Sexual Compromise & Support

[MrDane]

2 minutes ago, vega57 said:

But you already said elsewhere on this forum that sex was kind of an 'addiction' for you (and for a lot of sexuals, I suppose).  Aren't you then looking toward your spouse to feed your addiction?  

Rigth! Like a scratch that needs to be scratched, but I cant reach it on my own.  It can only really be reached and scratched through love and partnership.

”you complete me, you make me a better person” sounds better than “I could easily do without you”

[vega57]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Your point was that maybe sexual people should detach their idea of being desirable from whether their partner wants to have sex with them.

Sure.  Why not?  At least if they didn't attach so much weight to sex impacting their self-esteem, it wouldn't bother them if they didn't get it.  Oh, they may still want it.  But they might not feel 'depressed', or 'worthless' if they didn't get it.  

 

Quote

Mine is that it would be just as realistic to say to someone whose spouse constantly shuts them down that they should detach their self image from constantly being shut down.

If someone shuts me down only a few times, I'm walking away.  The difference is, that I'm not about to feel "worthless" or "depressed" while walking away.  

 

Quote

In both cases, one partner is inferring their partners attitude towards them from their behaviour - that they're not sexually desirable, or not worth listening to. No more than that. 

Ok, but why put so much weight on whether or not you're sexually desirable?  What does it represent to you?  Youth?  Vitality?  Validation?  All of the above?  Other?  I guess I'm trying to figure out why it's more important to get those feelings from someone else than to give them to yourself...?

[ryn2]

45 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It is inferior to sex, for everyone except asexuals. 

...for some of whom it’s far preferable to sex, hence the confusion.

[ryn2]

I thought about Pre-Cana when I mentioned college but, yeah, when the church in question’s official position is that sex is for procreation and expressly not for enjoyment I have to assume those particular teachings aren’t all that helpful.

 

It’s tough.  Some people have no interest in sex from a very young age but others do have an interest and probably don’t realize they’re not typical initially.

[ryn2]

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

Often confusion. Occasionally it seems like wilful obtuseness...

It probably does seem that way but - speaking just for myself here - if sex lacks... whatever it gives you but not me... then the fastest, simplest means to the end of getting one’s orgasm fix (to stop that “itching”) is the most desirable one.

[vega57]

2 minutes ago, MrDane said:

Rigth! Like a scratch that needs to be scratched, but I cant reach it on my own.  

How can you not reach it on your own?  Didn't God invent back-scratchers for those moments?  

 

Quote

 

It can only really be reached and scratched through love and partnership.

 

”you complete me, you make me a better person” sounds better than “I could easily do without you”

 

The fact is, that I could easily do without someone in my life.  Does that mean that I don't need anyone?  Of course not!  I need people every day!  I just don't need them on a full-time basis, nor do I need them for sexual intimacy.  I get enough intimacy from my God, family and friends.  

[vega57]

46 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

You're right, it's not entirely rational, but it's no less real for that, and no more fair to be dismissed as any other feeling.

Not so much being dismissed as being questioned.  

 

Quote

And since we're talking about most of the population feeling this way, it's hardly some psychological quirk or weird neurosis. 

Frankly Tele, you and I both have no idea what "most of the population" feels.  

 

But there are people in the professional world who agree that there are a LOT of messed up, insecure, immature people out there AND that they shouldn't be in relationships, let alone married, in the first place.  

[ryn2]

22 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

@Sally will know better than me, but I'm fairly sure Judaism thinks sex is a good thing in itself, and most of other Christian churches have figured out that it's a positive part of marriage, and the more liberal ones are fairly realistic that sex outside marriage isn't always a bad thing either. 

Agreed that the RC church seems to be alone in its attitudes towards sex.  It’s just the only denomination with mandatory pre-marriage classes where I live.

[vega57]

18 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

Agreed that the RC church seems to be alone in its attitudes towards sex.  It’s just the only denomination with mandatory pre-marriage classes where I live.

The RC church has been adapting a new attitude toward sexuality for several decades, albeit sllllooooowwwwwllllyyy.  For instance, they acknowledge that many couples DO live together before marriage and some of them even already had children together.  They're concentrating less on the 'sin' and more on a realistic future between the couple.  If a Catholic man revealed that he believed that a 'good marriage' involved having sex every day, Pre-Cana would challenge that belief, citing it as "unrealistic".  They might discourage the couple from marrying, at least postponing the wedding until the man/couple had a chance to explore the man's attitude toward sex.  While they may encourage sex in marriage, they don't do it to the degree to where it becomes abusive.  After all, a wife isn't supposed to be taken in 'lust' but in honor.  

 

In other words, a marriage license isn't a license to take advantage of a spouse or to be 'greedy' when it comes to sex.  

[ryn2]

Glad to hear it’s becoming more useful over time!

[MrDane]

8 hours ago, vega57 said:

How can you not reach it on your own?  Didn't God invent back-scratchers for those moments?  

 

The fact is, that I could easily do without someone in my life.  Does that mean that I don't need anyone?  Of course not!  I need people every day!  I just don't need them on a full-time basis, nor do I need them for sexual intimacy.  I get enough intimacy from my God, family and friends.  

I cherish and value my wife and family. I love them dearly. My wife is my significant other. I miss my family, if I am away for long. Being with them makes me happy and my biggest goal in life is to make them happy too. I do not require sex all the time to function or be happy. I just need some loving to keep me afloat. 

 

About the back-scratchers! Any device for masturbation can provide new and exciting ways to stimulate my genitals and perhaps my fantasy. It can get that job done. It does not give anything on the emotional level nor does it keep the depression much away. Sometimes it even backfires into a mere feeling of being pathetic and lonely as you venture off to have your alone time in a secret place. I think, what your God gave us sexuals, was an addiction for partnered sex. At least that is how we are hardwired and function the best.

 

I would never choose ‘no family’

I would never choose ‘no sex’

I will never cheat or lie.

I dont want to take medication to change who I basically am.

I could be ‘forced’ to find strange options that will somehow include all of those four things, and it could result in a life I am sincerly not interested in living.

[ryn2]

I’m sure this doesn’t apply universally but your - @MrDane - mention of hardwiring and the earlier reference to endorphins made me wonder...

 

My body doesn’t seem to react to things in that class the way some others’ do.  Even when I was a distance runner, I never got “runner’s high” - I just slogged through the pain.  The few times I’ve had opiods during or after surgery I’ve not felt high/good, just ridiculously nauseated.

 

That wouldn’t explain why I find sex “unbonding” rather than bonding but it could be a factor in my overall less-than-wowed-ness.

[NapoliGirl]

5 hours ago, MrDane said:

 

 

About the back-scratchers! Any device for masturbation can provide new and exciting ways to stimulate my genitals and perhaps my fantasy. It can get that job done. It does not give anything on the emotional level nor does it keep the depression much away. Sometimes it even backfires into a mere feeling of being pathetic and lonely as you venture off to have your alone time in a secret place. I think, what your God gave us sexuals, was an addiction for partnered sex. At least that is how we are hardwired and function the best.

 

 

You said this so very well!  Exactly spot on as to how I relate to the back-scratchers concept, especially the aspect of it causing feeling pathetic and lonely.  Oh goodness, that's what it's all about for me.  And every time I have a conversation afterwards with myself about how very sad I feel.  It is so difficult going against the way we are hardwired, isn't it?  For all of us, any sexual orientation.  For me that is the crux of the matter. It hurts.

[vega57]

3 hours ago, MrDane said:

I cherish and value my wife and family. I love them dearly. My wife is my significant other. I miss my family, if I am away for long. Being with them makes me happy and my biggest goal in life is to make them happy too. I do not require sex all the time to function or be happy. I just need some loving to keep me afloat. 

 

That's very sweet...and loving to hear!  

 

Quote

 

About the back-scratchers! Any device for masturbation can provide new and exciting ways to stimulate my genitals and perhaps my fantasy. It can get that job done. 

 

LOL!  I don't even want to know what you do with your 'back scratcher'!  

 

Quote

It does not give anything on the emotional level nor does it keep the depression much away. Sometimes it even backfires into a mere feeling of being pathetic and lonely as you venture off to have your alone time in a secret place.

Hmm.  I've actually been looking at what I bolded for about 40 minutes, trying to 'get into' how you might feel.  It's hard for me to imagine.  I mean, I've never really felt lonely.  I don't see being alone as synonymous with being lonely.  I recall my late husband once telling me that he hated being 'alone and lonely'.  And now that I think about it, I can recall a number of sexuals I've known who have said almost the exact same thing.  Virtually all of them hated living alone.  Once again, I never had that issue.  But as I continue to think about this...

 

Perhaps part of it is the feeling of not being "needed" that arouses those other feelings inside you.  At least, not being needed the way you want to be needed...?  Used to drive me nuts when my late husband would call me to his side claiming that he 'needed' me for something that he could have obviously easily done himself (I'm talking non-sexual here).  He also told me long ago that he hated my "independence".

 

It's funny (strange).  You see yourself as being "pathetic and lonely" if you took care of yourself.  Meanwhile, someone like *me* wouldn't see you like that at all.  I'd see you as someone who knows himself well enough to take care of his own needs and who has self-mastery over himself.  It's a quality I would actually admire; not look down upon.  

Quote

I think, what your God gave us sexuals, was an addiction for partnered sex. At least that is how we are hardwired and function the best.

I'm not to sure about that.  After all, what was life like before you had your first sexual encounter?  Before you even knew what sex was?   

Quote

 

I would never choose ‘no family’

I would never choose ‘no sex’

I will never cheat or lie.

I dont want to take medication to change who I basically am.

I could be ‘forced’ to find strange options that will somehow include all of those four things, and it could result in a life I am sincerly not interested in living.

 

Believe it or not, I wouldn't have chosen those things either (!).  I obviously DID have sex.  It was how I was able to have 4 beautiful children (all now adults).  I was never into drugs so I never had to worry about being 'addicted' to anything.  I've been with other people who had addictions, and it's pretty awful to watch.  

 

Your whole idea of being "pathetic and lonely" really has me thinking...not in a sad way, but in a curious way.  

 

I wonder what it's all about.  

[vega57]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

@vega57

So if you're not being dismissive, just questioning, which bits of a sexual person's sexual needs are you taking seriously and not dismissing?

First of all, I don't see them as "needs", but rather "wants".  To me, there's a difference.  So, I won't be convinced that sex is a "need"...unless, your intention is to procreate. THEN I could see sex as a "need". 

 

Quote

Because it often seems like most of your comments are borne of an attitude that these silly sexual people shouldn't be so shallow, they're making a fuss about nothing, and should just stop whingeing, which is about as dismissive as a person can be. 

I really hate it when you put words in my mouth, Tele.  I never referred or inferred that sexuals are "silly people" or that ALL of them are "shallow".  Some sexuals are very shallow.  Some asexuals, bi, lesbians, trannies, etc. are also very shallow, yadda, yadda, yadda.  

 

Quote

For instance, you probably know the background of myself and MrDane reasonably well. Which bits do you sympathise with? I'm after a specific list rather than a blanket denial followed by more dismissal, whataboutery, and changing the subject. 

First of all, you're making a sweeping assumption right away.  I don't know all of *your* background, nor do I know @MrDane's  You and @MrDane are in similar situations in that, neither of you is getting the sex you want when you want it with who you want it from.  That's all I have to work with.  

 

Meanwhile, you asked me what "bits I sympathize with".  

 

1.  The idea that you both say you "need" sex in order to feel "love".  

2.  That you're both depressed (and at least, *you* are angry) because you're not getting what you believe you "need".

3.  That neither of you has seemed to find a way to find love or feel good about yourselves without sex.

4.  That both of you seem to rely on someone else  (a.k.a. sex for validation) for your self-esteem.  

5.  That you can't seem to enjoy life...your spouse...your family...food...work...friends...  even yourself, without sex.  That you seem to be so obsessed with the ONE thing you don't have that it colors what you do have.  

 

At the end of your life, do you really think that one of your major regrets is that you didn't have enough sex?

 

 

 

 

 

[ryn2]

38 minutes ago, vega57 said:

At the end of your life, do you really think that one of your major regrets is that you didn't have enough sex?

This regret is nearly word-for-word the primary reason my SO has given for why we likely can’t stay together... although by enough he probably means “that’s fulfilling to both parties.”

[Alejandrogynous]

4 hours ago, vega57 said:

First of all, I don't see them as "needs", but rather "wants".  To me, there's a difference.  So, I won't be convinced that sex is a "need"...unless, your intention is to procreate. THEN I could see sex as a "need". 

There's a difference between needs in order to stay alive (food, water, shelter), and needs people have in order to be happy, healthy, and fulfilled in life.

 

Example: I'm an introvert. I need alone time to recharge, or else I turn into an exhausted, anxious mess. My home won't get cleaned, I won't eat right or take care of myself, my work will suffer. Will I die without alone time? No. Do I still need it to function? Yes. Needs exist beyond what you will physically die without.

[ryn2]

38 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

There's a difference between needs in order to stay alive (food, water, shelter), and needs people have in order to be happy, healthy, and fulfilled in life.

 

Example: I'm an introvert. I need alone time to recharge, or else I turn into an exhausted, anxious mess. My home won't get cleaned, I won't eat right or take care of myself, my work will suffer. Will I die without alone time? No. Do I still need it to function? Yes. Needs exist beyond what you will physically die without.

It’s too bad there isn’t a third term - that covers things required in order to thrive - in between “needs” (in the survival sense) and “wants.”

[anamikanon]

6 hours ago, vega57 said:

First of all, I don't see them as "needs", but rather "wants".  To me, there's a difference.  So, I won't be convinced that sex is a "need"...unless, your intention is to procreate. THEN I could see sex as a "need". 

Incidentally, you don't "need" sex to procreate either. You only need an egg and sperm. If you are otherwise healthy, getting your partner to masturbate and provide semen to insert will work. Artificial insemination exists, so the sperm also doesn't "need" to enter your body. Also surrogacy, for that matter, so you don't even "need" to be pregnant to procreate. For that matter, procreation itself is not a "need", merely an ability. No one dies from not having kids.

 

There is a massive logical flaw here, when "needs" are assumed to be needs for survival. A "need" is basically a mandatory condition/requirement for something to happen. It can be "need for survival" or "need for comfort" or "Need fuel to run car" - Car won't self destruct without fuel, but it won't run either. So, to use the car, you NEED fuel. Need is defined by purpose. Even on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which someone dumped here and caused a lot of confusion, right up to the top, job, opportunity, achievement, recognition are all NEEDS. The whole triangle is a hierarchy of NEEDS. Not just the bottom "needs for survival".

 

Having sex won't kill an ace either, so the "need" to not have sex while expecting everything else from relationship is also about comfort, and not survival.

 

You don't "need" electricity to survive. Or, for that matter, money. You could beg for food, stay on streets or go into the wilderness and so on. For that matter, you don't need food daily to survive either. Most humans, unless they are seriously low on body mass can easily survive eating once a week. Happily? No. But eating daily is not a "need" either. Or, for that matter, drinking water DAILY. You could drink every alternate day. 

 

Most of us have a goal beyond surviving. We want to survive with joy, with comfort, and so on. So you need to eat daily and yes, you need that electricity - to live comfortably. And yes, sexuals NEED sex like that. To be happy and fulfilled. If you got into a relationship with an ace miser who refused to feed you more than once a week, because you didn't "need" more than that, would you believe he loved you? Note, you definitely won't die. And yes, he promises to feed you if your body fat drops dangerously low. You'd probably dump him (and you should), but the point is, no matter how much he told you he loved you, would you believe it? Perhaps, logically, you would, if you understood they naturally had an extremely distressed reaction to the unnecessary consumption of food - something you'd never heard of before them - till then you just assumed everyone eats daily. But that wouldn't stop you from feeling pissed/hurt/unloved or plain unlucky.... when the hunger pangs hit.

 

[vega57]

7 hours ago, ryn2 said:

This regret is nearly word-for-word the primary reason my SO has given for why we likely can’t stay together... although by enough he probably means “that’s fulfilling to both parties.”

What a shame.  

 

There was a book written by a hospice nurse who talked to numerous patients about their 'regrets'.  She said that not a single one of them regretted not having enough sex.  Most of them regretted not spending enough time with their loved ones (and no, it did NOT include sex!), or spending too much time at the office, or not taking the time to appreciate what they had.  

 

My late husband passed away in his sleep.  He didn't have time to figure out if he had any regrets.  

 

I have wondered that if he DID have time, what his regrets--if any--he would have had...

[vega57]

1 hour ago, anamikanon said:

Incidentally, you don't "need" sex to procreate either. You only need an egg and sperm. If you are otherwise healthy, getting your partner to masturbate and provide semen to insert will work. Artificial insemination exists, so the sperm also doesn't "need" to enter your body. Also surrogacy, for that matter, so you don't even "need" to be pregnant to procreate. For that matter, procreation itself is not a "need", merely an ability. No one dies from not having kids.

Yes, I agree.  No individual will die from not having kids.  The human race however, will die out, if *we* don't produce children in some manner, whether it's artificial or natural.  While other ways of creating life are available, they come at a heft cost...one that the average 'Joe' couldn't afford.  

 

Quote

There is a massive logical flaw here, when "needs" are assumed to be needs for survival. A "need" is basically a mandatory condition/requirement for something to happen. It can be "need for survival" or "need for comfort" or "Need fuel to run car" - Car won't self destruct without fuel, but it won't run either. So, to use the car, you NEED fuel. Need is defined by purpose. Even on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which someone dumped here and caused a lot of confusion, right up to the top, job, opportunity, achievement, recognition are all NEEDS. The whole triangle is a hierarchy of NEEDS. Not just the bottom "needs for survival".

Well, Maslow has been hotly criticized ever since he put together his 'triangle', so, I'm not even going to go there right now (I'll PM you about more of my thoughts about this after I finish posting here...)

 

But once again, "want" breeds "need".  Yes, you'll need fuel to run the car, but only if you want the car to run. I can say that I "need" a car so I can get to work, even though there's plenty of mass transit where I live, and it operates 24/7 (and, believe it or not, it's MOSTLY on time!)

 

 

[ryn2]

16 minutes ago, vega57 said:

What a shame.  

 

There was a book written by a hospice nurse who talked to numerous patients about their 'regrets'.  She said that not a single one of them regretted not having enough sex.  Most of them regretted not spending enough time with their loved ones (and no, it did NOT include sex!), or spending too much time at the office, or not taking the time to appreciate what they had.  

 

My late husband passed away in his sleep.  He didn't have time to figure out if he had any regrets.  

 

I have wondered that if he DID have time, what his regrets--if any--he would have had...

Oh, so sorry for your loss!

 

I’m not sure what he will actually regret.  He’s younger than I am and only had a couple of brief encounters with anyone (where the one that would have included sex was cut short by his ED) before me so there’s a lot of “greener grass” at work.  He know’s that’s the case and it’s slowed his departure, but he still says perhaps his life (and ED) would be completely better with a non-ace partner.

[vega57]

1 hour ago, ryn2 said:

Oh, so sorry for your loss!

I PM'd you about this!  

 

I

Quote

’m not sure what he will actually regret.  He’s younger than I am and only had a couple of brief encounters with anyone (where the one that would have included sex was cut short by his ED) before me so there’s a lot of “greener grass” at work.  He know’s that’s the case and it’s slowed his departure, but he still says perhaps his life (and ED) would be completely better with a non-ace partner.

Yeah.  And *my* life would be 'better' if I had several million dollars.... *rolls eyes*

 

But since I don't have several million dollars does that mean that the rest of my life 'sucks'?  

 

Hardly.

 

Maybe the difference is this:  I don't judge my life by what I don't have, but rather what I do/did have.  I can wake up in the morning and think about things I'm grateful for. Even if I no longer have some of those things, I can still be grateful for having had them.  

 

I'm looking in the mirror as I type this...seeing my graying hair put up in a bun above my head.  I'm grateful that I'm at a place that has a shower...and that I had enough money to purchase some hair dye...and that I have a blow dryer...and a t.v....and a computer...and towels to dry off my aging body...and a cat that LOVES to be stroked...and Chinese take out!...

 

And...and...and...

 

Sex isn't even a THOUGHT when I have so many other things to thing about.  

 

 

 

 

[ryn2]

6 hours ago, vega57 said:

Maybe the difference is this:  I don't judge my life by what I don't have, but rather what I do/did have.  I can wake up in the morning and think about things I'm grateful for. Even if I no longer have some of those things, I can still be grateful for having had them.  

There’s definitely something to be said for having a positive outlook.

 

I see a number of people here mentioning depression/feeling depressed due to not having enough sex.  My SO struggles with clinical depression and has  since before I knew him.  His father does as well.  It definitely affects (understandably) his ability to “look on the bright side,” and probably thus to feel grateful rather than lacking.

 

No way of (my) knowing which is the chicken and which the egg in his case though.

[cupid69]

16 hours ago, ryn2 said:

This regret is nearly word-for-word the primary reason my SO has given for why we likely can’t stay together... although by enough he probably means “that’s fulfilling to both parties.”

I remember my father said to me in an unguarded moment that his one regret in life was that he did not have enough sex.

Seems like I'll be following in his footsteps.......................

[ryn2]

I suppose it makes sense we’d regret what we wanted - especially if we didn’t value it properly from our own perspective against other things - and didn’t get... which is bound to vary from person to person.

[uhtred]

23 hours ago, vega57 said:

[SNIP]

 

At the end of your life, do you really think that one of your major regrets is that you didn't have enough sex?

 

 

 

 

 

Actually yes - I think it will be.  I am by nature a very passionate person.  Now, 30 years later I still remember wistfully my brief relationship with a very sexual woman (before I got married).  A part of me still deeply misses that and often regret the choice I made. I love my wife, but I feel I have missed an important part of my life. 

 

I think of the last scene in "Name of the Rose". 

[anamikanon]

12 hours ago, vega57 said:

Maybe the difference is this:  I don't judge my life by what I don't have, but rather what I do/did have.  I can wake up in the morning and think about things I'm grateful for. Even if I no longer have some of those things, I can still be grateful for having had them.  

So do I. Except, I'm so asocial, people I'm not intimate with don't make it to that list. My ace and I actually manage intimacy quite nicely, but if we didn't, he'd slowly drift out of my attention, like sex drifts out of his - irrelevant in my intimate space. That still means I celebrate my life, but for the relationship to be on the celebration list, it has to be relevant to the celebration aspect, yes? I am quite sure my ace doesn't have any ambition to feature in things I appreciate about my life as "one of the people I connect with so well" - he wants that special space that is not open to anyone else. And he has it.

 

The idea that sexual people who are frustrated don't celebrate life is absurd. But yeah, what each person celebrates is unique to them. It will be very hard for a sexual to celebrate a platonic relationship with someone they were attracted to. They will fight to fix it for a while or give up and move on. The fighting in itself is a celebration too, as opposed to apathy that simply moves on to rejoice in what is working leaving them behind.

[ryn2]

Not that I want to imply anyone “has it easy,” but it definitely seems helpful that some of the younger people on here grew up in a time/environment where they were able to identify as ace early.  At least they’re less likely to find themselves in LTRs that began under different assumptions/ expectations/ understanding.

 

It doesn’t change the differing needs but it seems like it might help avoid some of the accompanying blame, confusion, self-image issues, etc., that people who discover orientation late(r) in relationships struggle with.

[vega57]

29 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Very similar here. Well, 26 years ago last week... not that I'm counting or anything. And it was four years, so not brief. 

 

31 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Actually yes - I think it will be.  I am by nature a very passionate person.  Now, 30 years later I still remember wistfully my brief relationship with a very sexual woman (before I got married).  A part of me still deeply misses that and often regret the choice I made. I love my wife, but I feel I have missed an important part of my life. 

 

I think of the last scene in "Name of the Rose". 

 This seems to be a phenomenon with a number of men.  I think it was in Shere Hite's book about Male Sexuality where she concluded that the majority of men (who responded to the survey) did not marry the woman they were most "passionate" about.  

 

I always wondered why...