Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BJvirgin

Charity sex - is it enough?

Recommended Posts

test account

A post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BJvirgin

try explaining what the feeling of hunger is like to someone who doesn't eat. well, we all feel hunger, so we don't need to of course. its difficult to explain the sex bit.

how do you describe sight to a blind man, sound to a deaf man?

if you were locked in a dark room, with no sounds, no smells, nothing to touch, that is called sensory deprivation. it is considered to be torture. being deprived of sex is torture. I'm not suggesting that asexuals are deliberately torturing their partners, but the result much is the same.

some people eat food, but aren't excited by it. others love to eat food, and enjoy the flavour, texture, smell, and look of it. sex is similar I guess. some asexuals can have sex, some can enjoy it. enjoying sex is not the same as needing it. I'd prefer to have sex over any other activity. my wife doesn't understand that. she would rather do many other things. I can't explain it to her, and I can't explain it to others here. you just **need** it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

A post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BJvirgin
Sex is not as important as food. You don't die without sex

factually you are correct. but a sex-starved person would disagree, emotionally. I physically can survive longer without sex than food

some people are suicidal over not getting sex, so I guess you could die from it :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

A post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BJvirgin
You need to become a recluse like me.

I think you're right. Would I be happier alone but able to look for a sexual partner? rather than living without any hope. I don't know. the grass is always greener, but is it really! leaving is either the best thing I could do, or the very worst thing. I just don't know which

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

A post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
it is considered to be torture. being deprived of sex is torture. I'm not suggesting that asexuals are deliberately torturing their partners, but the result much is the same.

Sorry, but no. If the partner feels he/she is tortured without sex, then he/she is free to find a new partner who wants sex. No one keeps another person from having sex, since sex can be had with any number of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PlayfulSadism

Sorry, but no. If the partner feels he/she is tortured without sex, then he/she is free to find a new partner who wants sex. No one keeps another person from having sex, since sex can be had with any number of people.

Then you would be in favor of ending a mixed monogamous relationship where the ace partner was unwilling to attempt sexual intimacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Sorry, but no. If the partner feels he/she is tortured without sex, then he/she is free to find a new partner who wants sex. No one keeps another person from having sex, since sex can be had with any number of people.

Then you would be in favor of ending a mixed monogamous relationship where the ace partner was unwilling to attempt sexual intimacy?

That's not what I said. It's up to the partners what they want to do. But each partner always has the right to end the relationship if they feel there's no chance they will be comfortable with that relationship. What one partner doesn't have the right to do is insist that the other partner do something that second partner doesn't want to do. In other words, my body is not a commodity that my partner has a right to demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dragonfly2013

Some of us respect the vows we made. Also, we were not told that the sex would be gone someday. When you go into a marriage and have sex

.....then it is quite a shock to have it disappear.

Sex is definitely considered a normal part of a marriage between two people who love each other. Unless of course there was an arrangement up front. But then most of us might have ended the relationship before taking vows if we were told upfront about our future.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Dragonfly, if I'd known about asexuality before I married my husband, or before I entered a relationship with my partner, I certainly wouldn't have done it. What you don't seem to realize is that most of us didn't know. We simply thought we should keep trying. And we did. Because we respected the vows we took.

There is absolutely no point in playing the blame game. It doesn't help anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Girl

I don't think talking about sex as something to be earned is all that great. I don't like calling it charity or pity sex either (unless my husband and I are joking about some of this which we do at times...he acts horrified at people kissing on tv and we both feign shock). Basically I think sex is sex. My husband feels it is obligatory and we laughed about that today too...but basically I can see where everyone is coming from and very much so Sally. My husband had no clue about this and now 26 years later, we are not only invested in one another, but love each other a great deal. So this compromise thing is what we are working with, since we already managed to fail miserably at the other two options.

I also don't think sex is something someone deserves or needs, and if one feels tortured by not having it, believe me I get that, but chances are I'm going to take that one on as my own deal. I have cried and acted totally crushed by all this and then I'm really sorry for having done that as well (so this year, my focus is going to be on being not quite so dramatic). I do think sex can totally be expected in a marriage, but if we had all our expectations met, there would never be anyone complaining about a single thing (how boring). Expectations can be had, but they can also be taken for what they are...expectations, which may or may not be met.

Both the sexual partner and the asexual partner feel bad because this happened. If they both don't, then something else is missing and always has been. They both will probably always feel bad about this, but people don't need to think about that day in and day out, they can carry on and continue to make a nice life together if they want. They can also split up because it is the best thing for them to do. They can try the Open option and see if that works, for some it may. Whatever they do, they should get to a happy place (80% of the time?), because it's the healthy thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train
Being a recluse is not much fun. I don't envy your decision.

Being a recluse is fine...

*IF* you've experienced a truly hideous, emotionally abusive relationship which you stayed in for years when you shouldn't have. Then you know that there is something worse than being a recluse. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jojo2003

I have been following this discussion now for some time and am suprised at the road is has taken.

Not having sex is a torture?????

I am very sorry, but if I felt at any point in the relationship that I was tortured I would be out of the door straight away. As most of you know right now, my partner is uncapable of sexual relations, but never in all those years have I considered the fact that she would torture me by not being able to give me sexual gratification.

Yes, it is hard if you are incompatible. And yes, I do feel something lacking, but to feel abused by my own partner or even tortured (which is what people do in wars, you know)? No!

I know we are feeling bad every now and then, but torture takes an active role of the other partner in a relationship and I am not willing to acknowledge any of our partners deliberatily withholding sexual acts to torture any of the sexual partners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BJvirgin

I'm too focused on sex right now, I admit that. I was trying to explain that going without sex is frustrating, and not just a preference you can simply ignore. any analogy to food or sensory deprivation is always going to be misunderstood by some. sorry if that was too much. and I definitely wasn't trying to put any blame onto an ace. I know they don't choose this, or want to deliberately cause unhappiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RMBooknerd

There are times I would agree that my partner not being interested in sex with me feels like torture, but it isn't.

I remind myself that its not intentional- which to me is a prerequisite to it being torture. If he were withholding sex (as in was interested or had agreed to sex or worst of all started somethng but stopped to be mean) but I'd ticked him off by not filling the gas tank, it might be torture.

It hurts me not because I need the sex, I have an active imagination and some accessories to deal with that ;) but because I feel like he doesn't care about my desires or preferences. Kinda like when he cooked last week and used oyster sauce (I don't eat shellfish, at all, but its a remnant of when I kept kosher, not an allergy) and probably on the same level. He didn't think that oyster sauce might actually contain oyster based products.

If an asexual partner is using sexual activity to manipulate an asexual partner that's a whole different issue than not being interested or not being willing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dragonfly2013

How about changing the thread title to Compromise Sex? Would that bring a different discussion? With less issues with words and phrasing perhaps....

I don't mind when people use their strong words when they post. They post what they feel. They should be comfortable and know that what they write is not going to be called on by others.

If someone indeed feels tortured then please let them use their own words. It seems so unkind to tell someone to change their wording or to challenge them.

The readers need to just let people write what they feel with no issues from others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

How about changing the thread title to Compromise Sex? Would that bring a different discussion? With less issues with words and phrasing perhaps....

I don't mind when people use their strong words when they post. They post what they feel. They should be comfortable and know that what they write is not going to be called on by others.

If someone indeed feels tortured then please let them use their own words. It seems so unkind to tell someone to change their wording or to challenge them.

The readers need to just let people write what they feel with no issues from others.

Saying that you feel tortured -- that's your feeling, although saying you are in pain is better and probably just as accurate. But saying or implying that your partner is torturing you is not cool. You would probably be upset if an asexual said that their sexual partner was torturing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Girl

How about changing the thread title to Compromise Sex? Would that bring a different discussion? With less issues with words and phrasing perhaps....

I don't mind when people use their strong words when they post. They post what they feel. They should be comfortable and know that what they write is not going to be called on by others.

If someone indeed feels tortured then please let them use their own words. It seems so unkind to tell someone to change their wording or to challenge them.

The readers need to just let people write what they feel with no issues from others.

The title is fine, but it will make me want to say I don't call it that, that's all. It's my personal thing...just like I wouldn't say lesbian sex, it's just sex to me. People can post what they want, but if it causes me to want to say what my experience is in relation to it, it doesn't mean I'm trying to call them on it or be unkind. It means my experience is different.

My view is totally different from almost all the sexuals here except for a rare few I've encountered. I personally feel if someone wants to say how horrible being married to or in a relationship with an asexual is, I really should be able to say that's not my overall experience. I also haven't said this yet, but I would do it again, I would marry him...and I've had some pretty unhappy moments. I choose to express my still intact feelings of love for my husband and will likely continue to do so.

If someone wants to say they feel tortured, that's fine, but torture usually implies to me that you can't walk away. Personally, I'm ashamed of the things I've said to my husband because he's asexual. This is the first place I learned sex doesn't equal love. I believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

A post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Some of us respect the vows we made.

So is it ever okay with you to declare a vow null and void? If your partner has, by your reckoning, broken their side of the contract, is it okay to declare your vow as no longer binding?

There's no contract to have sex, either in marriage or any other relationship -- unless someone can show me or tell me that when they've gotten married, they've said to each other, "We agree to have sex XX times per week for the rest of our marriage."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dragonfly2013

I must have posted in the wrong area as I thought this was the thread for sexual partners, friends and allies where we could post in a safe place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

A post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

I must have posted in the wrong area as I thought this was the thread for sexual partners, friends and allies where we could post in a safe place.

It is safe for discussion. But it does include sexuals and asexuals, so it includes posts that sometimes you may disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

Some of us respect the vows we made.

So is it ever okay with you to declare a vow null and void? If your partner has, by your reckoning, broken their side of the contract, is it okay to declare your vow as no longer binding?

There's no contract to have sex, either in marriage or any other relationship -- unless someone can show me or tell me that when they've gotten married, they've said to each other, "We agree to have sex XX times per week for the rest of our marriage."

Well... with marriage and/or other forms of committed partnerships, I'd certainly say that unless there's an explicit agreement on no sex, I can't blame anyone for assuming an implicit agreement that sex is going to happen somewhat regularly (whatever "regularly" means to the partners in question). Because sex, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is a very major reason to have partnerships in the first place.

So, if no "celibacy clause" was made at the start, I'd say that sex suddenly being off the table somewhere along the line is enough of a reason to reexamine if one wants to stay on board with the ship... and I don't consider it a breech of contract to come to the conclusion that no, you don't want to stay under these changed circumstances.

(That said, I freely admit I've never been a fan of formalized long-term commitments myself, anyway... I take my 'ship day by day. "Long term", to me, is to expect we'll still be together in two weeks unless something major happens in the meantime. ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Some of us respect the vows we made.

So is it ever okay with you to declare a vow null and void? If your partner has, by your reckoning, broken their side of the contract, is it okay to declare your vow as no longer binding?

There's no contract to have sex, either in marriage or any other relationship -- unless someone can show me or tell me that when they've gotten married, they've said to each other, "We agree to have sex XX times per week for the rest of our marriage."

Well... with marriage and/or other forms of committed partnerships, I'd certainly say that unless there's an explicit agreement on no sex, I can't blame anyone for assuming an implicit agreement that sex is going to happen somewhat regularly (whatever "regularly" means to the partners in question). Because sex, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is a very major reason to have partnerships in the first place.

So, if no "celibacy clause" was made at the start, I'd say that sex suddenly being off the table somewhere along the line is enough of a reason to reexamine if one wants to stay on board with the ship... and I don't consider it a breech of contract to come to the conclusion that no, you don't want to stay under these changed circumstances.

(That said, I freely admit I've never been a fan of formalized long-term commitments myself, anyway... I take my 'ship day by day. "Long term", to me, is to expect we'll still be together in two weeks unless something major happens in the meantime. ;))

Certainly either partner can decide at any point whether they want to continue the partnership. If someone wants to end it, the absence of sex is a reasonable issue for the sexual partner. But what I meant was that there was no contract re sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jojo2003

How about changing the thread title to Compromise Sex? Would that bring a different discussion? With less issues with words and phrasing perhaps....

I don't mind when people use their strong words when they post. They post what they feel. They should be comfortable and know that what they write is not going to be called on by others.

If someone indeed feels tortured then please let them use their own words. It seems so unkind to tell someone to change their wording or to challenge them.

The readers need to just let people write what they feel with no issues from others.

I do agree dragonfly that anyone must feel save to say anything they want. This is a sexual support forum as well. But if someone wishes to use strong words, he or she should expect others (who are also allowed to speak as they wish) to counterpart their opinion.

I was referring to the torture part since I was shocked to realize that some of the sexual partners consider their partner to torture them. In my native language torture is a word we do not use unless in war-like situations. Maybe that is part of the reason.

I would never ask a participant to change their wording, but will expres my opinion if it does not agree with theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
has left the building

Just joined the forum for this reason. I can't stand sex where I feel like he's only doing it to make me happy.

I'm sexual, my husband is not. He doesn't object to it, but he goes through cycles that can last a very long time where he will not seek it out, or is not interested at all, I'm not sure if that makes him asexual or not though I suspect he is or at least cycles in and out of it. Its not something I've been able to get him to discuss much and I don't think he realizes how much of my insecurity in our relationship and my own self image is based on his lack of interest. I joined this forum, because i'm trying to find that happy medium for us because there are times that I initiate sexual activity that it really ends up charity sex on his side. There are other times where he seems really glad we had sex. I think I'd be happy with infrequent sex if I wasn't the one initiating it every time, but I'm coming to realize that that isn't a realistic scenario because it just isn't something he thinks of initiating. On the other hand, I don't want him to feel like every intimacy is me trying to get sex. (though I wouldn't complain if we did!) I think that many of us who are sexual still have the whole love/lust/affection/regard/respect thing all tangled up in our minds, because for us they often are all linked.

I don't want any charity sex. If I initiate sex, and he isn't interested, I want him to shut me down. I want to know that even if he isn't going to initiate sex that when he accepts, that he is interested, even if he wouldn't have thought of initiating. I know this may be atypical for this conversation in that he is sometimes interested in sexual activity. Even if that interest is that he wants me to be happy, or wants me to have sex rather than his own sexual gratification. I just don't want him to feel obligated, like he has to have sex with me.

I also know that I'm having to remind myself that him not being interested in sex with me is not because I've done something wrong or gained too much weight or anything, but that he's simply not interested in having sex. I think the charity sex, when he feels obligated to have sex because we're married and I'm really wanting sex, hurts my self image more than when he says he just isn't interested.

I'm trying to find ways to nourish our relationship without pressing- or appearing to press- the issue of sex. I know that I married him, and there are things that will always annoy me about him, but the things which I find wonderful and loving and amazing certainly outweigh his tendency to not put away laundry or not want sex.

Now I just have to get that message back to my self-image LOL

This may or may not help but some answers may be found in the following scenario:

If your husband was in a horrifying accident that left the part of his brain that controls sex drive dead would you resent him? Leave him?

Speaking as a man who does not desire sex and have finally, thanks to this site, been able to explain to my wife in no uncertain terms that she is in no way deficient, it feels the same for me. Whether I am biologically predisposed or have been behaviorally conditioned to not desire sex doesn't change the net result.

Our marriage has enough going for it that the lack of sex is barely a blip on the radar at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Some of us respect the vows we made.

So is it ever okay with you to declare a vow null and void? If your partner has, by your reckoning, broken their side of the contract, is it okay to declare your vow as no longer binding?

There's no contract to have sex, either in marriage or any other relationship -- unless someone can show me or tell me that when they've gotten married, they've said to each other, "We agree to have sex XX times per week for the rest of our marriage."

Well... with marriage and/or other forms of committed partnerships, I'd certainly say that unless there's an explicit agreement on no sex, I can't blame anyone for assuming an implicit agreement that sex is going to happen somewhat regularly (whatever "regularly" means to the partners in question). Because sex, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is a very major reason to have partnerships in the first place.

So, if no "celibacy clause" was made at the start, I'd say that sex suddenly being off the table somewhere along the line is enough of a reason to reexamine if one wants to stay on board with the ship... and I don't consider it a breech of contract to come to the conclusion that no, you don't want to stay under these changed circumstances.

(That said, I freely admit I've never been a fan of formalized long-term commitments myself, anyway... I take my 'ship day by day. "Long term", to me, is to expect we'll still be together in two weeks unless something major happens in the meantime. ;))

This.

I think there needs to be less emphasis on staying in relationships for the sake of staying in relationships. Especially when people grow apart into becoming something that doesn't mutually work any more.

Honestly, I believe good relationships shouldn't be hard work. If things honestly work, then doing things for each other will feel natural, and not like an "effort", even though a lot of actual effort is expended. This is the mistake I made in the past (and that a lot of people make with relationships in general, I think) - thinking that pushing against fundamental incompatibilities with no real solution in sight is an honourable and correct way of "working on it". It isn't. It's a fool's errand. "Working on it" only makes sense if there are real solutions (or acceptable compromises) to be found.

Another thing: I believe that there is no worse way to measure the "success" of a relationship than "lasting". A relationship can last a lifetime and be a miserable mess, held together by codependency and sheer abuse. "Lasting" shouldn't be celebrated at all. All that should be celebrated is being a positive influence on each other in the moment, and if that happens to last, great. If not, that's great too. If you've been a positive influence on each others' lives while it lasted, it was still a net gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...