Question for sexuals in successful relationship w/ asexual

[asexual1976]

I'd be happy to be in a sexual relationship with someone, I think. It'd be a little weird to me, but if I loved/trusted the other enough, I'd be ok with it.

That is exactly how I feel, and I AM in such a relationship.

I think you've got it right. The problem is not so much with the asexual. Most indifferent, not-repulsed asexuals can or could probably compromise enough to have a fullfilling relationship with a sexual, fullfilling enough because it is much better than having no relationship at all.

But the sexual partner will almost always be unhappy and that is what will most likely destroy the relationship eventually. Sex is - unfortunately for asexuals - the fundemental basis for almost all relationships between people. Sexuals have an immense innate desire to have (mostly gender specific) sex and any attempt to change that is doomed to fail. They might be able to repress that desire for a while to uphold a relationship with a person they love, but evenually it'll come up.

As for asex-sex relationships where there is sex :

Ok. I might not be the best person to judge sexuals' feelings on this, but : can it really be fullfilling in the long run to have sex with a person that doesn't want to have sex in the first place ? As I stated in my other post, normally in life it's not a lot of fun to do things with people that don't really want to do them. It's awkward, boring and tedious. So you usually start looking to other people to do these things with.

Now : all of the above is not to say that all asexual-sexual relationships will always fail. I guess there are some very-indifferent-asexuals that can have sexual relationships will hypo-sexual or low-libido sexuals and that can work out. But as all the postings about problems show it isn't very common and most of these do eventually fail because of an incompatibility of sexual desire.

[M51]

Sex is - unfortunately for asexuals - the fundemental basis for almost all relationships between people.

Trust? Sharing a life and future? Partners in it together against the world? Deep emotional connection? Deep spiritual connection? Deep intellectual connection? Mutual love of ___[fill in sport, hobby, cause, or other passion]___? Absolute acceptance of each other? Friendship? Complementary personalities?

I would rather have ANY of the above listed as the fundamental basis for a relationship than sex. I don't think I could be in a relationship based on sex. Such a relationship must be very shallow. What do people in such relationships do when they get older? How about if one partner becomes ill/disabled? What if a better looking/more sexually stimulating potential partner comes along? Should someone just drop the first relationship and never look back?

No, there must be something far deeper than sex holding "almost all" relationships together. Some sort of human bonding. Maybe you could call it love, in one of the many forms love can take....

No, I do not believe it. Sex is NOT the fundamental basis for almost all, most, or even the majority of relationships between people. If it is, I want to become a hermit.

[Olivier]

Spot on, M51 :P

Edit: I don't think sex is the fundamental basis for relationships. In fact, I'd go further than that - I don't think sex is the basis for very many relationships at all. For many, many people sex comes only AFTER they've established that what they share is a relationship whose fundamental basis comes from the things that M51 listed*. Sure sex often becomes an important part of that relationship, but it's not the foundation, it's the icing.

* And what a great list - I'd only add one thing: shared humour. I think that's not enough on its own, but it's SO important. Being able to make each other laugh is far important than sexual compatibility in my book.

[asexual1976]

I don't think sex is the fundamental basis for relationships. In fact, I'd go further than that - I don't think sex is the basis for very many relationships at all. For many, many people sex comes only AFTER they've established that what they share is a relationship whose fundamental basis comes from the things that M51 listed*. Sure sex often becomes an important part of that relationship, but it's not the foundation, it's the icing.

You are correct that sex is not the only basis for a relationship. Some people try that and it usually doesn't work either. You do need love, understanding and a lot of other elements to make a relationship work. But for almost all sexuals sex is a vital ingredient to a functioning relationship. It's not just the icing, it's a necessary part without which a long-term relationship cannot work. That's why sexuals usually differentiate between non-sexual "very good friendships" and sexual "boyfriend/girlfriend relationships". Some couples may choose to wait until after marriage to have sex, but sexual tension will exist before and they will be planning on having sex then (unless they're asexual).

In the past many homosexual men thought that they could enter relationships with straight women. Any may did and still do. But these rerlationship very often failed (and still do) because in the end the sexual urge becomes too strong. No matter how loving, caring, friendly and understanding these relationships are - for some reason the sex gets in the way.

Sex is NOT the fundamental basis for almost all, most, or even the majority of relationships between people. If it is, I want to become a hermit.

I realize that for us asexuals all of this is very frustrating. It I could have it my way, I'd create a world where sex played only a minor role. Where love and non-sexual affection are all-important.

But I live in this world and here that isn't the case. Sexuals desire sex - it's what makes them (hetero/homo/bi-)sexual. Sexual desire is an extremly powerful force which has lead people to kill others and even start wars. It's one the main reasons this forum exists - because it differentiates asexuals from sexuals - it what makes us different from everybody else.

In the end it boils down to this : 99 % of people in this world want to have sex. Not all of them are able to have it but they all want it to a varying degree. A relationship based on repressing that desire may work, but very often it doesn't and it isn't the ideal in any case.

[Lorus]

I realize that for us asexuals all of this is very frustrating. It I could have it my way, I'd create a world where sex played only a minor role. Where love and non-sexual affection are all-important.

But I live in this world and here that isn't the case. Sexuals desire sex - it's what makes them (hetero/homo/bi-)sexual. Sexual desire is an extremly powerful force which has lead people to kill others and even start wars. It's one the main reasons this forum exists - because it differentiates asexuals from sexuals - it what makes us different from everybody else.

I think you considerably overestimate how much sexuals desire sex (which is easy to do with how much sex is portrayed in the media). You make it sound like we are led by that desire, when very few are. I would easily give up sex in my own relationship, as would my boyfriend (and he has a very high sex drive, doesn't mean he can't control it to get what he really wants). It is a nice activity and a bonus, I wouldn't care if we couldn't have sex. You have also heard from a few other people in mixed relationships who say that sex is not a big part of their relationship. Try to listen to what we have to say here, rather than (reasonable) misconceptions you've developed.

[reptilelover]

Most indifferent, not-repulsed asexuals can or could probably compromise enough to have a fullfilling relationship with a sexual, fullfilling enough because it is much better than having no relationship at all.

I kindly and wholeheartedly disagree with this (especially the bold part).

It is a nice activity and a bonus, I wouldn't care if we couldn't have sex. You have also heard from a few other people in mixed relationships who say that sex is not a big part of their relationship. Try to listen to what we have to say here, rather than (reasonable) misconceptions you've developed.

Actually, the problem with this is that there aren’t very many threads in which you have sexual/asexual functioning couple that doesn’t have sex. And the few sexuals that do come in here and say they could live without it usually, at some point, get told they don’t know what they are talking about/they are too young to know/just wait a few years and you won’t be able to do it any more exc. At which point the sexual in question stops posting because how does one answer to that? :roll:

In such light, what is someone that doesn’t feel sexual attraction and probably has quite distorted view on sexuality to think? In majority of asexual/sexual thread you have here, there is sexual “compromise” in the sense asexual has sex, or there is an "open" relationship. So what is someone of the mentality off “no sex for me ever” to think? You get the message that sex is something sexuals can’t live without and be happy accented here so much I can hardly recognise people of the “real” world I live in such claims. :roll:

(plus it’s quite ironic how people fail to realise how offensive the statement “sexuals can’t live without sex and at the same time have happy/fulfilled exc. lives” really is 8) ).

[Olivier]

In such light, what is someone that doesn’t feel sexual attraction and probably has quite distorted view on sexuality to think? In majority of asexual/sexual thread you have here, there is sexual “compromise” in the sense asexual has sex, or there is an "open" relationship. So what is someone of the mentality off “no sex for me ever” to think? You get the message that sex is something sexuals can’t live without and be happy accented here so much I can hardly recognise people of the “real” world I live in such claims. :roll:

What strikes me about the vast majority of the sexual/asexual threads is that most of these relationships started with occasioanlly one, but usually both, partners believing that it was in fact a sexual/sexual relationship. The sexual craves sex not because they wish to impose their sexuality on an asexual, but because they long for their relationship to be "how it used to be", and feel there's been a bit of a "bait and switch", no matter how unintentional. I'm sure as asexuality becomes more known and accepted that more people will identify as asexual before they enter long-term relationships, and these issues will decrease.

(plus it’s quite ironic how people fail to realise how offensive the statement “sexuals can’t live without sex and at the same time have happy/fulfilled exc. lives” really is 8) ).

I think that what most people are saying is not that a sexual can't have a fulfilled life without sex, but that it is difficult for most sexuals to exclude sex from a deep romantic relationship, and still feel totally fulfilled in that relationship. I have a happy, fulfilling life, but without sex in my marriage, I would feel that I was missing a way of expressing my love that is natural and important to me. I'd still feel I had a happy and fulfilling life, however, even if I knew I'd never have sex again. What hurt most was not missing the sex, but feeling rejected by the person who is most important to me. Understanding asexuality as the cause for that rejection is, in fact, a huge relief.

[M51]

In the past many homosexual men thought that they could enter relationships with straight women. Any may did and still do. But these rerlationship very often failed (and still do) because in the end the sexual urge becomes too strong. No matter how loving, caring, friendly and understanding these relationships are - for some reason the sex gets in the way.

Ah, but it is not that the heterosexual can't stand the unfulfilling sex (usually the heterosexual doesn't suspect a thing!). And it is not that the homosexual can't stand having sex with someone s/he is not attracted to. The reason these relationships fail is because the homosexual has strong desires pulling hir away from the heterosexual and towards someone else (or towards a different group of potential partners). The relationships fail because the homosexual also strongly desires sex, but with someone else.

So long as my sexual is okay with my attempts at sex (and I have fooled more than one sexual), and so long as I am okay trying to have sex even if I don't feel sexual urges...Who is going to tempt me away from my mixed relationship? I have no urges or desires or needs driving me to go elsewhere.

Actually, the problem with this is that there aren’t very many threads in which you have sexual/asexual functioning couple that doesn’t have sex.

Yes, there aren't many. But I will say I was in such a relationship, and I really do believe that the guy would have married me and never had sex again...except that I realized that I was not happy with him for reasons completely unrelated to sex. Which also negates the suggestion somewhere above that any relationship is better than no relationship. I mean, I had everything an asexual could want, right? I had a guy who lavished attention on me, was totally committed, and was prepared to forego sex for the rest of his life! But...if love isn't there...I would rather be alone.

What strikes me about the vast majority of the sexual/asexual threads is that most of these relationships started with occasioanlly one, but usually both, partners believing that it was in fact a sexual/sexual relationship. The sexual craves sex not because they wish to impose their sexuality on an asexual, but because they long for their relationship to be "how it used to be", and feel there's been a bit of a "bait and switch", no matter how unintentional. I'm sure as asexuality becomes more known and accepted that more people will identify as asexual before they enter long-term relationships, and these issues will decrease.

I really hope for that, also!!

[< retired >]

I think you considerably overestimate how much sexuals desire sex...

I don't think it is possible to generalize here. I've met women for whom the hunger for sex is equivalent to the hunger for food - and causes the same degree of discomfort when deprived. I'm not proud to admit that I have failed to sexually satisfy a substantial number of women, and my general conclusion is that it's difficult to overestimate how much a typical sexual desires sex :P

However, I agree with previous posters that sexuality is a flimsy foundation for a relationship. I also think that asexuality is a flimsy foundation. If I meet a nice woman who characterizes herself as hyposexual/asexual, that's fine, but there are so many other things I'd like to know before I'd be willing to invest in a relationship.

[BunnyK.]

I don't think it is possible to generalize here. I've met women for whom the hunger for sex is equivalent to the hunger for food - and causes the same degree of discomfort when deprived. I'm not proud to admit that I have failed to sexually satisfy a substantial number of women, and my general conclusion is that it's difficult to overestimate how much a typical sexual desires sex

I would be one of those sexuals who would rather give up a relationship than totally give up sex, so we are out there. I don't think I'm typical of every sexual, but I don't think I'm totally atypical either.

[Chiaroscuro]

I would be one of those sexuals who would rather give up a relationship than totally give up sex, so we are out there. I don't think I'm typical of every sexual, but I don't think I'm totally atypical either.

You're not atypical from my point of view :). For me, the key issue isn't whether or not you can live without sex, or even whether or not you can be happy with out sex. I've done (and do) both. For me the problem is looking ahead and knowing that I'll go to my grave with a tremendously wonderful chunk of human experience off-limits to me. That's not something I'm willing to live with.

Short run. Sure. Middle run, even. Sure. Forever? No.

-Chiaroscuro

[Jaklyn_Rose]

Pretty much just, keep it in my pants.

[evanescence]

It's an equaly bad situation for the sexual and the asexual, but here I am, 9 years into the virtually sexless marriage, I now realize what asexuality is and that my husband and I will never be compatible in that way, I've been aroused sexually for the past 5 days, and what am I supposed to do to aleviate this consistent need for intercourse? Now that I know for a fact that my husband is asexual and I no longer care to live as a forced asexual myself for the rest of my life, waht compromises do other people make? I want sex. I did without it for his sake but it isn't working for me. I love him, I respect him, I don't want to break up the home but what do I do wth my desires? I cannot suppress them anymore. I am primed for an affair. My husband knows this and has made no move to "compromise". He just wants the marriage to continue and for me to not ask for sex. HELP!!!!!

Just curious about why a combination of masturbation to relieve the physical tension and nonsexual (physical, emotional) bonding with your husband wouldn't work well enough for you to live contentedly, if not blissfully happily. (I do realize that masturbation doesn't substitute for sex, but i still wonder why it's so important to feel sexually desired if you feel loved and treasured in other ways.)

E.

[Olivier]

Just curious about why a combination of masturbation to relieve the physical tension and nonsexual (physical, emotional) bonding with your husband wouldn't work well enough for you to live contentedly, if not blissfully happily. (I do realize that masturbation doesn't substitute for sex, but i still wonder why it's so important to feel sexually desired if you feel loved and treasured in other ways.)

As a sexual partner of an asexual, this is something I've given a lot of thought to. And I should say also that since discovering and accepting my wife's asexuality, we've gone back to being blissfully happy without her sexually desiring me, although we're still working on rebuilding our sex life in a new, better shape for both of us.

Firstly, for sexuals orgasm and its effects are a bonding process. Orgasm releases oxytocin (the "bonding hormone" that mothers get lots of after birth) and having all your orgasms alone can be a lonely experience as a result. As well, masturbation for sexuals usually involves sexual fantasy, and if that fantasy is to have loving sex with your partner, then being forced to imagine that can just magnify the sense of loss of not actually having that in reality.

Secondly, you advocate non-sexual forms of physical bonding. Unfortunately, being physically intimate with a romantic partner will tend to kick in a sexual's sex drive. Not because they want to annoy their asexual partner, but because it comes as a package deal with a "sexual" sexual orientation. So if that doesn't get fulfilled, then right at the time a sexual would otherwise be feeling connected to their partner, they're feeling unfulfilled and frustrated instead. Which isn't blissfully happy-making.

Now one thing that works to counter both those problems for both my wife and I is to substitute masturbation for sex during the time I want sex for bonding. Right there, right then. We keep kissing, cuddling and whatever we were doing before, and I feel emotionally connected in the lead up to, during and after orgasm, and my wife gets to not have sex. It's not quite sex for me, and not quite "not sex" for my wife, but close enough for both of us to enjoy it, which is the main thing.

As an aside, what you suggest is for a sexual to put aside what they feel driven to by their orientation (sexual behaviour) out of consideration for their partner's orientation. Which is all fine if that's what both parties are happy with, but if not, then it's no more valid than asking an asexual to put aside what they feel driven to (sexual abstinence) out of consideration for their partner's orientation, and to have sex on demand. Which again is all fine if that's what both parties are happy with. In reality a solution is likely to lie somewhere in between those two, or even off on a different line altogether.

[mdw]

Now one thing that works to counter both those problems for both my wife and I is to substitute masturbation for sex during the time I want sex for bonding. Right there, right then. We keep kissing, cuddling and whatever we were doing before, and I feel emotionally connected in the lead up to, during and after orgasm, and my wife gets to not have sex. It's not quite sex for me, and not quite "not sex" for my wife, but close enough for both of us to enjoy it, which is the main thing.

I have to say that this is an approach that works well for me, and she says it works well for her (and I take her at her word). I'd recommend this to sexuals in relationships with asexuals.

As an aside, what you suggest is for a sexual to put aside what they feel driven to by their orientation (sexual behaviour) out of consideration for their partner's orientation. Which is all fine if that's what both parties are happy with, but if not, then it's no more valid than asking an asexual to put aside what they feel driven to (sexual abstinence) out of consideration for their partner's orientation, and to have sex on demand. Which again is all fine if that's what both parties are happy with. In reality a solution is likely to lie somewhere in between those two, or even off on a different line altogether.

On this forum you hear a lot of "the sexual should give up sex instead of making the asexual change their orientation, that's just selfish!", but the inverse is also true. The thing is that like you say, the truth lies in the middle of the black and white, somewhat of a hazy grey.

[EIito]

Yea I think either one would have to sacrifice. Although it would be hard for both people since one isn't getting what they want. Hopefully it's the sexual that gives up sex for the asexual because no one should have sex if they don't want to.

I think at the point that it starts being called sacrifice instead of compromise, the relationship is kind of doomed or at least headed down that hard-to-restore path. It's imperative that the comprise be on both ends or else it becomes the "burden of compromise". Both partners have to give a little. If it's the case that neither is willing to budge, then how could[/] it work out? Lack of ability to compromise tends to be universal, so it's likely that's it's not *just* matters of the bedroom that such a couple would be driven apart by.