Jump to content

Charity sex - is it enough?


BJvirgin

Recommended Posts

I think some people get a lot of satisfaction out of fulfilling their concept of "duty". Like: I hate my wife, but it's my duty to stay with her, and that makes me a good person.

Hot damn, Skullery is truly back!!!!! :cake::cake: :cake: :cake::cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people get a lot of satisfaction out of fulfilling their concept of "duty". Like: I hate my wife, but it's my duty to stay with her, and that makes me a good person.

Hot damn, Skullery is truly back!!!!! :cake::cake: :cake: :cake::cake:

I know right?!

I actually also have an extremely strong sense of duty, but my reasoning is more along these lines...I have trouble getting along with my husband, and sometimes almost feel like I can't stand him, but I realize that it's not always like this and I also give him reasons not to like me much sometimes. I feel like my sense of duty to stay, prompts me to try harder to be a decent person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people get a lot of satisfaction out of fulfilling their concept of "duty". Like: I hate my wife, but it's my duty to stay with her, and that makes me a good person.

Hot damn, Skullery is truly back!!!!! :cake::cake: :cake: :cake::cake:

I know right?!

I actually also have an extremely strong sense of duty, but my reasoning is more along these lines...I have trouble getting along with my husband, and sometimes almost feel like I can't stand him, but I realize that it's not always like this and I also give him reasons not to like me much sometimes. I feel like my sense of duty to stay, prompts me to try harder to be a decent person

I think you really love your husband (at least it sounds that way), and duty coming from love (which does elevate your "personhood") is different from what Skulls was describing. :cake: to you, LG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people get a lot of satisfaction out of fulfilling their concept of "duty". Like: I hate my wife, but it's my duty to stay with her, and that makes me a good person.

Hot damn, Skullery is truly back!!!!! :cake::cake: :cake: :cake::cake:

I know right?!

I actually also have an extremely strong sense of duty, but my reasoning is more along these lines...I have trouble getting along with my husband, and sometimes almost feel like I can't stand him, but I realize that it's not always like this and I also give him reasons not to like me much sometimes. I feel like my sense of duty to stay, prompts me to try harder to be a decent person

I think you really love your husband (at least it sounds that way), and duty coming from love (which does elevate your "personhood") is different from what Skulls was describing. :cake: to you, LG.

Thanks Sally, I try to love him. You don't know how much you have helped me to understand how he feels. :cake: to you too Sally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think duty is important. I think taking care of people who can't take care of themselves is essential to our humanity. It's the case that hundreds of years ago, women needed to be taken care of. Damn, even 60 years ago, what was a woman supposed to do if her husband left? She had no money (everything automatically went in her husband's name), she wasn't allowed to own land, and once she was married, it would be nearly impossible for her to marry again. This created a dynamic where women had to accept a life at the hands of sometimes horrible, cruel, abusive, stupid, absurd, men... they had no other choice. And then feminism happened and now women can vote, buy a house, get a job, open a checking account... even rent a car!

So, you know, this whole "duty" idea in marriage is an old concept that has outlasted its usefulness. If one's spouse is able to live on their own, get a job, pay rent... there's really no duty to stick around and care for them as if they were infirm. It's kind of insulting to suggest that keeping someone tied up in a loveless, respectless relationship is actually for their own good. It's patronizing, regardless of the gender. If you have a disabled sibling, or child, or neighbor... if you are someone's lifeline... yeah, you have an actual duty to care for them. But all of this "I have a duty to stay with someone even though we're both miserable"... that's not duty, that's fear. Or something.

Lady Girl... I think your sense of duty comes from love (which I think is true of most people). You love someone, and therefore you feel a duty to make them happy, fulfill your promises to them, etc. Not bolting every time you have a bad day, or week, isn't necessarily being duty-bound as much as it is being mature... that is, you're able to see beyond your immediate feelings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

My take on both "duty" and "honour" is that they are both subject to the actual effects that their outcomes have on the people involved in a situation. They don't exist in a vacuum, as things in themselves that matter in themselves. And because people grow, change, and evolve - I believe that the promises we make to each other should always be subject to some growth and evolution too, because if a situation arises where the original promise no longer makes sense to anyone involved, then what's the point?

eg. Say I make a promise to a girl to be with her forever. But then five years later she utterly falls out of love with me, absolutely doesn't want me, wants me out of her life completely, and to be with someone else. What does it make me if I don't accept that and don't stop hassling her? A crazy stalker, pretty much.

This is why I'm not a fan of these kinds of black and white absolutes when it comes to making promises, especially with relationships. But as Skulls said, the other extreme where you flake out as soon as you hit the first rough patch together isn't exactly the way to go either. But I guess maybe it's just human nature to crave certainty where none is guaranteed. Fictitious permanence in a world of impermanence. etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

eg. Say I make a promise to a girl to be with her forever. But then five years later she utterly falls out of love with me, absolutely doesn't want me, wants me out of her life completely, and to be with someone else. What does it make me if I don't accept that and don't stop hassling her? A crazy stalker, pretty much.

This is why I'm not a fan of these kinds of black and white absolutes when it comes to making promises, especially with relationships.

Yeah, I don't think the "I will be with you forever" kind of promises should be taken literally. It actually means "I want/hope to be with you forever and will try to make our relationship last". But despite our good wishes, change is an inevitable part of life. When the relationship has fallen apart beyond repair, it doesn't do anyone any good to cling to the "forever" promise.

That's why I strongly prefer another kind of promise: "I will stay with you as long as our relationship is rewarding to both of us. I will try to make it work, but if one day we're not happy together anymore, we'll part our ways amicably." :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on love and marriage are these:

Love (wanting another's good) is a decision, not just mere feelings or emotions that come and go. This is how we can still love even when we don't really feel like loving. If love were just a feeling then it wouldn't be special...because we can't control feelings.

We marry not only for ourselves but also for the person we are marrying. As your love grows, you begin to give more of yourself to your spouse...to the point where you are willing to give your entire being to your spouse. Your life becomes your spouses life and vise versa. This is how a married couple becomes one. To me it is a lifelong journey. This is my experience....and my understanding.

This may sound like "living in the clouds" but it is what I aspire...and I think what my wife aspires. To me however, their are also some situations, obviously, that can be good reason for leaving a spouse. One of these is the lack/absence of sex/intimacy.......because it is a big part of our nature (for most of us, anyway).

We choose to continue to love within our marriage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

I guess it's like they say "you can choose your friends but not your family". In family, it's immaterial if you like your mother or not. She's your mother. You can honor that relationship or you can ditch it. It's your choice and nobody has any right to criticise either way, because you'll have your reasons that only you know about.

I see relationships as much more similar to friendship than to family. We choose both our friends and our partner, and in addition, a relationship must develop from a friendship for me. So when I think about the (im)permanence of relationships from this perspective, it really becomes a non-issue at all. When friends drift apart and don't see the point of the friendship anymore, it's completely natural to end the friendship. So why does it seem so fundamentally different when it comes to a relationship?

It's interesting how vastly different our views can be. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Well, what you choose to do personally is up to you. Some people regard a promise as being beyond the people involved. When they say, "I will be with you forever", what they really mean is, "I will commit to this relationship forever, whatever it takes" and for some people they may add the thought, "for as long as YOU allow it." It gives their world a measure of security, of knowing what to expect---knowing that the relationship is important. The relationship as something distinct from the people involved in it.

Ahhh ok, I think I understand what you're getting at...

I suppose to me, this kind of thinking tends to look mostly like some kind of projection of mutual aspirations, rather than something to be taken entirely literally. I'm sure most rational people have their limits (in practice) in any case. I mean, I doubt too many people would say that you should stay with someone who's turned into a violent and dangerous addict who refuses to get help, etc etc.

Maybe it's just two ways of looking at the same thing. In the example I described in the previous post for example: I don't think there's much profit in thinking of the relationship as a distinct entity, separate from those two people. The relationship is more like a manifestation of something that's created by two people who share a certain state of mind and mutual goals. Once one of them has decidedly rejected it, for all intents and purposes it no longer exists. And in that example, if I insisted on trying to force it to exist - then I'd be arrested as a creepy stalker. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grrrr, this awful quote system!

Guzica said: But I guess maybe it's just human nature to crave certainty where none is guaranteed. Fictitious permanence in a world of impermanence. etc.

Sally says: Yes, this world is frightening, and more so if you don't feel you have someone to be frightened with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Yes, this world is frightening, and more so if you don't feel you have someone to be frightened with you.

I totally get that. But that's exactly why I try to minimize putting stress and expectations on anyone else. You can't really control anything except your own mind. Not even that sometimes.

I see relationships as much more similar to friendship than to family. We choose both our friends and our partner, and in addition, a relationship must develop from a friendship for me. So when I think about the (im)permanence of relationships from this perspective, it really becomes a non-issue at all. When friends drift apart and don't see the point of the friendship anymore, it's completely natural to end the friendship. So why does it seem so fundamentally different when it comes to a relationship?

It's interesting how vastly different our views can be. :)

Actually, I can understand why people treat marriage a bit more like family than like friendship. Especially when there are children in the picture.

But even here, I don't think any prescribed course of action is automatically correct for all cases. It's still relative to the people involved. I know people who've been traumatised by their parents' divorce. I know just as many people who've been traumatised by their parents staying together ("for the children") and growing up in a hellishly dysfunctional household. Who's to say that these two cases would have turned out better if the courses of action were reversed in each case?

That's exactly why I don't like any kind of normative social judgements - where there's intense societal pressure for people to take one course over the other irrespective of the details of their individual situation. And this is exactly what traditional honour-driven thinking does - it reduces complicated problems to simple ones and offers one-size-fits-all solutions. Solutions that usually do have some general superficial merit in many cases, but fall apart absolutely horribly in countless individual edgecases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in both duty and honour. I am not old fashioned in my views of how life should be. However as my wife is disabled, doesn't therefore work, she is reliant on me for support. I married her expecting it to be for life, and committed to those vows. Happily committed to those vows as I love her. However if she refuses sex of any form she does not deserve my monogamy. Some will not agree with that. Some will say the "for worse" vow precludes me from looking elsewhere for sex. One day I will seek permission to do so. If that doesn't go well I don't know what I will do

I don't want to die a BJvirgin or alone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this world is frightening, and more so if you don't feel you have someone to be frightened with you.

I totally get that. But that's exactly why I try to minimize putting stress and expectations on anyone else. You can't really control anything except your own mind. Not even that sometimes.

Which is why it's nice to have someone through thick and thin that will care for you, even if it may not be the best possible relationship. And it can be very hard to not put expectations on others, especially if you assume that someone feels and thinks the same way you do (I make a lot of assumptions all of which can be cleared up by asking people exactly how they feel). I'm guessing a lot of people can relate to that, regardless of their sexuality. So while it may seem trite, talking things over with your partner is probably one of the best things to strengthen and make the relationship healthier for both of you.

I believe in both duty and honour. I am not old fashioned in my views of how life should be. However as my wife is disabled, doesn't therefore work, she is reliant on me for support. I married her expecting it to be for life, and committed to those vows. Happily committed to those vows as I love her. However if she refuses sex of any form she does not deserve my monogamy. Some will not agree with that. Some will say the "for worse" vow precludes me from looking elsewhere for sex. One day I will seek permission to do so. If that doesn't go well I don't know what I will do

Sounds rough. I'm sorry about the situation you are in. I agree with Guzica on the overgeneralization of honorbound thinking can do (I'm definitely guilty of it, just look at my username) but I think the issue of whether or not someone can deserve sex was covered a few pages back. That said, I can't argue your feelings and I don't mean to. I hope you can come up with a solution that fits your specific issue. Open relationships are definitely an option, and it might make both of you more comfortable in the long run, if that's your shared goal. The longer I'm on this site, the more open I am to things that I previously wouldn't have ever considered possible. (like folks not interested in sex, for starters!) Just keep in mind that love is just as important if not moreso than duty or honor. It's great that you feel that way towards your partner, but don't forget that it should be coming from a place of love. I hope this is helpful

Link to post
Share on other sites
has left the building

Well....I suppose it depends on what ones view on suffering and sacrifice is. Should one never become an NFL football player because it will cause to much pain and sacrifice? All the players experience it. Should one never have children because of the pain and sacrifice it will cost in your lifetime? All parents experience it. It often depends on whether the benefits out weigh the price. Because there is sadness does not mean there is no joy. Because there is sacrifice does not mean there is no gain. Suffering in itself is not intrinsically evil. Neither is sacrifice. But both can be turned into good.

Hats off to you sir! Far too many here in the US find it easy to ignore vows and commitments to selfishly pursue their Utopian view of happiness. We've seen what the skyrocketing divorce rate has done to our society.

Speaking from the other side of the coin, an asexual man married to a sexual woman, I am the one for whom my wife sacrifices. The idea of what I've heard called "sacrificial concern" for others is so alien in this individualistic culture that people cannot relate to it.

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. You do not sound like a man who is wallowing in pity (suffering) because you are able to see the larger picture of the benefits your sacrifices will reap. The instant gratification that the media tells us we must have makes your kind of character a rare commodity today. Bless you!

I believe in both duty and honour. I am not old fashioned in my views of how life should be. However as my wife is disabled, doesn't therefore work, she is reliant on me for support. I married her expecting it to be for life, and committed to those vows. Happily committed to those vows as I love her. However if she refuses sex of any form she does not deserve my monogamy. Some will not agree with that. Some will say the "for worse" vow precludes me from looking elsewhere for sex. One day I will seek permission to do so. If that doesn't go well I don't know what I will do

I don't want to die a BJvirgin or alone

As long as you'd be absolutely positively ok with your wife looking for sex elsewhere should you suddenly come down with severe ED, then your point is understandable. It cannot be one-sided though and only YOU can know if you'd be ok with another man satisfying your wife because you'd be unable to.

When I stopped sexual conatct with my wife, I told her it was not fair for me to tell her she can't look elsewhere for something I was not giving her. She chose to remain faithful to our vows and that only reinforced my love for her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in both duty and honour. I am not old fashioned in my views of how life should be. However as my wife is disabled, doesn't therefore work, she is reliant on me for support. I married her expecting it to be for life, and committed to those vows. Happily committed to those vows as I love her. However if she refuses sex of any form she does not deserve my monogamy. Some will not agree with that. Some will say the "for worse" vow precludes me from looking elsewhere for sex. One day I will seek permission to do so. If that doesn't go well I don't know what I will do

I don't want to die a BJvirgin or alone

I don't see your situation as needing to seek permission. What you do is up to you, not someone else. However, if you come to that decision and tell her that you will seek sex elsewhere, it would be best if you wouldn't put it as her not deserving your monogamy -- as in blaming her. Just frame it as something you need in your life, and although you will stay with her, you must seek what you need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Actually I'm not sure why most people marry these days as its become largely meaningless. Its more about the wedding than the relationship often.

This reminded me of a guy I used to work with...

He was going out with a girl and knocked her up. They were quite serious anyway, so they stayed together and she had the kid and they moved in together. Then they bought a house together. Then had another kid. And another.

So there they were, six years later, living in their own house with three kids - living a more typical "married life" than most married people do. They finally managed to save up some major cash eight years later - and then they got married, and had a fairly big wedding. Why? Because she was the type who wanted a big wedding. To be a "princess for a day", etc. Everything else about their lives was already a successful "married life" for almost a decade, except for never having had the wedding. And that was pretty much the only reason they got formally married. The de facto (common law marriage) rights are pretty strong around here, so it really just came down to wanting to go through the wedding experience. They just couldn't afford a nice and big one back when it would have been the "appropriate" time.

I don't know if there is any moral to this story. I guess maybe that honourable behaviour can exist even without being fulfilled in the traditional way. And on the flipside, heaps of marriages are outright shams. *shrug*

Interestingly, of all the people I know, there is an inverse correlation between how big their wedding was and how successful their marriage is/was. The most successful marriage I know is a friend who got married at the registry office on a Tuesday afternoon in front of a handful of relatives - she literally says that after the first six months of some adjustments and drama when they first met, she and her husband now probably have any kind of fight less than once a year. On the flipside, the friends who had big weddings with hundreds of people - all divorced. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I agree with pretty much everything. And since I can't quote anyone anymore...

Starrynight -- your vows that you wrote were nearly identical to the vows my first partner and I took. We said "I hope we remain happy and in love together forever, but if someone should be unhappy, I expect that first the problem is worked on, and then, I hope that no one remains in the relationship so long that resentment builds." -- that was obviously not verbatim, I don't remember the exact words from 11 years ago. :)

Guzica - Agreed on the relationship as not a separate identity. Largely because "relationship" is an idea, and both partners in a relationship have their own ideas... so the best you could say is that there are 2 relationships, because I GUARANTEE that no two people conceptualize their relationship in the exact same way. And since a relationship is nothing more than how you conceptualize it, I don't see how its possible to say there's only one. You have 2 people, you have 2 promises, and you have 2 conceptions of a relationship... contrary to pop music, two do not become one.

Sally and SGE -- I couldn't have said it better myself. A couple weeks ago my partner and I were talking about just this thing. Neither of us actually think marriage = permanence. But we both agreed that, for us, our marriage means that we are committed to serving each others' best interests, which means that if we end up breaking up, it will be done respectfully, with mutual understanding and assent, and no one will be left isolated or penniless.

As for honor... I see nothing honorable about making someone stay in a loveless relationship just to make yourself feel "honorable". That's selfish, not honorable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

I guess because there's that thing you sign, and those words you say before witnesses. You don't just walk away from a contract the way you walk away from an acquaintance. There has to be a formal divorce. So if you entered into a formal written contract with someone, it better mean something or its just all bullshit from day one.

Yeah, I do agree more serious considerations should be taken before ending a relationship than before ending a casual friendship. When there are problems in the relationship, you try to work on them first, and only give up if there's really no solution. But in the end, you still get to choose to stay or leave, unlike with family members who you can't cut off (in most cases). I guess we're just seeing this from different angles and emphasizing different aspects. :) I also agree with your point of ending a relationship with dignity.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So now, am I to assume that asexuals generally do not want to be loved as sexual beings? Do they generally not want to be made to feel sexy, desirable, beautiful? Because its in the script of many of us to dish out compliments like that, to make our partner feel good. Are sexuals making things worse if they compliment their asexual partner?

I can't speak for all aces, of course... but for me, yeah, it would certainly be counterproductive if my partner made me feel sexy or desirable. It's an uneasy thought to get told that, even in theory, and would lead to uncomfortable/strained discussions in the 'ship... I'm really glad R. does not say such stuff to me. That's just not the role I want to have in a partner's life - and there's others in R.'s life better suited for that job, if and when she seeks to, uh, get it done. ;)

Words like "fun, caring, helpful" - those are the kinds of compliments that would work much better for me. (And yup, those are the things R. says to me at times. :))

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

So now, am I to assume that asexuals generally do not want to be loved as sexual beings? Do they generally not want to be made to feel sexy, desirable, beautiful? Because its in the script of many of us to dish out compliments like that, to make our partner feel good. Are sexuals making things worse if they compliment their asexual partner?

I can't speak for all aces, of course... but for me, yeah, it would certainly be counterproductive if my partner made me feel sexy or desirable. It's an uneasy thought to get told that, even in theory, and would lead to uncomfortable/strained discussions in the 'ship... I'm really glad R. does not say such stuff to me. That's just not the role I want to have in a partner's life - and there's others in R.'s life better suited for that job, if and when she seeks to, uh, get it done. ;)

Words like "fun, caring, helpful" - those are the kinds of compliments that would work much better for me. (And yup, those are the things R. says to me at times. :))

For me it totally depends on the relationship I have with a person...

With a partner with whom I'm already in the right kind of deep emotional relationship with, I function more or less like any other sexual, I guess.

With anyone else, the thought of being sexually desired creeps me out. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So now, am I to assume that asexuals generally do not want to be loved as sexual beings? Do they generally not want to be made to feel sexy, desirable, beautiful? Because its in the script of many of us to dish out compliments like that, to make our partner feel good. Are sexuals making things worse if they compliment their asexual partner?

If the asexual does enjoy it, it isn't hard to see why they would do that for their partner, even if they don't actually want to have sex with them. The sex might be forced, but not the desire to make their partner feel wonderful. Thats how it seems to me anyway.

As an asexual, if I'm with a partner who feels sexual attraction, then I would think it would be strange if they did not feel sexual attraction toward me. If my sexual partner did not find me sexy or sexually-desirable, I might be insecure. I would enjoy, "You look sexy compliments," but I certainly wouldn't crave them. If my partner were asexual, this would be a non-issue. In both cases, I would love for my partner to find me aesthetically attractive. If they didn't, well, once again, I might be insecure. I enjoy compliments like "pretty, cute, beautiful, lovely," in addition to all non-sexual compliments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

So now, am I to assume that asexuals generally do not want to be loved as sexual beings? Do they generally not want to be made to feel sexy, desirable, beautiful? Because its in the script of many of us to dish out compliments like that, to make our partner feel good. Are sexuals making things worse if they compliment their asexual partner?

If the asexual does enjoy it, it isn't hard to see why they would do that for their partner, even if they don't actually want to have sex with them. The sex might be forced, but not the desire to make their partner feel wonderful. Thats how it seems to me anyway.

As an asexual, if I'm with a partner who feels sexual attraction, then I would think it would be strange if they did not feel sexual attraction toward me. If my sexual partner did not find me sexy or sexually-desirable, I might be insecure. I would enjoy, "You look sexy compliments," but I certainly wouldn't crave them. If my partner were asexual, this would be a non-issue. In both cases, I would love for my partner to find me aesthetically attractive. If they didn't, well, once again, I might be insecure. I enjoy compliments like "pretty, cute, beautiful, lovely," in addition to all non-sexual compliments.Basically this. If I'm with a sexual partner, it's only natural that he's sexually attracted to me, and I do enjoy the "sexy" compliments. Well, unless it's clear that we're in a special kind of relationship that is not romantic/sexual in nature, then I wouldn't mind if he wasn't sexually attracted to me. I also enjoy the "pretty, cute, beautiful, lovely" kind of compliments, although compliments on my intellect, mind or personality are what matters the most. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Donating Sex to kids in Africa" !!! :redface: Oh my.

I don't often venture into this forum and I think it is the first time I have posted in it. Maybe a lack of expereince in a relationship and feeling as though I couldn't express an opinion because of that, has led to me staying away.

I will say that I found the term charity sex a little offensive. I think an Asexuals decision to have sex should be respected and not belittled, but I myself have struggled to find less colder terms than that of sacrifice or duty, even " well, I'll do it just for you ". As an Ace in love with a non-Ace, I found all my old prejudices were thrown out of the window. I had understood how sex was to many, an essential part of a relationship. Bearing in mind up to this point I had never been in love before, never understood the term or what it involved, so was still baffled as to how it could happen. Thankfully that has changed now. I know I help in many, many ways and boy oh boy, do I get back just as much. Because of this bond, the affection shared, the easing of stress through difficult situations and a connection on all levels, I have been able to express my feelings far better. Life in the bedroom department, may never flow easy at all with an Ace and their partner, nothing like that of a sexual couple, but an understanding that it isn't a sacrifice, that it isn't a duty or it isn't charity, is something I have been able to get across.

Sometimes shared experiences, affection shown elsewhere, a feeling of security, happiness or anything else, can be enough for someone to see that sex from an Asexual isn't being cold or looking detached or that it wouldn't mean anything. An explanation and an understanding, might just make it "enough".

Again, my lack of expereince may prove to be my undoing here, but I felt for the first time I was confident enough to express my opinion :)

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...