Lines between Coercion and Something Else?

[MisterNowhere]

I've been reading a lot of posts lately that talk about concerns over consent with mixed orientation relationships. I wanted to post a new thread because this seems like a diffrent direction then a lot of other posts. I hope some of this makes sense.

 

The CDC considers one definition of sexual coercion to be characterized by "How many people have you ever had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with, after they pressured you by wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex or showing they were unhappy?" This is a question used on the NISVS report/questionnaire.

 

If sexual coercion can be characterized by instances of dissatisfaction, how can the person requesting sex express their desire for change in a relationship/encounter?

 

I used to tell my ex fairly often that I was dissatisfied with our sex life and that I wanted to try diffrent things (like scheduling time, seeing a therapist, new toys, make ground rules, etc). So I repeatedly showed I was unhappy by starting these conversations. However I see this as an instance of me telling him "I am not satisfied and want a change" instead of me pressureing him. I only intended for him to respond to proposals he found agreeable. I don't know how to tell or stop someone if they agree to suggestions they don't like?

 

It seems like a catch 22 for me because it feels like I can't ever actually express my negative feelings about sexual relationships without inadvertently coercing someone. I can't tell my partner when I'm unsatisfied because if things change after that conversation, then I can't be sure they did so on their own free will or because I asked.

[Guest]

I think you've definitely hit on a big snag there. Society is changing,  sexual coercion can be classified as rape now; it's no longer just about whether someone had a gun held to their head. If someone doesn't like sex at all then the likelihood is that they are only going to have sex because of external pressures. 

 

(I'm speaking as someone who is asexual. You may get some different answers from sexuals)

[anisotrophic]

I don't have time to read all of this but I found someone's dissertation research on the differences between coercion and compromise in sex ("Compromise or Coercion: Conceptualizing Experiences of Conceding to Unwanted Sexual Activity"): https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/26020

 

Offhand I wonder if there's an element of immediacy to consider. People shouldn't stay in relationships that make them unhappy.

For example, requesting someone see a therapist related to sexual dissatisfaction in the relationship (and saying that it might make sense to break up if it can't be resolved) seems very different from an immediate pressure to have sex.

[- Saph -]

Proposal for mutual compromises and constructive criticism are still respectful for your partner. It shows that you care about the relationship.

Value your partner's feedback. If your partner is not on the same page then it can become a pressure.

[Scottthespy]

Personally, as someone who still recognized and uses nuance, I would say that the line is in the wording and the intent. If you're throwing new ideas out there, trying to see if something sticks, I'd call that an attempt at problem solving. If you're just asking for the same thing over an over, that's coercion. So your situation sounds to me like attempted problem solving.

 

That said, a lot of people seem to be actively trying to abolish nuance. Everything has to be black and white, and if you're not one hundred percent for something you're one hundred percent against it, no other options.

 

 

I think the solution to this problem might be to have a deep and fully focused conversation with any partner you may have asking about their ideas on 'self sacrifice'. The kind of person who's going to do things for you even when they really, really don't want to would be the person to avoid, the person who's going to bring up that they're not really into that would be the kind to stick around with.

 

Me and my mom (while we were living together with me as a fully self sufficient adult) had a way of figuring this stuff out. We'd figure out who's feelings are stronger on a matter...be it going to a particular party, or trying a new restaurant, or doing something like quadding up a mountain. If one person wanted to do it more than the other person didn't, we'd go, unless the person who didn't want it really didn't want it, and then we'd either come up with a compromise or, when possible, the person who wanted it would go alone. We'd often use terms like "If me being there really means that much to you..." to convey that we didn't actively want to, but were willing if it meant a lot to the person who wanted to. And we would often spend an hour or two going over a particular activity making sure we both knew what to expect from both the venue and each other. There was always a spoken understanding that if the reluctant party just wasn't feeling it, we could stop, leave, go somewhere else or go home.

 

All that openness and talking and willingness to speak up was the key to having a happy cohabitation. Finding someone who's willing to compromise with you but not just silently bury their own feelings is very important, and its worth finding out in every new relationship is this is a skill the other participant has.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, anisotrophic said:

I don't have time to read all of this but I found someone's dissertation research on the differences between coercion and compromise in sex ("Compromise or Coercion: Conceptualizing Experiences of Conceding to Unwanted Sexual Activity"): https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/26020

 

Offhand I wonder if there's an element of immediacy to consider. People shouldn't stay in relationships that make them unhappy.

For example, requesting someone see a therapist related to sexual dissatisfaction in the relationship (and saying that it might make sense to break up if it can't be resolved) seems very different from an immediate pressure to have sex.

That looks interesting, however it does appear to be researching the experiences of a sexual in a relationship with another sexual. So it doesn't say anything about the experience of an asexual in that situation. 

 

It's worth reading to get an idea of what coercion looks like, though, and the effects that coercion can have on a sexual person. 

[anisotrophic]

2 hours ago, Sea horse said:

That looks interesting, however it does appear to be researching the experiences of a sexual in a relationship with another sexual. So it doesn't say anything about the experience of an asexual in that situation. 

I don't think asexuals are fundamentally different people when it comes to having unwanted sex. Nor is asexuality defined or caused by sexually coercive partners.

Furthermore – you haven't said this explicitly, but @Sea horse sometimes I think you may imply it in linking these two topics – I wouldn't assume asexual individuals are necessarily more likely to experience sexual coercion, abuse, and rape. Arguably they may be less likely, if they draw harder lines with respect to sex or simply don't get into so many relationships and sexual encounters in the first place. (To be clear, I'm not arguing one or the other, but if you are making this assumption, I want to point out that it's not one I would make.)

Some of the issues in sexual compromise/coercion almost certainly reflect broader issues in how a couple negotiates seeking changes in each others' behavior. Looking beyond "sex" itself, I see the dissertation has some interesting summary from this paper – non-coercive verbal strategies include things like "identification" (referencing the relationship, e.g. "do it for the good of the relationship"): https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-06037-003

The dissertation also characterizes verbal sexual coercion with these descriptions: "could include pouting, using insults, attempting to make the other person feel guilty or jealous, threatening to terminate the relationship, or using blackmail." Some of those are obviously bad behaviors, but others are clearly the positions of last recourse for someone unhappy with a pattern of sexual rejection/neglect ("partner threatens to end the relationship or seek sexual activity outside of it"). Perhaps it's not coercive if that endpoint is reached only after various non-coercive strategies have been attempted.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MisterNowhere said:

However I see this as an instance of me telling him "I am not satisfied and want a change" instead of me pressureing him. I only intended for him to respond to proposals he found agreeable. I don't know how to tell or stop someone if they agree to suggestions they don't like?

I think the difference is more if your ex said ''I don't really want to do that'' and you KEPT insisting/showing sadness/pretending to cry or whatever to guilt them into the sex, THAT'S coercion. If you made a suggestion like ''I'm really not happy with our sex life, could we try_______?'' and your ex goes ''yeah I want you to be happy, we can try that''. That's different, it's just a normal relationship thing. It's the insistence that makes it coercion. 

 

 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, anisotrophic said:

I wouldn't assume asexual individuals are necessarily more likely to experience sexual coercion, abuse, and rape. Arguably they may be less likely, if they draw harder lines with respect to sex or simply don't get into so many relationships and sexual encounters in the first place

Well, the vast majority of asexuals who have had any kind of sexual relationships have experienced being with a partner who makes them feel like shit for not wanting sex, even if they're actually giving the sex. For many sexual people, that kind of issue doesn't crop up unless there's a MASSIVE libido or preference disparity. For an ace, literally any normal relationship almost always end up with the ace giving sex they don't really want just so their partner can remain happy and not leave them, or not giving sex and being left. I'm not saying that's coercion exactly, but the ace knows full well that if they don't give their partner sex at least sometimes, their partner will become very unhappy/think the ace doesn't love them anymore/consider leaving the relationship.

 

Most of the sexual partners who end up on AVEN are the ones whose ace partners flat-out refuse to have sex with them and they stay anyway, OR on the flipside, their ace partner iss actually more sexually willing than the average ace, and they've often been in that relationship for YEARS, so they generally don't seem to have a super clear idea of what it's like for an average romantic ace navigating relationships in the modern age: the ace almost always ends up giving sex because it's that or be single yet again, because like many romantic people a romantic asexual truly does want to be in a relationship with a loving partner. Sex will almost always be the price they have to pay for that though.

 

So no, while that's not exactly coercion, the sexual experience for the vast majority of aces is generally pretty shit. You're having to do something you'd be much happier without, just so you can be loved by another person. 😕 

 

Analogy: You're a sexual person with a normal romantic drive in a world where almost all sexual people get off most on licking each other's eyeballs and have very little interest in actually having sex. You strongly desire a romantic bond, but know you'll almost certainly have to lick eyeballs (and have you're own eyeballs licked in return) as the price of that love. Normal sex isn't something you're really going to get without the eyeball licking (and for an ace, snuggles etc aren't often something you'll get without paying the price of having sex every now and then) and you're probably not going to get normal sex anyway. You have to lick eyeballs and miss out on what you desire intimately just so you can be loved. So yeah, that's your choice. Remain single, or deal with the eyeball licking and no actual sex as the price for being loved, because for the people on the planet you're on, eyeball licking is the highest and most pleasurable form of romantic intimacy.

 

45 minutes ago, anisotrophic said:

if they draw harder lines with respect to sex or simply don't get into so many relationships and sexual encounters in the first place.

So yeah you're pretty much saying to that person ''well just tell them you'll never let them lick your eyeballs and if they leave you, too bad'' or ''just stay single. duh''. Those things are much more easily said than done when someone has a normal/strong romantic drive and feels unhappy/lonely when they don't have someone they can love and cherish and hold, and share snuggles etc with. The asexual romantic drive feels no different than the sexual romantic drive, it's still strong and still causes a lot of pain when it's not being met.

 

In short, an asexual is certainly not less likely to be a victim of coercion (and almost always do end up giving sex they really don't want), UNLESS they remain lonely or try to only date other aces (which invariably leads to loneliness because if you can even find a compatible asexual partner, they're almost always in a different part of the damned world).

 

Remember, if a sexual person isn't happy with the sex in one relationship they can actually leave and in most cases, find a more suitable partner. For an ace, it's either keep giving the sex or have your partner leave you, and have to end up in another relationship where you have to give sex or stay single and miserable. So the two experiences really aren't comparable.

[Grimalkin]

Well, are you pressuring your partner for sex or pressuring them to help you figure out the sexual incompatibility and fix the relationship?

 

Because one of those things is coercion, and the other one is trying to get your partner to communicate with you, solve problems with you, and follow-through on whatever the pair of you have settled on.

 

If you've discussed the lack of sex, and tried to brainstorm solutions, compromised as much as possible, and really expressed your hurt and physical needs, and your partner is still washing out on the follow-through, then they are hurting the relationship. Not because they're not having sex with you, but because they're not working with you to find solutions. 

 

No, of course someone shouldn't have to have sex if they don't want to. No, of course "I want to have sex eight times a day" isn't feasible. But if you are deeply unsatisfied, and your partner is physically and mentally healthy, and the pair of you have talked this over frequently in the past... then the low libido/asexual partner needs to step up. 

 

Maybe that means the LL/ace partner needs to bring their own scheduling (and follow-through) to the table. Maybe it means the LL/ace partner needs to tell you "I'm not interested in having sex anymore," so the pair of you can discuss further options.

 

And maybe you need to be prepared to break up and let it go if nothing is solved so that it doesn't turn into actual coercion. 

 

I'm sorry if I'm sounding grumpy. I'm on a new diet. 

[anisotrophic]

@Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) ... as context, I know two self-identified aces other than my partner in real life, I know outside any queer context. (Maybe I'm just great for confessions, idk.) As far as I know, neither has sex (one said that explicitly). They're not struggling with pressure on that. One is poly, the other doesn't date as far as I can tell. (I'm worried about the second; I think they're prob aro.) That's my sample, beyond the biased data of my own partner. They aren't placing themselves in abusive situations.

 

There's plenty of sexual women that have been sexually coerced, raped, harassed, and such and I'm just a little unhappy with an implication that sexual women aren't as vulnerable to these things? that asexuality is a special victim on this, that being abused and harassed is part of asexual identity?

 

also making me unhappy is the feeling I get that there may be sexual women are being sexually coerced and abused, and attribute their completely understandable lack of sexual interest in an abusive partner to "asexuality". When the issue is they need to get out of abusive relationship.

[Xstatic]

I was with a partner who used coercion.  It's terrible. If I would say no, he would pout. He would be cold. Sometimes he wouldn't really talk to me for a couple of days. He made me feel terrible. He would threaten to leave me. At one point in our relationship he threatened to leave me and I desperately tried to keep him in the relationship, and he wouldn't talk to me for several days, and then when I was extremely desperate he forced me to have anal sex because that was one of those things that he kept pressuring me to do but I didn't want to, also because I knew it hurt me a lot. And I had told him that. But he still wanted it, so he used my weakness as an opportunity to force me into a situation that I didn't want to be in. So I did it, and it hurt like hell, and I didn't want to do it and he knew I didn't want to do it, but he did it anyways. And he told me that if I cried I didn't love him and that he would definitely leave and if I did love him that I would take it and I wouldn't be weak about it. That was, hands down, coercive rape. I felt like shit afterwards.  I felt ashamed of my weakness. I felt horrible that he would put me through that. That's coercive in its most terrible form.

 

Two people talking about their wants and needs civilly and having an ebb and flow of give and take That don't cross certain lines but are done out of love, I don't see as problematic. I know that in my current relationship I have a really hard time even asking at all even though he tells me I can, because I know It's not his thing, and I don't ever want to be that toxic person in a relationship. We still have sex occasionally, because he knows I want to even when I don't say that I do. I don't think that constitutes as coercive sex with an asexual.

[MisterNowhere]

13 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Remember, if a sexual person isn't happy with the sex in one relationship they can actually leave and in most cases, find a more suitable partner. For an ace, it's either keep giving the sex or have your partner leave you, and have to end up in another relationship where you have to give sex or stay single and miserable. So the two experiences really aren't comparable.

This probably is not the best place to ask, but is it really that easy for sexuals? I've only ever managed one major relationship, and all my smaller relationships were spread out across a scale of years. Two good allo friends have had the same experience more or less. Leaving and cultivating another relationship is not all about finding a better sexual balance.

 

Maybe there is a dependentcy on orientation and gender?  My ex partner (ace/gay/non-binary ) has had four major relationships, and had a new "life partner" (quotes because of my own skepticism, but they are dating and seem happy) about a month and a half after he left me. My best friend (ace/bisexual/less than cisgender) has been in her relationship with (some type of) an allo for almost ten years now. Before that she had a pretty successful two year with another ace person. Actually, maybe age could be a factor too? Everyone involved here is between 21 and 31.

 

Also, when I read your reply it comes off a bit like sexuals don't have to put out to satisfy someone else, which I think is not entirely truthful. I've lost count of the amount of times I ended up giving my partners (ace ones included) the sex they wanted when I was not feeling it.  With my last ace  partner sex was mostly an issue when I wanted reciprocation; if I was just offering to do him there was rarely a complaint. I remember fiddling with my antidepressants because he was upset that I lost my sex drive. Maybe that's not a common behavior for ace people. I just think moving away from oversimplifications or adding more nuance serves everyone better.

 

@Grimalkin, @Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?), and @Scottthespy: Really good points on the characteristics of coercion. I definitely can see the role of intent, context, and related elements.  Those have been elements I always thought belonged, but have started to question more lately based on interacting with others my age. I suppose the issue becomes more about how someone can navigate these situations. How does one navigate when their intent is not well received? If someone holds up their end of an agreement, but the other party does not? How can you deal with partners who feel coerced by any pressure, such as asking to talk about an imminent relocation? Is it even possible?... Can you work with someone who hides in the face of difficult issues? For me this is where the consent piece comes in. A partner agrees to have sex with me, but they avoid meeting the terms of what we agreed to, and then avoid further conversations by sharing that our conversations feel pressuring.

 

Kind of random but popped in my head: Perhaps in ace/allo relationships the sexual aspect becomes overwhelming and becomes the primary concern, when issues might actually be more related to communication issues? My favorite couple's communication books says that sex is only 5% of a relationship, but when something goes "wrong" it becomes 50%. A scapegoat of sorts because it is a seemingly easier issue to focus on and fix. Sex seems a lot more tangible than communication.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MisterNowhere said:

This probably is not the best place to ask, but is it really that easy for sexuals? I've only ever managed one major relationship, and all my smaller relationships were spread out across a scale of years. Two good allo friends have had the same experience more or less. Leaving and cultivating another relationship is not all about finding a better sexual balance.

 

Maybe there is a dependentcy on orientation and gender?  My ex partner (ace/gay/non-binary ) has had four major relationships, and had a new "life partner" (quotes because of my own skepticism, but they are dating and seem happy) about a month and a half after he left me. My best friend (ace/bisexual/less than cisgender) has been in her relationship with (some type of) an allo for almost ten years now. Before that she had a pretty successful two year with another ace person. Actually, maybe age could be a factor too? Everyone involved here is between 21 and 31.

 

Also, when I read your reply it comes off a bit like sexuals don't have to put out to satisfy someone else, which I think is not entirely truthful. I've lost count of the amount of times I ended up giving my partners (ace ones included) the sex they wanted when I was not feeling it.  With my last ace  partner sex was mostly an issue when I wanted reciprocation; if I was just offering to do him there was rarely a complaint. I remember fiddling with my antidepressants because he was upset that I lost my sex drive. Maybe that's not a common behavior for ace people. I just think moving away from oversimplifications or adding more nuance serves everyone better.

 

@Grimalkin, @Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?), and @Scottthespy: Really good points on the characteristics of coercion. I definitely can see the role of intent, context, and related elements.  Those have been elements I always thought belonged, but have started to question more lately based on interacting with others my age. I suppose the issue becomes more about how someone can navigate these situations. How does one navigate when their intent is not well received? If someone holds up their end of an agreement, but the other party does not? How can you deal with partners who feel coerced by any pressure, such as asking to talk about an imminent relocation? Is it even possible?... Can you work with someone who hides in the face of difficult issues? For me this is where the consent piece comes in. A partner agrees to have sex with me, but they avoid meeting the terms of what we agreed to, and then avoid further conversations by sharing that our conversations feel pressuring.

 

Kind of random but popped in my head: Perhaps in ace/allo relationships the sexual aspect becomes overwhelming and becomes the primary concern, when issues might actually be more related to communication issues? My favorite couple's communication books says that sex is only 5% of a relationship, but when something goes "wrong" it becomes 50%. A scapegoat of sorts because it is a seemingly easier issue to focus on and fix. Sex seems a lot more tangible than communication.

 

I meant when comparing an asexual/sexual relationship to a sexual/sexual one. It's always going to be easier for a gay person to be in a relationship with people of the same gender and sexuality as themselves, even though yes they will face different sets of challenges etc that go along with all relationships. Put that same gay person in a world full of hetero people though and suddenly things are going to be a lot more difficult for them. They either have to sacrifice their own desires and needs so as not to be alone, or be alone. That's what navigating the sexual world is like for an asexual who still desires romantic intimacy.

 

I learned all that the hard way (as have many others on AVEN) and I don't even ID as ace anymore. Navigating relationships is a LOT easier when you can actively desire and enjoy sex with other people, especially the people you fall for romantically. Not to say relationships won't face challenges (they all do) and yes some sexual relationships will certainly face issues with differing libidos/differing intimate needs/coercion etc but that's not comparable to being someone who knows you just don't want it, and you can't want it, but you'll have to either give it and just deal with that even though it sucks (and STILL deal with all the other issues people in relationships have to deal with), or not give it and have a miserable, unhappy partner... or just be alone.

 

(edit: yup you're stuck with a really shitty set of choices if you're a romantic asexual who really doesn't enjoy sex at all, but has a strong romantic drive and a deep need for intimacy. Everyone has their own set of issues, but thank God I found there's some things I can actually enjoy so I know I'm not utterly limited like I used to be. It's still shit, and I probably will remain celibate for the rest of my life.. but it's better than being stuck having to do something I can't enjoy and don't want as the price I have to pay for love).

 

 

[Grimalkin]

Well, if the two of you agree to have sex and the partner never follows through, then you decide if you'll be okay practically never having sex.

 

And if not, you break up.

 

Both sexual compatibility and respecting what is important to a partner are very important in a relationship. If your "solutions" keep falling through and you have to steer towards coercion territory to get anything, then your relationship is probably over.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

I meant when comparing an asexual/sexual relationship to a sexual/sexual one. It's always going to be easier for a gay person to be in a relationship with people of the same gender and sexuality as themselves, even though yes they will face different sets of challenges etc that go along with all relationships. Put that same gay person in a world full of hetero people though and suddenly things are going to be a lot more difficult for them. They either have to sacrifice their own desires and needs so as not to be alone, or be alone. That's what navigating the sexual world is like for an asexual who still desires romantic intimacy.

 

I learned all that the hard way (as have many others on AVEN) and I don't even ID as ace anymore. Navigating relationships is a LOT easier when you can actively desire and enjoy sex with other people, especially the people you fall for romantically. Not to say relationships won't face challenges (they all do) and yes some sexual relationships will certainly face issues with differing libidos/differing intimate needs/coercion etc but that's not comparable to being someone who knows you just don't want it, and you can't want it, but you'll have to either give it and just deal with that even though it sucks (and STILL deal with all the other issues people in relationships have to deal with), or not give it and have a miserable, unhappy partner... or just be alone.

 

(edit: yup you're stuck with a really shitty set of choices if you're a romantic asexual who really doesn't enjoy sex at all, but has a strong romantic drive and a deep need for intimacy. Everyone has their own set of issues, but thank God I found there's some things I can actually enjoy so I know I'm not utterly limited like I used to be. It's still shit, and I probably will remain celibate for the rest of my life.. but it's better than being stuck having to do something I can't enjoy and don't want as the price I have to pay for love).

 

 

Exactly this! And everything else you’ve said 👏 

 

@MisterNowhere may well be something to do with age.

 

I’m 46 now and I’m resigned to being alone although I want to love and be loved, crave hugs and enjoy romance. There comes a point where you realise life is finite, and do you want to spend the rest of it arguing with someone about sex? And what do you want written on your gravestone - good at compromise? Or do you aim for something better than that?

 

*when I say you I mean it in a general way - as in me, or people in general *

 

i have a friend I’ve known since school, who I now suspect is also ace. When asked by a sexual friend if looking for another relationship she just said ‘No. Never. Because I’ve never had a good one.’(relationship)

 

As @Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) says - the price is too high and maybe that becomes more apparent as you get older.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, anisotrophic said:

I don't think asexuals are fundamentally different people when it comes to having unwanted sex. Nor is asexuality defined or caused by sexually coercive partners.

Furthermore – you haven't said this explicitly, but @Sea horse sometimes I think you may imply it in linking these two topics – I wouldn't assume asexual individuals are necessarily more likely to experience sexual coercion, abuse, and rape. Arguably they may be less likely, if they draw harder lines with respect to sex or simply don't get into so many relationships and sexual encounters in the first place. (To be clear, I'm not arguing one or the other, but if you are making this assumption, I want to point out that it's not one I would make.)

Some of the issues in sexual compromise/coercion almost certainly reflect broader issues in how a couple negotiates seeking changes in each others' behavior. Looking beyond "sex" itself, I see the dissertation has some interesting summary from this paper – non-coercive verbal strategies include things like "identification" (referencing the relationship, e.g. "do it for the good of the relationship"): https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-06037-003

The dissertation also characterizes verbal sexual coercion with these descriptions: "could include pouting, using insults, attempting to make the other person feel guilty or jealous, threatening to terminate the relationship, or using blackmail." Some of those are obviously bad behaviors, but others are clearly the positions of last recourse for someone unhappy with a pattern of sexual rejection/neglect ("partner threatens to end the relationship or seek sexual activity outside of it"). Perhaps it's not coercive if that endpoint is reached only after various non-coercive strategies have been attempted.

I think you may be unconsciously biased towards a sexual point of view, as that is the one you can better understand. I think that’ll be the case with most people, even therapists you see.

 

i think the experience of coercion/rape might be fairly similar for asexual and sexual people. What stood out more for me in the research you linked to was the experience of sexuals who had positive experiences of having sex they initially didn’t want( ‘compromise’ sex). That’s where you might see the biggest difference between sexual and asexual people.

 

Re whether asexual women are more likely to experience assault - we just don’t know. It hasn’t been researched. We can only speak from our own experience which probably results in some unconscious bias.

 

i don’t think the last point makes sense. Isn’t that like someone saying ‘well yes, I hit her, but only after I’d tried non violent strategies first’? It’s still violence? 

[anisotrophic]

@Sea horse it is pretty concerning that you seem to think someone isn't allowed to leave a relationship with someone who sexually rejects them, and isn't able to resolve that.

 

You equate that with violence?! That is bizarre. Nobody gets to be forced to stay in relationships, it's not violence to leave them.

[uhtred]

I think there are various levels of coercion that could be separated:

 

Threat of any illegal action - physical force,  blackmail etc - is what I think of illegal coercion / rape.  Well beyond any grey line. 

 

At the other end, I think "threatening" to leave a relationship is always OK. I strongly believe that anyone can leave any relationship any time they want for any reason - as long as the follow the law in terms of child support etc.  So  while its sort of rude,  "have sex with me or I asking for a divorce" seems OK to me.   It would be better put as "I need sex to be happy, so if you don't want regular sex,we are not staying married". 

 

Then there is the vast grey area of psychological abuse etc. Its really difficult to pin this down because there is so much range. I agree with some above posters that "intent' matters - though that can be very fuzzy.  In general I think "I"m not happy without sex" is OK, because if there is a big gap in sexual interests, ending the relationship may be in the best interests of both .

 

There is the very difficult situation where someone gets themselves in a situation where they financially (or otherwise) *NEED* the relationship but do not have the legal protections of marriage.  This is a terrible situation to be in, and I think people should make strong efforts to avoid ever ending up there. 

[Xstatic]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

At the other end, I think "threatening" to leave a relationship is always OK. I strongly believe that anyone can leave any relationship any time they want for any reason - as long as the follow the law in terms of child support etc.  So  while its sort of rude,  "have sex with me or I asking for a divorce" seems OK to me.   It would be better put as "I need sex to be happy, so if you don't want regular sex,we are not staying married". 

 

It's the shittiest thing to do to somebody.  Especially if the person you're doing it to relies on you financially and you know it.    "If you don't do X I'll leave you" is threatening and bullying.  

 

Having a conversation about wants and needs and discovering that you're incompatible is civil.  You can discuss exit strategies if you need them.

 

Threats in a relationship aren't civil.  

 

Maybe I'm biased here because of situations I've lived through.  I don't know.

[anisotrophic]

15 minutes ago, xstatic ☆ﾟ°˖* ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ said:

"If you don't do X I'll leave you" is threatening and bullying.  

 

Having a conversation about wants and needs and discovering that you're incompatible is civil.  You can discuss exit strategies if you need them.

I agree with this.

 

This is the difference I was trying to get at with:

 

16 hours ago, anisotrophic said:

Some of those are obviously bad behaviors, but others are clearly the positions of last recourse for someone unhappy with a pattern of sexual rejection/neglect ("partner threatens to end the relationship or seek sexual activity outside of it"). Perhaps it's not coercive if that endpoint is reached only after various non-coercive strategies have been attempted.

That is to say, reaching that conclusion only after having those discussions -- or attempting them -- about needs in a non-coercive manner.

 

I've already pointed to research describing non-coercive strategies, like calling to a shared interest in a healthy relationship. Discussing the end of the relationship after those efforts -- that doesn't seem coercive.

 

But @Sea horse said this was the same in the end -- which I think is ridiculous:

 

3 hours ago, Sea horse said:

Isn’t that like someone saying ‘well yes, I hit her, but only after I’d tried non violent strategies first’? It’s still violence? 

 

[Xstatic]

It's a bad analogy, but maybe they were getting at the fact that when you are dealing with your body, it's different and can be a form of abuse.  Even after"giving in" you can feel sexually violated.  There is definitely a line.

[anisotrophic]

@xstatic ☆ﾟ°˖* ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ but what is this line?

 

Surely it's reasonable at some point to say "I need this open or I need to get out" without that being considered coercive? Should someone only say that when it's too late, they no longer want to attempt a sexual relationship, they've given up?

[uhtred]

1 hour ago, xstatic ☆ﾟ°˖* ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ said:

It's the shittiest thing to do to somebody.  Especially if the person you're doing it to relies on you financially and you know it.    "If you don't do X I'll leave you" is threatening and bullying.  

 

Having a conversation about wants and needs and discovering that you're incompatible is civil.  You can discuss exit strategies if you need them.

 

Threats in a relationship aren't civil.  

 

Maybe I'm biased here because of situations I've lived through.  I don't know.

Honest question - if the situation is bad, why not leave?  (if there is no financial support issue).  I really wish people would leave relationships that make them unhappy (unless there is some threat that keeps them from leaving). 

 

The financial issue is very serious - and its why I think its wort working very hard to avoid even becoming financially dependent on someone unless you have the protection of a contract (like marriage).  Putting yourself in someone else's power seems like it should be avoided at all costs.

 

I"m trying to eliminate the all too common situation where a sexual mismatch makes one or the other partner miserable, but where the relationship cannot end. 

 

I agree with the issue on threats - but...   About 10 years ago, after years of a nearly sexless marriage I felt like I'd had enough . I'd told my wife multiple times that I wasn't happy about it and she said she would fix things, but never did.  So I decided to divorce. I wanted to avoid threats, so I decided that once the worse "I want a divorce" were spoken, there was no going back. (anthing else would be a "threat). When I cornered here and started talking, literally less than a minute before uttering those words, she said she would fix our sex life.  I deided to give her a chance and she did - for about 2 months. 

 

What is the correct action in this sort of situation. What to do when the asexual person says that they will change, but they don't . I understand that maybe they can't change - but if they say they will, what then?  Every time I've had this conversation my wife has said "I had no idea it was that important to you".  Every time - for decades.  

 

We had the conversation not long ago and things are good now - but if history is any indication they won't stay that way for long. 

 

If something is a deal breaker in a marriiage, isn't it better to just tell your partner?

 

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, anisotrophic said:

@Sea horse it is pretty concerning that you seem to think someone isn't allowed to leave a relationship with someone who sexually rejects them, and isn't able to resolve that.

 

You equate that with violence?! That is bizarre. Nobody gets to be forced to stay in relationships, it's not violence to leave them.

I'm not sure where I said that someone couldn't leave? I left my relationship because I couldn't provide what my partner wanted and there was never the slightest indication that NOT providing that would be an option. 

 

I don't equate coercion  with violence. I was just taking a more extreme example of what you said, to make the point. 

19 hours ago, anisotrophic said:

The dissertation also characterizes verbal sexual coercion with these descriptions: "could include pouting, using insults, attempting to make the other person feel guilty or jealous, threatening to terminate the relationship, or using blackmail." Some of those are obviously bad behaviors, but others are clearly the positions of last recourse for someone unhappy with a pattern of sexual rejection/neglect ("partner threatens to end the relationship or seek sexual activity outside of it"). Perhaps it's not coercive if that endpoint is reached only after various non-coercive strategies have been attempted.

I was answering this point...If it's defined as coercion then it's coercion whether you first attempted other strategies or not. I thought it might become plainer if compared to violence - as in, 'I tried other things first but then had to resort to violence' - this may be a way to justify the violence but you can't redefine the action as not violent. 

 

Do you see the point I was trying to make?

 

If you disagree with the definition of coercion, that's a different thing. But you can't say it's only coercion if used as the last resort...The definition concerns the action itself, not the reasons for the action. 

 

Also, it's very much a sliding scale. Coercion is a red flag for any professional dealing with abusive relationships. I understand my view may be pessimistic, as you will find if you talk to any social worker or police officer trained in domestic violence. Of course all coercion doesn't end in violence and everyone is capable of behaving badly at times. But if it's a pattern of behaviour it is a red flag. Coercive control is now an offence in the UK. I'm not making this up...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

Honest question - if the situation is bad, why not leave?  (if there is no financial support issue).  I really wish people would leave relationships that make them unhappy (unless there is some threat that keeps them from leaving). 

 

The financial issue is very serious - and its why I think its wort working very hard to avoid even becoming financially dependent on someone unless you have the protection of a contract (like marriage).  Putting yourself in someone else's power seems like it should be avoided at all costs.

 

I"m trying to eliminate the all too common situation where a sexual mismatch makes one or the other partner miserable, but where the relationship cannot end. 

 

I agree with the issue on threats - but...   About 10 years ago, after years of a nearly sexless marriage I felt like I'd had enough . I'd told my wife multiple times that I wasn't happy about it and she said she would fix things, but never did.  So I decided to divorce. I wanted to avoid threats, so I decided that once the worse "I want a divorce" were spoken, there was no going back. (anthing else would be a "threat). When I cornered here and started talking, literally less than a minute before uttering those words, she said she would fix our sex life.  I deided to give her a chance and she did - for about 2 months. 

 

What is the correct action in this sort of situation. What to do when the asexual person says that they will change, but they don't . I understand that maybe they can't change - but if they say they will, what then?  Every time I've had this conversation my wife has said "I had no idea it was that important to you".  Every time - for decades.  

 

We had the conversation not long ago and things are good now - but if history is any indication they won't stay that way for long. 

 

If something is a deal breaker in a marriiage, isn't it better to just tell your partner?

 

 

 

I don't know, I think it's quite plain that she doesn't want sex. It's up to you what you do with that information. 

 

As I've said before, I left my husband for a number of reasons but basically because my tolerance levels had been breached. I left with no money, none of my possessions, and a child who is entirely dependent on me financially, ie I have no child support. I had enough evidence to take said husband to the cleaners in court, but did not do so, out of consideration for his relationship with my daughter and - if I'm honest - pity. He was, and still is, very upset that I left. 

 

I know it's hard to leave a relationship but if I could do it...

[Guest]

4 hours ago, uhtred said:

I think there are various levels of coercion that could be separated:

 

Threat of any illegal action - physical force,  blackmail etc - is what I think of illegal coercion / rape.  Well beyond any grey line. 

 

At the other end, I think "threatening" to leave a relationship is always OK. I strongly believe that anyone can leave any relationship any time they want for any reason - as long as the follow the law in terms of child support etc.  So  while its sort of rude,  "have sex with me or I asking for a divorce" seems OK to me.   It would be better put as "I need sex to be happy, so if you don't want regular sex,we are not staying married". 

 

Then there is the vast grey area of psychological abuse etc. Its really difficult to pin this down because there is so much range. I agree with some above posters that "intent' matters - though that can be very fuzzy.  In general I think "I"m not happy without sex" is OK, because if there is a big gap in sexual interests, ending the relationship may be in the best interests of both .

 

There is the very difficult situation where someone gets themselves in a situation where they financially (or otherwise) *NEED* the relationship but do not have the legal protections of marriage.  This is a terrible situation to be in, and I think people should make strong efforts to avoid ever ending up there. 

The law has changed. Coercive control is now an offence. I'm not saying anything outrageous here, you can look it up. 

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Grimalkin said:

And maybe you need to be prepared to break up and let it go if nothing is solved so that it doesn't turn into actual coercion. 

 

YES

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

Honest question - if the situation is bad, why not leave?  (if there is no financial support issue).  I really wish people would leave relationships that make them unhappy (unless there is some threat that keeps them from leaving). 

EXACTLY - why do sexuals stay in a relationship with someone who isn't giving them sex?

 

I had a proper martyr as a mother, much as I love her. I vowed that I would never stay in a situation and complain about it, there's a finite period in which you are allowed to do that - and if you can't find a solution, do everyone a favour and go...

 

I left a relationship with no money, no job, nothing,I've lived on benefits with a newborn baby, I'm not one for compromise and whining, I just have no sympathy for that beyond a certain point, unless someone is living in fear and under threat (ie statistics show a woman leaving an abusive husband is at higher risk of being killed). Otherwise - it's a choice, take responsibility for your own choice. 

[uhtred]

27 minutes ago, Sea horse said:

YES

EXACTLY - why do sexuals stay in a relationship with someone who isn't giving them sex?

 

I had a proper martyr as a mother, much as I love her. I vowed that I would never stay in a situation and complain about it, there's a finite period in which you are allowed to do that - and if you can't find a solution, do everyone a favour and go...

 

I left a relationship with no money, no job, nothing,I've lived on benefits with a newborn baby, I'm not one for compromise and whining, I just have no sympathy for that beyond a certain point, unless someone is living in fear and under threat (ie statistics show a woman leaving an abusive husband is at higher risk of being killed). Otherwise - it's a choice, take responsibility for your own choice. 

I think that is the key issue.   Lets say an asexual is in a relationship where they are not getting sex. If they say "I"ll leave if I don't get sex"  it feels like coercion. If they say "i'm leaving because of the lack of sex" and then refuse their partner's offer to make things better - it seems like being mean and not communicating. 

 

The basic problem is that the asexual wants the relationship to continue, just without sex.  The sexual either wants the relationship to continue with sex, or to end.  There is no solution that makes them both happy, and not clear way to resolve the conflict. 

 

Often the Sexual's preference is:   [relationship with sex] > [ending relationship] > [relationship without sex]

the Asexuals preference is sometimes [relationship without sex] > [relationship with sex]> [ending relationship]

 

This can naturally result in [relationship with sex] as a sort of compromise, which at the same time can feel abusive to the asexual. 

[uhtred]

49 minutes ago, Sea horse said:

The law has changed. Coercive control is now an offence. I'm not saying anything outrageous here, you can look it up. 

The question is what constitutes Coercive control. Does saying "I'm leaving if we don't regularly have sex" fall into that category?