Jump to content

I am sexual, ask me questions...


Question

Recommended Posts

It seems so strange and mysterious to me that a person will feel unhappy, uncomfortable and unloved without sex, but thanks for trying to explain.

Maybe you're asexual? :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question said:

so you may have noticed in this example, that the probable natural order of things is attraction > sex > love. im guessing it started with christianity, but somewhere down the line, we dissaproved of lust and changed the order to be attraction > love > sex (although we have not changed biologically).

I've just done a quick read-through of the great article you linked, Question, and it deserves a careful re-read or several. Will do.

But I would like to ask you where in the article is the argument made for the "probable natural order" of attraction > sex > love? What I saw in my admittedly hurried examination is something else--something which might even look like attraction > love > (sex). My parentheses would take a number of asexuals, including myself, into account. Also included would be the unfulfilled longings of many sexuals whose love goes unrequited.

And it's useful to allow a definition of 'attraction' to include something other than sexual attraction, because many asexuals have reached consensus that there is physical attraction that is nonsexual. And we also agree that romantic love can sweep some of us away (not all) without any segue to sexual desire for that person whom we so love.

It does at first blush seem more than coincidental that there's an average timespan for the production of oxytocin and vasopressin in a relationship which corresponds roughly to the interval required for a child to be able to walk and communicate (and engage in creative chaos around the house :D ), but...then what? Mom hauls kid off solo to the manioc plantation or the huckleberry patch? Realistically, in those perilous times, that little family needed a warrior's protection for a good while longer. Realistically, mom has another baby coming along, and another after that. Of course humans have long relied on extended families to solve these problems.

I'm not yet convinced that these similar biological intervals really are more than coincidence.

Nor am I suggesting that the suppression of lust in service to religious piety is the way to go. I was raised an atheist myself, so my "moral values" regarding sex and love are apparently autochthonous (been looking for an opportunity to use that word :) but the spell-checker doesn't like it).

As for the big deal among H. sapiens about virginity, it's really all about males' pathological insecurity over paternity. More on that another rant.

Thanks for joining us; had some :cake: yet??

osito

Link to post
Share on other sites
Question said:
And it's useful to allow a definition of 'attraction' to include something other than sexual attraction' date=' because many asexuals have reached consensus that there is physical attraction that is nonsexual. And we also agree that romantic love can sweep some of us away (not all) without any segue to sexual desire for that person whom we so love.[/quote']

i read another article today which dealt with anti-depressants which supposively kill sex drives. and i was amazed that in testimonials' date=' not only the desire for sex was affected but also for all forms of cuddling, etc. this suggests that even much of what sexuals consider to be non-sexual physical attraction/pleasure might actually be very dependent on a sex drive. of course, because many asexuals experience romantic love and enjoy non-sexual physical contact, some pleasure exists completely independent of a sex drive. conclusion: 70% of the time, cuddling = sexual.

It does at first blush seem more than coincidental that there's an average timespan for the production of oxytocin and vasopressin in a relationship which corresponds roughly to the interval required for a child to be able to walk and communicate (and engage in creative chaos around the house :D ), but...then what? Mom hauls kid off solo to the manioc plantation or the huckleberry patch? Realistically, in those perilous times, that little family needed a warrior's protection for a good while longer. Realistically, mom has another baby coming along, and another after that. Of course humans have long relied on extended families to solve these problems.

I'm not yet convinced that these similar biological intervals really are more than coincidence.

ehh, i dont really understand any of that either, so i dont think my bs could possibly match the persuasiveness of a real evolutionary psychologist or something. with more time i will find one and drag him here to offer his opinion. if you consider how these timespans come into being in the first place, it seems counter-intuitive that they would just be arbitrary lengths for everything. consider the female reproductive hormone levels, they go up and down every month. i cant even begin to understand that, and yet it all seems to have a purpose. quite possibly the timespans of love chemical might be similary ordered, even if we do not yet understand it all.

As for the big deal among H. sapiens about virginity' date=' it's really all about males' pathological insecurity over paternity. More on that another rant.[/quote']

let me know if you do, id love to read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Question,

I will have to go back and re-read the article myself to pull out the sections I think are relevant, but what I remember off the top is that it stated that sex and love were independent variables, and gave evidence.

I don't really think there's any one more natural sequence than the other, if all human sexual interaction is taken into account. Surely there are a great many sex acts without love developing either before or after, and also some even without attraction (as in rape, unless we call the brutal motive involved a type of 'attraction').

It would seem useful for the scientists to evaluate the oxytocin and vasopressin levels of crush-besotted teens, both those who score with the transitory mate of their dreams but especially those who do not. The chemistry of longterm unrequited love has got to be fascinating (glad I can say this so many years distant from my own woes).

Ever read Hesse's Gertrude? I bawled all the way through it. Ouch! Ouch! :cry:

I will have to save the virginity rant for another time and place. Actually, AVENguy kicked off a thread about virginity a few days ago on another forum, and I will put it there when I have a chance.

Discussion up the thread points to consensus that the state of sexual desire shares important features with heroin addiction, but unlike with heroin or other opiates, sexual desire arises naturally in an individual without the proverbial "first one's free, kid" taste of the drug. But the irrepressible yearning, the discomfort when one needs a fix, the withdrawal--all these seem applicable to sexual desire (not speaking from personal experience regarding craving for either sex or heroin).

So an asexual would naturally ask: why would anyone who is blessed to be immune to this addiction ever willingly want to acquire it?

The only answer I can come up with is: it might save an otherwise doomed relationship with a sexual.

On the matter of polygyny, I agree with you. It makes a lot of sense, and I have lived with a polygynous group of people when doing anthropological fieldwork. It works extremely well for them on several counts. As an asexual, I have thought that--if I had wanted kids--polygyny would have worked OK for me if there were, say, four or five other wives. I'd have my bed to myself most of the time, and the exceptions would be for making babies.

Okay, I do have a rather complex question for you, if you don't mind. You clearly have the chutzpah and candor to tackle it.

To return to your metaphors:

Sex with a beloved is like arriving at an oasis from a long walk (crawl? :D ) through the desert: there are delicious fruits, there is pure, abundant water, there is cool shade and lush vegetation, there is beauty, and so forth. And camels?? :lol:

Masturbation is like coming home to a nice dinner after a long day at the office.

So...can you tell me your metaphors for some other types of sex? I realize that some of these have no application to you personally, but I assume you have images of them:

Phone sex?

Sex with a prostitute?

Sex in a 20-year-old marriage where both partners are totally bored?

Sex in an on-the-rocks marriage being held together "for the kids"?

Inebriated one-night-stands with people we meet in a bar and never see again?

Fuckbuddy sex?

Sex where one partner pressures the reluctant other partner into doing it anyway?

Rape?

And then,

What percentage of your total sexual experiences thus far fit the 'oasis' metaphor vs. all the rest?

Would you hazard a guess about the total number of sexual interactions in the USA regarding the percentage of 'oasis' sex vs. all the rest?

Please move on out to the planet and the galaxy if you wish.

What I'm trying to get at is just how much quality sex is happening out there? Or do you view all consensual sex as quality sex?

osito

Link to post
Share on other sites
So an asexual would naturally ask: why would anyone who is blessed to be immune to this addiction ever willingly want to acquire it?

Asexuals seem to have a hard time really understanding how much fun it is, and how much joy and pleasure it can bring to the life of sexuals. You look at it and say "Wow, it's like an addiction, that must be horrible", but to me it's nothing like an addiction, and even when it's uncomfortable it's often kind of fun. I think relatively few sexuals seriously ever wish to get rid of their sex drives, because we like them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier you said:

but when you ask what it feels like for a sexual to go without sex, you get pretty much the literal truth when they say "It feels like being hungry". Because...it does! It doesn't matter that you won't *actually* die. You feel hungry. You feel deprived. You are uncomfortable and unhappy.

This doesn't make it sound fun. In consideration of everything you've said, one's mood is clearly important to how one looks at the whole phenomenon of "being sexual"--and also important is whether one has a partner with whom to seek satisfaction or not.

My questions to Question about "quality sex" are an attempt to understand just how positive sex is overall to sexuals--not just the cherry-picked exemplars but the whole enchilada.

I have no political or emotional investment in the 'addictive drug' analogy (and I am quite willing to accept sex as a drive with less than universal expression), but I should mention that in decades past, when my path occasionally crossed those of heroin or methedrine addicts, they loved to wax eloquent on how much fun the drug high was.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to sexuals at all.

I have occasionally had sexual experiences that were almost fun (due largely to the funny personality of my partner), but never did they persuade me that if I kept it up, it would get to be more fun. I kept it up in the interests of self-understanding, and was led inexorably to the conclusion that I don't like sex.

osito

Link to post
Share on other sites
This doesn't make it sound fun. In consideration of everything you've said, one's mood is clearly important to how one looks at the whole phenomenon of "being sexual"--and also important is whether one has a partner with whom to seek satisfaction or not.

My questions to Question about "quality sex" are an attempt to understand just how positive sex is overall to sexuals--not just the cherry-picked exemplars but the whole enchilada.

I have no political or emotional investment in the 'addictive drug' analogy (and I am quite willing to accept sex as a drive with less than universal expression), but I should mention that in decades past, when my path occasionally crossed those of heroin or methedrine addicts, they loved to wax eloquent on how much fun the drug high was.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to sexuals at all.

I have occasionally had sexual experiences that were almost fun (due largely to the funny personality of my partner), but never did they persuade me that if I kept it up, it would get to be more fun. I kept it up in the interests of self-understanding, and was led inexorably to the conclusion that I don't like sex.

Okay, first of all, I'd better admit to the fact that the whole "drug addiction" analogy is one that I have a more emotional reaction to than I probably should, for the simple reason that having an important part of my personality compared to a self-destructive, incredibly damaging condition can get pretty darn annoying.

However, I still think it's kind of inaccurate, due to a) it makes no sense to call it an addiction when most people are born with it, and B) it doesn't share some of the more important qualifications for an addiction - though I can see where an asexual might get the impression that it does.

So on that note, I guess that *sometimes* being sexual isn't fun. Of course, every sexual is different, but I'm going to write this next part on the assumption that we are talking about sexuals basically like me, which I think is pretty close to the average sexual. And I'm not going to do any kind of overarching analogy scheme, because analogies can get stupid really fast if you push them too far.

In the context of being in a relationship with someone who doesn't want to have sexual contact with you, it's not fun at all - that's where the really "hungry" stuff comes in. That's when you're starving and can get quite cranky. Understanding what's going on can really allieviate a lot of that, but for most sexuals I think it would still be kind of a problem. That's probably the least fun scenario I can think of, actually.

When you're not in a relationship, you can want sex, and you can want it pretty badly - but with the discomfort of wanting sex, you also have such a sense of possibility that it's kind of a good feeling (at least for me). At that point the fun is in having a very zesty fantasy life, and in the knowledge that you might meet someone new and exciting at any time.

Of course, if that goes on for a long time, it gets old.

I think some of the things you want analogies for are basically unanswerable, or you already know the answer to them. Clearly, rape is never going to be good in any way. I think that rape is a fairly small percentage of all sex, though. In most of your scenarios, there's the possiblity of conflicting or ambiguous feelings, or for one person to feel terrible about it and another to find it gleefully exciting.

I personally have had way more sex that I would consider "quality" than non-quality, and that includes a stint as the reluctant partner. It doesn't have to be "oasis" sex to be a very positive experience.

As far as the total amount of sex that participants view as positive....well, I think that's a question you'll have to ask your deity of choice.

Finally, a quote I thought was appropriate:

"Pizza is like sex, when it's good it's really good, and when it's bad...it's still pretty good."

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be "oasis" sex to be a very positive experience.

i don't quite understnd what you mean by "oasis" sex,could you eplain that please

Link to post
Share on other sites
However, I still think it's[addiction analogy] kind of inaccurate, due to a) it makes no sense to call it an addiction when most people are born with it, and B) it doesn't share some of the more important qualifications for an addiction - though I can see where an asexual might get the impression that it does.

You made the point earlier that sex qualifies as a 'drive' because people are born with the need for it, even though no one ever died from a lack of sex. It would seem that the 'addiction' argument has been crafted--as with the argument for sex being a drive--from observing how people feel and behave when they want sex, and especially when they want it and can't get it. But I can see the limitations of the analogy.

Food--a vital drive--has been parlayed into an addiction by some people, unfortunately, and there are corresponding recovery programs which define the categories of addiction (anorexics, overeaters, etc.). There are also people who label themselves 'sex addicts' (I had a recovering housemate who was thus self-identified; she was also anorexic/bulimic), and they have their own Twelve Step programs. But I want to reiterate that I am not clinging to the addiction metaphor; I'm just trying to flesh out the discussion and consider what some other people have said up the thread. I apologize to you for it because I understand that it's a sensitive topic. And I can let it go from here on.

So on that note, I guess that *sometimes* being sexual isn't fun. Of course, every sexual is different, but I'm going to write this next part on the assumption that we are talking about sexuals basically like me, which I think is pretty close to the average sexual. And I'm not going to do any kind of overarching analogy scheme, because analogies can get stupid really fast if you push them too far.

I had directed my quest for analogies to the poster 'Question' because of what he said about himself and the analogies he offered specifically. I hope they won't get stupid, nor do I think my inquiry is ungrounded. It seems fair to me.

In the context of being in a relationship with someone who doesn't want to have sexual contact with you, it's not fun at all - that's where the really "hungry" stuff comes in. That's when you're starving and can get quite cranky. Understanding what's going on can really allieviate a lot of that, but for most sexuals I think it would still be kind of a problem. That's probably the least fun scenario I can think of, actually.

I can definitely understand this. I have been on the other side of this scenario at various times, and saw what happened to my sexual partner. But I have generally seen a person's individual needs and expectations for sex as being tangled up with darker, less justifiable, socially-imposed expectations--directly from peers, sometimes indirectly from advertising. For example, when my then-boyfriend told me that his buddy had told him that if a girl doesn't put out by the second or third date, then blow her off. His same set of friends told him I must be "a dyke", and that labeled me for keeps in that crowd. Asexuals run into this kind of shallow-minded, hurtful crap all the time, and otherwise good-hearted people like him buy into it. For me, it did not create an impression of anything even half as good as bad pizza.

Clearly, rape is never going to be good in any way. I think that rape is a fairly small percentage of all sex, though. In most of your scenarios, there's the possiblity of conflicting or ambiguous feelings, or for one person to feel terrible about it and another to find it gleefully exciting.

Rape is thankfully a small percentage, but for much of my adult life rape has appeared to me as part of a continuum with coercion of any sort. And I have experienced plenty of coercion--even to the point of physical (non-sexual) violence against me (just once, then he moved out next day because I told him he'd better be able to sleep with one eye open) when I continued to refuse to have sex. And of course there are grey areas concerning rape--the whole 'date rape' issue for example. So again, I thought it fair to ask a self-designated hypersexual person ('Question') for some analogies for this stuff.

But I am curious to learn more from a sexual's POV about a sexual situation in which one person can find sex 'gleefully exciting' and the other feels 'terrible' about it. How can the 'excited' partner's feelings be justified in a context of such lousy communication? How can they be seen as anything but selfish, unless the 'feeling terrible' partner is putting on such a remarkably good act that the other person has no idea? I guess this happens, though. But to me there's just something really, really wrong with that relationship. No, thanks--a hundred times over. The pizza is crawling with maggots.

I personally have had way more sex that I would consider "quality" than non-quality, and that includes a stint as the reluctant partner. It doesn't have to be "oasis" sex to be a very positive experience.

With the exception of what you say about 'reluctant' still being 'quality' (did you say that?--this baffles me), I do hear ya! And I am heartened by it, and I very much appreciate your point of view. Not because I think I will ever change, but because it can only be good for sexuals and asexuals to build bridges and realize on a deep level just how completely human that other rather different person is. And I also understand what you say about "very positive" not having to be "oasis". My guess would be that there's a good amount of this in a caring relationship between sexuals. I know couples who exemplify this.

As far as the total amount of sex that participants view as positive....well, I think that's a question you'll have to ask your deity of choice.

Done that...no answers forthcoming. :lol: I don't think my deity of choice meddles in human affairs at that level, so I thought it best to ask humans. I ask here at AVEN because I have never, ever encountered the kind of safe space I have seen here where sexuals and asexuals are able to dialogue so openly.

Finally, a quote I thought was appropriate:

"Pizza is like sex, when it's good it's really good, and when it's bad...it's still pretty good."

I also find this baffling, after I stop chuckling. If it's bad, what can possibly be good about it? I love good pizza. When it's bad I never eat it unless I am hungry and have had too much beer. :D

osito

Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't quite understnd what you mean by "oasis" sex,could you eplain that please

Mad Larkin, in reference to "oasis sex", BunnyK was paraphrasing my paraphrasing of an analogy that Question offered up the thread:

sex is in the same category of natural needs as are food and water, so any metaphor attempting to explain what arousal or sex feels like (to a sexual person) should use them. although if youve ever been addicted to something, there are also many similarities. (drugs are chemicals, and so is desire/lust/happiness) sex is probably like being stranded in the middle of the sahara, hungry, thirsty, and then coming upon a beautiful oasis with the most delicious fruits, water, and foods. of course, physically, sex is nothing like that, but that is the best example i can give you of the magnitude of the desire and subsequent pleasure derived from sex. masturbation is like coming home to a nice dinner after a long day at the office.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But I am curious to learn more from a sexual's POV about a sexual situation in which one person can find sex 'gleefully exciting' and the other feels 'terrible' about it. How can the 'excited' partner's feelings be justified in a context of such lousy communication? How can they be seen as anything but selfish, unless the 'feeling terrible' partner is putting on such a remarkably good act that the other person has no idea?

Oh, I think you misunderstood this. I don't mean that those were the way two people engaged in the same *act* would feel - that is indeed yucky.

I meant that for one, having a fuckbuddy might be a great time and delightfully kinky, whereas for someone else in a similar situation, it might be shameful and cause a lot of angst.

I had directed my quest for analogies to the poster 'Question' because of what he said about himself and the analogies he offered specifically. I hope they won't get stupid, nor do I think my inquiry is ungrounded. It seems fair to me.

I wasn't trying to say your analogies were stupid, or that Question's were, just that trying to find one extended analogy scheme that doesn't break down is pretty hard, without really pushing the limits of it making sense. Sorry if that came off as insulting.

With the exception of what you say about 'reluctant' still being 'quality' (did you say that?--this baffles me)

Yes, for a long time I was the one in a relationship that just never wanted sex. I would do it, eventually, usually less because I really wanted to than because I knew my boyfriend was really hurting for lack of it. It still counts as "quality" to me because a) he was good at keeping the pressure mostly off, B) because I understood and never resented his need, and c) because once I managed to get it started, it usually ended up being pretty fun. And it was still a loving act, even though 90% of the time I would rather have washed the dishes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I think you misunderstood this. I don't mean that those were the way two people engaged in the same *act* would feel - that is indeed yucky.

Bunny, you're right. I did misunderstand this the first time around.

I am fairly sure that situations like this do exist, where one person is faking it pretty well and the other hasn't figured it out (but how could they not pick up the vibe of discomfort?). It's situations like this--perhaps less dramatic--which lead to Sexual Aversion Disorder. From what I have read about SAD, its pattern overlaps with asexuality, but it is a different thing. It's usually pegged to a specific relationship or incident where an aversion develops in someone who enjoyed sex previously--a bit like a phobia. And it's often accompanied by strong anxiety.

Neither does that sound like what you're talking about regarding your 'reluctant' phase.

When I have tried to create a definition of 'good sex' for myself--pretty crazy since it's an abstract concept--it always includes tenderness, support, affection, and most of all no harm done. Quite secondary are what acts were accomplished and whether orgasm was achieved.

That would not apply to most of my sexual experiences, because I really didn't want to be there, and it was hard for me to feel tenderness when at the same time I felt coerced--either by my partner or by something in myself. Does that make sense?

So in sum, I do see what you're saying about the sex being 'quality' once you got over the hump and into it, and due to the fact that you and your partner still shared mutual tenderness. OK, got it. Thanks.

You must not have an aversion to washing the dishes. :lol: Me either, once I get over the hump and into it.

osito

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i must say, you seem a rather wonderful, helpful, broad-minded person!...

I'm sure when i think of a question, i will gladly ask you one... :)

P.S.: What DOES a sex drive feel like?... (HAHA)

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry guys, i havent abandoned the thread ive just got tons of school work right now. ill try and catch up when i get a chance :?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Guest mocksy25
because i like answering them.

i actually came to this forum to broaden my mind to other forms of sexuality, as i am maybe the opposite of an asexual. I always seek to understand, rather than to condemn. I have a very high sex drive, am sex-positive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive), and polyamorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory) . ive noticed some people asking questions like "what does a sex drive actually feel like" or "what is wrong with sexuals."

i also love learning about new things, as well as helping others learn. so you can ask me anything on this thread, by PM, on aim, etc.

feel free to bash me aswell, for being sexual or just for wasting space on this forum. or ask me about my views on topics like: "do you think asexuality is a product of biology, choice, fate, etc.?" I am non-judgmental and might offer you a different point of view.

you can also bash me for my hedonistic selfishness in which i make this thread, simply because i like to talk and write, and hope that i can spur further discussion.

:D

hehe i bet you any money you will fall for a girl who is asexual and give up sex, its very possible, i have had 5 men give up sex for me so far love life, and o i did not ask them to hehe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...