Jump to content

How much of a deal-breaker is sex?


Maiandra HW

Recommended Posts

Maiandra HW

I ask because something that came up in conversation with my family today is the idea of marriage. It was kind of a weird conversation, but what it boils down to is the rest of my family was essentially of the opinion that if one partner in a marriage were to become incapable of having sex as a result of a physical injury or disease, the other person should be expected and allowed (by the impotent party) to have "affairs," if not to get a divorce outright. According to them, marriage is in no small part a "sexual contract."

I disagreed. I mean, I know, I'm asexual, so maybe I just wouldn't understand... Well, no, I guess I don't. I get in theory that sex is important to most people, and that sex is part of romantic relationships for most people. But on the real level, I still just don't get it. I get that, for whatever reason, sex shows love, trust, intimacy, romance, passion, all that good stuff. But... sex is also not the only means to show these things, to express deep, romantic love. It's an option, but it's not necessary. Or at least that's how I see it.

So I guess my question, for the sexuals (though asexuals are welcome to contribute, of course), is, why is sex considered so important? It can be great (I'm guessing, having never had it myself and not particularly wanting to have it), but if it's not the "only part of a relationship," as so many claim, why is the idea of not having it at all so often a deal breaker? What about it is essential?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I understand about sex as an asexual who was married and then had a long relationship, both with sexuals. Sex is an important part of a loving relationship for most (maybe all, but I can't answer for them) sexuals. If that important part were missing, that would alter the sexual's feeling about the relationship.

Again, my understanding is that sex is not like an ingredient in a meal, where you could do without that ingredient and just eat other things. If sex is not there, it's greatly missed.

I don't think we have to understand why sex is important to accept and respect the fact that it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Great WTF

I'm gonna be lazy and post a quote I've used in my relationship blog:

“This word NEED is problematic, here on AVEN and in general w/sex I think. Men pressure women into sex saying it’s a “need”!! Maybe women do this too, but when I was in high school especially, I got this a lot, like it was an uncontrollable thing. Ick.

But there is a real NEED with sexuality. It wants to be expressed. Maybe that’s hard to get for some. [...] Say you love to talk. To people, to groups, to yourself… But your partner has no desire to talk to you, and neither do they want you to talk to anyone else, and since they know you love to talk to yourself, they lock you up safely in a room, where you can talk to yourself all you want.

No thanks. I thinks I NEED to talk to another human being every once in a while, thank you very much. I know I’d love this to be with my partner, and while I don’t think I’ve ever used the NEED word in our discussions, I’ve come close, saying basically the same thing anyway, just struggling to have her understand how important the whole thing is to me.”

This helped give me some good perspective on how and why sex can be important to some sexuals. It can vary from person to person, just as the tendency to leave a partner incapable of sex can vary from person to person, but this is a common thread I've found. To put it into context with your question, say you NEED to talk and want desperately to talk to your partner, but your partner simply can't (or won't) listen. Should you be obligated to stay with someone that you can no longer coexist with?

And now I'm getting into the realm of flat out speculation aided by my own partner, but, for sexuals, being unable to have sex with someone you love and desire is extremely painful. Think of it like being in love with someone, knowing they love you in return, and being able to be near them, but you can't talk to them or touch them. There's a barrier between you two that prevents it. For many sexuals, that's what it's like to be with someone they can't have sex with. Even if it's not intended, it can lead to hurt feelings, feelings of inadequacy and rejection. While inability to have sex as a result of injury or illness is a slightly different set of circumstances, it's a similar principal in that it's a form of emotional torture.

I don't really condone leaving a partner because of injury, but I'm not going to say they're wrong for doing it. Relationships end for any number of reasons and no one but the people in said relationship are allowed to judge how good or bad those reasons are. If I, for whatever reason, lost my ability to have sex, I wouldn't expect my partner to stay with me. I'd be upset because it's something I will never fully understand, but I'd do my best to accept it and understand anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SpirallingSnowy

My mother-in-law to be yesterday cracked the shits - apparently on her sons behalf though he wasn't even remotely impressed - because i posted an article on my FB profile that i was in about asexuality. That its " not appropriate to be promoting that if you are getting married" and that i apparently therefore have nothing to offer her son and he should leave me......

He told her it was none of her business, but still, its crap.

So according to my mother in law - to-be, it DEFINATELY is but she wouldn't want to know whether we were having sex or not - thats just the stupid part of it..... *sigh*

It shouldn't be a deal breaker, but to a lot of sexuals it is because to them it is such an integral part of a relationship. Thats why, in my relationship, i compromise. If i couldn't compromise, i wouldn't be in this relationship because it wouldn't be fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it like being in love with someone, knowing they love you in return, and being able to be near them, but you can't talk to them or touch them. There's a barrier between you two that prevents it. For many sexuals, that's what it's like to be with someone they can't have sex with.

That's a great description.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If your spouse is injured or disabled that gives you license to carry on an affair or divorce them? What..the..fuck? God, people can be so infuriating. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

The Great WTF made good explanations. Just to add my two cents, in response to the following part:

But... sex is also not the only means to show these things, to express deep, romantic love. It's an option, but it's not necessary. Or at least that's how I see it.

If you see it this way, many other things in a relationship are also optional, like cuddling, intellectual conversations, sharing interests, or even having kids. But one person's "option" can be another person's "necessity". You probably also have some personal deal breakers that are not so important to many other people, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If your spouse is injured or disabled that gives you license to carry on an affair or divorce them? What..the..fuck? God, people can be so infuriating. :mad:

You don't need license to end a relationship or a marriage. If one person doesn't want to continue it, the other person can't compel them to. Marriages are mutual relationships, not prisons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to remember that ‘sexuals’ are far from a homogeneous demographic. Sex doesn’t mean the same thing to different sexuals – not all of them value it to the same extent, or for the same reasons. Therefore the lack of sex within a romantic relationship may or may not be a deal-breaker. If one partner in a given relationship values sex enormously, he or she shouldn’t be frowned upon for leaving because of that reason. It is just how they’re wired, and they may only begin to think differently well into their golden years (..or not). It can be exceedingly difficult for us aces/greys to grasp this, and I’ve simply been accepting it as a brute fact of the human condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemonade299

I really do think about this topic a lot as well. To me, it is depressing, because I mean, how many other people are going to even understand asexuals? We don't understand how sex is such a large component and I seriously have some doubts that it really should be. There is so much more to bring to a relationship, imho, besides sex. There are so many ways closeness and intimacy can be created without sex, I think. I have had an extremely emotional connection with people minus the sex and I can't understand why that cannot be developed by others. I think it really does vary by person and it isn't always a deal-breaker, some people just love others for who they are, not whether they'll have sex with them or not.. It's hard to know though for how many people it is deal breakers for. What does that mean for us? How much searching will it take to find someone like us? It's a sad prospect for me. Extremely sad. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ace McHeeb

In the beginning - yes. If I first meet a girl and she's all over me and I don't know her (let's say at a bar/nightclub), then YES. I'll turn around and walk away. If I'm in a committed relationship, and my SO looks at me and asks me for it, I will do my best to make her happy. I won't initiate (I don't have it in me) but if you love someone, you sometimes have to make compromises. I would never intentionally get into a relationship with some I know craves sex on a regular basis; and I would make it clear from the beginning that it's not that important to me BUT I will do whatever it takes to make her happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes a + s couples can make things work, but it requires compromise, which means sex at least sometimes. I honestly DON´T believe a sexless relationship is possible for sexuals. I don´t get why sex is so important for them but I believe it is important when they say it.

If you´re sex-repulsed and unwilling to have sex completely, I would recommend you to search for asexual partner.

As I see it, people often dump their partner just because they don´t want to do certain sexual practices, or because they don´t want to have sex as often as them... It´s sad but I think sexuals who are able to handle a relationship with asexuals are even more rare than asexuals.

I would never date sexual. In my case, mixed relationship would end very badly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexualwithasexual

The original question was about marriage, not so much about sexual's need for sex.

So, as a sexual, I'll explain some things that I understand. (I'm a lesbian and not married, but in a 17 year relationship that is mixed and non-sexual at this point, so a sexual CAN stick in a non-sexual relationship!)

When I first discovered sexual feelings, I felt that I "got" the whole marriage idea on a new level (I was 12). I realized that you got married to one special person, so that you could have sex freely and easily whenever you both wanted! (I knew all the other reasons too of course.) It seemed dreamy! I masturbated and had a feeling that sex was even better, and that if you were married, it was a way to "officially" be lovers forever. (Unless you decided for some reason that it wasn't working - then you could divorce). Not to be flippant, but this is really how I saw it. This was when I was 12, remember. But that's essentially it. People mostly marry with the idea that it will ensure that their lover (whom they enjoy many things with, but sex would be the ultimate shared experience) would stay faithful to them (whatever that means to the both of them - could include "messing around with rules".. who knows!)

Simple. Another thing to mention - people can leave relationships for whatever reason they want! Whenever they want. It may seem "sad" or "unfair" but what's the flip side? Be bound forever in an unhappy relationship? Please see that sometimes leaving a relationship is the most generous thing someone can do for themselves and their partner, if they are unhappy for ANY reason, not just sex.

phew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maiandra HW

The original question was about marriage, not so much about sexual's need for sex.

So, as a sexual, I'll explain some things that I understand. (I'm a lesbian and not married, but in a 17 year relationship that is mixed and non-sexual at this point, so a sexual CAN stick in a non-sexual relationship!)

When I first discovered sexual feelings, I felt that I "got" the whole marriage idea on a new level (I was 12). I realized that you got married to one special person, so that you could have sex freely and easily whenever you both wanted! (I knew all the other reasons too of course.) It seemed dreamy! I masturbated and had a feeling that sex was even better, and that if you were married, it was a way to "officially" be lovers forever. (Unless you decided for some reason that it wasn't working - then you could divorce). Not to be flippant, but this is really how I saw it. This was when I was 12, remember. But that's essentially it. People mostly marry with the idea that it will ensure that their lover (whom they enjoy many things with, but sex would be the ultimate shared experience) would stay faithful to them (whatever that means to the both of them - could include "messing around with rules".. who knows!)

Simple. Another thing to mention - people can leave relationships for whatever reason they want! Whenever they want. It may seem "sad" or "unfair" but what's the flip side? Be bound forever in an unhappy relationship? Please see that sometimes leaving a relationship is the most generous thing someone can do for themselves and their partner, if they are unhappy for ANY reason, not just sex.

phew.

Thanks for the reply! And yeah, I know there could be lots of reasons for leaving a relationship that are perfectly valid.

I was amused by your story about coming to better understand marriage at the age of 12 due to the emergence of sexual feelings, not because what you said was funny, but because that's the exact opposite of what happened to me at around that age! When I learned about sex at maybe 10 years old or so, my thoughts were, "Wow, they must really love each other to be able to do something that disgusting and not break up. No wonder people say to wait until marriage to have sex and kids." I don't think I really got, until late middle school or maybe even high school, that people actually enjoyed having sex and didn't do it out of some "duty," but because they really wanted to.

I'm gonna be lazy and post a quote I've used in my relationship blog:

“This word NEED is problematic, here on AVEN and in general w/sex I think. Men pressure women into sex saying it’s a “need”!! Maybe women do this too, but when I was in high school especially, I got this a lot, like it was an uncontrollable thing. Ick.

But there is a real NEED with sexuality. It wants to be expressed. Maybe that’s hard to get for some. [...] Say you love to talk. To people, to groups, to yourself… But your partner has no desire to talk to you, and neither do they want you to talk to anyone else, and since they know you love to talk to yourself, they lock you up safely in a room, where you can talk to yourself all you want.

No thanks. I thinks I NEED to talk to another human being every once in a while, thank you very much. I know I’d love this to be with my partner, and while I don’t think I’ve ever used the NEED word in our discussions, I’ve come close, saying basically the same thing anyway, just struggling to have her understand how important the whole thing is to me.”

This helped give me some good perspective on how and why sex can be important to some sexuals. It can vary from person to person, just as the tendency to leave a partner incapable of sex can vary from person to person, but this is a common thread I've found. To put it into context with your question, say you NEED to talk and want desperately to talk to your partner, but your partner simply can't (or won't) listen. Should you be obligated to stay with someone that you can no longer coexist with?

And now I'm getting into the realm of flat out speculation aided by my own partner, but, for sexuals, being unable to have sex with someone you love and desire is extremely painful. Think of it like being in love with someone, knowing they love you in return, and being able to be near them, but you can't talk to them or touch them. There's a barrier between you two that prevents it. For many sexuals, that's what it's like to be with someone they can't have sex with. Even if it's not intended, it can lead to hurt feelings, feelings of inadequacy and rejection. While inability to have sex as a result of injury or illness is a slightly different set of circumstances, it's a similar principal in that it's a form of emotional torture.

I don't really condone leaving a partner because of injury, but I'm not going to say they're wrong for doing it. Relationships end for any number of reasons and no one but the people in said relationship are allowed to judge how good or bad those reasons are. If I, for whatever reason, lost my ability to have sex, I wouldn't expect my partner to stay with me. I'd be upset because it's something I will never fully understand, but I'd do my best to accept it and understand anyway.

Thanks! The analogy you gave was interesting, it made me understand a better, I think, what sex is to most people in relationships. And yeah, I'd imagine that if I couldn't do something I wanted to do to show my love for someone, it'd be really frustrating.

Kind of depressing, though, that by not wanting sex I'd be "emotionally torturing" my partner (if I had one) if he/she were sexual. Obviously, this would be something we'd talk about, but still. :mellow:

Thanks for the replies, everyone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to echo Sexualwithasexual here. The original post was about whether or not marriage was a sex contract. I say, yes it is, to an extent. It's a lot of other things too, but is sex included in that? Hells yes!

When you marry someone, unless there has been discussion and agreement otherwise, the default assumption is that marriage = a sexual relationship. Marriage doesn't have to mean that, but, like I said, unless it's been discussed, that'll be the general assumption. If you enter into a marriage and it's a sexual relationship, then it's legitimate for someone to feel their marriage agreement has been violated if the sex suddenly stops. The question of whether or not it's morally right for one partner to have affairs while the other convalesces... I'd say that's a case-by-case scenario. Surely getting married doesn't automatically mean someone signed up to be a hospice nurse for the majority of their marriage. At the same time, marriage is meant to be a lifetime partnership for exactly that reason, so that people will be cared for in the event of tragedy.

I would probably have affairs if my partner became physically incapable. I'm sure she'd be fine with it. I doubt I'd leave. Of course, this is all speculation since I've never been in that situation, and I know enough to know that what we think we're going to feel and what we actually feel are generally quite different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of depressing, though, that by not wanting sex I'd be "emotionally torturing" my partner (if I had one) if he/she were sexual. Obviously, this would be something we'd talk about, but still. :mellow:

You wouldn't be torturing your partner; they would feel very bad, and so would you. If you had sex with your partner but hated it, your partner wouldn't be torturing you. The differences between the two of you would make you both unhappy. No one who is simply being themself is torturing anyone else; the fit just doesn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of depressing, though, that by not wanting sex I'd be "emotionally torturing" my partner (if I had one) if he/she were sexual. Obviously, this would be something we'd talk about, but still. :mellow:

You wouldn't be torturing your partner; they would feel very bad, and so would you. If you had sex with your partner but hated it, your partner wouldn't be torturing you. The differences between the two of you would make you both unhappy. No one who is simply being themself is torturing anyone else; the fit just doesn't work.

We should have this sentence pinned too.

Also, Maiandra, unless you lie or trick your partner into thinking there's going to be tons of sex and then, surprise, no sex, I wouldn't worry about it. It's important for both parties to a relationship have a decent working knowledge of the expectations of the other prior to making a commitment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why be in a relationship with someone who's not meeting your critical relationships needs. I wouldn't be in a romantic relationship with no sex, especially if monogamy was expected. As the OP said sex is an expression of love, trust, intimacy, romance, passion. And yes there are other things that can show these, but it's in no way a option. As a sexual person those other options will feel empty and meaningless if sex is absent. It's just one of those things that if you don't get why you just won't ever get it no matter how someone explains it to you. Can someone who is blind appreciate art from an explanation, can someone who is deaf appreciate music by having it explained to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If your spouse is injured or disabled that gives you license to carry on an affair or divorce them? What..the..fuck? God, people can be so infuriating. :mad:

You don't need license to end a relationship or a marriage. If one person doesn't want to continue it, the other person can't compel them to. Marriages are mutual relationships, not prisons.

There's nothing mutual about an affair. I appear to be alone but I still say someone who cheats on and/or divorces their spouses after a severe injury because they can't get sex anymore is a terrible person. I thought a marriage was partly about having someone there to get through hard times with. A "sexual contract"? You can have sex whenever you want, what's the point of getting married if that's all it is? And what about me? Do these people (the OPs relatives) think I can't get married because I'm not interested in the same things they are? We've already seen same-sex marriage rights taken away? Are asexuals going to be next? The whole idea is so offensive and ridiculous on so many levels. -_-

Link to post
Share on other sites
*killer*queen*

Even realizing that sex is an important thing to a lot of people, in and out of marriage, I don’t believe “no sex”, no matter the circumstances should be a deal breaker on its own. To me, that would diminish the marriage itself. Why did you get married? If sex is suddenly not on the table (within reason, not like, one decides they don’t want it without any explanation whatsoever), what about whatever else bonds you together? Is that just convenient and a plus when you’re getting sex? Annoyance and to be spit on when you’re not? I’ve always viewed marriage as far more than just “Hey, I want sex tonight and I’ve got someone to have it with! Go me!” First, and foremost, it’s about the bond you have with that person. Bonds aren’t made during sex alone and the beginnings of them don’t start there for some, but in everyday things.

We don’t live in medieval times where it didn’t matter if you even knew each other before you were married and it was regarded as a social contract/social “upgrading” instead of a commitment to a relationship. I could understand going outside the marriage to meet your needs if it was due to a permanent health issue and you had talked about it…to an extent, at least. To me, an “affair” under any circumstances is dangerous water to tread. And as you get older, things change. I’m not saying older people don’t still enjoy sex…but it can often take a different priority in your later years than when you were 20-30. Those bonds can become the center of your whole world. So what you think is important to you now in a marriage, may not be the same later; don’t throw something that otherwise works away because you’re not getting any. Quite frankly, if that was the big draw for you to even be in the relationship in the first place, you shouldn’t be married.

Again, not saying that I don’t understand how important sex can be. I’m sure for sexuals it can place a lot of strain to be in such a committed relationship without sex. I also believe such a relationship should be about FAR more than the sex and if that’s a “deal breaker” for you, don’t ever get married.

Granted, I’m Ace and never been married, so what the hell do I know? Just my own personal viewpoint on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sexualwithasexual

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If your spouse is injured or disabled that gives you license to carry on an affair or divorce them? What..the..fuck? God, people can be so infuriating. :mad:

You don't need license to end a relationship or a marriage. If one person doesn't want to continue it, the other person can't compel them to. Marriages are mutual relationships, not prisons.

There's nothing mutual about an affair. I appear to be alone but I still say someone who cheats on and/or divorces their spouses after a severe injury because they can't get sex anymore is a terrible person. I thought a marriage was partly about having someone there to get through hard times with. A "sexual contract"? You can have sex whenever you want, what's the point of getting married if that's all it is? And what about me? Do these people (the OPs relatives) think I can't get married because I'm not interested in the same things they are? We've already seen same-sex marriage rights taken away? Are asexuals going to be next? The whole idea is so offensive and ridiculous on so many levels. -_-

I think this is just one of those things where people will come down very differently, depending on the situation. I agree with Skullery on that. I know if I suddenly became disabled and couldn't do something with my partner that equated something deeply, deeply important to her, I'd be okay with her getting her fill elsewhere. I don't think it'd be super easy for me, and I would require some rules, but marriage means different things for me than it does for you. I would also not expect my partner to be my nurse. If she chose to do that, great, but we don't assume that one of us would give up our lives in that situation necessarily. But this is because of how we were raised, how our families dealt with those situations, etc. Your assumptions around marriage are quite different and as long as your future partner understands all of that and is with you on it, you're fine!

But I do agree that the majority of folks out there are going to think of marriage as something that involves in some way, shape or form, exclusive sexual experiences with their spouse.

An affair could be mutual. It could be mutually agreed on as (and many couples do do this) a don't ask don't tell kind of thing, or an experiment. Some couples allow for affairs only during out of town travel. There are many scenarios. I'm not sure how common they are or how well they end up working in the long run, but the point is that people CAN mutually decide to have affairs and DO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even realizing that sex is an important thing to a lot of people, in and out of marriage, I dont believe no sex, no matter the circumstances should be a deal breaker on its own.

..I appear to be alone but I still say someone who cheats on and/or divorces their spouses after a severe injury because they can't get sex anymore is a terrible person. I thought a marriage was partly about having someone there to get through hard times with. A "sexual contract"? You can have sex whenever you want, what's the point of getting married if that's all it is?

Based on my understanding of marriage, I agree with the two of you all the way. To me, marriage is a primarily emotional commitment that should transcend sex. If sex is the pillar supporting most marriages, I'd imagine a lot more older couples would part ways the moment it stops being a concern. If you know you won't stay with someone the moment sex is withheld for some reason, you simply don't feel enough for that person to justify marriage. But that's just me. There seem to be as many differences of opinion regarding the institution of marriage as there are people who've replied to this thread, and who's to say any one of them is wrong? A partner's perspectives / priorities / emotions may also change during the course of a marriage; people just don't stay the same forever.

An affair could be mutual. It could be mutually agreed on as (and many couples do do this) a don't ask don't tell kind of thing, or an experiment. Some couples allow for affairs only during out of town travel. There are many scenarios. I'm not sure how common they are or how well they end up working in the long run, but the point is that people CAN mutually decide to have affairs and DO.

Based on the fact that most sexuals perceive sex as an act of intimacy, I suspect that affairs are going to be detrimental to the marriage in most cases. I seriously doubt the capability of most (not all) sexuals to keep an indomitable brick wall between sex and a degree of emotional involvement with the third party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A marriage is not a prison to which people are sentenced for life, no matter how circumstances or their feelings change. It is a living, breathing entity, and it changes as they change.

Rather than making statements about what marriage must be, and how people must behave forever in their marriage, it might be best to admit that it's up to those two people to make their own decisions. It's their marriage, not anyone else's. It's especially important to not make global statements when you haven't experienced marriage -- there's simply no way to understand if you haven't. And yes, I mean that: you don't learn what marriage is by reading about it, watching your parents, or talking to someone. That's all from the outside. It's an experience, not a class or a textbook.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If your spouse is injured or disabled that gives you license to carry on an affair or divorce them? What..the..fuck? God, people can be so infuriating. :mad:

You don't need license to end a relationship or a marriage. If one person doesn't want to continue it, the other person can't compel them to. Marriages are mutual relationships, not prisons.

There's nothing mutual about an affair. I appear to be alone but I still say someone who cheats on and/or divorces their spouses after a severe injury because they can't get sex anymore is a terrible person. I thought a marriage was partly about having someone there to get through hard times with. A "sexual contract"? You can have sex whenever you want, what's the point of getting married if that's all it is? And what about me? Do these people (the OPs relatives) think I can't get married because I'm not interested in the same things they are? We've already seen same-sex marriage rights taken away? Are asexuals going to be next? The whole idea is so offensive and ridiculous on so many levels. -_-

Cheating and divorcing are very different things and, in my opinion, completely different morally. Everyone has the right to evaluate their relationship and leave if their needs aren't being met. Cheating, however, isn't the same as simply leaving because needs are not longer being met, but involves a grievous betrayal of trust towards the one you're supposed to love the most. Having an open or poly relationship, is also very different than having an affair as, in that case, all parties are knowledgeable and accepting of the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, sex (or lack thereof) can absolutely be a dealbreaker for some people. It's a difficult concept for asexuals to grasp, since to us, giving up sex would simply be no big deal.

All we can do is accept the reality that the majority of people on this planet feel differently than we do about this issue, and that's just the way it is. :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

People have said in the thread that there are other ways to share intimacy than sex. And I want to state than yes, there are, but to some sexuals (I can't be sure it's all), they are so linked to sex that the absence of sex makes you question the rest.

For instance, imagine you like having discussion with a person. They tell you "okay, we can talk, but you must never look at me". Sure, you'd be able to carry a conversation, and it might even be interesting, but you'd always have in the back of your head that "why can't I look? Why?" and if you know the reason (because of an accident of some sort) it would still be hard to remember not to look even though you really want to, and that would affect the quality of your conversation.

And in the end, even though looking at each other isn't the main part of having a conversation, knowing you can't do it would kind of ruin it for you.

And it's not something that a blind person would relate to or understand, but it's still true of most people who can see.

I think if your partner has an accident, you need to support them and help them. But I don't think you need to remain their partner if it makes you miserable. I think you can become their close friend instead, and still be there for them. For a lot of sexuals, sex is such a strong component of romantic relationship that if you remove it, they'll think of it as a friendship instead. And if you're married to someone who is now your friend, well, divorcing makes sense. They're your friend, not your partner. That doesn't mean you stop loving them or that you won't be there for them, but your relationship has evolved and divorce might reflect these changes better.

As for cheating, I think sometimes people want to stay in a marriage because they thing it's the right thing to do (not abandon their spouse, stay there for their kids) but the lack of sex is making them miserable, and affecting their ability to care for their spouse and children. So they have sex on the side, feel better, and work all the more on helping their partner and caring for their children. I don't think the lie is good, but I can understand if they think their partner knowing about it would only hurt them, which they don't need right now.

It might sound like a sad and horrible thought, but I do believe that a partner who cheats can in some cases be a better partner than one who doesn't cheat and is so miserable they're no support at all, or one who leaves and as a result leaves their partner to care for kids while being sick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

When I think of how a sexual perceives sex in a relationship, I think of how I perceive cuddling. For me, its not a relationship if I am unable to show that physical affection. I need touches, caresses, to be held and I need that often. Every day I see my partner, I need those little physical signs of my partner's love for me and without those, its not much of a relationship to me.

This is how I imagine many sexuals view sex in the context of a relationship. While it might be possible to technically have a relationship without it, it may not feel like a truly satisfying relationship without it. For me, having something that I can relate it to within my own context of understanding, helps me to understand that it is an important thing to many people; just as important as my need for physical touch in a relationship is to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

When I think of how a sexual perceives sex in a relationship, I think of how I perceive cuddling. For me, its not a relationship if I am unable to show that physical affection. I need touches, caresses, to be held and I need that often. Every day I see my partner, I need those little physical signs of my partner's love for me and without those, its not much of a relationship to me.

This is how I imagine many sexuals view sex in the context of a relationship. While it might be possible to technically have a relationship without it, it may not feel like a truly satisfying relationship without it. For me, having something that I can relate it to within my own context of understanding, helps me to understand that it is an important thing to many people; just as important as my need for physical touch in a relationship is to me.

Very true. That's basically what my sexual partner says about his need for sex - it's essential for him, just like cuddling or meaningful conversations are essential for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

When I think of how a sexual perceives sex in a relationship, I think of how I perceive cuddling. For me, its not a relationship if I am unable to show that physical affection. I need touches, caresses, to be held and I need that often. Every day I see my partner, I need those little physical signs of my partner's love for me and without those, its not much of a relationship to me.

This is how I imagine many sexuals view sex in the context of a relationship. While it might be possible to technically have a relationship without it, it may not feel like a truly satisfying relationship without it. For me, having something that I can relate it to within my own context of understanding, helps me to understand that it is an important thing to many people; just as important as my need for physical touch in a relationship is to me.

This makes too much sense. Damn it! :P

(I can totally relate. But for whatever reason I can't help trying to intellectualise ways to make the case for sex not being necessary in relationships. And I'm not even fully ace, I'm demisexual)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Personally I think it depends on the sexual. Some people experience sexual attraction but are uninterested in sex due to trauma or unable just in general. Other people can take it or leave it, the desire is there but they don't feel unable/unwilling to abstain. I believe the notion of "sexual contract" is extremely outdated and problematic, and can do some great damage. You never "owe" anyone sex, however I think it is important to negotiate what your sexual expectations are versus what your partner's are long before a marriage takes place. Even between two sexuals, there's a possibility that one will value say - oral sex regularly and the other will find oral sex repulsive. Sexual/intimate compatibility is not guaranteed even between sexual partners. Just remember that your approach is valid, and the right person for you will respect it. Have you thought about dating another asexual or perhaps even a gray-asexual?

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...