Willing Sexual Compromise is not Abuse

[Kalea]

Agree.

And us SUGGESTING compromise as AN OPTION is not saying "YOU MUST COMPROMISE OR ELSE" either.

A few things compromise is not:

Compromise is NOT submitting to sex out of fear - or threats - or anything of the like. That is coercion.

Compromise is NOT submitting to sex even though it traumatizes you and hiding that from your partner - that is hurting yourself.

Compromise is NOT silently sitting there, hating everything, wishing it would stop, while your partner has their way with you because you're too uncomfortable to speak - that is sexual abuse/assault.

Compromise IS agreeing to have sex because you have decided that it doesn't hurt you as long as you only have to do X and not Y and X is only going to be as long as you feel OK with it.

I compromise because it hurts me no more than doing the dishes hurts me, in which, it's boring sure but there is _no emotional pain_ from it. For example.

When it is suggested as an option, or some people say it sounds like this option and that option are not available to your partner so your options are compromise in whatever way is possible for you or leave - it means just that. To us, your option seems to be, this set or leave the relationship. No one can force a sexual to NEVER have sex again. But, no one should force an asexual to HAVE sex if they don't want it. It has to be a mutually agreed upon act. And if one cannot agree to that act, sometimes the only option is to leave the relationship.

I also want to add to your list

Compromise is not letting yourself being manipulated into wanting sex.

If your partner makes you think that you have sex just because it's "the normal thing," "that you never get to see each other and it's only fair" , or that "oh come on it's a holiday/my birthday" it isn't fair to you. If you don't want sex, continuous pressure (continuous being the main point) and manipulation is wrong, especially if you have tried to compromise before.

The lines between compromise, coercion, and abuse can be murky (though I think the explanations about the line between compromise and abuse thus far have been quite clear), particularly with respect to coercion. If I recall correctly, there was a rather intense discussion/debate about what constitutes coercion awhile back. But I'm too lazy to search for the thread right now.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

Thank you LG for making this thread I read that comment you mentioned on the way to the airport and just couldn't write a full response to such a thing on my phone

[Sally]

It really has to be left up to the individual to determine whether they are being abused or not. There are no specific rules we can apply to that situation, because it's dependent on feelings experienced by that individual. What I experienced with my sexual partners may be on someone's list of compromise situations, and on another person's list of abuse situations. Those lists have nothing to do with me.

[Janus the Fox]

Heck... Its also important to also not break those compromises, that could be some kind of abuse to either party.

It can be tricky to know your level of compromises without experiences. Heck... Is is weird keeping a written compromise contract, but I feel that's the best way to keep things in line... Obviously subject to change... ;)

[Guest]

While I agree with most of this, I would actually apply the last statement (that SOME abusers may use the term "compromise" to justify abuse... etc) to the phrase "withhold sex", meaning that SOME individuals may "withhold sex" as a form of coercion (I wouldn't go to "abuse", but that doesn't make it ok), so there are some instances when I think the term "withhold sex" would be appropriate. I don't think it always suggests that sex is "deserved" or a "given", but when someone uses refusing sex to manipulate or coerce another individual, I personally think the phrase "withholding sex" is apt. But to know whether it's appropriate in a certain situation, we'd have to know the intent of the person refusing sex, which, obviously, is rather difficult if not downright impossible.

I think both "deserving sex" and "refusing sex" are two sides of the same (pretty worthless) coin. Manipulation/coercion by refusal of sex sure can be a thing that happens, and I agree that it isn't a healthy or respectful thing to do. However, it only works on the background of the flawed idea that there is a right to sex in the first place; that idea is at the core of the leverage used, and is a problem that cuts both ways.

Either way, I guess we can agree that such behavior isn't compromise, and thus, within relationships that are built on honest communication (without which there can't be real compromise), "withholding sex" cannot be a meaningful concept?

[Guest]

Agree.

And us SUGGESTING compromise as AN OPTION is not saying "YOU MUST COMPROMISE OR ELSE" either.

A few things compromise is not:

Compromise is NOT submitting to sex out of fear - or threats - or anything of the like. That is coercion.

Compromise is NOT submitting to sex even though it traumatizes you and hiding that from your partner - that is hurting yourself.

Compromise is NOT silently sitting there, hating everything, wishing it would stop, while your partner has their way with you because you're too uncomfortable to speak - that is sexual abuse/assault.

Compromise IS agreeing to have sex because you have decided that it doesn't hurt you as long as you only have to do X and not Y and X is only going to be as long as you feel OK with it.

I compromise because it hurts me no more than doing the dishes hurts me, in which, it's boring sure but there is _no emotional pain_ from it. For example.

When it is suggested as an option, or some people say it sounds like this option and that option are not available to your partner so your options are compromise in whatever way is possible for you or leave - it means just that. To us, your option seems to be, this set or leave the relationship. No one can force a sexual to NEVER have sex again. But, no one should force an asexual to HAVE sex if they don't want it. It has to be a mutually agreed upon act. And if one cannot agree to that act, sometimes the only option is to leave the relationship.

I also want to add to your list

Compromise is not letting yourself being manipulated into wanting sex.

If your partner makes you think that you have sex just because it's "the normal thing," "that you never get to see each other and it's only fair" , or that "oh come on it's a holiday/my birthday" it isn't fair to you. If you don't want sex, continuous pressure (continuous being the main point) and manipulation is wrong, especially if you have tried to compromise before.

The lines between compromise, coercion, and abuse can be murky (though I think the explanations about the line between compromise and abuse thus far have been quite clear), particularly with respect to coercion. If I recall correctly, there was a rather intense discussion/debate about what constitutes coercion awhile back. But I'm too lazy to search for the thread right now.

See, thing is, we can't have a one size fits all when dealing with emotions. Obviously, hitting a person and giving them a black eye is abuse. But, the cases where it's subjective, comes down to _how the person feels about it_ .. and that is going to vary. My boyfriend's habit of pawing at me all the time - while a minor annoyance to me - would be seriously traumatic to another person, to give an example.

[Nogitsune]

Thank you for making this thread, LG. Some things just need to be said.

Hm, though I also think "withholding" is a word that has certain connotations in the context of sex that are a big problem, like it's something the other person rightfully deserves to have but you're not giving it to them. But no one "deserves" to have sex with a specific person, only to be free to go find a partner who wants and consents to have sex with them. I think "withholding sex" sounds automatically negative because of how society talks about crap like "leading people on". "Withholding consent" could be an alternative and sounds more neutral to me?

[bolding by me]

Hell no, and for the exact same reason you stated yourself in the part I bolded. IMO, "withholding consent" sounds as just bad, maybe even worse. If someone can "deserve your consent", that would make the entire concept of consent completely irrelevant.

Good point. My reasoning was that I've never seen someone say "withholding consent" in the same crappy way as "withholding sex", so to me it still seems better, but I agree it's not a good alternative after all because the connotations are still icky.

[Sally]

This may have already been said, but I think the term "witholding" does not fit in a sexual partnership situation. Unless there is obvious physically abusive coercion, people either participate or don't participate in sex. There can be many reasons why they either do or don't participate, so we can't really assume anything. Only those two individuals know.

[Cayce]

Agree.

And us SUGGESTING compromise as AN OPTION is not saying "YOU MUST COMPROMISE OR ELSE" either.

A few things compromise is not:

Compromise is NOT submitting to sex out of fear - or threats - or anything of the like. That is coercion.

Compromise is NOT submitting to sex even though it traumatizes you and hiding that from your partner - that is hurting yourself.

Compromise is NOT silently sitting there, hating everything, wishing it would stop, while your partner has their way with you because you're too uncomfortable to speak - that is sexual abuse/assault.

Compromise IS agreeing to have sex because you have decided that it doesn't hurt you as long as you only have to do X and not Y and X is only going to be as long as you feel OK with it.

I compromise because it hurts me no more than doing the dishes hurts me, in which, it's boring sure but there is _no emotional pain_ from it. For example.

When it is suggested as an option, or some people say it sounds like this option and that option are not available to your partner so your options are compromise in whatever way is possible for you or leave - it means just that. To us, your option seems to be, this set or leave the relationship. No one can force a sexual to NEVER have sex again. But, no one should force an asexual to HAVE sex if they don't want it. It has to be a mutually agreed upon act. And if one cannot agree to that act, sometimes the only option is to leave the relationship.

I also want to add to your list

Compromise is not letting yourself being manipulated into wanting sex.

If your partner makes you think that you have sex just because it's "the normal thing," "that you never get to see each other and it's only fair" , or that "oh come on it's a holiday/my birthday" it isn't fair to you. If you don't want sex, continuous pressure (continuous being the main point) and manipulation is wrong, especially if you have tried to compromise before.

The lines between compromise, coercion, and abuse can be murky (though I think the explanations about the line between compromise and abuse thus far have been quite clear), particularly with respect to coercion. If I recall correctly, there was a rather intense discussion/debate about what constitutes coercion awhile back. But I'm too lazy to search for the thread right now.

The bolded bits are emphasis added by me. I have been struggling to sort out this difference between psychological manipulation and abuse. Because to my brain abuse means violent physical harm which I have not experienced but I have experienced psychological manipulation extreme enough that it felt like more than coercion. I think the term "wrong" is more apt for me and I am looking for a way to reconcile this internally. I would like to read the thread referred to if anyone can find it or tell me a good place to look. These threads are very helpful in sorting out pasts I have no desire to repeat. Thanks.

[Member54880]

Agree.

And us SUGGESTING compromise as AN OPTION is not saying "YOU MUST COMPROMISE OR ELSE" either.

A few things compromise is not:

Compromise is NOT submitting to sex out of fear - or threats - or anything of the like. That is coercion.

Compromise is NOT submitting to sex even though it traumatizes you and hiding that from your partner - that is hurting yourself.

Compromise is NOT silently sitting there, hating everything, wishing it would stop, while your partner has their way with you because you're too uncomfortable to speak - that is sexual abuse/assault.

THIS, THIS, and THIS!! I wish I had realized this years ago, or rather I did, but I second-guessed myself, and I submitted to a lot of unwanted sexual contact as a 'compromise' for these kind of reasons. My ex wanted sex and craved physical contact, while I was repulsed by all of it, even repulsed by kissing. He said we needed to compromise; no sex, but still sexual contact. There was nothing I was comfortable with, and he saw that as a problem, which he wanted to solve by frequently pushing my boundaries.

I submitted to sexual contact while hating every minute of it, wishing for it to stop. I went through with it because I cared for him, thought denying him sex was selfish of me, so I was obligated to give him something, I thought at least it isn't real sex. I felt powerless anyways. I tried to find happiness in it from making him happy, but I just couldn't.

I typed up more about this 'compromise', but don't know if I should post about it here, or here instead.

Compromise IS agreeing to have sex because you have decided that it doesn't hurt you as long as you only have to do X and not Y and X is only going to be as long as you feel OK with it.

I compromise because it hurts me no more than doing the dishes hurts me, in which, it's boring sure but there is _no emotional pain_ from it. For example.

When it is suggested as an option, or some people say it sounds like this option and that option are not available to your partner so your options are compromise in whatever way is possible for you or leave - it means just that. To us, your option seems to be, this set or leave the relationship. No one can force a sexual to NEVER have sex again. But, no one should force an asexual to HAVE sex if they don't want it. It has to be a mutually agreed upon act. And if one cannot agree to that act, sometimes the only option is to leave the relationship.

When I first saw you explain how a lack of sex, or even not having it as often as he'd like, is a deal-breaker to him, I was nervous and concerned for you, because I can't easily distinguish that from the "If you love me, you'd have sex with me" ultimatum. When he was saying that sex is required for a relationship with him, he was just being honest about his very high sexual needs, right?

[Guest]

Compromise IS agreeing to have sex because you have decided that it doesn't hurt you as long as you only have to do X and not Y and X is only going to be as long as you feel OK with it.

I compromise because it hurts me no more than doing the dishes hurts me, in which, it's boring sure but there is _no emotional pain_ from it. For example.

When it is suggested as an option, or some people say it sounds like this option and that option are not available to your partner so your options are compromise in whatever way is possible for you or leave - it means just that. To us, your option seems to be, this set or leave the relationship. No one can force a sexual to NEVER have sex again. But, no one should force an asexual to HAVE sex if they don't want it. It has to be a mutually agreed upon act. And if one cannot agree to that act, sometimes the only option is to leave the relationship.

When I first saw you explain how a lack of sex, or even not having it as often as he'd like, is a deal-breaker to him, I was nervous and concerned for you, because I can't easily distinguish that from the "If you love me, you'd have sex with me" ultimatum. When he was saying that sex is required for a relationship with him, he was just being honest about his very high sexual needs, right?

Yes. And there is a huge difference in that, though sometimes it can be hard to feel like it's not an ultimatum because saying "I need this from a relationship" really does mean if you can't give it, it's over. But, it's OK to admit incompatibility! Just like if I say "if you need sex every day, this isn't going to work for me" it's not an ultimatum or a threat, it's just being honest.

[Guest]

Yes. And there is a huge difference in that, though sometimes it can be hard to feel like it's not an ultimatum because saying "I need this from a relationship" really does mean if you can't give it, it's over. But, it's OK to admit incompatibility! Just like if I say "if you need sex every day, this isn't going to work for me" it's not an ultimatum or a threat, it's just being honest.

Exactly!! It drives me BANANAS when I read people complaining that if they don't have sex, they're going to be dumped. Yes, you will. It is not sexual abuse OR coercion to refuse to stay in a sexless relationship.

I know I've said it before, but your sexual orientation does not ENTITLE you to a compromise. Sexuals are not entitled to sex with an asexual just because they "need it", and an asexual is not entitled to a sexless relationship with a sexual because they "can't" have sex.

This is why visibility is so important. The more visibility there is, the easier it will be for two people to say "I want this, you want that, it's not going to work", and walk away. The reason a lot of asexuals end up making compromises that hurt them is because they think they're broken, or that more sex will make them like it more, etc.

But never, never, never is it abuse to say "if we don't have sex I'm breaking up with you". That's not abuse, that's a choice. That's the OPPOSITE of abuse.

[Sally]

Yes. And there is a huge difference in that, though sometimes it can be hard to feel like it's not an ultimatum because saying "I need this from a relationship" really does mean if you can't give it, it's over. But, it's OK to admit incompatibility! Just like if I say "if you need sex every day, this isn't going to work for me" it's not an ultimatum or a threat, it's just being honest.

Exactly!! It drives me BANANAS when I read people complaining that if they don't have sex, they're going to be dumped. Yes, you will. It is not sexual abuse OR coercion to refuse to stay in a sexless relationship.

I know I've said it before, but your sexual orientation does not ENTITLE you to a compromise. Sexuals are not entitled to sex with an asexual just because they "need it", and an asexual is not entitled to a sexless relationship with a sexual because they "can't" have sex.

This is why visibility is so important. The more visibility there is, the easier it will be for two people to say "I want this, you want that, it's not going to work", and walk away. The reason a lot of asexuals end up making compromises that hurt them is because they think they're broken, or that more sex will make them like it more, etc.

But never, never, never is it abuse to say "if we don't have sex I'm breaking up with you". That's not abuse, that's a choice. That's the OPPOSITE of abuse.

All true. When I continued having sex with my husband and then my partner, I knew that I'd not have those relationships if I didn't have sex with them. They didn't have to state it, I didn't have to ask; I knew who they were and what they felt they needed. But it was totally my choice to stay with them. They didn't really realize the extent to which I didn't like sex (since I didn't really realize it then); if they had, they might have left. That would have been their choice.

No one is locked into a relationship or a marriage in a Western country.

[Guest]

Thank you for making this thread, LG. Some things just need to be said.

Hm, though I also think "withholding" is a word that has certain connotations in the context of sex that are a big problem, like it's something the other person rightfully deserves to have but you're not giving it to them. But no one "deserves" to have sex with a specific person, only to be free to go find a partner who wants and consents to have sex with them. I think "withholding sex" sounds automatically negative because of how society talks about crap like "leading people on". "Withholding consent" could be an alternative and sounds more neutral to me?

[bolding by me]

Hell no, and for the exact same reason you stated yourself in the part I bolded. IMO, "withholding consent" sounds as just bad, maybe even worse. If someone can "deserve your consent", that would make the entire concept of consent completely irrelevant.

Good point. My reasoning was that I've never seen someone say "withholding consent" in the same crappy way as "withholding sex", so to me it still seems better, but I agree it's not a good alternative after all because the connotations are still icky.

Any time I see the term "withholding sex" I think those TV shows where a girl got upset that her boyfriend wouldn't buy her something or some such silly thing and decided "No sex until you do what I want!" as a way to hurt him into doing something. Which, isn't the same icky connotation you are thinking probably, but still - it implies manipulation or somehow doing it to HURT another person instead of to avoid hurting ones self, so it's not a very good term to apply to mixed relationships at all. :(

[Lady Girl]

That's what I think of too Serran. I think talking about frequency issues, a sexless relationship, or sexual incompatibility works for the basic concept. The reason I used "withholding" in the original post is because it was used in the post I was referring to...I don't think avoiding sex (or lowering frequency) because there's a lack of desire for sexual interaction is withholding.

[Nogitsune]

No one is locked into a relationship or a marriage in a Western country.

Uh, this isn't exactly true. Like, a lot of abuse victims for example are afraid of leaving their partner because there is the threat of escalating violence. Especially if there are children (the abuser may also threaten to get sole custody for them). So I get what you're saying, but turning it into such an absolute statement glosses over a lot of crap that's going on.

[Sally]

Nogitsune, on 05 Jan 2014 - 6:51 PM, said:

Sally, on 05 Jan 2014 - 5:24 PM, said:

No one is locked into a relationship or a marriage in a Western country.

Uh, this isn't exactly true. Like, a lot of abuse victims for example are afraid of leaving their partner because there is the threat of escalating violence. Especially if there are children (the abuser may also threaten to get sole custody for them). So I get what you're saying, but turning it into such an absolute statement glosses over a lot of crap that's going on.

I know, but that's off topic here and we shouldn't derail the thread by talking about those issues.

[Kalea]

Yes. And there is a huge difference in that, though sometimes it can be hard to feel like it's not an ultimatum because saying "I need this from a relationship" really does mean if you can't give it, it's over. But, it's OK to admit incompatibility! Just like if I say "if you need sex every day, this isn't going to work for me" it's not an ultimatum or a threat, it's just being honest.

Exactly!! It drives me BANANAS when I read people complaining that if they don't have sex, they're going to be dumped. Yes, you will. It is not sexual abuse OR coercion to refuse to stay in a sexless relationship.

I know I've said it before, but your sexual orientation does not ENTITLE you to a compromise. Sexuals are not entitled to sex with an asexual just because they "need it", and an asexual is not entitled to a sexless relationship with a sexual because they "can't" have sex.

This is why visibility is so important. The more visibility there is, the easier it will be for two people to say "I want this, you want that, it's not going to work", and walk away. The reason a lot of asexuals end up making compromises that hurt them is because they think they're broken, or that more sex will make them like it more, etc.

But never, never, never is it abuse to say "if we don't have sex I'm breaking up with you". That's not abuse, that's a choice. That's the OPPOSITE of abuse.

I don't agree with that last line. I don't think saying "if we don't have sex I'm breaking up with you" is necessarily, always, or even usually manipulative/coercive, but it CAN be. It all depends on intent and context. As outsiders (of the relationship in which this statement is coming up), we can't know for certain whether it's being said to be manipulative/coercive or whether it's an expression of truth/communication. But I do think there are circumstances under which it IS manipulative/coercive (and thus potentially abusive) to make statements about "if you don't have sex with me...". That said, I think assuming it's being stated as manipulative/coercive is incredibly problematic, too - open communication is absolutely necessary in a relationship, and if one person automatically assumes the other is trying to manipulate/coerce/deceive them, that's likely going to be problematic. (Been there, done that - I don't like it when individuals assume my statements of truth are a form of manipulation; but neither do I like being manipulated.) In other words, we can't/shouldn't assume it's manipulative/coercive, but we also can't/shouldn't assume it's NOT manipulative/coercive... unless (in either happenstance) we're actually the one making the statements (or possibly - though it's much more difficult to determine - the one receiving the statements).

[Sally]

If someone makes a statement like, whether it's honest or manipulative, the relationship isn't going to work. So in that sense, it really doesn't matter.

[Kalea]

If someone makes a statement like, whether it's honest or manipulative, the relationship isn't going to work. So in that sense, it really doesn't matter.

Not necessarily. That kind of statement could be the beginning of a conversation about what kinds of compromise might work.

And yes, intent matters a great deal, even if the relationship isn't going to work. What type of person are they? Are you ending a sexual and/or romantic relationship or ending all interactions with one another? Is the "end" going to be on ok terms or is it going to be an all-out battering of one or both parties? (I could go on....)

[Sally]

If someone makes a statement like, whether it's honest or manipulative, the relationship isn't going to work. So in that sense, it really doesn't matter.

Not necessarily. That kind of statement could be the beginning of a conversation about what kinds of compromise might work.

And yes, intent matters a great deal, even if the relationship isn't going to work. What type of person are they? Are you ending a sexual and/or romantic relationship or ending all interactions with one another? Is the "end" going to be on ok terms or is it going to be an all-out battering of one or both parties? (I could go on....)

I think more likely the conversation has happened before that statement is made, and that the asexual person has said they can't deal with sex anymore.

We can't really know what will happen after that; we're talking about what the statement means.

[Guest]

I'm assuming the person is being coercive when they say "if you won't have sex with me I'm leaving." I realize it could be said very kindly and patiently and at the end of a long battle over sex, but it could also take place in the skanky basement bedroom of a 19 year old horndog who wants to get laid. Either way, it's not abuse. Unless you're a child, you need to take enough personal responsibility over your actions to not do what you don't want to do, even if it has consequences you don't like. Having the freedom to choose your action means exactly that... you can choose YOUR action. You don't also get to choose everyone's response. If you're free to say "no sex" and all the sexual does is break up with you, it's not sexual abuse.

[WhenSummersGone]

Thank you for making this thread, LG. Some things just need to be said.

Hm, though I also think "withholding" is a word that has certain connotations in the context of sex that are a big problem, like it's something the other person rightfully deserves to have but you're not giving it to them. But no one "deserves" to have sex with a specific person, only to be free to go find a partner who wants and consents to have sex with them. I think "withholding sex" sounds automatically negative because of how society talks about crap like "leading people on". "Withholding consent" could be an alternative and sounds more neutral to me?

[bolding by me]

Hell no, and for the exact same reason you stated yourself in the part I bolded. IMO, "withholding consent" sounds as just bad, maybe even worse. If someone can "deserve your consent", that would make the entire concept of consent completely irrelevant.

I agree though that the concept of "withholding sex" is fundamentally flawed. The same way as the concept of "abuse by compromise" is fundamentally flawed. We should stop using both of these phrases, right now, because they do not ever apply to situations that deserve to be called compromise in the first place (= a conscious, free decision to go with an arrangement that doesn't unduly hurt either participant, while giving both sides sufficient parts of what they want to at least be fully at ease, maybe even happy, with the outcome).

If it's actual compromise, it's by definition not abuse. Ever. End of story. People who equal them do not seem to have a clear idea about the meaning either of compromise or of abuse.

BTW, I certainly won't invalidate the possibility that some abusers may try to gaslight their victims by calling the abuse "compromise". But if someone thinks that this were an apt description for all, or even most, cases of compromise, I'd advise them to seek professional help. That kind of worldview is seriously twisted and will poison every relationship they enter.

While I agree with most of this, I would actually apply the last statement (that SOME abusers may use the term "compromise" to justify abuse... etc) to the phrase "withhold sex", meaning that SOME individuals may "withhold sex" as a form of coercion (I wouldn't go to "abuse", but that doesn't make it ok), so there are some instances when I think the term "withhold sex" would be appropriate. I don't think it always suggests that sex is "deserved" or a "given", but when someone uses refusing sex to manipulate or coerce another individual, I personally think the phrase "withholding sex" is apt. But to know whether it's appropriate in a certain situation, we'd have to know the intent of the person refusing sex, which, obviously, is rather difficult if not downright impossible.

There are some people who want to wait until they are comfortable having sex, or they are abstaining from sex. I think this is different than abuse or trying to hurt someone else's feelings. Sure someone may be hurt or feel rejected but they shouldn't just because someone isn't comfortable doing something. I think respect should be more valued than wants/needs. The pressure to have or not have sex is more important than the sex itself, meaning feelings are more important.

I honestly wouldn't mind if a guy dumped me because I wasn't comfortable having sex early, he can find someone else. This isn't abuse but more your wants/needs don't match up. Like deciding not to date smokers or something like that.

As for the asexual/sexual relationship, we are all responsible for our own actions. So if an asexual decides to have sex that is their choice and it isn't coming from a place of manipulation or abuse. In some cases one person could be manipulating the other, and that's wrong, but the other person has a right to walk away. I didn't walk away in most sexual situations I have had and that was my choice. Most asexuals have sex out of love for their partners, even if they don't care about doing it for themselves.

[Guest]

I'm assuming the person is being coercive when they say "if you won't have sex with me I'm leaving." I realize it could be said very kindly and patiently and at the end of a long battle over sex, but it could also take place in the skanky basement bedroom of a 19 year old horndog who wants to get laid. Either way, it's not abuse. Unless you're a child, you need to take enough personal responsibility over your actions to not do what you don't want to do, even if it has consequences you don't like. Having the freedom to choose your action means exactly that... you can choose YOUR action. You don't also get to choose everyone's response. If you're free to say "no sex" and all the sexual does is break up with you, it's not sexual abuse.

Agreed to all of that except for the first sentence. Even in the 19-yo horndog example, I'd see the statement by itself just as listing the options. Unless there are other things going on beside that sentence being said, I see no objective coercion at work there - thus, it takes two to tango, and feeling coerced is one's own problem.

Coercion only comes into play if there is a reasonable risk of the person stating this not reacting well at all to the answer "I'm afraid you'll have to leave, then." In that case, though, there are much bigger problems in the 'ship than that the alternatives got uttered - especially the fundamental lack of respect for the other partner's right to make a choice.

As I put it in another thread recently: Shoot the messenger, not the message.

[Guest]

Yeah, definitely, if you have a reason to fear them. Even then the only solution to an abusive relationship is to leave. No one can do it for you, and no one can make the person not abusive. In the end it's like Sally said... whether the person is being abusive or not, the solution is the same: walk away.

[WhenSummersGone]

Also tone of voice is very important. If someone is politely asking for sex and an asexual agrees it's probably not done under abuse, but if someone sounds angry or is using pressure than it may be abuse. I know for anything I might do I don't want to be harassed about it. I could easily not mind having sex but if someone doesn't shut up about it I'm not going to be in a good mood anymore. It's best to just ask once, let it sink in and see what happens or hear a response.

[~Rikki~]

I learned recently I cannot compromise. Sex has to basically be on my own terms (consent has to be made both ways, obviously) in order for me to actually be okay and not feel dirty and disgusting afterwards. I'll straight up tell any allosexual that if dating is on the table. I have to be the one that initiates it or it can't happen (of course my partner would have to consent too obviously).

Willing, 100%, compromise isn't abuse. As someone that has been through all kinds of sexual abuse, sexual assault and rape, that's like a punch to the stomach stating that sexual compromise is automatically abuse.

[AGEmily93]

Sorry to post on this thread after a while, but I'm really trying to find out if there's a thread (or multiple ones) that actually deal with consent between asexual and sexual people, and whether you are really consenting if you don't want to and find it traumatizing but have sex anyway because of social pressure or emotional manipulation. Can anybody point me to a topic like that? Or an appropriate forum I could post in?

[Member54880]

Sorry to post on this thread after a while, but I'm really trying to find out if there's a thread (or multiple ones) that actually deal with consent between asexual and sexual people, and whether you are really consenting if you don't want to and find it traumatizing but have sex anyway because of social pressure or emotional manipulation. Can anybody point me to a topic like that? Or an appropriate forum I could post in?

The closest to what you're looking for, that's active, may be this thread: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/96340-for-those-who-unwillingly-compromise-on-the-sex/

[Lady Girl]

Sorry to post on this thread after a while, but I'm really trying to find out if there's a thread (or multiple ones) that actually deal with consent between asexual and sexual people, and whether you are really consenting if you don't want to and find it traumatizing but have sex anyway because of social pressure or emotional manipulation. Can anybody point me to a topic like that? Or an appropriate forum I could post in?

The closest to what you're looking for, that's active, may be this thread: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/96340-for-those-who-unwillingly-compromise-on-the-sex/

Thank you Aqua! I was hoping you would come along with a link. :)