Jump to content

Playing devil's advocate


Pappeh

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Remember one thing: that not for everyone are all positions easy or even possible to perform. Some sexual position drawings often leave me, on the one hand, astonished... and, on the other hand, just angry over the assumption that everyone is Healthy, Pretty and Fit.

Remember one thing: effectively everyone is perfectly well aware that not all sexual positions are for everyone or easy or possible to perform.

 

You may be shocked to realize that even I a cis, straight, allo male was well aware of that long before you lectured me on it. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of sexual positions that *I* can’t do either. I’d lay money that even if I had heard of a tiger jump, I probably wouldn’t be able to pull it off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere

@SCPDX - sorry. No need to be sarcastic. I just have always been a person of a low level of physical fitness and have indeed seen people who don't realise how some things are impossible for my body.

 

A "tiger jump" looks like this, particularly the later part of the video, where they are jumping over a crosswise placed obstacle. I'm not sure how it's called in English-speaking schools (the Polish name could be best translated as "box jump", so I'm using the more graphic "tiger jump" to show what kind of movement is involved). One of several exercises I have never been able to do, but in this case nobody even required me to do it because teachers realised that with my level of fitness it would be dangerous in a very strict sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s not what we mean when we say “box jump” where I live... and it’s also not something we were ever shown or asked to do. It’s been a long time since I was in school, though, so I don’t know if kids do it now.

 

Sorry to get off the topic; I was just curious what a tiger jump was as well.

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

Ive seen gymnasts do it... but work in a school and never seen any school kids do anything close. 

That’s a better way to word what I was trying to say.  I’ve seen it/similar things done by gymnasts/in gymnastics training as well, but anything beyond very basic gymnastics training doesn’t seem to be part of the routine US scholastic program.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely get the impression that gymnastics is (and has long been) a bigger part of general scholastic “physical education” in other parts of the world than it is in the US.  That’s historically been true in countries where amateur athletics is by selection rather than by volunteerism, but it seems to be true elsewhere as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in the US and my daughter happens to be in her second year of gymnastics.  She’s just 6, but there’s zero chance she could do that and she’s in great shape, limber and dedicated.  It would take time and education to execute without injury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I think @Nowhere Girl 's statement felt a bit unfair.

 

I think if someone's exposure to "sex positions" is via media, I can see why the topic might be misunderstood to be related to fitness. But for people that are less physically able, trying a variety of positions for sex may be even more important -- to find ones that don't cause pain. I can think of many positions that are a variant of one partner lying down.

 

Refusing to change position does seem to communicating aversion to the activity. And on the topic: I don't think it works out well to want someone to have sex when they dislike it.

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

Refusing to change position does seem to communicating aversion to the activity.

The flip side of that is that expecting someone who is averse to sex to want it more/be less averse to it in another position is bound to lead to disappointment...

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

A flat 'no' is basically saying 'just shut up and get done, and don't expect any engagement from me. I'm here on sufferance'.

Well, that is how most people “get through” things they greatly dislike.  When I’m at the dentist I sure don’t want anyone to keep calling my attention to it.  Same for being in the MRI machine; don’t keep making small talk, trying to engage me, or asking if I’m okay.  Just leave me be and get it done as soon as you can!

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

It all depends on where you are in the aversion/neutral/enjoying continuum, I guess. If an asexual is on the enjoying end, it would behove them to at least try to have some grace about it, within limits, in the same way it behoves their partner to understand that while their partner enjoys sex a couple of times a month, any more than that would be wearing.

Agreed, but I feel like that’s probably going to come more naturally - not necessarily picking new positions, but being polite about trying them - when people fall to the enjoying end of the spectrum.  It seems pretty safe to speculate that someone who reacts to requests for sex as they would to requests to roll in dog vomit is not someone who enjoys (or is even neutral towards) sex with the requestor.

 

(It wouldn’t have to be medical procedures... that’s just what came to mind when I tried to think of common examples of things people don’t like, endure, and are frequently “pestered in the name of caring” during)

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

...a couple of times a month...

THAT would have saved a ton of despair. 

 

Edit: oops, missed the bit about “ace being on the enjoying end...” 😬. Yeah, not applicable here. Sigh

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

Being averse/repulsed is one thing, but being on the neutral/enjoying end of the continuum and still resolutely refusing compromise is another.

Perhaps people who seem to be neutral/enjoying but resolutely refuse aren’t actually neutral/enjoying after all?  Or they were at one point but aren’t anymore?

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

The onus is really on them to say something though isn't it?

Yes, it is.  I feel for both sides here.

 

Even on AVEN it seems like most successful compromises are between sexuals and aces who are truly and continually neutral or “better” towards having sex.  Some sexuals in successful mixed relationships qualify their stories with “I don’t think this would work if my partner was averse.”  So the message to aces (or anyone who would rather not have sex with their partner) is “if you can’t make it work some of the time there’s no hope.”  That’s bound to lead to some people lying to themselves/to their partners.  On the other side, the partners are getting confusing, unpleasant mixed messages and making decisions based on false information.

 

It’s a hard conversation for conflict-averse people on either side to have, too.  Not many people react well initially to “I love you very much but I really dislike having sex with you,” and not many people react well initially to “I know you say you don’t mind having sex but you act like I’m asking you to roll in s**t so I think you are not being truthful” either.

 

Re: apologists, I can only speak for myself... with posts like the above, I’m not apologizing or trying to excuse; I’m trying to explain.

 

I agree that at some level being conflict-avoidant is selfish, but it’s not what people often mean when they call someone selfish.  The former is “this makes me so uncomfortable that I’m going to - often unconsciously - avoid it if I can even if so doing causes me and others problems down the road” whereas the latter is “I’m intentionally choosing to do this with no regard for others.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think unconsciousness selfishness shouldn't be so excusable, broadly speaking. The consequences remain. (cf the legal principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse) furthermore, a habit of lack of awareness is not a good one, and ignorance can be disingenuously claimed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s unacceptable to tell people “I can’t stay in this relationship if you are unwilling or unable to address [mental health issue that is exascerbating relationship conflict]”; I just think those types of issues are a different flavor of selfish than garden-variety selfishness.

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

'..even if so doing causes me and others problems' is effectively the same as '... no regard for others' isn't it? Knowing your actions will cause problems for someone else and doing them anyway, but saying that's different from having no regard for others, seems like sophistry aimed at getting someone off the hook.

To me it’s a difference of degree. Garden-variety selfish is “I know you like x but I don’t give a f**k.” Things like anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and behavioral patterns of conflict aversion, pleasing, codependence, etc. can lead to the same result (you don’t get x) but not because the person just casually doesn’t give a f**k...

 

Again, not excusing, explaining.  It would be great if we all got our mental houses in order before we went out and entered into relationships with others but life doesn’t often work that way.

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

It sometimes seems to me that it's hard to tell to what degree mental health issues may be claimed to cover garden-variety selfishness. And yet again, we're back to whether to put more faith in actions or words....  

Well, no one can decide for you if 1) you think your partner is lying or not, 2) their lies are justifiable, or 3) you can and should put up with it.

 

To me there’s a difference between “I easily could do the thing but I don’t feel like it” and “between me and doing the thing stands years of therapy.”  That doesn’t mean someone else has to tolerate it either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, again, (at least) two possibilities:

 

1) the person just lacks empathy (or doesn’t like you)

 

2) the person is (not effectively) dealing with mental health challenges that are interfering with their ability to be effectively empathetic, and/but would be more empathetic if they could move past those challenges

 

There are two options in the first case - live with it or leave.  All the change has to come from your end.

 

There is a third option in the second case, which is to wait it out in hopes the person successfully tackles their “stuff.”

 

No one is obligated to do that, and in some cases it is a losing proposition... but if people are asking for options that give them hope it’s one that might.

 

I don’t hear it as “all aces are poor, damaged angels.”  Anyone’s partner could be a plain old a**hole.  But when someone is asking “is there any possibility to fix this?” saying “eh, I think your partner is an a**hole” doesn’t feel very helpful (even though one could argue it is).

 

Also, as someone mentioned elsewhere, people tend to jump to others’ defense when they hear someone accused of being an a**hole for things they themselves do for reasons not being considered.  That’s a human thing, not an ace thing.  Anywhere you are not in the majority that’s going to make you feel like “your side” gets slammed more than supported.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t speak for “all aces”; only for my non-ace self.  I also don’t frequent some of the subforums as I’m not ace so I may miss some of the discussion.

 

I’d have to imagine “dead bedroom”-focused forums are more sympathetic to the sexuals’ plight and less so to the aces’, no?

 

Every behavior that puts oneself before others is by definition “selfish.”  What I see debated here more often is whether a particular scenario is “good selfish” (healthy, self-protective) or “bad selfish” (unjustifiably hurtful to a partner).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, anywhere you are not in the majority you’re going to feel like the other side is getting the lion’s share of the sympathy.

 

Is that not true in reverse in dead-bedroom-centric discussions?  I’d have to guess the ace/low-libido perspective is treated less sympathetically there.

 

I say “have to guess” because I just can’t do Reddit in general.  It stresses me out too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, one could say I’m more empathetic towards people who let their issues interfere with their (and, consequently, the people around them’s) lives than you are.

 

~

 

For me personally, some of it is probably the opposite of what you’d expect.  If my ex came back to me and, instead of blaming me/others/the universe for the dissolution of our relationship, said “my substance abuse and inability to get my depression under control left me unable to be part of a relationship,” I would not feel better.  I would not feel vindicated.  I would not feel like I’d won somehow or gotten what I wanted.  I would feel no less bad about the outcome, and potentially worse about myself for cornering him into “facing the truth.”

 

So perhaps I’m missing what other people gain out of hearing “you’re right, I just really don’t want to have sex with you” out of partners whose behavior has already made that pretty darned clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont discuss relationships on most social media (even places aimed at relationship discussion / advice ) because if you aren't normative... the advice tends to be you suck and are a bad partner. No matter your reasons. Same with your partner if you say something about them. Its like..  I want useful advice, not just insults, but insight into how they could be seeing things, how to address it, suggestions, reasons people do X or Y beyond malice. So I have deleted posts and left every other forum I have tried because of it. I tried to seek advice on my partner from several big ones, got nothing useful, just a mix of me being insulted or my spouse being insulted. Therapist advice was also insulted. It kind of felt like going to YouTube comments. I didn't get the point. 

 

Of course on AVEN you will get advice beyond your partner sucks and you should deal with it or leave. Or demand they change and if they dont they suck so leave. You will get a million possibilities based on aces personal reasons for similar behavior, explaining a very tiny minority and their reasonings that dont fit the norm and are outliers. 

 

And... I dont see how its useful to really go oh, partner wont have sex with you and is being avoidant ? They are just a jerk then. Giving why they may be avoidant, how they could be feeling and what you maybe can do to open them up is useful advice. If you just want them condemned, google relationship forums and go to any on the first page and you will get that. 

 

If you want to discuss a sensitive topic with an avoidant person..  yeah you need to be extremely patient and swallow your own feelings a bit. And if it is an incompatibility beyond what can be repaired, you may have to bite the bullet and call it quits cause they wont. And if you want to be angry with the person for being avoidant, OK, your choice. Why does all of AVEN need to condemn either side though? Why is constructive advice of what could help open up the avoidant partner seen as bad ? 

 

Humans arent typically in relationships going man I wish i could hurt my partner. Just sometimes that is a side effect of being unable to deal with something. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ryn2 suggests that some situations are "might get better with therapy" but often it seems someone refuses to try therapy/counseling. (eg couples therapy to figure out how to communicate more productively.) If a partner won't even do that, won't try to work with the other to make things better, it seems pretty broken to me.

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

@ryn2 suggests that some situations are "might get better with therapy" but often it seems someone refuses to try therapy/counseling. (eg couples therapy to figure out how to communicate more productively.) If a partner won't even do that, won't try to work with the other to make things better, it seems pretty broken to me.

Agreed, if someone’s “stuff” is posing an obstacle to discussion and they aren’t willing/aren’t able/believe they aren’t able to tackle that “stuff” the other partner is back to “live with it” or “leave.”

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

If you tie him up, you will have no choice but to lead... 😈

Oh shit!  Valentine's day was crazy!  Someone took the day to not only romance me with a gift (whaaaat?) But also initialize intimacy???  Good god, holy shit, okay.  

 

Man, having no expectations really paid off.  😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 10:49 AM, Pappeh said:

Hi everyone! There are a number of questions that have come up in my mind as I try to comprehend asexuality from my perspective as someone very much sexual and I was hoping to have the community play devil's advocate to some statements. Feel free to respond to all, none, or some. I am in no means trying to suggest these statements are truths. They may be entirely false. I can even come up with my own counterarguments. But I want to hear from those of you who actually experience this. 

 

1. In a marriage between someone sexual who desires sex and someone asexual who is sex averse, there is a middle ground between them that is 'some sex under mutually agreeable circumstances'

 

2. One-sided sex in a relationship is worth the time and emotional investment for the asexual sex averse member to be able to perform out of love for the sexual member of that relationship, if they can compromise on boundaries that are acceptable.

 

3. Someone who identifies as asexual and sex-averse can be sexually intimate in a mixed sexuality marriage over time and derive fulfillment from maintaining the marriage through that intimacy, without developing resentment.

My initial thougth is that as the ‘sex averse’ is against having sex and not just bored about it or not benefitting enough or would rather do something else, the whole argument is a bit off. It reminds me of coping with torture or forcefeeding someone with gross stuff, just because it is culturally acceptable. 

 

1. No. Not with someone “sex averse”, but perhaps if they are “sex neutral”. I dont think ‘mutually agreeable’ is a possibility with a sex aversion. Perhaps there could be circumstances, where the acer would actually sway more towards the neutral position. For instance by removing “the sex”, but can it then still be called ‘some sex’, if it is actually masturbating while getting a foot rub? Idk?

 

2. I think, it would be too mentally hard. No sex could result in no relationship and thereby losing your partner. ‘Have sex’ could result in losing yourself. (For the sex averted)

 

3. Only if they are actually ‘sex neutral’ when the stars are aligned and all the circumstances are rigth. And they never feel pushed while being in their ‘aversion’. The result could be a heavy sway to a more permanently aversion, perhaps even an anxiety.

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere

@MrDane - almost ironically, one of the best and most sensitive responses in this topic comes from a non-ace...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/13/2019 at 3:19 PM, Pappeh said:

1. In a marriage between someone sexual who desires sex and someone asexual who is sex averse, there is a middle ground between them that is 'some sex under mutually agreeable circumstances'

Will vary from couple to couple, but yes, it is possible. Several couples achieve this here (my partner and I included) and possibly many couples achieve this without knowing the term asexual. My guess is that it may be harder for an asexual man trying to compromise with PIV sex in terms of practical problems maintaining a hard on, while a woman can probably lie back and tune out, so to say.

 

That said, the nature of sex with an asexual will always be somewhat altered in the sense of instinctive behaviors and arousal and interest and initiative and curiosity and so on, even when mutually agreeable, so this is something the sexual will have to learn to accept.

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:19 PM, Pappeh said:

2. One-sided sex in a relationship is worth the time and emotional investment for the asexual sex averse member to be able to perform out of love for the sexual member of that relationship, if they can compromise on boundaries that are acceptable.

Will depend on the couple. If they are really deeply in love and well matched otherwise, the whole of the relationship is a powerful motivator to want a partner's sexual contentment. If it is a relatively new relationship or less serious or one or both partners are more self-centered, they may not want to bother.

 

On 2/13/2019 at 3:19 PM, Pappeh said:

3. Someone who identifies as asexual and sex-averse can be sexually intimate in a mixed sexuality marriage over time and derive fulfillment from maintaining the marriage through that intimacy, without developing resentment.

Personally, I don't think sex averse and sex are a good mix. I don't see how it can be sustained longterm. Many asexuals are sex neutral, or as my ace describes himself - sex indifferent. He doesn't care about sex enough to be averse either and doesn't mind having sex and can even enjoy an orgasm for the momentary pleasure/release/whatever he feels. For him, sex is not something he'd choose, but not a huge deal if he has to have it either. If he doesn't have the energy, he can fall asleep in the middle of it without even being bothered to say "ok stop, I'm sleepy" - he'll just go on on autopilot till he drifts off. For someone like that, sex doesn't cause resentment or trauma and such, so it doesn't build up over time as a negative impact on him. He could do it indefinitely.

 

Personally, I think sex averse people should stay away from sex unless they have things they are not averse to that they can do. And any sane sexual partner who loves their partner will not be interested in or aroused by sex that is an unpleasant experience for their partner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Above post may seem a bit contradictory on the sex averse front.

 

To some extent, I think all aces are sex averse. Even my sex indifferent ace would probably have a panic attack if I went at him with my once normal frequency. Also what each one likes and dislikes can be different.

 

My general idea is that if someone ends up doing something they find unpleasant, they will not be able to sustain it longterm without resentment. As someone madly in love with my ace, the idea of him doing something he finds unpleasant for my pleasure is horrifying and negative on the sexy scale. I'd qualify as sex repulsed and thus not wanting sex at all if faced with a partner who finds the experience unpleasant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...