Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry; I can't agree that a complete lack of sexual desire during the reproductive years is "natural" or "normal." Obviously nature designed us to procreate, and that includes giving us the desire to copulate! After menopause, when it would be dangerous (to mother and/or baby) and then impossible to breed, many - but not all - women lose their libidos; that's also natural and normal, but then there's a disconnect because men never do, assuming they ever had one. I think we all want and need a connection with another human being or, simply put, love in our lives, but many of us have to learn to live without it, maybe to the point of convincing ourselves that we don't need or want it. And so...pets!
If I remember correctly, you were very vocal in several of the picky eater threads that picky eating is not a big deal and why do other people care, etc. This of this as a parallel to that opinion--some people love food and find it sensual and enjoyable and want to share it with others, and some people will eat only a limited diet and want to be left alone about it. In the same way, some people love sex and think about it often, and other people don't get much enjoyment out of it and don't need it in their lives. It's not that different.
That would be a parallel if someone didn't want to eat AT ALL, EVER. It's a biological urge designed for survival of the species, so that would be "abnormal."
Of course how much one cares about food and their taste in it, assuming they DO eat, and how much they care about sex, assuming they have *some* sex drive during their reproductive years, can vary greatly within the realm of normal. Since it kind of takes two to have sex, it's pretty important you be compatible in that area unless you're both willing to compromise. I still maintain it really doesn't matter what you both eat, since you can each eat independently, even if you eat together.
Personally, I always had to be attracted to the guy and already falling in love with him as a person somewhat before the lust would kick in; I never just wanted random, anonymous sex for the heck of it and don't now. I think if I hung out with a guy as a companion having good times, I might very well end up wanting sex (again) with him, although sex after menopause would be dicey.
Thank you for pointing this out sonic. While Shelato is not entirely "wrong" in his assertion, it still implies that a person who is not sexually active or is not interested in engaging in anything sexual needs to be fixed. It's like telling someone who is homosexual they need to convert to heterosexuality because that is what is familiar, "normal," and acceptable. The ultimate determining factor is the individual. Being on the aromantic asexual spectrum myself, I have been subject to these conversations many times with friends. They love to cling to things like: "How do you know you don't want it if you haven't tried?" "It's just a phase." "You have to meet the right person." "You should get your hormones checked." Even though I have NEVER implied or demonstrated that I am distressed by it. They just can't accept it. Imagine telling a straight person that they don't know for sure they're not homosexual if they haven't slept with someone of the same gender. People would throw a fit. To me, craving sexual activity or feeling sexual attraction seems like a burden, because we have no control over whether or not someone would want to share that with us. Going out looking for it (I.E. dating) sounds even more burdensome so why would I open myself up to it? I hope that makes sense.
To me though where the analogy between homosexuality and asexuality breaks down is that there was no evidence that any of the attempts at conversion therapy ever worked. So it seems cruel to advise someone who is gay to see a doctor for treatments that don't actually work.
But that really isn't the case here.
There are medical interventions here that have worked for other women dealing with the underlying issues OP has described. The OP has a romantic interest in men, but no current sexual interest in men, but that is also a set of problems that has been successfully treated in others.
I guess what I am uncomfortable with is when you define asexuality as broadly as you have and then argue that anyone who advocates seeking medical treatment is attacking asexuals as a group, you are also going to prevent women from actually being made aware that there are successful medical interventions that might actually work for them here too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
O.k. Even IF someone is sexual, they can still have a difficult, if not near impossible time to find someone they want to be with. Consider the people who are sexual, but who want to wait until they 'know you better', which, in their minds, might take 6-8 months.
There was a woman on here about a year ago (can't remember her name) who made a number of posts about her dating life. She couldn't seem to get beyond the first date (I think she had less than a handful of second dates) for over 10 years.
If the OP went through an asexual community, she might find someone in 6 months. I mean, who's to say?
How much different would this be if someone wants to wait until marriage to have sex?
And as far as what percentage of the population is asexual, we really have no idea. I've seen estimates that are anywhere from the 'old' 2004 number of 1% of the population up to 15%. Asexuality is still fairly new, so I'm pretty sure that if some people who've been married for 20 years, suddenly realizes that they NEVER had the desire for sex, may not immediately consider themselves to be asexual.
Fifty years ago, if one professed themselves as gay, they would have been subjected to a whole bunch of medical tests/measures. Nowadays, more and more people accept the LGBTQ community as not a bunch of people who have "medical issues", but as simply those who were born that way.
Unless the doctor believes that asexuality is a real 'thing', it won't do any good.
Mink we may just see things differently, but my goal here isn't to attack you nor bait you either.
I'd think you should look for an online dating site for celibate people, because you're not likely to meet permanently celibate people on the normal dating market.
To me though where the analogy between homosexuality and asexuality breaks down is that there was no evidence that any of the attempts at conversion therapy ever worked. So it seems cruel to advise someone who is gay to see a doctor for treatments that don't actually work.
Yes, that's how it stands today, but it's not how it was viewed several decades ago, when it was just being recognized. In fact, it was listed as a disorder in the DSM until 1973. But even today, some people still have issues with homosexuality, insisting that some kind of psycopathology lies underneath.
Quote:
But that really isn't the case here.
There are medical interventions here that have worked for other women dealing with the underlying issues OP has described. The OP has a romantic interest in men, but no current sexual interest in men, but that is also a set of problems that has been successfully treated in others.
Unless the OP suggested that she isn't interested in sex AND WANTS TO BE, there's no need to believe that she may have an underlying treatable medical issue. Since the OP made no such assertion, then the discussion of possible medical interventions is moot.
Quote:
I guess what I am uncomfortable with is when you define asexuality as broadly as you have and then argue that anyone who advocates seeking medical treatment is attacking asexuals as a group, you are also going to prevent women from actually being made aware that there are successful medical interventions that might actually work for them here too.
See above response.
Quote:
Mink we may just see things differently, but my goal here isn't to attack you nor bait you either.
Or a timberline, who while not an ugly man, I would not in a million years describe using either of those names.
I have seen his photos. He's just a normal lookin' dude. But he is intelligent and knows how to hold an in person conversation, he lives life in the real world despite his presence here on this forum, which is obvious from what I saw of him.
Ya don't have to be "Chad" or "Tyrone." But dudes could maybe try just...not bein' a scrub.
But anyways.
We digress.
OP I am still curious what else you are hoping to find in a partner besides cuddles, fidelity, and no sex.
Do you hope to cohabitate or marry? Do you want them to help raise your kids or are your kids raised? Financial partnership? Good company? Like what does your ideal relationship look like? And what, other than snuggles and no sex, do you have to offer him?
I think when guys say things like that what they mean is "That chad guy lines up dates easily and he is a prick" just like some women say "all guys want barbies" what they mean is "that barbie chick lines up dates with no effort and she's a ******" basically they are both right in a way, there have been studies on this, basically people who won the DNA lotto do have an easier time attracting people and are more forgiven for personality flaws. you seem like a smart person so I'm guessing you would not date a scrub no matter how he looked, BUT there is no shortage of women who will date a scrub that looks like an underwear model were as joe average better have a good job and if you on the ugly side you better be loaded. yes there are exceptions but not enough to go around.
And people notice when others don't have to work as hard, this is not a male / female thing.
How?
Without being to graphic,most guys I assume like and will eventually want coitus,even if those other things are involved?
I've never known a man that was only satisfied with um,well,you know,the "F" word.
Depends on the guy. I am on Semen Retention right not for about 10 months so I know I am disciplined.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
