thing about how to socialize, what norms are, how to date, how to have a healthy relationship, etc. I certainly haven't learned any of it at home. The internet has been a godsend for that and a very relaxed set of rules from my mom on me being allowed to move away. Every relationship I count as a good learning experience, or beneficial to my life, has started online. My RL relationships are every level of dysfunctional you can find. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and as for media: My grandmother literally banned Dark Angel because it was "too sexual" ... I was largely restricted to PG or G rated materials. Unless it was a R rating for violence, that was OK. :lol: 

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

Maybe I'm dismissing the strength of most people's presumptions that what they grew up with was normal. I knew my family situation was utterly fucked up from the age of about 10, so anything different I discovered defaulted to being a good thing. It's taken another 40 years to disentangle the full ramifications though.

I was not happy at home but had no idea my experience was any different from other people’s until I got to college.  At that point I learned there were a lot of differences, some good and some bad.  It wasn’t until I was in my 40’s that I learned my family had been legit neglectful.

 

With regards to touch, though, I had no reason to look for differences because I had no sense of lacking something.

 

Re:  seeing what you’re looking for, my boss (who went to the same high school as I did and had a brother one year ahead of me) remarked recently that there was never any drug use there when we were kids.  I ran with a different crowd and know his perception is patently false.  He didn’t see what he wasn’t looking for.

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

Oh and as for media: My grandmother literally banned Dark Angel because it was "too sexual" ... I was largely restricted to PG or G rated materials. Unless it was a R rating for violence, that was OK. :lol: 

My parents did not have a TV until I was 7 and very strictly limited what I could watch.  It wasn’t until I managed to get to the movies and concerts that I got more exposure, and it was typically not to the nice side of things.😆

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...