Jump to content

Can anyone give me hope?


Needhope

Recommended Posts

The same could be said to sexuals you know. I see here threads full of “poor sexuals who are being deprived etc.”. Well, if sex is so important to them, why do they pester their asexual partners and try to force them to have sex with them? Why simply not date other sexuals?

Plus, of course, one has to bare in mind that long term relationships/marriages between sexuals also, a lot of times, end up sexless after a while. So it is kind of annoying to read threads here along the lines of “oh poor me, 20 years in marriage and no sex/little sex for half that time. The awful abusing deceiving asexual, incapable of love!”, when they could well have ended in a 20 year long relationship with another sexual and be in the same boat (20 year marriage with little to no sex).

ReptileL,

As far as know, most of those sexuals are already in committed relationships before the subject of sexual needs even comes up and I don't hear them saying they will force their sexual demands on their asexual partners-most want to compromise and they should be commended for trying to work it out instead of packing it up from the very moment they find out. To most people, asexuality is a completely unknown and shocking concept since 99% of the population is sexual-why would it seem unreasonable for sexuals to display some frustration or fear in the very beginning?

Again, “sexual incompatibility” is not an exclusive sexual/asexual problem. Sexual/sexual couples end up in sexless relationships/marriages too. And a great number of them at that. I am irritated by the blame game people play here. Tell me, what sort of relationship do you have anyways, if after 20 years of being with someone you still haven’t figured out they are not into sex or the situation where you didn’t discuss sexual issues? Whose problem is that? Is it solely asexual’s problem or is sexual to blame here equally?

I have no problems with people who are frustrated, try to find compromises etc. However, saying your asexual partner is abusing you because they do not want/refuse to have sex with you (what quite a lot of them do tend to say) is one of the uglier things I've had the displeasure of witnessing.

Plus people should realise, when they enter into marriages, be they sexual or otherwise, compromises of sexual nature are not a permanent deal. People change in this regard. It is their body and they have every right to do so (and no, just because they end up not satisfying your sexual “needs” does not make them selfish, not very understandig, cruel etc.). So yes, if you enter a marriage/permanent term relationship with anyone then you should be prepared for permanent “no sex”. If you can’t deal with that then you should offer to the other person what you are capable to offer and have the courage to leave, without blaming your partner, the relationship when it no longer is satisfactory to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Heligan
The same could be said to sexuals you know. I see here threads full of “poor sexuals who are being deprived etc.”. Well, if sex is so important to them, why do they pester their asexual partners and try to force them to have sex with them? Why simply not date other sexuals?

Plus, of course, one has to bare in mind that long term relationships/marriages between sexuals also, a lot of times, end up sexless after a while. So it is kind of annoying to read threads here along the lines of “oh poor me, 20 years in marriage and no sex/little sex for half that time. The awful abusing deceiving asexual, incapable of love!”, when they could well have ended in a 20 year long relationship with another sexual and be in the same boat (20 year marriage with little to no sex).

ReptileL,

As far as know, most of those sexuals are already in committed relationships before the subject of sexual needs even comes up and I don't hear them saying they will force their sexual demands on their asexual partners-most want to compromise and they should be commended for trying to work it out instead of packing it up from the very moment they find out. To most people, asexuality is a completely unknown and shocking concept since 99% of the population is sexual-why would it seem unreasonable for sexuals to display some frustration or fear in the very beginning?

Again, “sexual incompatibility” is not an exclusive sexual/asexual problem. Sexual/sexual couples end up in sexless relationships/marriages too. And a great number of them at that. I am irritated by the blame game people play here. Tell me, what sort of relationship do you have anyways, if after 20 years of being with someone you still haven’t figured out they are not into sex or the situation where you didn’t discuss sexual issues? Whose problem is that? Is it solely asexual’s problem or is sexual to blame here equally?

I have no problems with people who are frustrated, try to find compromises etc. However, saying your asexual partner is abusing you because they do not want/refuse to have sex with you (what quite a lot of them do tend to say) is one of the uglier things I've had the displeasure of witnessing.

Plus people should realise, when they enter into marriages, be they sexual or otherwise, compromises of sexual nature are not a permanent deal. People change in this regard. It is their body and they have every right to do so (and no, just because they end up not satisfying your sexual “needs” does not make them selfish, not very understandig, cruel etc.). So yes, if you enter a marriage/permanent term relationship with anyone then you should be prepared for permanent “no sex”. If you can’t deal with that then you should offer to the other person what you are capable to offer and have the courage to leave, without blaming your partner, the relationship when it no longer is satisfactory to you.

I think there isa big difference going into a marriage knowing, that accidents happen and people can change, and going into it already knowing there is a huge incompatibility... I think its rather stupid to equate the two to be honest.

This is a genuine problem that requires consideration, we should not be getting our selves worked up by the fact it is being given that consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Green Bastard: You've got the wrong girl, silly. I didn't write the post that you first replied to.

The same could be said to sexuals you know. I see here threads full of “poor sexuals who are being deprived etc.”. Well, if sex is so important to them, why do they pester their asexual partners and try to force them to have sex with them? Why simply not date other sexuals?

Plus, of course, one has to bare in mind that long term relationships/marriages between sexuals also, a lot of times, end up sexless after a while. So it is kind of annoying to read threads here along the lines of “oh poor me, 20 years in marriage and no sex/little sex for half that time. The awful abusing deceiving asexual, incapable of love!”, when they could well have ended in a 20 year long relationship with another sexual and be in the same boat (20 year marriage with little to no sex).

And no, it’s not only asexuals who equate condition of sex for marriage with being repulsive/selfish. Sexuals do that too – after all, all my friends and family are sexuals (that I know off) and they’ve said the same thing too – demands/pressures/conditions of sex for someone’s company are selfish and that that sort of person deserves to be given a boot (and they proceed to give boot to anyone who demands sex of them).

In other words, perhaps some sexuals should be honest from the start and before wasting the time of the other person (be they sexual or asexual) should plainly and simply say that if they ever decide not to put out, no matter how good otherwise they may be, they will be left. They should say plainly and simply that sex in relationship with them is an obligation (not only sex, but wanting to have sex as much as they want/ whenever they want). But for some reason I do not see people saying that (at least in long term relationships). Could you tell me why this is so?

Actually, I've said pretty much that to my boyfriend. In a nicer way, of course. I've told him that if it ever reaches the point where we're having sex once a month or less, I will have an extremely hard time dealing with it and will have to consider ending the relationship for my own sanity. Of course, whether I will actually find it easy to do that if it does reach that point - I just don't know. I might consider trying an open relationship first. Whatever you may think, I don't consider honesty something just for asexuals. :rolleyes:

And yes, a relationship between two sexuals can also end up sexless. There are a lot of divorces that occur over sexlessness.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that it's NOT selfish for the sexual to leave or refuse to enter a marriage because of a lack of sex, which is what Green Bastard was suggesting. In fact, that's exactly what you suggest too. So I'm not sure why the snarky tone? I'm not a "blame everything on the asexual" kind of person, I know that it's not something that's wrong with you or something you should be pressured to change. But, being sexual, I also know the pain (and it's REAL pain) that comes with not having your sexual interest returned. So I think it's wrong to look down on a sexual for knowing that a life without a sexual relationship isn't tenable for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest the_green_bastard
Green Bastard: You've got the wrong girl, silly. I didn't write the post that you first replied to.

Nope - Needhope started the thread, and I replied to True_Love. And unless yours was the post I praised, that was about all I ever posted. I think I did, however, fidget with all the quote tags in my first thread reply, and so your name might mistakenly have made its way in there; I apologize if that was the case.

I want to make one more point here - it's not fair to call sex a "need." It simply isn't, and you can go live in the woods with no food and water for three days and see if you still don't agree with me (I'm not talking to BunnyK or anyone specifically).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there isa big difference going into a marriage knowing, that accidents happen and people can change, and going into it already knowing there is a huge incompatibility... I think its rather stupid to equate the two to be honest.

This is a genuine problem that requires consideration, we should not be getting our selves worked up by the fact it is being given that consideration.

I am not equating the two. I am just saying that a 20 year long relationship that supposedly ended solely because of lack of sex probably did not end due to one of the partners being asexual. I was not solely addressing the original poster with that part you know. I’d be grateful if my post was read/addressed according how it was intended, to whom it was intended, and what points it addressed.

Actually, I've said pretty much that to my boyfriend. In a nicer way, of course. I've told him that if it ever reaches the point where we're having sex once a month or less, I will have an extremely hard time dealing with it and will have to consider ending the relationship for my own sanity. Of course, whether I will actually find it easy to do that if it does reach that point - I just don't know. I might consider trying an open relationship first. Whatever you may think, I don't consider honesty something just for asexuals. :rolleyes:

And where did I say honesty is something reserved solely for asexuals? Just said that some sexuals are not honest to their partners (sexual or asexual), plus that sexual people I know would give the boot to anyone who suggested to them having sex is a condition for having a relationship. :P

And yes, a relationship between two sexuals can also end up sexless. There are a lot of divorces that occur over sexlessness.

Perhaps. There are also a lot of them that function quite well despite the sexlessness.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that it's NOT selfish for the sexual to leave or refuse to enter a marriage because of a lack of sex, which is what Green Bastard was suggesting. In fact, that's exactly what you suggest too. So I'm not sure why the snarky tone? I'm not a "blame everything on the asexual" kind of person, I know that it's not something that's wrong with you or something you should be pressured to change. But, being sexual, I also know the pain (and it's REAL pain) that comes with not having your sexual interest returned. So I think it's wrong to look down on a sexual for knowing that a life without a sexual relationship isn't tenable for them.

Depends on what you want your marriage for. To rephrase the point – it is not selfish to refuse to enter relationships if you want to be provided sex, and the other person refuses to do it. It is, however, selfish to enter a marriage/permanent term monogamous relationship with another person with expectation that the other person will provide sex to you (plus it is selfish to continue to nag/pester/demand sex out of your partner when they decide they do not want to provide it anymore). Why is it selfish? Because you are wasting the other person’s time and messing with their emotions, both of which could be directed to someone who realises expectation/demand of permanent sex is not possible with that sort of dynamic (and they want solely that sort of relationship). So yes, it is not selfish to enter a mutually understood relationship expecting sex, but it is selfish to enter a marriage with that sort of deal. It is both selfish and unrealistic. Not to say people shouldn’t do it anyways (people can do whatever they feel like doing if it is mutual), just saying I am not surprised by the melodrama they and up in.

And yeah, I also object to sexuals as a whole being lumped into having REAL pain by not having their sexual interest returned. I asked my sexual family/friends and they claim there is/would be no pain (real or imaginary) involved when/if their partner refuses to have sex with them (permanently). In fact they seem to be offended by the idea. So yes, maybe you feel pain when your sexual interests are not returned, but that is solely a trait of yours not a trait of someone who experiences sexual attraction (otherwise known as sexual) in general. :P

Yeah and green_bastartd, I agree with the need thing, which is why I always use “need” not need… ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Heligan
ReptileL

Plus people should realise, when they enter into marriages, be they sexual or otherwise, compromises of sexual nature are not a permanent deal. People change in this regard. It is their body and they have every right to do so (and no, just because they end up not satisfying your sexual “needs” does not make them selfish, not very understandig, cruel etc.). So yes, if you enter a marriage/permanent term relationship with anyone then you should be prepared for permanent “no sex”. If you can’t deal with that then you should offer to the other person what you are capable to offer and have the courage to leave, without blaming your partner, the relationship when it no longer is satisfactory to you.

I think there isa big difference going into a marriage knowing, that accidents happen and people can change, and going into it already knowing there is a huge incompatibility... I think its rather stupid to equate the two to be honest.

This is a genuine problem that requires consideration, we should not be getting our selves worked up by the fact it is being given that consideration.

I am not equating the two. I am just saying that a 20 year long relationship that supposedly ended solely because of lack of sex probably did not end due to one of the partners being asexual. I was not solely addressing the original poster with that part you know. I’d be grateful if my post was read/addressed according how it was intended, to whom it was intended, and what points it addressed.

I was partially agreeing with you!

Except for the final comment about anyone entering marriage being prepared for permanent 'no sex' , based on change of attraction/mind etc- which I think is a bit of a stretch for most people- sex is seen as part of the marriage deal for many after all- 'with my body I thee honour' and all that.....

And trying to show that this detour into why 20 year marriages fail is a bit of a red herring in regard to the orignal post- which I try to keep as the focus when someone is asking for advice. In such personal original posts I dont like to see things stray too far from the original (it just seems a bit rude for us to go off on a tangent with someones thread- as it is in effect ignoring their problem).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was partially agreeing with you!

Except for the final comment about anyone entering marriage being prepared for permanent 'no sex' , based on change of attraction/mind etc- which I think is a bit of a stretch for most people- sex is seen as part of the marriage deal for many after all- 'with my body I thee honour' and all that.....

And trying to show that this detour into why 20 year marriages fail is a bit of a red herring in regard to the orignal post- which I try to keep as the focus when someone is asking for advice. In such personal original posts I dont like to see things stray too far from the original (it just seems a bit rude for us to go off on a tangent with someones thread- as it is in effect ignoring their problem).

*Shrugh* What people want marriage to be and what happens in marriage are two different things. I am saying people should be prepared for permanent “no sex” because that is eventuality for many marriages. If there is a good chance your marriage will turn like that (sexless), should one not be prepared for that eventuality?

And sex as martial obligation is something that is quite frowned upon nowadays if I am not mistaken (I’ve certainly never encountered that thought except in very negative context). It is an atavism of the times past when it was the duty of the wife to provide sex/hairs to the husband. So no, I don’t think sex nowadays is a martial obligation any more then being a virgin (for woman) is considered to be a martial obligation. :P

Also, just to add: the idea that sex is an obligation at all I find entirely disconcerting (espetially in something that is supposed to be "for life" sort of deal)…

(and yeah, I also don’t like detours when giving advice. But considering this particular thread was kind of “dead” for a while I thought it safe to address things that were on my mind for some time now… ;) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Needhope, first of all I apologize for the behavior of some of my fellow asexuals. I hope you can appreciate the fact that many of us really do not understand what sexual desire feels like so we don't understand why you desire sex so much, and how much it feels like a need rather than just a desire. There's also the fact that some of us have had to deal with being told we're broken because we don't desire sex ourselves. Because of that we can be a bit antagonistic.

Second, I'm glad he came out to you before the marriage so you could deal with this issue beforehand. It may not be as bad as it seems right now though. Some asexuals are fine with having sex often and some are not. Perhaps the two of you can discuss just how often he would do it compared to how often you would want it. The difference may not be as big as you think and you may be able to come to a compromise that works for both of you.

If that doesn't work then it is good that you figure that out before you get married. I don't envy you the decision you would have to make then. I hope it all works out for the best regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexless sexual

@ reptilelover:

I emphatically disagree that most marriages end up sexless, and therefore the non-existence of sex should be assumed in a marriage.

All marriages will go through periods of no sex. Especially given modern life spans, the odds of some physiological impairment of some kind or other will occur. Most of these are temporary and treatable. The rest ... well, there are many, many, many ways of making love, and the human being can be quite creative. Stress kills sex drive, and there are lots of periods of stress in a marriage. But this is not a permanent, constant state.

What I will agree to is that most marriages will consist of a mismatched pair in terms of sex drive, to some degree or other. By the same token, in most relationships, one partner loves that little bit more than the other. This is not a problem -- and therefore needs no preparation -- when the degree of difference is relatively small.

In our culture, sex and marriage are assumed to be entwined. Some religions, in fact, demand it. The High Church Anglican marriage vow from the husband states: With this ring, I thee wed. With my body I thee worship. With all my goods I thee endow." That "with my body" bit -- that's all about (loving) sex, in poetic language.

Each marriage has its own rule of thumb for what does or does not constitute sexlessness. For medical purposes, anything approaching less than 12 times per year is considered sexless.

Mine is a sexless marriage -- 13 years without any. Period. Minimal touching.

No, when I thought him sexual (and in fairness, so did he) this was not something I could or should have anticipated.

I don't think that you understand that the human body is wired for sex; it's a physical need. Human beings have also made it a mental pleasure.

This is not to say that asexuality is wrong or needs to be fixed. This is to say that it is significantly less prevalent in the human population. Cultural expectations grow around the ubiquitous, not the exceptions.

@ OP: I've been answering your question in various ways in various threads. If you want to, you can search for my posts (I only joined on Saturday, so, prolific as I am, there aren't that many.) May we both find some way out of our dilemma!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not say most marriages are sexless – I said many of them are and because of that it is something that should be taken under consideration if you plan to enter a permanent term relationship with another person. And more still have problems with sex of other kinds. Plus not all asexual/sexual marriages are sexless. The key in everything is communication, understanding and compassion not assumptions towards feelings of the other person, demands on another’s body because you are “entitled” to it due to “marriage deal” of our culture or categorical denial of the other person’s feelings. And yeah, I still don’t quite understand how you can marry someone who is not that much into sex (or asexual) without realising something is a bit off (providing you’ve actually known well your husband/wife prior to courting and had an adequate courting period [2-3 years for example] I honestly don’t see how their nature wouldn’t come through eventually).

As for obligation of sex in marriage and tradition etc. – I already addressed that in my previous post so I will not repeat myself again (and yeah, lets not mix religion into this. Not all people [i’d even dare to say most here] who enter marriages are religious or practice what they preach else there’d be considerably more virgins entering marriages then there are now, less promiscuity, less cheating, less divorces etc.). And anyways, you are entering a relationship with a particular person – it matters not at all what everyone else says regarding how marriage between two people has to look like. You two are the sole, relevant parties in this – entirely on you to define why you enter a particular relationship, how long it lasts and what it must include.

As for sex as “need” – I doubt claims it is a need for sexuals because sexuals that I do know state it’s not a need. And there were sexuals on AVEN too who also claimed it is not a need. So if it is a need for some people it is their need only, not the entire group’s characteristic (else everyone would express the same sentiment).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Heligan
I did not say most marriages are sexless – I said many of them are and because of that it is something that should be taken under consideration if you plan to enter a permanent term relationship with another person. And more still have problems with sex of other kinds. Plus not all asexual/sexual marriages are sexless. The key in everything is communication, understanding and compassion not assumptions towards feelings of the other person, demands on another’s body because you are “entitled” to it due to “marriage deal” of our culture or categorical denial of the other person’s feelings. And yeah, I still don’t quite understand how you can marry someone who is not that much into sex (or asexual) without realising something is a bit off (providing you’ve actually known well your husband/wife prior to courting and had an adequate courting period [2-3 years for example] I honestly don’t see how their nature wouldn’t come through eventually).

As for obligation of sex in marriage and tradition etc. – I already addressed that in my previous post so I will not repeat myself again (and yeah, lets not mix religion into this. Not all people [i’d even dare to say most here] who enter marriages are religious or practice what they preach else there’d be considerably more virgins entering marriages then there are now, less promiscuity, less cheating, less divorces etc.). And anyways, you are entering a relationship with a particular person – it matters not at all what everyone else says regarding how marriage between two people has to look like. You two are the sole, relevant parties in this – entirely on you to define why you enter a particular relationship, how long it lasts and what it must include.

As for sex as “need” – I doubt claims it is a need for sexuals because sexuals that I do know state it’s not a need. And there were sexuals on AVEN too who also claimed it is not a need. So if it is a need for some people it is their need only, not the entire group’s characteristic (else everyone would express the same sentiment).

I would be interested in discussing what marriage or lifetime commitment participant should have a right to think of as a permanent characteristic/habit in a patner... but I dont want to hi-jack the thread or your idea.

Some things that ocurred to me are, if your 'other half' killed someone, changed their religious or political beliefs drastically, changed their socio-economic position drastically, induldged in illegal activities or activities you considered immoral. Lets go for extremem and say you caught them downloading child porn- does that destroy a relationship?

If you do start a new topic put a link in this one, so I dont miss it. If you dont I might, its an interesting idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be interested in discussing what marriage or lifetime commitment participant should have a right to think of as a permanent characteristic/habit in a patner... but I dont want to hi-jack the thread or your idea.

You certainly have the right to think whatever as a permanent characteristic/habit in a partner, however whether your demands are realistic or not (for the relationship to stay permanent) or whether you’d be able to find people who’d agree to your terms permanently (especially for more egocentric demands of the "partner must do X" kind; X being things that concern the partner's consent solely) is an entirely different matter.

As for other stuff: perhaps another time… ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexless sexual

@ Heligan: I started one for you. Go thee and contribute! :rolleyes:

@reptilelover: I'm getting tones of combativeness from your messages. Is that intended? I'm going to try to assume it is not, and see if that takes any combativeness out of my messages.

We are basically in agreement. Certainly we are in agreement on the importance of communication in a marriage. I would go further and consider communication vital to any long-term relationship of any kind.

You did, indeed, talk about "many" marriages, not "most."

This is where we disagree. I think the number of marriages that are sexless in character are few. What I do agree on is that almost every marriage (I'd say all marriages, but I try to avoid absolutes when talking about people) experiences some period(s) of sexlessness and/or sexual contention. Especially here in the US, sex is a highly charged topic. I'd also agree that this characteristic of marriage gets a lot of press. That, however, is because it is "news." It is the exception to expectation that gets talked about.

In our culture, the expectation of sex is, imo, an integral part of the definition of a marriage. In all our fiction, in all our media entertainment, in average conversation, in idiomatic speech, the US shows daily how much people assume that married people have sex. How much sex is always variable. But it is taken for granted that it exists. For that matter, the expectation is for sexuality to begin with -- isn't that what this website is all about?

Take out religion? I'd love to, but we are talking about society as a whole, not the far-from-random sampling of members here. Too many churches teach marital sex as a sacrament, a duty and a purpose for marriage. In the US, the population is heavily skewed to church-going folks (we'll leave belief level out of the discussion). So religion is significant as a source which creates expectations in society.

So it is not at all unreasonable to expect sex, and hope for good sex, when marrying someone one loves. This is the basis of our disagreement. :)

How can anyone be so wrong about their partner's sexuality? I can think of lots of circumstances. They meet someplace where neither lives, and conduct a long-distance courtship. Opportunity for sex is rare. One or both travel widely as part of their job, and again, absence obviates sex. There are more people than you think who do "save" themselves for marriage. There are even more who will choose chastity with the one partner they intend to marry, as a mark of respect and to show real commitment. Communication can be poor -- it takes work and time to really develop the communication level and skills for this kind of understanding -- that is one reason early in the marriage is such a rocky time. The asexual could be in the closet, and unable to come out even to the sexual. In my case, the long distance, the travel, the lack of communication and my husband's denial of his sexuality led to our confusion.

Now add that the sexual also has sex issues. In our society, it is almost impossible not to have some kind of hang-up over sex. Some conscious, many unconscious. As I've said elsewhere, my husband didn't recognize his own asexuality, and I truly thought the level of sex I expected (which was not none at all) was something I could handle. I've not had much sex in my life, actually. We were both wrong. I was depressed -- now that I finally have treatment that is helping, I'm recovering, and finding my sex drive to be quite high. That precipitated marriage counseling that is uncovering his asexuality.

I don't know ages, here, obviously. From messages, however, I suspect the membership here skews much younger than I. I'm 55. Asexuality as a sexual orientation didn't come into scientific/medical language until the 1980s. It has yet to be a standard in those arenas, let alone out to the general public. I didn't know the term existed as an orientation until I stumbled on this site looking for answers to my own dilemma. It is hardly surprising that most people today are ignorant of this whole issue. Again -- hence this website.

In short (too late!): can't you give us sexuals some slack?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I found on internet by typing “sexless marriages” into yahoo, that around 20% of marriages are sexless, that number continuing to rise (and the proportion of people who are at the “low importance of sex” part of the spectrum even higher). 20% is a fairly large percentage, certainly one that should be taken into account when entering a permanent term relationship with someone (espectially if they already show lack of interest in sex at the beginning). I also think the true percentage is higher then that. There are much more divorces/remarriages nowadays then there used to be. That means the percentage of marriages that are in early stages (first six years for example, where sex is still more or less regular) is much higher. I don’t know what the statistic is for long term marriages (more the 10 years), but I wouldn’t be surprised if percentage of sexless marriages among them is higher then average.

As for religion/expectation – again it’s not about what everyone else expects or what everyone else says. A relationship is between two people therefore if one of them is not that into sex, or doesn’t consider sex important in a marriage, that’s 50% who think so. Expectations (that slip into demand territory only! We may have a misunderstanding in what sense we are using "expecattion" here :unsure: ) are a very big problem in my opinion, especially not talked through expectations.

As for not being aware of one’s sexuality: perhaps, but one should have been aware (certainly if one is asexual) that sex is not that important for them. In an honest relationship, is that not something that should be discussed beforehand? You don’t have to “try sex out” or anything, if someone says they are not that into sex is this not enough to wonder? I also didn’t know I was asexual, but I knew full well sex is not something that interests me, that I find important etc. That’s certainly something I’d have mentioned to partner (if I had one) if I saw (or they told me) sex is a big deal for them. There was no need for the term asexual only honesty on everyone's part. I really doubt anyone would want their loved one to suffer, in any way.

Also, I do not have anything against sexuals, far from it. I am actually quite sympathetic with people who end up in situations like this. :( What I was addressing with my posts, and what I was referring to mainly, is sentiment that asexual partners somehow (willingly or not) deceived their partners and abused them by witholding sex. It is not solely the asexual’s fault (or even mostly) you know. What happened was probably lack of communication, miscommunication, not knowing yourself (on both the sexual’s and asexual’s part) and, along the long years of marriage probably many other stuff too that in the end contribute to the present mess.

In short, the sexual part of the couple is 50% responsible for the mess they are in.

(and no, I am not being combative. This is just my style of writing. ;) I edited this post quite a lot. Hope I don't sound combative anymore :unsure: )

EDIT: Also just to add, I don’t have a problem with expectation of sex. I have a "problem" with the demand/condition of it regarding permanent term relationships and am not surprised the slightest that, as long as there is demand/condition present, sex will eventually be a source of conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexless sexual
Also just to add, I don’t have a problem with expectation of sex. I have a "problem" with the demand/condition of it regarding permanent term relationships and am not surprised the slightest that, as long as there is demand/condition present, sex will eventually be a source of conflict.

Aha! Here we have no disagreement at all. Demanding sex is a no-win situation in a marriage. The one demanding is in a bad space -- aggressive, angry, hurt, punishing ... by definition. The partner is in a similarly bad space, also by definition. A demand for sex is a signal that something is wrong, and deep communication, if not actual couples therapy, is badly needed if the marriage is to survive.

Where our debate went astray was that I read your initial post to, in fact, detail precisely your objection to the expectation, which later conflated with demand. I disagree with any such objection, for all the reasons already stated.

Since you don't have a problem with the expectation, and I do have a problem with the demand ... we've been debating in circles.

I think it important to keep in mind, however, that it can be the expectation (reasonable or not) that leads to the demand in the absence of fulfillment of the expectations. Had there not been the expectation, there would not have been the assumption of a right to demand. (There might have been a demand, regardless, but no longer based on the assumption of a "right" to sex.) Actually, I think right is the wrong word. Rather, it's an assumption to receive that which was promised.

In other words, the sexual part of the couple is 50% responsible for the mess they are in and I see no reason why I should give slack to anyone who tries to blame it all (or most of it) on the asexual.

In terms of initiating communication about asexuality during courtship, I'd put the onus on the asexual. Assuming both partners to be exposed to all the things that build the expectation of sex in our culture, the sexual one has no knowledge that it needs to come up at all. The sexual has nothing to question. We can all hope that this changes over (not too much) time -- hence this website and other efforts. Until then ...

That said, I agree with you that each is 50% responsible for the marriage as a whole. In fact, I'll go you one further. A marriage is not a 50/50 deal. It's a 100/100 deal. I didn't really know that until, oh, around my 8th or 9th anniversary. I'm still working on absorbing the implications.

(and no, I am not being combative. This is just my style of writing. ;) )

[nods] Thought so. But it's always worth checking. (What was that about communication ...?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexless sexual

For some reason, my system is getting posts out of order, so I'm going back a bit.

Needhope: Let's get back to you.

This is something you need to discuss with your bf. You both have some hard soul-searching to do. How important is sex to you? At what point would you walk away if it were absent? What do you mean by "sex?" What do you or do you not wish to do to or receive from your bf. How much can he give? Where is his limit? How well do those answers match? Do you at least match on the "must haves" and can you then give up some of the "nice to haves?"

If you are seriously considering marriage, you can go as a couple now to get some counseling on this issue. It doesn't have to be expensive -- shop around. Nor will it necessarily mean a long-term involvement with therapy. It's just that we have a tendency to fool ourselves. In the limerance stage of love (where you are now) we are incapable of recognizing the reality of the other, and, for that matter, our own reality. So you may not answer honestly, even though such is your intention. A third party isn't blinded. Furthermore, sex in our society is simply ... complex and hard to discuss. A third party can make it a bit easier by bringing up things you two might not bring up, but which are important to know.

Look at it like this: If she want children very much, and he says he can either have them or not, it would behoove her to pin him down on just what does he mean. Does he mean she can have kids, but he will remain totally uninvolved? Does he mean he'll go along with an adoption, but not the pregnancy route? Is he saying what he thinks she wants to hear for fear of loosing her if he told the truth, but once married he will dig in his heels and refuse kids? Or what?

Given that this discussion has come up in your relationship, then you are in a similar situation as the couple defined above. You need to really understand what each of you are saying when you say "we can have sex sometimes." Don't assume you mean the same thing with the same words.

And then, it's up to you. We really can't answer this for you. How important is this one characteristic of a relationship? Is it a deal breaker for you?

From my perspective, sex was just a part of why I married Husband, and it is those other things that keep me in the marriage. But, unlike you, this didn't come up until after 15 years of marriage, and the only thing we know is that we will continue -- we haven't figured out on what terms. The past 15 years, when I thought him to be sexual, have been very painful at times. So it is very, very good for you that this is coming up now.

One more thing: Do NOT, I say again, DO NOT assume that, once you are married, you can influence him closer to your side of things. You cannot change him (true about all characteristics, not just sexuality) and you will merely break your heart and his if you try. Work with what you know, now.

And then, be prepared for it all to change, in some way or other, sometime along the marriage! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as know, most of those sexuals are already in committed relationships before the subject of sexual needs even comes up and I don't hear them saying they will force their sexual demands on their asexual partners-most want to compromise and they should be commended for trying to work it out instead of packing it up from the very moment they find out. To most people, asexuality is a completely unknown and shocking concept since 99% of the population is sexual-why would it seem unreasonable for sexuals to display some frustration or fear in the very beginning?

Sexuality, that people actually wanted sex, was completely alien to me up until last year, even after a good amout of time on this and other forums. I couldn't understand it. I ended up being sexually abused and treated like a horrible person because of this. And I don't think I've shown much frustration or fear at the concept of people wanting it, just "why the heck do they want that?" and trying to understand and accept that they do and stop getting so freaked out by the concept (severely repulsed, sorry, I have the same problem with spiders- but I don't love sexuals enough to get over it that well).

It's unreasonable that people are so incapable of handling things that are different. I'm sick of it. Confusion or disbelief- sure, but fear or frustration just pisses me off because it leads to hatred and intolerance. If you don't love the person enough to sit down and find a way to get them to talk about what's actually going on to see if you can work it out- then leave, it's in both your best interests. Not just sexual/asexual. If you can't deal that your partner is trans or polyamorous or multiple or furry or any number of things that aren't "normal"- then find someone who is what you consider normal and move on, it's best for everyone.

Being normal would suck for me, I don't know how the majority does it, and I don't care to. But I accept that they are the majority and they damn well should accept that the minority exists, as do things that might be beyond their knowledge, and it now sickens me that they get in a huff when those things make themselves known. Confusion, disbelief, I can live with. But treating someone like they're a bad person just because you don't understand them, wehnt hey aren't hurting you, is more harmful than ending a relationship because you're both gonna be miserable in it.

And how many studies show the 1%? The only one I've seen said it was as prevalent as homosexuality was in the same study, even though the percentage of that is much higher. If it really is 1%- fine. But if it's as common as being gay or bi, then people need to stop using that, because those are way more known than asexuality is even though they are (potentially) as common.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexless sexual

As far as I've read, the 1% figure seems to be the clinically accepted estimate. The 1% pertains specifically to those who feel no sexual desire/arousal at all. Gays and lesbians, for example, are not considered asexual - unless they also feel no sexual desire, despite their romantic orientation.

There is recognition that the 1% is probably low. There may be some asexuals who assume they are gay/lesbian, rather than understanding their orientation. There may be some who identify as hetero for any number of reasons that all boil down to they do not understand their orientation and don't want to push themselves to the front.

Even so, though, the maximum is estimated at possibly as high as 3%.

As with all research, of course, this could all be changed with new data. This is simply the current empirical evidence to date.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I've read, the 1% figure seems to be the clinically accepted estimate. The 1% pertains specifically to those who feel no sexual desire/arousal at all. Gays and lesbians, for example, are not considered asexual - unless they also feel no sexual desire, despite their romantic orientation.

I realize that- I wasn't saying gays and lesbians are asexual, however the only study I've seen found that 1% of the participants were asexual, and 1% were gay/lesbian- even though the accepted percent of people who are gay or lesbian is much higher than that, suggesting that hte 1% figure is much lower than the actual.

Evidence* has found that less than 4% of the population is gay or lesbian, which is more than 1% but not a huge deal more and if you are willing to believe that the actual amount is 3% are asexual- then >4 and ~3 aren't a great deal different, which goes back to my point that small numbers is not enough of an argument because our numbers aren't that much smaller than those of homosexuals/bisexuals who are quite well known.

*(The link is kind of long, basically they took data from the best (least amount of bias) studies in different countries to get a better estimate of the percent of the population is homo/bisexual. The numbers are in "V. The Truth as Best We Know It" part D, which says "1. Overall, certainly less than 4%, probably around 2-3% M, 2% F are homosexual or bisexual ... 3. Median of studies listed above: 2% M, 2% F, Upper Quartile: 3.3% M, 3.7% F)

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexless sexual
As far as I've read, the 1% figure seems to be the clinically accepted estimate. The 1% pertains specifically to those who feel no sexual desire/arousal at all. Gays and lesbians, for example, are not considered asexual - unless they also feel no sexual desire, despite their romantic orientation.

I realize that- I wasn't saying gays and lesbians are asexual, however the only study I've seen found that 1% of the participants were asexual, and 1% were gay/lesbian- even though the accepted percent of people who are gay or lesbian is much higher than that, suggesting that hte 1% figure is much lower than the actual.

Evidence* has found that less than 4% of the population is gay or lesbian, which is more than 1% but not a huge deal more and if you are willing to believe that the actual amount is 3% are asexual- then >4 and ~3 aren't a great deal different, which goes back to my point that small numbers is not enough of an argument because our numbers aren't that much smaller than those of homosexuals/bisexuals who are quite well known.

Ah. No argument, there. That's the whole purpose of AVEN, isn't it -- to get the word out the way the LGBT community has?

Which I think would be a very, very good thing. Actually, more than just asexuals would benefit.

1. If the existence of such an orientation were better known, more of us sexuals would know to ask about this before marriage. We don't know, so it never occurs to us to ask -- until it's a mess.

2. Asexuals who don't understand themselves and are no more knowledgeable than sexuals would also know what questions to ask. And then, if their sexual partners did not ask, they'd know that they have to bring it up.

3. The more the Puritan characteristic in too many societies (I'm thinking particularly of the US, but others also apply) gets the word that "sexual orientation" is a many splendored thing, and that a lot of people they know, trust and respect are "other oriented," the easier it will be for those societies to accept them. Maybe we'd finally get rid of the so-called "defense" of marriage nonsense.

So, I quite agree with you. This site is a good start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexless sexual

@ Rdraconis:

I am so very sorry that you have had so much grief over sexual matters. Abuse is ugly, regardless of how it is done. There is simply no justification for it, whether a minority or majority member does it.

Your tone is quite angry, and you are justified. But you are also spilling that anger over to sexuals who are no more guilty than you. That helps neither of us. It may be a necessary thing for a period, so I'm not saying "just get over it." But as a permanent thing, it simply won't help you or anyone else.

I can accept my husband's asexuality. It's not like I have a choice -- it is what it is. But it is not true that he's not hurting me. He is. We discussed things like children and sex; reality does not match what we discussed. You may not understand the hurt, since you don't understand the sexuality any more than we understand your asexuality. But it is what it is. We feel what we feel. You can argue until kingdom come that we shouldn't fell thus, but it won't change the feelings.

We don't deserve abuse, either. :(

And I am the exceptional sexual. Most of us don't even know that asexuality exists. Of course we're going to try to make sense of you in terms we can understand. It is up to the minority to educate us.

However, it is up to the majority to learn and accept. That is undeniably so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't deserve abuse, either. :(

I've read most of this thread, and I'm stopped by the sentence above. Abuse is a strong word; it is usually used in cases where someone is physically injured or has been subjected to constant, severe emotional abuse. A marriage partner not wanting to or refusing to have sex with his/her partner should not be defined as "abuse." Such a situation may make you very unhappy and frustrated but you're not being abused. Let's not water down strong words by using them where they don't fit; there's too much of that in the language already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your tone is quite angry, and you are justified. But you are also spilling that anger over to sexuals who are no more guilty than you. That helps neither of us. It may be a necessary thing for a period, so I'm not saying "just get over it." But as a permanent thing, it simply won't help you or anyone else.

Actually, I'm spilling it to everyone who's guilty of it. I've seen asexuals on here be just as bad about otherkin as I've seen sexuals on other sites be about asexuality. I'm not directing it at one group, I'm directing it at everyone who does it. Which I suppose is one group... but not in the sense you seem to think it is.

But it is not true that he's not hurting me. He is. We discussed things like children and sex; reality does not match what we discussed. You may not understand the hurt, since you don't understand the sexuality any more than we understand your asexuality. But it is what it is. We feel what we feel. You can argue until kingdom come that we shouldn't fell thus, but it won't change the feelings.

Then it's more that the fact he lied or misled you is hurting you- not that his being asexual is hurting you. If he gave the impression that he wanted sex as much as you do, then that's not asexuality that's the problem so he isn't hurting you by being asexual he's hurting you by misrepresenting his own desires.

We don't deserve abuse, either. :(

I've read most of this thread, and I'm stopped by the sentence above. Abuse is a strong word; it is usually used in cases where someone is physically injured or has been subjected to constant, severe emotional abuse. A marriage partner not wanting to or refusing to have sex with his/her partner should not be defined as "abuse." Such a situation may make you very unhappy and frustrated but you're not being abused. Let's not water down strong words by using them where they don't fit; there's too much of that in the language already.

That was my thought. I can see it as being hurtful to feel unwanted, but it's not exactly abusive unless the asexual is emotionally abusing them over it by saying it's because they aren't attractive or whatever. (I think there was a person on here who said their spouse would insult her and blame them for their lack of desire)

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexless sexual
We don't deserve abuse, either. :(

I've read most of this thread, and I'm stopped by the sentence above. Abuse is a strong word; it is usually used in cases where someone is physically injured or has been subjected to constant, severe emotional abuse. A marriage partner not wanting to or refusing to have sex with his/her partner should not be defined as "abuse." Such a situation may make you very unhappy and frustrated but you're not being abused. Let's not water down strong words by using them where they don't fit; there's too much of that in the language already.

Are you sexual? I'm new enough around here that I don't know.

If not, then I ask you to try to understand that the situation goes well beyond mere sadness and frustration. Frustration is wanting something and not getting it now. Sadness is unhappiness, an unpleasant but temporary emotion.

Denial of sex to a sexual spouse goes well beyond either. The sex is a need -- that asexuals do not experience that need does not remove the need from sexuals. How strong a need varies from individual to individual, but the need is real. Sexuality is as much a part of who we are as your asexuality is for you. It is part of our self-definition; part of our character. Denying it means sublimating an integral part of oneself. That way lies madness -- not sadness or frustration but depression and psychological damage. It is, as you yourself put it "someone ... has been subjected to constant, severe, emotional abuse." In my case, for 15 years.

I did not use the word unadvisedly or inappropriately. If that has not been clear before now, then maybe it is just as well I said it, now.

However, I will confess that I used it in a moment of weakness. I have felt buffeted by a lot of posts explaining how important it is for the sexual to understand how awful sex is, without the returning comprehension of how awful the denial of it is. I was dismayed by Rdraconian's statement that "they (asexuals) aren't hurting you(sexuals)," because the exact opposite is true. And I have been spending much time here trying to understand, learn, grasp concepts in order to find some way of continuing on with my husband, while he has seemed to assume nothing more need be done, now that I understand sex is not an option.

So, while I did not use the word inaccurately, I did use it to lash out. I am sorry for doing so. Normally, I am not confrontational enough to speak that plainly; it is not my style.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do sympathise with the pair of you.

You say 'if we marry, he is willing to have sex some of the time...' Seems to me that unless you have religious reasons for not considering sex outside of marriage, that you should have a trial run at this.... actually get the experience and see if its something you can both see working long term. Cus seems to me that unless you know how this compromise is going to feel you cannot say if its a prison for either of you.

This is what I've been thinking based on my experiences in a sexual/asexual relationship. If you do have some reason to avoid having sex outside of marriage, perhaps some detailed conversations about how often you would be having sex and what kind, compared to how he feels would also be helpful. It seems to me that a situation like this could go either way, and before you start feeling panicked by the idea of only having sex a few times a year you should make sure that matches with what he's picturing for your future relationship.

Sexless sexual suggested marriage counseling. I think that's a great idea just in general. Good luck figuring things out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Denial of sex to a sexual spouse goes well beyond either. The sex is a need -- that asexuals do not experience that need does not remove the need from sexuals. How strong a need varies from individual to individual, but the need is real. Sexuality is as much a part of who we are as your asexuality is for you. It is part of our self-definition; part of our character. Denying it means sublimating an integral part of oneself. That way lies madness -- not sadness or frustration but depression and psychological damage. It is, as you yourself put it "someone ... has been subjected to constant, severe, emotional abuse." In my case, for 15 years.

Here is what you seem to be confusing. Being asexual is an integral part of ourselves. The majority don't see not having sex as an integral part. Many are willing to compromise, and I've seen more people who have the problem that their partner needs them to want it than who have the problem that they can't compromise. Yes, some can't compromise and some do have the need to not have sex- but not everyone, it's not what defines someone as an asexual.

Your partner isn't denying your sexuality- just the way you seem to think is the only way to express it. Sex is not the only way to express your sexuality, and not having sex doesn't mean you stop being sexual. If you weren't in a relationship for that time and aren't into one night stands- would you have the same problem? Would you be saying your inability/lack of desire to find a partner in that time was abusing you? What about sexuals who choose celibacy? Are they abusing themselves?

I was dismayed by Rdraconian's statement that "they (asexuals) aren't hurting you(sexuals)," because the exact opposite is true.

Depends on the asexual. If sex is traumatic or painful- then sex is damn well hurting your partner and expecting them to give it is just as bad. Some people are repulsed enough that sex would be a horrible experience even if it isn't physically painful, and society's reaction that you're screwed up just because you don't want sex is extremely harmful.

Also: You just said that denying you sex is denying you your sexuality, and is abusive. So expecting asexuals to have sex is denying them their sexuality and is just as abusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexless sexual
Also: You just said that denying you sex is denying you your sexuality, and is abusive. So expecting asexuals to have sex is denying them their sexuality and is just as abusive.

Absolutely. Of course! This is, precisely, my point. Hurting the asexual is not acceptable. Neither is hurting the sexual. It is not more acceptable to hurt one over the other -- a loving, successful answer cannot rest on hurting anyone.

I get it, and have said so over and over, that it is necessary to respect, if not understand, the asexual's aversion to sex, at whatever level that aversion manifests. Beyond that limit, the couple cannot go. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that anyone who does not wish for sex should be forced to have it. If it has to be forced, then it may be sex, but it sure as hell isn't love or loving. Forcing sex is, without a doubt, abusive. Nor does it have to physical force. As Sally pointed out, emotional abuse is still abuse.

You, however, keep saying that the lack of sex for the sexual is no big deal. It doesn't "hurt." There are other substitutions. I am trying to explain to you that such an assumption is wrong. That denial of sex can and does hurt. It can and does harm. If a relationship is to work, then that harm has to be acknowledged just as much as the other. It is not surprising that you might not understand why sex is important or why its denial can be harmful; but whether you understand it or not, it remains important.

Marriage is not a 50/50 proposition. There can be no compromise. Both have to give 100% of their effort to implement what is decided by consensus. Nothing else will stand up to the pressures. Things like sex/no sex; children/no children, my religion/your religion -- these are difficult situations precisely because the options appear to be mutually exclusive. The only solution is to find the creative alternative options that both partners can embrace willingly.

Each partner has to be equally dedicated to helping oneself and one's partner. It just doesn't work any other way. That dedication doesn't happen if one partner starts with the assumption that the other's needs are not as important or dire. No matter whether it is the sexual or the asexual partner who tries to so assume.

Am I making sense, here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You, however, keep saying that the lack of sex for the sexual is no big deal. It doesn't "hurt." There are other substitutions. I am trying to explain to you that such an assumption is wrong. That denial of sex can and does hurt. It can and does harm. If a relationship is to work, then that harm has to be acknowledged just as much as the other. It is not surprising that you might not understand why sex is important or why its denial can be harmful; but whether you understand it or not, it remains important.

Where did I say that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Needhope -

I have to admit ... I've been reading these boards for years now, and I've yet to post. Your experience touches me in a really deep way, and for what it's worth, I feel like I have to offer my opinion. I hope it helps.

I had a 'love of my life,' too, about ten years ago. He was, and remains, the only man I've ever truly loved and wanted to build a life with. I was in my twenties, he in his thirties, and while there were lots of reasons why things didn't work for us, issues of sexuality - and asexuality too, I'm fairly certain - underscored our problems. When I met him, he was a virgin who shared that he was waiting to fall in love, if not to marry, and he'd never been 'in love' before ... I was/am a pretty sexual person - hypersexual then, really, for a host of not-always-healthy other reasons - so our deal pretty early on was that I was fine with virginity but that our decision to become deeply sexually involved would have to happen at the time of his choosing, since I didn't want him to feel pressured in any way.

Our relationship progressed, and we fell in love. We had great physcial chemistry and became increasingly intimate, without 'having sex.' About a year or so in, he made the choice that he was ready to make that move. And initially, everything seemed OK. Not too long after, though, he simply told me that he 'didn't want to,' and well ... That was it. He couldn't communicate the 'whys' of what he was going through to me, and at that point in my life, I didn't know that asexuality even existed or was a viable option for us to be discussing. I assumed that everyone wanted sex, and so, I thought that he was: 1.) gay OR 2.) suffering from some kind of trauma OR 3.) feeling some guilt over premarital sex OR 4.) repressed OR 5.) some combinations of all of those.

As I'm sure you've gathered, we made one another fairly unhappy for a while, and then we broke up. I was heartbroken, and confused, too. I did the best I could to move on with my life - met someone, had a child, etc. - but never, ever loved anyone again ... So far. Then, a few years ago, someone mentioned 'asexuality' to me, and immediately, I thought of my old love. It clicked. So, while I don't want to and can't speak for him, I came to these boards and learned sooo much. They were a lifesaver in helping me to resolve the issues I had really struggled with for a very long time. I hope they're providing that same support and education for you.

All that being said, here's what I want you to know. I'm so glad you've found someone you really love. I'm even happier for you that the two of you are open and honest enough with yourselves and one another to be discussing these issues now. And, while I know how hard and confusing it might be ... I can tell you with absolute certainty from my own experience that I deeply regret not knowing what you already know. I would never, ever walk away from my 'love of my life' again over sex, the lack of it, or anything else. Love - the real kind, especially - is so exceedingly rare and hard to find. Think hard before you turn away. I have every faith, hope and confidence that you can find a compromise that works for both of you, if you're both willing.

Best of luck to you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would never, ever walk away from my 'love of my life' again over sex, the lack of it, or anything else. Love - the real kind, especially - is so exceedingly rare and hard to find. Think hard before you turn away. I have every faith, hope and confidence that you can find a compromise that works for both of you, if you're both willing.

I find this interesting, because I've never had a hard time finding someone to love. This is a rabbit trail, but is love hard to find for you because you don't find most people lovable? Or is it just one of those things?

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...