Problems with positivity on Aven

[uhtred]

10 minutes ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

There's a negative side to sexuality and sexual people which we are not allowed to mention on here because it would stereotype all sexuals, apparently. 

 

Some people might specifically choose to be with an asexual, God forbid. 

I think its OK to mention, but probably no one here is disputing that sexual abuse is always bad.

 

There are discussions of things where are on the very tricky boundary - like someone threatening to leave if they don't get sex.  That is a much trickier situation that outright abuse. 

 

[KiraS]

1 hour ago, Mountain House said:

Without getting too deep into the science of the whole thing, it is a context sensitive attachment mechanism.  To those that have this need, it is a need.

I grew up being told that I needed it, and because everyone said that I need sex, I ended up in multiple abusive relationships. It turns out that I don't really need sex, and in fact, sex is a risky and unreliable way of getting the kinds of affection I do need. I know a lot of people who have, in the end, come to similar conclusions. I don't see how anyone is helped by jumping onto the rhetoric that people who don't equate sex with love are broken and unable to maintain relationships. On the flip side, not only is this rhetoric bad for survivors and people with disabilities, it's also bad for people who experience sex as purely recreational and not emotional, and people who do sex work who are apathologized by compulsory sexuality. It goes without saying that it's bad for asexual people whose ability to create long-term relationships is constantly questioned. 

 

And sure, if you need sex, you need sex. I need a sewing machine and a growing collection of comfortable skirts. (Not an exaggeration.) I have the self awareness not to insist that those are universal needs and actively undermine people who buy off-the-rack in the same way that non-sexual people here have our relationships undermined. 

 

1 hour ago, Star Lion said:

What does this have to do with anything?

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that everyone has the same needs in relationships. That is obviously false. 

 

56 minutes ago, uhtred said:

What some of us are saying is that if there is no overlap in your sexual interests, its OK to leave.

Sure, and I fully agree with that.

 

A lot of people here are going beyond that to make essentialist claims that relationships almost universally require sex as a primary form of intimacy, and that exceptions to this are so rare as to be unrealistic to discuss. And that is what I'm objecting to here. Some of us would really like to talk about how we cultivate non-sexual relationships without this incessant gaslighting that it's "unrealistic."  I think it's unrealistic to not talk about it, because shit happens. Surgery, children, economic deprivation, medication with sexual side effects, age, and disability happens. So we need to have honest conversations about how to maintain relationships beyond sex (or not if that's your preference) because your ability to have sex at 60 may not be the same as at 30. 

[KiraS]

57 minutes ago, uhtred said:

If there is a compromise that makes both of you happy, the great.

With all due respect, that's not the dominant message that's being communicated here. 

[Expedition]

15 minutes ago, KiraS said:

essentialist claims that relationships almost universally require sex as a primary form of intimacy, and

Well, 99pc of people are sexual. I think that covers 'almost universal', don't you?

[KiraS]

3 minutes ago, Expedition said:

Well, 99pc of people are sexual. I think that covers 'almost universal', don't you?

My bisexuality is a possibility, not a biological imperative. 

[Expedition]

Just now, KiraS said:

My bisexuality is a possibility, not a biological imperative. 

Eh?

[Whore*of*Mensa]

10 minutes ago, Expedition said:

Well, 99pc of people are sexual. I think that covers 'almost universal', don't you?

So why are you here on a site that caters for the supposed 1% that are asexual? Just to tell them how wrong they all are?

[Expedition]

Just now, Whore*of*Mensa said:

So why are you here on a site that caters for the supposed 1% that are asexual? Just to tell them how wrong they all are?

Is that a 'yes, it's almost universal'?

[Whore*of*Mensa]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

There are discussions of things where are on the very tricky boundary - like someone threatening to leave if they don't get sex.  That is a much trickier situation that outright abuse

Well, in my own opinion, speaking for myself - it's this type of thing that has robbed me of the sexuality that I had, that I could have had. That I still might have. If it's a crime to deny someone their sexuality it's also a crime to rob someone of their own sexuality just because it doesn't conform to the 'norm'. Just because you think that your needs as the more sexual person come first. 

[Whore*of*Mensa]

3 minutes ago, Expedition said:

Is that a 'yes, it's almost universal'?

The majority supports Donald Trump. The majority voted for the Tories. If you are proud to be in the majority then I don't care about your opinion. 

[Expedition]

3 minutes ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

The majority supports Donald Trump. The majority voted for the Tories. If you are proud to be in the majority then I don't care about your opinion. 

It's not a matter of pride whether sexuals are 99pc, it's just a matter of fact, rather than being about 'projecting my prejudices', in your words. 

[SithLord]

1 hour ago, Star Lion said:

I’ll say this: It’s not that they can’t work, it’s just that they’re very unlikely to work in the long run.

Fun fact: the vast majority of relationships don't work in the long run.

 

How many people do you know end up with the first person they dated? And take into consideration that many have cultural/religious reasons to stay with the person until death or very extreme situations. I bet you the number is very small, very very small. I would say the chace to be "very unlikely" in fact.

 

So if I were to use your logic, don't date anyone. You're unlikely to work out in the long run. 

[Whore*of*Mensa]

2 minutes ago, Expedition said:

It's not a matter of pride whether sexuals are 99pc, it's just a matter of fact, rather than being about 'projecting my prejudices', in your words. 

I didn't say those words? I don't want to fall out with anyone for being sexual. I'm fine with you being sexual. I'm just not sure how being a majority makes you better? (not saying I'm cool for being a minority or anything...Though I am fucking cool...)

[Expedition]

2 minutes ago, SithEmpress said:

Fun fact: the vast majority of relationships don't work in the long run.

 

How many people do you know end up with the first person they dated? And take into consideration that many have cultural/religious reasons to stay with the person until death or very extreme situations. I bet you the number is very small, very very small. I would say the chace to be "very unlikely" in fact.

 

So if I were to use your logic, don't date anyone. You're unlikely to work out in the long run. 

Do you really not see there's a huge difference in embarking on a relationship with a huge structural weakness right from the start, plus whatever happens on top of that, and one in which there isn't?

[Expedition]

2 minutes ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

I didn't say those words? I don't want to fall out with anyone for being sexual. I'm fine with you being sexual. I'm just not sure how being a majority makes you better? (not saying I'm cool for being a minority or anything...Though I am fucking cool...)

I'm not saying it makes me any better either. Neither does anyone else being a minority make them better. 

 

Apologies, it was Kira who said that most people wanting sex was sexuals projecting their prejudices. I only posted to point out this was factually incorrect. 

[iff]

Please try to remain respectful of and civil to other members. We encourage you to step away from a thread should you feel frustration. 

 

This is a general message, not directed at any member. 

 

Iff, 

Moderator, sexual partners, friends, and allies

 

[SithLord]

I'm skipping most of the comments on this page because today is a busy day and I only have about 5 more minutes at my desk. So I hope to be able to read this (fun times)-show of a thread later on. 

 

I do not think a mixed relationship is good for everyone. Like I pointed out in my reply to Star Lion, most relationships won't work out. There are 7 billion people on the planet and we're not compatible with the vast majority of them. I want people entering into mixed relationships to be realistic which means acknowledging that it's unlikely but possible. You lay out the ways people have made them work (sex, no sex, poly) and explain that it takes a lot of communication and a lot of misunderstandings will occur, but saying the relationship is doomed just because it's a sexual/asexual relationship is blatently ignoring the possibility that it can happen. 

 

The other thread asking for positive experiences was I think a plea to accumulate experiences in one place so there's some record on this site of it being possible. I think @brbdogsonfire was trying to point out something he sees on AVEN a lot: people telling us they know better than we do what's best for us and our relationship. For some, sexual compromise would be a "negative" while for others it would be a "positive", and someone telling me that I'm actually hurting myself because I have sex with him as an asexual is the most frustrating thing I've come across on AVEN. 

[SithLord]

6 minutes ago, Expedition said:

Do you really not see there's a huge difference in embarking on a relationship with a huge structural weakness right from the start, plus whatever happens on top of that, and one in which there isn't?

The point of a relationship is to discover those structural weaknesses and figure out if they can be worked around or not. For some a "structural weakness" is not something others would consider to be one. I know many people who would never date an atheist because religion is their "structural difference". Not being into video games or anime would be a "structural weakness" to me because nerd culture is important to me.

 

So I think it's important to be realistic. Point out what works and what doesn't work. What doesn't work is going in with a defeatist mentality. Maybe the atheist you said you'd never date isn't against you raising kids religious and just doesn't care too much, meaning it's not a big deal. Maybe we can watch anime together even if it's not really his thing. Maybe you have a low enough libido and the asexual has a tolerance for sex meaning you can find a middle ground in terms of sexual compatitibility. 

 

I'm being very unsith here since sith are supposed to deal in absolutes, but there are exceptions, and telling everyone there's no chance is a blatant lie. Being realistic means saying it's hard, it's not saying it's impossible. 

[Expedition]

I agree it's not 'no chance', but it's far, far less of a chance than if both partners are sexual, even if there are libido or preference differences between them. Pretending otherwise is just setting up everyone concerned for more pain than necessary.

[SithLord]

2 minutes ago, Expedition said:

I agree it's not 'no chance', but it's far, far less of a chance than if both partners are sexual, even if there are libido or preference differences between them. Pretending otherwise is just setting up everyone concerned for more pain than necessary.

I can agree for the most part. They make up 99% of the population after all. They're more likely to find someone else out there. But what about the asexual? Telling them their dating pool is now limited to only 1% of the population which will inevitably narrow down with more "structural weaknesses" (not making fun of you, I just like this phrase) like religion, culture, language, etc. I find that to be depressing. Saying "there's plenty of fish in the sea" isn't very positive when it's a puddle. 

That leads to many, many asexuals on this site talking about how lonely they are and how they feel they'll never find love and be alone forever. And doom-sayers just reply "Well, that's the hand you were dealt. Get over it."

[Mountain House]

1 hour ago, KiraS said:

I grew up being told...

Okay.  You questioned the "need".  I simply pointed out that it is a real part of some people's functioning and that there is science to back that up.

 

No arguments from me for what sex means to you.

[Expedition]

What's worse - explaining the truth of the situation, or concealing it so someone has to slowly and painfully discovery it themselves, and inflicting pain on others too?

[Abigail Rose]

2 hours ago, KiraS said:

Questioning compulsory sexuality could be a point of common cause among asexual people and people with disabilities, abuse survivors, and celibate-by-choice people, all of whom face this same kind of rhetoric that we're broken and can't create stable long-term relationships. And maybe we could talk about those points of common ground rather than pronouncing it as hopeless from the start. 

 

I do a lot of education work to point out that my sexuality is, in fact, multidimensional beyond just fucking, well beyond the stereotype that I have a compulsion for hookups with people of multiple genders.

Thank you for saying all of this.

 

We all have so much more depth than just what people see when they look at us. Who knows how your day went if no one asks? It seems a shame to judge people before we have even taken that chance to ask. Open minds, common ground and honesty are great ways to start any adventure. If you start an adventure questioning how it will end, is it the right one?

[anisotrophic]

2 hours ago, Whore*of*Mensa said:

Maybe you're all just jealous

 

(I am so very sorry I'm drunk does that mean I'm allowed to say what I want?)

 

I'm happy! But who knows. Let's see if it lasts another fifteen years. 😄

 

And I appreciate the not-need for sex is possible, and not universal (personally I seem to "need" it, like I "need" hugs) -- as with the need / not-need for "no sex" in sex repulsed vs. indifferent folks -- people all have different needs.

 

Which is what @brbdogsonfire said. So. Yes. That. Is true.

[SithLord]

16 minutes ago, Expedition said:

What's worse - explaining the truth of the situation, or concealing it so someone has to slowly and painfully discovery it themselves, and inflicting pain on others too?

Never advocated lying to someone. But ignoring facts is worse than giving a very biased "truth". I'm not saying give people only the positives. I'm saying don't ignore the positives in favor of giving only negatives because they're the majority. 

 

I'm not accusing you, specifically, of this btw. But people on AVEN who have blatently told me my relationship is doomed and he'd be happier with someone else as would I. That I'm "forcing myself" to be with him and hurting myself and may not know it now but will down the line. That I'll never be good enough for him, etc. etc. They claim they know me better than I do just because we both use the label "asexual" and their relationship fell apart. They claim my partner is the same as theirs because they're both sexuals. But that's blatantly not true, and telling me "You shouldn't be with him" is very different from "It's unlikely your relationship will work out". I've heard the former far too much for my liking, and often times people begin with the latter only to end up saying the former. 

[Expedition]

Oh I'd never dictate who should be with whom, of it works then it works. But by far the most painful 'mixed' relationship seems to be when either or both partner tries to contort themselves to the other's sexuality, because they feel that they're the weirdo for not making it work. In fact, there's no reason to think that an asexual/sexual relationship is any more likely to work than a straight/gay relationship. A few work, but mostly they split up.

[brbdogsonfire]

2 hours ago, Expedition said:

I'm sorry facts annoy you. 

You claim you understand it's not that no mixed relationships work. Then in the next post you use blanket statements to frame it in a way as ALL mixed relationships fail.  It's a dishonest argument. You may not and most likely do not mean it that way but it is how it comes off. If your argument relies on not Including all of a group then you should use wording that doesn't imply all of that group.

 

 

[SithLord]

2 minutes ago, Expedition said:

is any more likely to work than a straight/gay relationship.

I disagree with that comparison. I understand the difference in sexuality aspect, but we'd have to go with the split attraction model to assume both were bi-romantic to be that interested in each other. In which case it's slightly easier, but misleading to go with purely the sexuality labels. So if you wanted to say a bi-romantic straight person and a bi-romantic gay person then yes, I'd say your comparison was more accurate. 

[Expedition]

I've honestly only seen asexuals find the split attraction model resonate with their experiences. For sexuals, or seems more like occasionally we fancy someone we don't like, or get romantically attracted to someone we don't fancy, but it's rare and not frequent enough to call any kind of orientation. So I'm sticking with the gay/straight analogy. 

[brbdogsonfire]

3 minutes ago, Expedition said:

I've honestly only seen asexuals find the split attraction model resonate with their experiences. For sexuals, or seems more like occasionally we fancy someone we don't like, or get romantically attracted to someone we don't fancy, but it's rare and not frequent enough to call any kind of orientation. So I'm sticking with the gay/straight analogy. 

You claim to have been arguing based on facts previously, and now when someone points out how your facts are wrong you decide to keep using the same argument. You are simply arguing in bad faith.