Category: Dating and Relationships
I was reading an article, and a study found that some sexual disorder was due to disgust.
I sort of understood this in the back or my mind, because I have met people that say they just don’t like sex at all.
Asking why brings out different reasons, I was raped, it is painful, I haven’t found the right woman, I’m afraid of STD’s, I don’t believe in sex before marriage.
These are just some of the reasons people say they don’t want to engage, but I’ve never been told, it is flat out disgusting!
If you think about it, it is pretty nasty actually. You share body fluids, you sweat sometimes, and you could be at risk of disease.
It isn’t dignified at all. You grunt, moan, some people are inspired to curse, your makeup gets smeared, you can’t be at your best.
After, the bed, or whatever you are on is wet, has stuff on it, it is sticky, hard to wash off, sometimes stains covers, furniture.
You have spit on your face from being kissed or just slobbering, you have stuff running down your legs, and you have to worry about being pregnant or getting people pregnant.
It has a smell sometimes.
You get the picture from the disgusting point of view.
So, how many just think so?
You can’t answer anonymous here, so if you want to post it on the sex boards.
You sweat sometimes? I don't think I've ever not sweated during sex..
I get what you're sayng though. Sexis a messy business. If it didn't feel so damn good I don't think any of us would ever want to do it.
Messy, yes. Disgusting...well, not really. Our bodies do lots of things that aren't exactly clean, but since they happen all the time, it quickly becomes something of a nonissue for most people. The average person doesn't really bat an eye if they have to take a crap or pas gas or throw up (though since that latter is rarer, some people are more touchy about it). Sex is not all that clean, really, but since it's quite a normal part of the human experience, most of us just kind of get used to it.
Cody you haven't lived in a cold climate or had sex when the temperature was below zero outside. Then you will stay warm, yes, but probably not sweat. When it's that cold out, trust me, no matter how good most heating is, it kinda creeps in, and dare I say, adds to the adventure but this board was supposed to be about disgust. lol.
Wayne, there is a whole group of people out there known as asexuals, a community now, who simply don't have an interest in sex. Many will have sex for their partner, maybe even get an orgasm, sbut strange as it sounds to you or I they are indifferent to sex. And yes, some of them find the idea of sex nauseating, and others resent being told they must have had trauma or something, that this is just how they are.
The hardest part for them is those that still want romantic relationships. I do think it would be disingenuous to trap a sexual like us into a relationship, only then to state they really don't like sex, but I am not a friend to anyone treacherous.
But anyway see the Asexual.org website, and SexualFuturist has quite a bit of that stuff on Youtube.
They're not usually the prude types running around getting upset at everyone else's sex, though, they just don't want it themselves.
I self-identify as homosexual, though my behavior, of late, would be a lot closer to the asexual. I understand the asexual position as just another point on the continuum.
Interestingly full on asexuals are not drawn to sex, but they do have homoromantic and heteroromantic feelings also, at least some of them, except those who are aromantic.
I only recently learned of this as a community and I for one am glad they are able to be heard now.
My very first girlfriend subscribed and still subscribes to te belief that sex is disgusting. Only thing is she's never had it and therefore has no way to judge that for herself.
Then she can't really say it's disgusting. lol. she's just a jealous virgin. lol
Leo, thanks for the website recommendation. I have a friend who has struggled with this for a long time and I think this will be helpful information for her.
I only wish more people were open about this before a sexual person were caught in a relationship with an asexual.
That would be like some of you if you match a typical heterosexual woman's demographic, you married a guy who then told you he didn't want to hear about your feelings anymore, didn't want to hear about your day anymore, didn't want any emotions from you anymore. Any woman would be understood if she up and left a relationship like that, because that is an insult to her person.
Same goes with the sexuals like most of us (myself included) vs. the asexuals. Ironically, is appears the asexual community appears to understand this.
Wow. I never heard of something this drastic. Guess it goes to show there are fears of just about anything, or in this case someone is bound to find anything gross.
I do find the whole sexual thing gross. The whole idea of it, mentioned in the first post for instance. So, it's something I'm not in a hurry to try out. I have heard about the A-sexual community, and I find their ideas interesting. Those are my thoughts.
I have to ask here. If you haven't tried it, how did you come to the conclusion that its gross? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just asking. How did you reach that result without trying it?
Yes, Leo, I am aware of the A-sexual community and people that feel they are A-sexual.
As you have said, some do want close relationships, more like a deep friendship, but don't want the physical at all.
I've only known one lady personally that claimed she didn't like sex. If was the reason her husband divorced her after 3 years, because she only gave him sex twice in that whole time period. The interesting thing about that was she kept a vibrator, and would have sex if she was tricked, or promised something she wanted, or was jealous of someone elses boyfriend.
Example, her roommate went to the hospital over night, so her boyfriend at the time told her he was going to show her sex was good. She said she didn't understand what he was doing, because he said he was just going to touch her, but she didn't tell him to stop either.
After we talked it through, I learned, she just was jealous of her roomates relationship.
Just thinking it over, maybe a person that has not tried sex thinks about the things involved, and because they don't like physical contact in general, you add the fact they have to be parshally undressed, so show or be touched on the body, and the rest is how they get to the thought they don't like it? Yes, and it is disgusting to them for the few reasons above.
Like Leo, I feel strongly that a person who has these feelings for any reason, should not get involved in a situation were sex will be an issue. Sooner or later, they'll get tired of submitting, or just have an uncomfortable life.
The other person will also notice the dislike.
It was in interesting article, and I'd never really thought about the disgust angle much.
Thanks for all that have posted. I am interested iin some reasons as well, so if anyone that hates is will explain the reasons, that be great.
I asked my x the same question.If she's never had sex how can she say it's disgusting? She claims it's because she heard other girls who had had it discuss some of the things they liked to do and have done to them.
Lol can it be messy? Definitely. But disgusting? No, at least not in my opinion.
Agreed. Then I think she's also worried about it being painful since she'd never doneit before.
To simply lack interest in sex is just fine. But to think it automatically unpleasant, painful and/or disgusting without having given it a try is a bit shortsighted, if nothing else.
Exactly. But she's a fairly shortsighted individual with regards to most aspects of life and not just with regard to matters in the bedroom. The really strange part is she seems to have the notion tat I'm some sort of sex god and the only being fit to instruct her. Oh she's never said those words exactly but the sentiment is there. She has said and repeatedly that she's waiting to have sex until I decide to take her back. But as we have basically nothing at all in common, a fact I only found out after we became a couple, that likelyhood is extremely low to say the least.
All right! Wane, from reading your original and first post, honestly, it sounds pretty messy, but not disgusting. As has been stated, the boddy does some unclean acts every day, we eliminate what we don't need, however, while its not clean it's totalky natural. I don't think it sounds gross at all, people work out and they sweat, we get our mouths dirty when we eat, it's all natural, part of life and not to be disgusted by. Sex is sex, you sweat and you share fluids and you share and enjoy each other and it canbe be very wonderful, and though I personally haven't tried it, I don't feel disgusted by your post. Thank you forthis post, Wayne ^_^
Sex could be messy. but will never ever say it's disgusting. It is interesting and encouraging me to go for it over and over, I say.
Raaj.
Doesn't look like you're going to get any takers on the disgusting side. lol Besides, even if someone did feel that way, I highly doubt they'd come out and admit it here. lol
Sex is such a personal thing though so I wouldn't begin to judge, question, or ridicule anybody who felt this way.
Often what I find happens is that people who are very new to anything sexual view it as sort of disgusting, until they are caught up in the moment; suddenly, all the seemingly unclean things involved don't matter when it's someone you either love very much, desire very much, or both. It's just not on your mind, somehow.
We've had a couple post actually tghat think it is disgusting. I thank them for posting.
I'd like to have reasons, other than what I think.
It's too bad, but I think they won't write coherent reasons. My main observations have been it is women not men who feel this way, and it is all feel with nothing to back it: I've never in my life gotten a coherent response from people who feel that way.
It would be nice, though, if they could put a couple words together and provide an explanation, rather than just stamp their foot and say they don't have to explain anything to us. Because we all have to explain things about ourselves that are foreign to other people, if we want those other people to understand us.
I won't name names, and it wouldn't matter if I did because the subject of what I'm about to write isn't here and will probably never see this. I'll still keep the details light, however.
Basically, I think some people get weirded out by what something will imply, and what it will suggest. I have known one woman in particular, and a few others less intimately, who at one point or another thought oral sex (giving it, in particular) was utterly disgusting owing to where her mouth was going to be. The thing about certain sexual practices is just this: overthink them, and yeah they might seem nasty. But people have been doing them, and enjoying them, for thousands of years in most cases, so history speaks for itself.
I think most people who get squeamish do so because they're afraid to take the leap. They may think "Eww! That's going to be in my mouth!" or "Oh god, gross, what if it's drippy?" or whatever, and they don't realize the practicality of it. In most sexual situations, all involved run the very large risk of being a little messy. Sex isn't dignified, but they overdramatize this to the point where every small indignity becomes unbearable when, in the heat of the moment, it's probably not going to matter much. In most worst-case scenarios, you both laugh it off when something doesn't quite go right. Or rather, you do if you're not insecure. Insecurity about yourself and about the act of sex is ultimately what this circles back to.
You'd certainly never get a straight answer out of my x.
It be nice, I agree Leo.
In my one experience I came to the conclusion she was selfish. She was this way in other areas of life as well, feeling, if she didn't want to do something it shouldn't be expected of her.
She wanted her perks however as I stated that went along with girlfriend status.
I'd really have liked to know a concrete reason, or some reasons.
I think some men probably feel this way as well, but for them it is easy to not seek sex, because of the number of women that can take it or leave it.
Even when women like sex, in my experience, they are less likely to push for their needs being met, and will do without for the sake of a relationship.
That has to be some what stressful, but they do it, and settle well, or soon have an affair.
I didn't realize people were this grossed out buy such a normal act. Wow.
No need to get funny about it guys; sometimes it's hard to put a finger on something.
I know i use to think orral sex was just disgusting when I was little; I still do to an extent even though I've experienced both recieving and giving.
An above poster was right, overthinking is not the key here.
It's also pretty easy for me to think sexual intercourse is disgusting and I will admit that I do, in fact. But as someone else pointed out, when I'm doing it with someone I'm absolutely head over heels in love with, it's not so bad.
That's one of the many but main reasons why I'd never be into one-night-stands, because I don't know these people and therefore, it's far worse I would think.
Here's what I struggle with, though: it's generally accepted that you can't help what you like and dislike. If you don't like turnips, you can't make yourself like them; if you don't like to read mysteries then you just don't, that's all; if you don't really enjoy massages or cuddling or any number of fairly natural things, then so be it. So why is it not okay to dislike sex? Leading a partner on is never okay, of course, as most partners will expect sexual activity sooner or later. I know I would. But if you've tried it and just hated it, why should you need a concrete reason? What if you just...don't enjoy it? What would be wrong with that?
Nothing, as long as you've tried it. If you've never tried it and don't want to, then saying you don't like it would be untrue. At that point you'd be uninterested in it.
For example, I hate brustle sprouts, but I've tried them. that's how I know I don't like them, because I've tried them. I'm not interested in having sex with a guy. It isn't that I don't like it, its that I have no interest in doing it. There's a subtle difference, but an important one.
If someone says sex is disgusting, there may be one among these reasons, in my opinion.
1. probably they either never enjoyed it, or never enjoyed it with the right person.
2. probably he or she may be similar to real nuns who always think of their religion and prayers, and they consider it as a sin.
3. Bitter experience with some rough handlers.
In fact, as per me, while I'm not in the mood for having sex, I don't think I can give oral to my partner. The sexual feeling is overtaking all the disgusting feelings we have, I say.
So don't ever say it is disgusting. Try it with a right person and come to a conclusion.
Raaj.
Absolutely. I have never led a gay guy on, for instance. I don't want the perks of a gay relationship, if there are any, without the sex. I don't want to make a gay guy be my companion in all other ways except for gay sex.
You see? And You understand, because it's socially acceptable now to understand the plight of a gay person in that situation.
Or, let me illustrate from real life. I know a guy who wanted not just a one-night stand but relationships with women. He did, except that he couldn't stand to hear about her day, couldn't stand to see them cry, couldn't stand to deal with all the emotional things we heterosexual modern men deal with on an ongoing basis in relationships, and some of us, myself included, unashamedly say we're glad to do it and it's no burden at all. In fact, that level of trust is a very deep thing.
Now to the poster who said what's wrong with not liking sex? Well, what's wrong with this guy not liking those emotional types of connections? Of course, you wouldn't argue for that, because that's just not done in a modern polite society. But I made the same argument I would make to an anti-sexual: you can't lead someone else on in this way, or expect them to just forego those types of needs. And you understand this, because us men who are more emotionally sensitive or able to deal with these things have an easy time of it in a world where emotionally sensitive is popular and modern and enlightened.
In reality, it's not the dislike of sex, or even the dislike of emotional connections (in my friend's case) that is the problem. It is the blatant treachery. And that's the word I used when we discussed his situation. It's treachery. If it's that important to not have any kind of emotional connections like what most of us heterosexual men do, then perhaps foregoing a heterosexual relationship would be in order, instead of leading someone on like that.
Fortunately for his spouse, we don't see it as cheating or an affair for her to get her emotional type needs met elsewhere. Even if me and others see his actions as treacherous.
And treacherous is what it would be like for an anti-sexual to impose their will on a sexual like that. Imagin, if you don't like sex, that some sexually oriented person told you they didn't like sex either. Or led on that it was just okay and they really had no needs, just so they could contain you in a relationship. Now they couldn't actually impose their will except by rape, so that is where that analogy breaks down, but still.
Treachery is treachery.
But I am actually interested in honest people who dislike sex and also are honest enough to behave like human beings and not rope others into a bad situation.
In the guy's case I referred to, I often wondered about what Wayne said about the selfishness in other areas. Then again, treachery is always selfishly motivated.
Leo, I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated in my post that a person who doesn't enjoy sex should never lead a person on, or expect to find it easy to find a relationship as most people will want sex as well. And, Coty, I completely agree: how can you know till you've done it? Especially if it's with someone who is interested in your pleasure as well as their own, of course. One bad experience shouldn't sour a person on sex altogether.
Anyway, Leo, I'm not sure about your analogy. If a guy isn't into the emotions thing, and he can find a partner who is okay with that, then more power to him, as long as he's okay with her doing what she needs to do elsewhere. I don't know many people who are like that mind you. I was just curious as to why someone would need a concrete reason for disliking something. I don't much like most forms of massage, and most people enjoy them. I appreciate them when I'm in pain and that's about it. Otherwise, get away from me. But I don't have a real reason, I just don't ever get anything out of them.
Oh I wasn't attempting to rebuff your post, you were completely fair.
Ah okay, I thought you were since you directly mentioned it in your own post. Apologies.
I don't know if I've met anyone who thought it was disgusting, but I do know some people who aren't into certain things. I know this woman who hates bodily fluids of all kinds, though she's not a virgin. I know a guy who had a wife who hated kissing. she thought that was disgusting, but what the hell they had a kid together. I read somewhere about a couple who had a sexless relationship. He, that's right, he, was completely happy with it, or at least, that's what was written.
Completely agree with what Meglet said. I have a question for cody though, what if the person doesn't have in interest in having sex? I'm the same as you, I don't have an interest in having sex with another guy. But could it be said that there are people who aren't interested in sex without going to the drastic point of saying it is disgusting?
I haven't heard of people who thought intercourse is disgusting, but I know there are people who are pickier about giving and receiving oral. A lot of girls don't like if a guy eats them out, and there are even those who will not let the guy kiss them after he does it because they don't want to taste their own fluids. And there are also guys who are squeemish about eating out a girl. It seems rare that a guy doesn't like having his dick sucked but I won't say there is no such case. Lol.
I'd feel sorry for someone who had that kind of outlook on sex.
Meglet, I guess I did say I wanted an honest concrete reason for someone thinking sex was disgusting.
If someone said to me, I don’t like it, because, like your massages, I don’t get anything out of it, or it grosses me out, that is enough.
I suppose, someone just saying, well, I don’t like it. End of subject, and they won’t talk about it anymore makes me curious, because as posted, maybe they’ve just not had a good experience with it at all, or have heard negative things about it, or gotten bad information.
To be fair, we that enjoy sex, should not be on a crusade to change everyone’s mind about it, but some understanding would go a long way in understanding the other side of the picture.
It is kind of difficult for me personally, to carry on a relationship with a female that wants what I call the girlfriend benefits, and not want her physically.
If I could understand from the start, I’m not going to convince her to try, I’ll not do so, but she also has to understand we have to be strict friends, and some things we can’t do together, like cuddling, and such things.
I’m sure if you’ve read other postings written by me, my opinions are known about sex, so I’ll not get in to that.
I just thought it was interesting to read are article about how so many people have this feeling, and was again interested how many of us do here.
Oh oh, I understand now. I thought that you wanted a very specific reason, instead of just "I'm not interested" or "I don't derive pleasure from it" or whatnot. Thanks for clearing that up.
Ok, so in defence of those who don't like sex. What about the people who have no interest in or desire for sex, who do it anyway whether they want to or not, for the sake of the relationship? Why does everyone always assume it is the person who doesn't want sex that's getting his or her way?
Has anyone ever thought that perhaps the reason someone might not like sex, or desire it, is because they've never had good sex, or the person with whom he or she is in love might just suck at it, therefore rendering it a pointless or unpleasant acctivity that must be done to keep the peace or to stay in a relationship with someone they love in every other way?
Just tossing that out there.
If sex is disgusting, and all of us here as the end product for the result of sex, are we consider ourselves as disgusting as well?
To answer the question asked of me, yes, it is completely possible to have no interest in having sex. There's even a cool term for it, asexuality. Its like homosexuality, being sexually attracted to the same gender, or heterosexuality, being sexually attracted to the opposite gender. Asexuality is being sexually attracted to no one at all. You simply aren't interested in having sex. Isn't science fun?
I have thought about that Domestic.
In that case, I think it is nice for the person to sacrifice, but I don’t feel it is fair for the partner that sucks, to continue to suck, and not try to make the situation better.
Sex is something that can be learned, technique and what make the other person feel good.
If one partner loves the other, but sex is lacking, it is fair for them to say so, and as a couple they seek out ways to make sex enjoyable.
Now, if the partner that sucks, also sucks, because they dislike sex, or giving pleasure in ways that could, and would, make their partners enjoy it, they are selfish, there again.
An example of this, is you don’t like oral sex, but your female partner can not orgasm from penis thrusting, so never does. Oral, or oral mixed with some other stimulation would make her orgasm, but because the partner things oral sex is disgusting, she never will receive it.
Now, he on the other had orgasms just fine, so enjoys sex if it is exact way he likes it, so desires it with her.
She gives it, but just doesn’t like it. That is selfish, and if she ever decides to try it with someone else to learn if maybe she has a problem, and that person is giving, it will ruin her total love for her partner.
It is a time bomb unless the sacrificing partner never learns better, even by reading, or talking to others.
Wayne's right.
Discusting, no. Uninteresting, yes. It was supposed to be great, because just about everyone around talked about it as though it were great, but it quickly became boring. I remember wearing a pair of headphones in order to listen to an episode of DS9 while he did what he wanted to do. That must've been five years ago, and he's gone. Go figure.
I would venture to say that you have an issue.
You mean an undying love of Star Trek?
And before anyone yells "unfair" or "treachery," I couldn't tell anyone that which I didn't know.
If you are serious, thanks for posting.
Now, can I ask why it was boring, dispite the fact you were wearing heaphones and listing to something else?
Did he not try to make it interesting, or was it a short experience?
Was anything said about you wearing headphones, or did he care?
I ask, because I'm interested.
I have heard of women using music, or headphones, during sex, but for different reasons.
I'll not say them yet, because I'd really like to know your experience.
For what reason have you not tried again? That is also an open question.
Yes, I was serious, although last night I was up late and bored and deliberately posted in a manner that tends to provoke people into either laughter and jokes or "I can't believe you actually did that."
Short experience? No, sometimes more like long and overwhelming. I'd often fall asleep afterwards.
Did he mind? That I can't say for sure. He had problems which were far more serious than mine. I suppose he knew it was a way to get me to allow him to do what he wanted without much fuss.
Why have I not tried again? I don't really like it. It's been at least 4.5 years and I'm fine without it. And it's fortunate anyway because my risk of pregnancy is zero. I can think of experiences which are far more pleasurable than sex.
Voyager, please do not take what I am saying the wrong way.
First, you may be an asexual for which there is a great community out there, either aromantic asexuals or homo or heteroromantic asexuals.
But I can explain why a man would leave in a situation that you described. Pardon the term "dead lay," but a man who is raised in modern society is likely to perceive himself in some way as having been a sexual violator if he is with someone who is completely unresponsive sexually. You may be shocked or surprised, thinking, well, you didn't say no or push him away. But we - at least straight sexual males - need a level of confirmation and activity. Not just because it feels good or helps us know we're doing what the woman wants, but also, that confirmation says that the guy is still welcome. And contrary to modern thinking, most men don't rape, can't conceive of themselves raping and don't commit acts of sexual assault.
I have read that asexuals in particular asexual women who do choose to engage in sex do first communicate with the partner and try to waylay this particular issue.
I'm not saying he should have left, or even defending someone in that situation, someone I don't even know. But you seem like a rational practical human being and so capable of this level of understanding. In no way was I intending at all to blame you, in fact to my mind we all would do better to remove blame at all. My only aim has been to educate on a situation that nobody talks about. Just like the modern mythology that men have no anxiety about having sex with a virgin, or that men are eager to "pop the cherry" as it were, completely throwing under the bus all the normal fears of hurting her and everything else that is a part of life for us men in a modern society. I'm willing to take this step and educate, even if it does violate a lot of people's spaghetti-monster religious dogma about men and sex.
Leo, I don't take any offense. As it turns out I'm the one who left the situation due to his mental instability. I wasn't making things any better, and it may have been unsafe for me to stay any longer.
I've taken a few asexuality quizzes online. They're sort of like those personality tests or like any one of a million surveys you can take on the internet in which you provide no identifying information. They all came out positive. I suppose I haven't pursued the subject any further because one, I need to have more in common with a friend than both of us not liking something, and two, I have some close friends already. If one is a guy, and I think he might need to know, then I explain that sex is not something I do with anyone. It doesn't mean that all kinds of physical contact are banned or that I don't like them.
Voyager thanks for your response. My prior post had started to bother me as a potential rape apology or something and I didn't want you at all to feel any sort of blame. More mainly a education about us guys that nobody really knows, and agaim, I' all for no blame at all.
But good for you for leaving a situation where the other was mentally unstable and you could have been subjected to something unsafe. And knowing yourself, as hard as that is for most of us, can't be anything less than a good thing.
Voyager, what I meant by my post was some sort of disassociative disorder. Ether that or it is a physical medical problem which causes you to not feel satisfied. P.S. I love star trech as well.
Margorp, wouldn't both possibilities 1 and 2 come with additional symptoms besides lack of satisfaction? If I knew what they were I could check for them. In general I'm physically healthy and mentally stable.
Ah yes, my last two GFs were the sort who'd just lay there while I...did my business let's say. The irony is that while Iindeed wanted sex they were the ones who initiated it. Then they just didn't do anything. It also didn't help that one of them wasn't very clean. So of course I wasn't going to take either of them without shall we say a raincoat seeing as I had no idea where they'd been LOL. But I never had the feeling they particularly enjoyed the act despite them being the ones who initiated it. Then of course I've had my share of the opposite type of woman where there was absolutely no doubt they enjoyed it as much as I did. But I definitely agree about not saying it's disgusting or that you don't like it until you've tried it at least once. But I agree that if you just have no desire for it you should make that clear to whoever you're with. I also agree about not necessarily considering it cheating for someone to get his or her emotional needs met with someone else if you yourself aren't willing to provide that kind of support. There have been times when I've had to do that myself and I'd probably do it again if I was ever with another partner who was unwilling to listen to me whenI needed to vent. I myself will always at least try to offer my partner that kind of support and I would hope for the same in return.
True voyager. Then perhaps you just were not in the mood at the time. Nothing wrong with that though it makes me wonder why you would let it happen.
Well, seems like she decided to give, because it was something he wanted.
I don't see that as a bad thing. He just didn't try to make it interesting if he'd allow her to wear headphones.
Leo is right as well.
Voyager, online surveys are fine, but not the real deal. You say you are healthy, so I'd bet you could learn, or be coached to enjoy sex.
Sex starts between your ears, believe it or not. For women, something mental and physical has to spark the flame, so maybe starting out with a shared listening to star trech even. Some conversation about it could generate a liking for the guy.
Now you've got that liking, and you aren't aposed to being touched, so some touching to generate pleasure, not sex yet, because you are still dressed. Forplay.
Now you've got interesting and physical, so now you agree to try sex fully.
I'd bet it could work. Smile.
Keep the faith, don't discount it.
I'll bet if you find someone experienced, you will enjoy it, maybe not totally the first time, but it would come.
Thanks for posting.
Star trek foreplay? ... Whatever works for ya, I guess. lol
I'd urge against saying that she could learn to like it if she did it right. First of all, that puts you up as an expert on her life, and none of us are that except her. There's nothing wrong with not liking sex. I couldn't do it, but there's nothing wrong with it. If she wants to try again, then there are things she could do to figure out if she likes it or not. But for someone else to say that it was probably done wrong or something like that is insulting to her.
I have to agree. While it's true that sex with one person can be vastly different from sex with another, it's really not fair to tell someone you don't really know that their dislike of sex is due to the fact that they're basically doing it wrong. If you've tried it, really tried it and it's not your thing, then who are any of us to tell you our opinions of how you feel and why?
And I also oppose the idea that, "the guy must not have done it right," if he {allowed} her to wear headphones? Perhaps he knew that was the most comfortable for her, perhaps not. But too much needless shame and guilt is placed on the partner in these situations.
And asexuality is a real orientation, be they aromantic, homoromantic or heteroromantic. I couldn't do it either, even though I support whatever someone needs to do for themselves.
I have posted earlier that we that like sex should not dictate.
I was suggesting wearing headphones at the start, doesn't seem like a great way to learn if you like sex or not.
I wasn't there, so can't say if it was done wrong or not, but going on the description, it doesn't seem like it was a good starting run?
I also suggest, a first try is not always going to be good.
I'm not judging, I'm suggesting, maybe a different method might change the experience.
It is much like eating a badly cooked meal, say Mexican food, and deciding you don't like it at all. It wasn't the type, but the cooking that made it bad.
Also, I'm not here to insult, I am here, or have posted to learn.
She didn't say it was her first time though, just one of the times. I doubt her first time was done while wearing headphones.
Just a note here: Voyager's profile labels her as someone with Asperger's Syndrome. This puts her on the autism spectrum, at least a little. I'm not suggesting that autistic people can't or shouldn't enjoy sex; however, Asperger's in particular possesses trademarks regarding socialization, which leads me to think that we're viewing the headphones-during-sex thing through a bit of a skewed lens. I am speculating here, but perhaps sex does not have the same connotations for some people with autism as it would for those who do not have it, owing to their difficulty with things like stimuli and social skills and the like.
Whatever the case, I definitely agree that a "you might learn to like it" stance is kind of getting off on the wrong foot. If she's not interested, she's not interested, and as long as no one is led astray deliberately, I'd say it's no one's business but hers and her potential partner's.
Sorry, first experience, or same guy. No other partners I assumed.
But, again, I was happy she posted.
I have heard, and actually knew a girl that put on headphones during sex, so she could avoid feeling. She was there to earn money, or a drink, so wanted it over soonest without it touching her physically, or mentally.
She cut off the other stimulation with the music. She'd not allow the men to kiss her, nor touch her breast,. The sex was just straight intercourse.
Many women are not pleased by straight intercourse, so she could avoid the rest, get finished, and get paid.
Voyager, that was not directed at you at all, just an explaination, and some thought sharing.
I've also heard, though I don't know how true this is, that folks with Asperger's also tend to overanalyze things. The x girlfriend of whom I spoke once mentioned that she suspected she may have it even though she's never been officially diagnosed. But regardless of whether or not she has Asperger's or not and regardless of whether or not it is true that they might have a tendency to overanalyze, she always wated answers to all these strange questions about sex, answers she assumed i muust have based solely on the fact that I've had sex a few times, thouh probably not nearly as much as many guys my age. Not that I myself am comparing. But she kept asking things like what the purpose of orgasms were and if it was required that people be vocal. The most she's tried as far as sex is over the phone and she considered that as rape since the guy wanted her to do all these things she thought were weird, things like actually touching herself.
I have also heard that straight intercourse for a woman without foreplay and proper warm-up / dilation feels to them the same as rape. I don't mean the emotional component and I imagine a rape survivor might argue, but I mean biologically. Without being ready well, there is quite a bit of risk associated with entry before her natural juices get flowing and before she is properly opened up. Again, I don't entirely know what to think, since a majority of my early sex ed came in the anti-penetration, anti-penis days of the 1980s. At least this is how things were in the Pacific Northwest.
I have had several things I took for granted challenged by women over the years who said a lot of that stuff back then was complete bunk and more of a political issue than anything real, but this one just sounds way too sound to be disputed. Lack of proper warm-up just sounds like she could be torn up inside? Sounds like she could have sustained an injury? But I am not a woman, just a guy who may be a bad-ass by day but is mainly a teddy bear at night. So what would I know.
That's absolutely true, Leo. It's not a good idea to try sex when the woman isn't ready for it. She might be okay, might not be in terrible pain, but she certainly won't enjoy it.
That makes a lot of sense.
Why would it not make sense? A man wouldn't want sex when he's not ready for it, why would a woman? Sorry Leo, but that seems like something you could reach by basic logic. No one wants anything when they're not ready for it. I love sandwiches, but I don't want someone to come up and shove a sandwich in my mouth when I'm not ready to eat a sandwich.
I think what Leo may have been hinting at is that men cannot physically manage sex unless they're ready for it, so it's unlikely that they'll ever do it when they're not prepared. Women, on the other hand, are a lot more passive (if you do it the conventional way that is) and can easily become involved in sex while completely unaroused and unprepared. Not only won't she enjoy it, but her body won't be ready to accommodate it and she might even get hurt. Still common sense, but perhaps a bit less obvious. And also why a woman might think she doesn't like sex when it's really just a matter of not being ready.
Exactly. But one gets te feeling tis particular individual's tried it enough times to know she just has no interest in it. I could never date a woman like that since I do like my sex from time to time, but not everyone's like that.
i find sex really difficult to i was also raped
Yes, Cody, it was the danger I was referring to. Of course you are I would not want a sandwich when we were not ready for it. However, if force-fed a sandwich it would be very unpleasant, but chances are we would not sustain an actual injury. And I was apparently backed up by some o here for this one.
Ah, the injury part is a little different. Yes, girls can be injured from forced sex, but there are lots more reasons than that not to force sex on a girl. Chief among these is that you'll be forcibly castrated by means of attaching a sports car to your junk and doing a burn out. At least, if I ruled the world, that's what would happen. Just don't do it, its not nice.
I completely agree on that front. Then again, I think most humans would agree on that front.
Actually no. Cody, it is popular in many places to have what is called dry sex.
Women use products to make themselves not wet, so that the man doesn't think they are bad girls for having sexual thoughts before he is ready. They want it dry, because it is tighter, and more stimulation on the penis shaft.
Now, in the other case, the women is given sex, because she is trying to please. She hasn't been stimulated, because her partner doesn't understand she requires it, or doesn't understand how to stimulate her. She can't help, because she doesn't understand what stimulates her either.
So, she gives sex, and either she is naturally wet enough, or large enough, so it works. After some rubbing, she'll get some wet, so it works, but she doesn't enjoy it, because it is just intercourse, and she's not stimulated.
Maybe it hurts, but he's inside, so for him it is just fine, and she feels it is her fault for not being interested or something, or she feels she is doing her duty.
It is boring, much like someone rubbing your arm.
She is technically ready in her mates opinion, because she is doing it, but she is not sexually ready, or is not wanted to be sexually ready physically.
And all the religion-based thinking has contributed to this, and the feminist thought of the past 40 years hasn't really assisted either. Sad, really, since women evolved in such a way as to have an organ whose explicit design is for pleasure, and both partners are better off when she is ready physically. Of course glimpses into prehistory are largely conjecture on the matter of sex, but presumably at some point women either had an easier time getting ready or at least young men had to battle less their urge to go ahead despite their humanity and heart for her need. Our closest sexual counterparts in the primates, the bonobonos don't have this problem. The modern anti-sex mythology and the modern anti-male mythology from the two step-children of religion seem both to be counterproductive, and wherever they came from seem to serve nothing from an evolutionary perspective.
Ok, I don't know about other guys, bt for me, I don't want to be sticking my dick in a dry hole.
I agree with that. Smile.
I think this topic has fucked up my dreams LOL. Just last night I dreamed I'd gotten together for a visit with that x I mentioned before. We'd started making out to the point where she started getting turned on. Getting turned on always used to scare her silly back in the day. Well she finally told me she was ready to try going all the way, but for some reason she asked me to get naked in another room while she went over to the bed to get naked herself. Well I went into the bathroom to get naked only to discover I had far more clothes on thanI thought and certainly more that is really necessary for the average person. Well I finally got naked and went into the bedroom only to discover the girl had gotten cold feet and skipped out, leaving her clothes behind for some reason. Talk about weird.
I concur with Cody and Wayne. Don't know anyone who would think differently but I guess maybe that is out there somewhere.
Dry sex. um.... no thanks. lol. I Someone has to be very ignorant and/or very unaware of what their penis actually physically would do better with... wow. some things just never cease to amaze me. lol
To each their own I... guess?
It was one of the things educators are and were teaching in some African/3RD world countries to combat the spread of aids.
A ruffed up vagina is more open to infections or all sorts, over one that is not.
If I can find that article, I'll post it for FYI.
OUTCH!
Okay. I'd like to say this article is not how sex should be, so fore these that already dislike sex, this simply doesn't need to happen.
Here is the article. I felt I should post that before posting this address, due to the subject of this discussion.
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/dry_sex.html
I still would like to give on possibility for not liking sex:
It is a perverbial short circuit somewhere. Sounds harsh, but it is one possibility. Gorsh but we live in a society where a woman's standards are raised and a man's standards are lowered. Gee wizz, I say, and that's bad language! lol.
I can tell you this from experience. As a person who generally loves sex an dalmost everything to do with it something kinda interesting happened to me after I had my son. After I had him, I actually found the act of sex and anything to do with it very disgusting. I didn't want my boyfriend at the time to even touch me in that way. I didn't mind cuddling, but that was basically it. i know that's crazy and to be honest I couldn't really understand why I all of a sudden felt that way. I had talked to someone and they told me that possibly I got disgusted by the fact a baby came out of me and at the time I definitely did not want kids, so that was a very possible explanation. Now I don't find it disgusting, but I certainly do think about that from time to time. Since I don't want anymore kids, I always think of the what ifs, even though I do have a form of birth control.
I want to comment a bit about the discussion above about those with Asperger's syndrome.
I dated someone who has it, and he was far from asexual. In fact, the good sex was what kept the relationship afloat, because, between his extremely controlling tendencies and his tendency to ruminate at length about everyone who had ever done him wrong on a daily basis, it was very emotionally draining for me to maintain the relationship, and that's coming from someone who's pretty open-minded. I know how it feels to be thrown under the bus even for having emotions, so I tried, I really did, to be everything he needed.
When I was younger, I actually knew two other people who had Asperger's as well. They were both always fixated on one subject, and, when distracted from it, would become very violent. I remember how much the TVI we had would struggle to get the one kid to focus on schoolwork. One day, we were both in the same classroom, and he was swinging a chair around and screaming incoherently. Another time, while he was being physically restrained by a security guard, he somehow kicked our principal in the face. The other guy I knew, and this was several years later, was similarly violent--I never saw him actually hit someone, but he did throw food in my presence when he was upset. Years later, I happened to run into the first person I mentioned while touring a community college I was considering attending. Though his special interest, as they're technically called, had shifted from roller coasters to various accents, he hadn't changed a bit, as far as I could tell. After being prodded to shake my hand, I asked him how he was doing, and, rather than answering my question, he asked me what my favorite accent was. The other guy, I hear, is much the same.
So, it wasn't immediately obvious when I met my ex that he was in fact autistic. Though I later found out that his interest was in comic book characters, it didn't really seem the same. I knew other things about him even before I knew he had Asperger's. I think his obsession with comic books was actually more because when he was stressed, he would fantasize that he was one of the superheroes he liked and invent plots in his head about being part of that world. Actually, one of the reasons he was so attractive to me was precisely the fact that I thought of him as mysterious. I happen to get a thrill out of figuring people out. I don't know why, but it intensifies things at the start of a relationship for me.
Anyway, after our breakup, he detested me. I was guilt-stricken about that for months. While it wouldn't have been a wise idea for us to be friends, I always get uneasy when people downright hate me. After being tortured by the fact that I was now the person he probably ranted about on a daily basis to anyone who would listen to the point that I could think of little else, I decided that the only way I could really put things to rest was to read books about the autism spectrum. So, that's what I did. I've always been fascinated by psychology, and it's a wonder I hadn't done it sooner. What I read both helped and haunted me. It explained a lot, but it also showed me that I could never be in a long-term relationship with someone like that and be happy. Their controlling tendencies, for example, were easily and clinically explained by the fact that to an autistic person, routine is everything. Any change, no matter how slight, can set them off. While the level of violence wasn't as prevalent as I'd thought, they do seem to suffer from a lot of extreme anxiety. So, this guy I was with would insist on calling me at the exact same time every day (we were briefly in a long distance relationship), and he would question me relentlessly about who I talked to, what I had done, and whether or not I was still talking to my male friends (he wanted me to give them up, but I wouldn't; friendship is more valuable to me than that, although he never ceased to make me feel horrible about it.) In any other relationship, this would be considered unhealthy, but to him it was a form of reassurance. I'm glad I did end things after only 5 months, because in my heart I know I could never reconcile that. I guess I knew that then, too, although I was acting out of instinct rather than logic. Still, the way he practically howled with grief the night I broke it off isn't something I think I'll ever be able to completely forget, although at least now it's not hanging over me constantly the way it used to.
In the books I read, it seemed to be that autistic people normally look at touch and intimacy in extremes. Either they avoid it at all costs, or they're so mesmerized by it that they can't get enough. My ex was one of the latter, although I read that that end of the spectrum is actually the one that's less common. So, if you're going to be with someone on the spectrum, I would seriously recommend researching it in depth, perhaps even joining a support group. That, and you have to be prepared to deal with extremes in all things. My ex, for all his griping about all the people who hurt him, formed intense attachments very quickly, which is another distinct trait of Asperger's, which probably explains how he always got so easily devastated. The fact that he was so vindictive didn't help his cause. I know that's not a good choice of words, as if he actually had something to say about it. I mean, he did, to a point, as I knew he had been in therapy and took various medications, including an antipsychotic, but they're always going to be rough around the edges, socially speaking.
There are different levels of it though, just like any disability.
For me, about sex, disgusting is not doing it! I am not able to see any negative point in sex. If people don't want to enjoy it it's their problem not mine!!!
@jessmonsilva that is not unheard of. Typically that feeling accompanies postpardem depression. Unlike what you see in the movies, or on TV, or excuses for murdering kids using Postpardem, it's not crazy or anything.
Most women get it, and they have varying reactions to it. I've heard of women becoming asexuals after having kids, though that is frequently something that happens after the third one, where even if they see someone else enjoying it, making out, or something, they are immediately turned off.
Sounds like sound reasoning for not breeding prolifically / makes me glad I got snipped after our first.
Oy leo I cringed when you said snipped.
I agree with post #62. It's like some straight dude telling me I just haven't found the right girl... I had enough of that kind of thing from my brothers, and it was offensive. Only Voyager knows what's right for her, and that there is plenty of advice to be had if she ever decides to seek it.
Yeah. It sort of reminds me of the line people get when they tell someone they don't want kids. It's always you'll change your mind, but generally when a person says they don't want kids it's because they know themselves well enough to realize they wouldn't make good parents.
Some people definitely do change their mind about that though. I sure as hell didnt' want any kids, neither did my partner. After actually having one though, we did a complete 180. But maybe that's besides the point.
Granted, but a lot of people just assume that every single person who says they don't want kids is going to be like that. I myself could go either way if the right woman comes along.
I won't pretend to even try to understand those who are asexual, but to be fair, I know they'll never understand why I'm so sexually driven. I'll say, though, that I'm glad there's support out there for them. still, as others have said, it'd be nice if concrete answers as to why they don't like sex could be given, but I've never in my life seen that happen.
One should also separate the asexuals from the prudes. The prudes typically want to control others' sexuality, using modern or dated versions of slut shaming or horn dog shaming and the like. Asexuals, being misunderstood themselves, seem to actually be supportive of sexuals even if they don't understand it. The main difference is that asexuals simply do not have a desire for sex. The prudes be they femitheist, Christian and otherwise, are more about power and control over other people's desires / needs.
I can see how the asexuals get put off by attempted false alliances from the prudish power control types.
I'd agree, if she had said, she didn't like sex at all, but gave it just to be fair.
In this case, or how I see it, she's interested, because she has looked at websites, and taken some test,and such things.
When you are gay, and you know you like men, you know it for sure, so the right girl isn't going to work, because you don't like girls, and they don't move you, so to speak.
She likes men.
But again, I was glad for her post, and was not trying to offend as I've stated.
I think someone had started a thread about it on Wrong Planet. That's what led me to read a little more about it. Otherwise I may not have.
So, settle are debate.
Do you think maybe if you had a different person that took some time to get to know you physically, and was pleasant mentally, you might enjoy sex?
Next, even though I have made it clear, I'm not trying to offend, are you offended?
First, although I've met some very pleasant people in the past few years, I think not, and second, I'm not offended.
Thank you.
I still think that there is a phobia of some sort or some physiological problem that causes asexuality.
That's a bit unkind, Margorp. I mean, she's not trapped someone into a relationship saying "Aha, now I got you and guess what I don't like sex and you can't have it." She is just asexual if she identifies that way, has no interest in sex. It doesn't have to be a psychology thing. Just like those of us with a high sex drive (I myself have scored high moderate when checked it out online), do not have reason to be ashamed or be called horn dogs.
We who want to be free from shame and insult should extend it to others and that includes asexuals.
I don't have a chick flick phobia, and it doesn't even mean I'm insensitive or woman hating. I just don't like those. But if the Wife wants to talk about one she's watching, or she is watching one while I'm there and asks what I think of one of the characters I am not offended, even though mainly my responses aren't that enlightened from a chick flick perspective.
It used to be in the 90s men were expected to show how sensitive they were by enjoying that stuff. I didn't like being seen as unpopular or insensitive by some because I didn't get into any of those things. I say this because the asexuals and people like Voyager deserve the same courtesy from us. She's not asking you to date her and thereby live sexless. To her that is a fine way to live, just like for us it's fulfilling to get sex.
All Wayne was doing was trying to foster understanding, which to me at least, is a noble effort and I applaud it. And I applaud Voyager's courage to speak up, without getting all bent out of shape the way the prudes do.
I actually agree with Leo in this case. After all, people thought homosexuality was something to do with chemical imbalances, which basically meant they figured someone who was gay was broken somewhere, essentially. Why should asexuality be any different?
Yes, and again, I say for use that enjoy sex, we shouldn't try to convince others that they sould, or that they are broken someplace mentally, or physically.
Just as Leo stated I am one of these people that seem to be highly sexual motivated, and I've been told I have a problem. I like it though, and don't feel broken either.
Good for you, Wayne. I see no problem with it at all as long as you can handle it, which it seems you can. Differences aren't bad, they're just that: different. I know how elementary that will sound to many of you, but I think some people honestly still don't get that.
Meglet, you're right.
When I think about civil rights and human rights and cases like this it's rather depressing. It seems humans have to learn the same goddamn lesson over and over and over again:
Yes, women are intelligent, contributing people. Yes, blacks are intelligent contributing people, yes gays are intelligent contributing people. And now, yes, asexuals or whatever a individual wants to identify as are intelligent contributing people: we're all humans. So instead of ending up at We're all humans, why don't we just start at "we're all human first," and then we don't have to reinvent the civil rights / need for humanity over and over and over again?
Hell it gets worse the older you get and the more groups you see needlessly having to fight their way to acceptance when in the end of it all, they're humans first just like the rest of us and should enjoy all the benefits the rest of us get. And that includes not being told they're broken and needs to be fixed.
sadly, though, some people will never think like us, Meglet, leo, and Wayne.
although I've said I'll never understand how people can be asexual, I certainly wouldn't ever say, as some have, that there's something wrong with them. some people fear what they don't understand, though, or they fear things about others that they couldn't imagine being, themselves. that's what this boils down to, sad as it is to us.
Didn't mean to come off as unkind. I admit to my ignorance. However, I plan on educating myself so I'll know better.
Yeah...I don't understand an asexual any better than I'd understand someone who's seriously religious. It's not wrong, it's just not me. I can see it intellectually, but I think I'd have real difficculy trying to live it since I'm just not built that way.
I hesitate to draw a similarity between religiousness and asexuality, though, as religiousness is, by and large, a choice, where as asexuality most likely is not. I see what you're saying though.
I've never been anything more or less than an agnostic, at the core, so I'm perhaps not qualified to judge. But from my admittedly limited perspective, it feels to me as if it's a little similar at least.
Forgive me if this comes across harshly, but if I know that sugar is sweet, I cannot convince myself that it isn't sweet. If I know that snow can't be warm, then I can't convince myself that somewhere in the world, there's warm snow. And now that I know Santa Claus isn't real, I can't pretend that he is and actually have it mean anything. To that end, I'm not sure that whether you are, or are not, religious is entirely down to personal choice. Maybe you choose to take the plunge, if you really are unsure and open-minded, but I think that some switches, once thrown, get stuck and may not go back, no matter how hard you try. I know that's true for me, anyway.
So, if we compare that to an asexual...maybe the asexual was active at a younger age, tried it and then something just clicked over, that's it. No more interest, no more compatibility. The same thing I sorta have on the God front. Maybe he's out there somewhere and maybe he's not, but I'm going to need something more than an attempt at faith. I'm going to need the one thing I'll never get, and that's proof. And if I were an asexual, I'd need something to convince me that sex was fun, worthwhile, not disgusting...whatever it was that made me an asexual. No small feat, either way.
You mean...santa isn't real? Whaaaaaat?!!!!!
Aww crap. Another dream spoiled.
...ah well, no big deal. Not the first time, won't be the last. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go order takeout.
So, uh, yeah really got off topic there! So, is asexuallity just like some hormone thing or is it society talking? Or is it a bit of both?
Not exactly what you mean by society thing, but as it has been pointed at it seems as though it can be hormonal, or something that someone doesn't have in interest in. It isn't as though they wake up one day and decide they won't have sex for the rest of their life. It's the same thing with being straight or gay. It is your preference.
I also don't know about it being hormonal, . The article that caused me to write this implied it was more mental, in the form of disgust, dislike, due to what was required to have sex.
In my experience, I have noted religion plays two roles in sexuality. Some people feel it is only to create, and not for pleasure, and others, that claim to be deeply religious, or extremely sexual, so are always falling short, because they have trouble controlling it.
If you can keep it a secret, I've had deeply religious women make the best sex partners when they feel safe it won't get back to the church congregation. Just wonderful.
So for me, I'd say sex was mental, and when you like or dislike it, it has to do with how you are mentally adjusted concerning it.
Again, I am not saying it is a mental problem, just that it is mentally caused, or because of the mental placement.
I have said, I do wonder if sex was presented, or approached differently, if some people that don't enjoy it, might learn they do or can. That is a fix it attitude, but I can't help wondering.
No Santa... Are you crazy? Santa is real, and I'm sure, your not going to be on his list this year.
Wayne is right about asexuality being a mental thing. I'll use voyager's story as an example. she has stated that she never has liked sex, but often felt her ex was taking too long, or perhaps even not doing enough. so, given that story, I, like Wayne, can't help wondering if she might come to feel differently if she found someone with similar interests as her from the start, wasn't expecting or even wanting sex, and it just happened naturally.
so I don't think aex is disc disgusting I just prefer to do it with someone who I love I won't do that with just anyone. I want to do that with someone whom I plan on having a family with. and if sex did not exist then our population would be extinct so ther you have it
That's still really insulting, even if you add qualifiers. It makes it sound as if its not ok to not like sex, that something is mentally wrong with you. Remember, you used the word mental, not me. That's very demeaning.
The interesting thing is that Chelsea has, on this and other boards, professed a love of sex. That's perfectly fine, I love sex too. But she sometimes does it with a defensive air to it because she knows its unpopular to be free and open with that sort of thing. She has been the victim of what is called slut shaming. I hate that term, but that's what its called. I can extrapolate from her defenses on the boards that she does not like being slut shamed and feels its wrong. I agree with her on this.
However, her last board post, to say that something is mentally wrong, or mentally different about someone who simply does not want to have sex, is still slut shaming. Its called reverse slut shaming. Reverse slut shaming voyager is just as wrong as the slut shaming that Chelsea has received.
Everyone should be allowed to have and want exactly as much or as little sex of any kind that they wish. On the condition that the sex is consentual, with a person of consenting age for the area you are in, and not with someone who does not have the capacity to say no, (this to include children, the mentally disabled, or animals). Other than that, everything from asexuality to anal sex and ass to mouth is perfectly acceptable if it is what you and your partner or partners want to do.
Cody, I didn't say that voyager and people who share her views were mental. I said, and I'm paraphrasing, here, "I wonder if meeting someone she finds interesting on all other levels would encourage her to feel differently than she currently does."
that doesn't mean I'm by any means downplaying the way she feels. in fact, if you've read through all these posts, which maybe you haven't, I jumped on someone for saying that asexuality was weird. so, no, I'm not "reverse slut shaming," as you call it.
I refer you back to the first line of your second to last post Chelsea. That would be post 126 numerically speaking. Very first sentence, you can't miss it.
I have noticed this term slut shaming on several boards now. Here is my question. Is it actually shaming if the person targeted is not shamed? Does it make the person targeting the slut feel they have hit the target, or scored points by calling someone that enjoys sex a slut?
Seems to me, for this to have any effect, the person would have to say they were, or are ashamed, otherwise it is so much hot air.
Last, why is this only female, and in the case I’ve seen it, only one person that seems to be a slut?
Cody, you're still misinterpreting what I mean when I say not liking sex is a mental thing.
I'm not saying that people with such a dislike towards it, means they're broken, or any other word that you wanna attach to it. I'm saying that sex being the mental experience that it is, will likely change for voyager, and others who share her view, due to experiences in one's life.
for instance, after being raped, there was a time I couldn't stand sex, or anything to do with it. this, of course, was due to the horribly traumatic event that I had gone through.
as you well know, though, I no longer feel that way, both due to positive experiences I've had that have shown me otherwise about sex, as well as through talking to people about how it has fulfilled their lives.
also, why the talk of me being "slut shamed," as you call it?
You're still assuming much about her life Chelsea. Being asexual is not a mental thing. That would be like me saying you'll like being a lesbian if you find a girl pretty enough. Its demeaning and insulting and you shouldn't do it.
The basic fact of the matter is that you can not and do not have an intimate knowledge of her likes and dislikes, so for you to blithely say that she would like sex better if she came harder next time is highly hippocritical of her sexual lifestyle. Hense, the talk of you being slut shamed.
I don't understand exactly. I do, but I don't.
I also have said I thought sex to be mental. I was not being mean by saying so, just like Chelsea, that it is a mental thing.
Mental being if you like, or dislike it, and the reasons why. Being Lesgian is also mental, because you mentally find other women interesting. To be lesbian, you have to think, or mentally feel actraction.
Now saying that, you can learn to enjoy women actually, even if you were never Lesbian before through some positive experiences with sex with another woman.
You can also learn you still don't like it no matter how good, pretty, and such things, the woman is mentally.
Something has to start the response either way.
Last, I really think maybe you want to start a disagreement due to your perception of what Chelsea means, even though she has directly explained she doesn't intend to be mean or insulting.
Even the poster has stated she's not insulted, so I suppose it is you that is insulted for her?
Also, why is Chelsea a slut? If you don't think it was right for her to be slut shamed, why do you bring it up? Perhaps you are trying to be insulting on the back side?
Do we not have other people here that have stated they enjoy sex greatly, even myself, but we have not been slut shamed, nor called sluts?
Again, I personally am here to learn, and I was interested in how many people here felt sex was simply disgusting. I was and am not here to fix them. I don't think they have any mental issues, meaning, they are sick. I'd just like to learn why.
Cody, why is it that, when I've explained exactly what I mean, you continue to talk as though your perception of me/what I'm saying, is the actual reality? others understand the meaning behind what I said just fine. so, clearly, I'm articulating myself quite well.
also, Cody, I see that you conveniently ignored the example I put forth, explaining how sex is a mental thing. does this mean you agree, but won't say so, cause you can't bare to admit when you're wrong?
Sorry Chelsea, forgot to add that part in my last post. You being raped didn't make you asexual. It didn't make you homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual either. Being raped didn't change your sexual status. This is a bit of a crass example, but its the best one I can think of off the top of my head.
If I go out and get very very drunk, like passing out drunk, for about two weeks after that, I don't drink alcohol. It loses its appeal to me for a while. This doesn't change anything about me. I still like alcohol. I love me a good glass of scotch, just right then I don't want any because I had a bad experience with it.
But lets get down to the crux of the argument, and its one which America is dealing with right now. If we say that asexuality is a choice, or a conscious decision, then we are saying that homosexuality is a conscious decision also. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the news will be able to tell you that homosexuality being a choice is the exact defense that mouth-foaming Christians are giving to prevent them from marrying. They say it isn't a right, because they're making a choice.
I'm sure all of us, Chelsea especially I hope, think this is awful. And yet, this is what you're saying when you say the asexuality is a choice. If its true for asexuality, then it is true of homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality. They're different sides of the same coin, or dice since there's four of them.
I'm not taking issue with what you guys meant. I know what you meant to say. I'm dealing with what you said, not what you meant. What you meant and what you said, and the repercussions of what you said in our world today are vastly different.
Now, voyager might not be offended, and I applaud her for that. She shouldn't be offended. As I've preached so often on here, none of our opinions matter, we're just people behind a screen. But maybe Chelsea has this conversation with a coworker, and gives this opinion. I want to make it clear what you're saying. Though your intensions are good, or at least benign, the words you're using have different consequences.
Scientists think that one percent of our population are asexual, so to say that its a choice they can make and they might decide differently, and be like the rest of us, is insulting, whether you meant it that way or not. Or perhaps insulting is a bad word. Perhaps I should say its reprehensible or something.
Lastly, I did not call Chelsea a slut. I don't think sluts exist. I think Chelsea can have as much sex as she wants to have, with as many guys as she wants to have it with. Its her body, and sex feels good. I'm not going to criticize her for having sex, I do it myself, and thoroughly enjoy it.
The term I used was slut-shaming. That is the very act of calling someone a slut. I brought it up to point out through Chelsea's example what she was doing in this instance, that is to say reverse slut shaming. Is that more clear now?
Cody's right. The people who oppose my friend and her wife's marriage all say it's in the mind or a choice to be that way.
I didn't choose to have a sex drive or be heterosexual. It's biology: to use another crass example, no man gives me a boner just thinking about him. And I could not live comfortably as an asexual. Note that a celibate monastic existence is not asexuality, since they presumably still have a sex drive and a need for it / it has significance to them that is even greater than physical need.
My thoughts; if my friend and her wife's lesbian nature is not a choice, and my heterosexual rather normal sex drive isn't a choice, than neither is asexuality.
I've been rather put off by guys who say if I just knew the right guy I'd go gay. Lesbian women have been put off in the same way by different guys claiming if she was with the right man she'd go straight.
I don't see the difference here or why asexuals should be exempted from the rights we're now affording others, and one of those is to acknowledge their nature as it is. Once we ascribe it to being mental, we starting getting into that Christian faith healer / Wiccan / new age / pick-your-favorite-flavored woo that says it's all in your belief or the law of attraction or some odd things. I just don't buy any of that.
I just can't go one way for my friend and her wife, and then another for the asexuals.
Due to the way she expressed her experience, and the things she stated about the person she had experienced sex with was the reason I wondered if it was possible for her to enjoy sex, providing things were different.
If she had stated she never ever wanted it, never gave herself to anyone for any reason, and men stank, as far as she was concerned, I’d not have ask!
Insulting was furthest from my mind or objective, and I think the same is true for Chelsea.
If we are A sexual, Lesbian, Gay, or have a high sex drive for the opposite sex, this is all mental based, not physical.
When things are mentally based, we have reasons why they are.
Next, when you are dealing with humans, because we are mentally driven/physical animals, and can think, we have the capacity to change, and even enjoy things we may have had bad experiences with, or thought we didn’t like, depending on the situation.
I’ll use myself as an example. I’m not bay, and don’t find men interesting as sex partners, however, it is not impossible for me to change this view, because the person I say this to has no idea why I find men lacking.
It is possible, that if I decided to experience sex with a man I might learn I enjoy it, so now become bisexual.
I don’t know, or understand the leap from A sexual to sexual, but I can’t discount it is not possible.
I also don’t think sex is disgusting, but others do.
If you are discussing an issue and you say it is flat out wrong, then this argument has teeth. If a question was posed in the light of understanding, it doesn’t.
Why wasn’t the male person, poster, 110, that flat out stated she might be sick attacked by you Cody?
I don’t feel he was wrong for stating his opinion in a discussion such as this, and he is interested in understanding, so don’t get me wrong there either. But I do wonder why it was Chelsea? Was this personal?
it sure seems like it's personal, Wayne, and I hopefully indicated as much in my last post. glad someone else sees the same thing, though.
like you, Wayne, the reason I take the particular stance on voyager that I do, is cause of the way she presented her experiences with sex. so, I'm not just coming out of left field for the hell of it, as Cody seems to think my words are suggesting.
Well if I missed it last time what you both were saying, I think I got it now. Again, using Wayne's words, with a bit of understanding. That's all any of us can ask for, whether it's you both, Voyager or any of the rest of us.
So thanks for clarifying.
I didn't attack him because Leo got to him before I could. Of course, Leo did it a bit more tactfully than I would have, but nevertheless it was done.
As for Chelsea, yes, it was personal, and I'll tell you why. Chelsea has, several times, supported me on arguments where we've torn into Christianity and shown how wrong it is. She's an atheist, and a skeptic. She's defended people, myself included, when they were being prejudiced against by Christians on this site. Because of her support in that, I hold her to a higher standard, and I find she failed that standard in this post by prejudicing, all be it unwittingly, someone else. So, in that case, yes, it was personal.
Now, on to your actual points. No, sexuality is not mental, it is subconscious. No one can explain why you like girls. You can explain what you like about girls, or why you like a specific girl, but you can't explain why you like girls. Your mind doesn't decide to trigger the muscles in your penis when you see a hot girl in a short skirt, but not trigger them when you see brad pitt in assless chaps. You don't walk down the street, see a girl and go, "Hmmm, no, I don't think I'll like girls today". Its subconscious, your mind does it for you. For it to be mental, it must be conscious.
I agree with Cody. Thanks for explaining this because I wasn't sure how to word it honestly. It's not something that you can help or choose. I've had a friend who was gay tell me you won't know unless you try something with a guy, whether or not you will like guys. I've never had the slightest bit of curiosity in that regard in guys, and it's not a choice.
Well said. I've had similar remarks from gay guys who wanted me, but I've never had the slightest bit of curiosity, and it seems to me you have to have at least some interest in trying something to really enjoy it. Of course that's no guarantee that you will but I imagine it helps.
I say anything is subconsc or generated viayour mind is mental.
Then you show a drastic lack of the human mind and I suggest you do some reading. There is a vast difference between what is mental and what is subconscious. Just like there is a vast difference between what is thought and what is action, they are polar opposites, and to lump them together under one word as you have is inaccurate and ignorant. I urge you to change your verbage.
lol Cody. you aren't the first person who thinks I've failed at something in life, nor will you be the last. so, have at it.
I forgot to add something. Cody, I find it funny that you're acting like the fact I'm disagreeing with you is the end of the world. you shouldn't be surprised, though, as we can't all agree on everything.
the good thing is, I won't back down from stances I take, unless there's good reason to. this is not one of those times.
sex is a mental thing, no matter how you and others try to claim otherwise.
again, I've never said that voyager would certainly change her mind, if she had positive experiences. I simply said that I wondered if she would do so. there's a major difference, if you examine my words for exactly what they are, rather than your perception of what they mean.
Are you sure sex is entirely a mental thing?
I mean, to put it bluntly, if something doesn't sexually stimulate me there is no way I can become interested sexually. There is a serious biological component to this and that is something our gay friends who desire to get married have been indicating for quite some time.
Sure, for instance, hunger can be said to be a mental thing also, people have what they call comfort foods. But it's not without its physical limits. My host father, for instance, raised in Japan found cold tofu squares with soy sauce a comfort food, if you will. You may grow to accept them as a mental thing, but you cannot make the same associations, and may not even like them.
I do resent the gays who claim we straights just haven't had the right guy, when they first were justifiably offended when straights said the same thing to them about the opposite gender. I am not a fan of double standards, though.
And, in any case, sex requires biological stimulation which you cannot really fake. I mean, a man cannot fake getting a woody and a woman can't really fake getting wet or turned on, although she could perhaps act it well enough to fool some. But that is not learning to like it.
The entire basis of gay rights as human rights has everything to do with biology. They could no more imagine being straight than we could imagine being gay.
That claim of my father's generation that "if only that lesbian was with the right man ..." is offensive and so it is with gay guys who claim if straights were with the right man. And so it is for asexuals. The alarming reality is that there is a lot of shaming going on, to religious proportions, because people think things are mental and they ignore the very real biological aspects which are as much a part of us as the mental.
Here is another one of my inaccurate and ignorant statements.
If you removed the brain from the body, you’d have no conscience or unconscious thoughts, feelings, impulses.
Anything controlled by the brain, is mental, or a brain caused directive.
Because our brains are so powerful we are able to change or alter, or decide to change or alter even the unconscious.
If this were not so, why is it these same scientist, doctors, or groups of them believe they can alter a person?
Example, Tiger Woods was diagnosed with sex addiction. They sent the man to a clinic to mentally change him, or level him out so he was normal. He was sick!
Would you say he was unconsciously desiring sex, or was that a conscious/mental decision?
I believe what they taught him was that he needed to get single, because his wife wasn’t providing him with enough sex, because she had better things to do other then be on the winner circle when her man won the game, so he could relax in the fashion he desired after his victory.
He learned the public would, and does except the fact the man likes sex, not that he’s sick at all.
Just maybe, it wasn’t sex prepay, but the desire to have female companionship after a days work, and through that sex happens.
He is consciously, and mentally in control of this, because if he weren’t he’d have grabbed the nearest groupie right there on the golf course, right after his win, and enjoyed her like a tall cold bottle of water.
I don’t know about you, but I have known people to change from being gay to straight, or straight to gay, or even becoming bisexual.
I have also known people that hated sex learn to enjoy it, achieve orgasms, and the whole nine yards.
Marion Monroe says in her life time she never enjoyed sex at all until someone thought her to do so through positive experiences.
Some people even turn sex off, due to religion, and other things. What about these examples? Are these not all mental derived?
I do see your point, but disagree.
Yes, Leo, it is mental.
Can't say I've met a straight to gay / gay to straight, but I bet the religious types just feed on that one.
The most I've ever heard of was people being what they now call bi-curious then switching to bi or gay or straight.
This is why the Lesbians of the 1980s were so affronted by the idea that "if only they were with the right man once ..." they would "change".
Everything we who are supposedly enlightened hang our hats on regarding the gays has to do with biology. Everything the now-defunct Exodus International and groupie followers hung their hats on regarding the gays being a choice, was mental or behavioral.
For the sake of friends of mine who struggle, and because I myself just can't envision being attracted to a guy any more than being attracted to a 57 Chevy, I have to say unless science really demonstrates that biology is not at least a huge factor, I'm sticking with biology on this one.
The only problem with that argument though is the body can't function without the brain. The brain is responsible for everything that happens with the body because of several chemicals which have to do with things like anxiety, depression, even hormones. This is anatemy and biology, folks. Your preference isn't something you sit and ponder over a cup of coffee. I'm not too educated as to what sub-consience is, but I believe there is a difference here.
Possibly people who assume it's all mental are pansexuals. A pansexual is someone who has no basis in biology for determining a sexual partner, it's all in the person of interest and who they are.
Most of us are constrained by biology, the pansexuals simply for whatever reason are not subject to this. They are their own sexual demographic.
And again you display your lack of familiarity with the subject. Unconscious and subconscious are two different things. Unconscious is when you're on the phone, and you get up from your couch and walk without thinking about it to the kitchen to get a drink. You don't literally think, "Step one, step two, left turn, open door, right turn, grab coke can", your body does it automatically because you've done it so many times. Subconscious is when you breathe. Your mind is actively sending a signal to your lungs that says, "Inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale", but you don't consciously think that. In fact, your mind even has an automatic override for if you are trying to keep yourself from breathing. It will automatically, and subconsciously, force you to take a breath. Its why you drown after too long under water. Your body literally kills itself.
You are right in saying that there are those who believe you can "fix" someone's homosexuality by psychology. However, your argument is a bit like presenting the KKK as expert witnesses in a case for race differences. Those people who believe psychology can change a person are wrong. Its been scientifically shown that people who undergo such treatments are horribly scarred by the experience in the long run.
You really should upgrade your knowledge of the subject. You're acting on thought that was proven to be faulse decades ago. And at this point, to be perfectly honest with you, thought of that nature, and belief of that nature, is more akin to bigotry than actual science.
Oh, and Chelsea, you get your own post. Just because you say that you thought she might enjoy sex next time, doesn't make your statement any less prejudicial. To make that statement, you have to be of the mindset that enjoying sex is the default, and thereby the right stance. It isn't, and you're wrong. You can disagree all you like, and say "that's not what I said, its just what you think I said", all you like. That doesn't make the underlying issue any different.
Exactly. I don't believe any of that crap the conservative spout about ow gays andlesbians can change. Mabe a very, very few made the switch successfully after so-called reparative therapy, but I agree with Cody inthat they were probably scared for life by the experience. But so far in m extensive researc over the years I've never heard of a gay orlesbian whose so-called convertion was sincere let alone longterm. I believe the same to be true of asexuality. The you'll change with the right man/woman argument just doesn't cut the cracker. And anyway the perso would have to want to change, and it sounds like Voyager's content with it.
This is being blown out of shape.
Is it mental? Mostly not, but there may be mental parts of it, depending on one's reasons for being asexual in the first place.
I'm not really big on the "if you had the right person, you'd be x" stance, but I don't have to be in order to support the idea that one's choice of sexuality can, to some extent, be mental.
I guess I'm on the fence here. I think there are a lot of assumptions flying both ways, however.
To elaborate a little on an example Cody tried to use earlier, though:
I used to love Frangelico. It's a hazelnut liqueur, you're supposed to sip it as an after-dinner thing. I...didn't. I took a ten-ounce glass of the stuff and basically slammed it. Got horribly drunk and rather sick, and to this day I can't stand Frangelico. It tastes no different. It's not going to make me sick if I sip it. I am still predisposed to like the taste and smell of hazelnut-flavoured things. Yet I can't touch that particular form of alcohol. Mental thing, at least to an extent.
I think this can happen with many other things, too...sex included. If you have a bad experience, or simply never have a good one, it's possible to be, or become, a certain way. This doesn't mean it's wrong. This doesn't mean it should be quote-unquote corrected for the greater good. It just means that one's formative experiences can and often do affect one's leanings in a lot of area, which to some extent puts them in the category of a "mental thing", as Chelsea put it.
I do think, Brian, that there is a switch. It may be difficult to flip but if the person has enough will to flip it, they would do so. If I really wanted to become a vigitarian I would.
But you can't get a woody over a car or an ant or someone of the gender you're not attracted to. Women are the same as us biologically despite what Christianity / Feminism - the two warring sisters of one another - would have you believe. They can't be attracted by what's not attractive to them either.
Sorry to be so blunt, but cop a feel of a fire hydrant and see if you can get hard over that. You can't unless you're an objectophile who happens to fall in love with that particular hydrant.
As guys we have the external biological indicator when it comes to things sexual. We may call it the little head but it hasn't got a brain. It's on automatic.
Or, after you've been outside working all day, and you come in the house to the smell of fresh baked bread and hot turkey soup, just see if you can keep your mouth from watering. Just dry that bugger right up. Unless you don't like warm fresh bread and turkey noodle soup, you won't be able to keep from having the biological response caused by hunger.
Come in to the smell of fresh paint instead, your mouth won't water, but your eyes might if it's strong enough.
Leo, I can learn to like that smell and even eat it.
If that was all I had to eat, I'd eat it.
If I was around only men for a long period of time, I suspect I could learn to enjoy sex with a man.
I have seen some really great looking men in my life and even lived with a gay male for a long time, so I could understand how I might be swayed.
I'm not trying to make this a fits all thing, and suggest person can be fixed, or needs fixing. I am saying it is possible, and that that change is a mental thing.
Cody, I respect the fact that you are well read, but you have discounted I might also be well read in this subject as well.
Everything you have read has someone who thinks differently, and the study of the mind has not fully been understood, and may never be.
You can raise a child as a non-gender person, if you have things set up correctly. In fact, some parents are attempting this now.
I’m not willing to discount the mental ability of the human body is where I stand.
I don’t pretend to understand it, but through life experiences, reading opposing opinions, and allowing people to live as they see fit, is how I have come to my thinking.
You might not agree, but you can’t discount my thinking, nor will I say you are wrong, which, if you notice, I have not.
I have set real examples, but you are still insisting it isn’t possible, because, sex is not a mental thing. If you are 100% correct, as you say you are, and I’m lost, how do you account for these examples and changes?
Our experiences are vastly different, and that as well accounts for our different of opinion.
thank you, and very well said, Wayne.
I guess I have your position pretty well now Cody.
This is personal.
“You are with me, or you are against me. If you once agree with me, and vary your opinion, you become insulting, and your statements become below my standards of thought. You slip beneath the place I have set for you.”
Food for thought.
Back to topic. Just had to put that observation out there.
You haven't set examples. You set experiences. You're making an argument from personal revelation. That is to say, "I saw it once, and you've just gotta believe me". Same argument people make for Big Foot. They saw it, so it must be real. Present me with an example and I'll be happy to refute it.
Bear something in mind. I'm saying that one's sexual orientation -can be a mental thing...not that it is inherently so.
Wayne, I pretty much share your stance, I think. Both the personal one and the bit that's strictly on-topic.
Are not Tiger Woods, and Marion Monroe actual examples?
I don’t know them, nor did I know her, personally.
The personal remarks are only due to the personal attack on Chelsea for expressing an opinion.
That was my bases for that.
No, they're annecdotes, not examples. I could easily say that Hemingway gave birth to a marshan through his left testicle, and it would have the exact same evidential worth as your story about Monroe and woods.
Exactly.
Fine! Think as you will. I'll take the wider view and remain open.
Also maybe you should read the stories. I didn't make them up, nor tell them what to say or how to feel.
How about the parents and the non gender deal?
If I excepted I am programmed, I'd have to except the fact all I was tought as a baby, before I could think, and all I was tought as a child was how things had to be.
If I were born fat, was fat all my life, I'd except maybe I had a fat bene that was not possible to change.
My sister currently is a wonderful example of this. She's been a heavy girl forever, but now, and not due to surgery, nor anything unnatural, she's about 160 and fit. She was around 260.
When I continually see things happen like this, I tend to believe people have a wonderful and powerful ability mentally to change if they desire.
There in lies the problem with your lack of understanding of what you're talking about. You formulate these opinions based on faulty assumptions, and then spout them off like this.
Being fat, though some of it does have to do with genetics, is not a choice. Eating too much and not moving is the choice, being fat is the result. She decided not to do what she was doing before, and thus is getting a different result. This is physical, not subconscious.
Subconscious would be if she had a gland in her brain which suddenly sent out a neuroreceptor that said stop being fat. Her brain didn't tell her body to become smaller, her body became smaller because she changed habits. Its completely different things.
Gender and sexuality are not the same thing. You can be raised without gender stereotypes, which is what those parents are doing. They're not raising their son to not know he's a male. They'd lose that battle when he discovered his penis. They're raising him without the stereotypes of what a male should be. They're raising him without telling him he has to be tough and rugged and not play with dolls.
It doesn't change whether or not he's gay or straight or bi or non. It changes whether or not he feels comfortable in a dress. Its societal, not subconscious.
Just for fun I'll engage your other two examples too. Tiger woods was taught suppression tactics. He's addicted, that is biochemical. The therapy didn't make him not want sex, it made him able to control himself. He still wants to make the beasts with two backs with every waitress in a short skirt, but he doesn't do it.
Marilyn Monroe learned to enjoy sex after having the strictures of it taken away. This is also societal, not subconscious. Her brain didn't release a chemical that told her not to like sex. She told herself not to like it, that it was wrong. Its like when you do something you know is wrong, you tell yourself its wrong. There's no gland in your brain for the "sex is wrong" receptor.
Seriously, go read something, learn what the hell you're talking about, and then come back with an example that actually fits with the subject we're discussing. If you'd like to continue your discussion of completely unrelated topics, I'd be glad to. You go start another board and we'll deal with them there.
Well said Cody.
And I still disagree.
First, let’s look at gender. If a boy is raised non gender, he can also be non-gender sexually. He can be convinced to think that sense he is not a male, or in that role, he can also be by sexual, because it is sex, and sex doesn’t have to depend on the gender, just that you like the person.
If what you state about Tiger Woods is correct, than you are saying he was sick. He had an addiction, and addictions are self-conscious, some believe. He was taught to control this right?
I personally don’t think he had nor has an addiction, because it wasn’t every woman in a skirt, he was selective, and just had a woman in the cities he visited. Says to me the man wanted some female companionship after his day at work, could afford, and get it, so had it. He had plenty of money for his family to travel with him, but his wife chose not. She had better things to do like spend the money instead of making herself available for her cash cow. She lost it. Smile.
Now as to losing weight, some people actually believe they are born with a gene or something that makes them fat, so they say they can’t lose, because it is how they are, but in fact some can actually do it if they decide. Others have other issues that limit this.
Monroe says she never liked sex, nor could orgasm, not because she thought it was bad, just didn’t like it. She learned she could.
I see their being two possibilities in this matter, and you nor I can say one or the other isn’t possible.
Sex for me is a mental thing, and I have the ability to decide. I am not gay, but can decide to be so. I sincerely believe in the power of our minds, and that is where I stand.
To know if a person can change, or why they are as they are, you’d need to know the complete story behind the situation.
I am not a fixer, nor do I believe people aren’t mentally sick, odd, or any other term society put to it, but I do believe there is room for the possibility that if a person had a different experience with something, they might learn that they can, and do enjoy it.
It is not A or B as far as I see it.
I can see both sides and will not except it is one way. If I accepted this, I’d have to except that black persons are born with less abilities, because they are black. Remember that?
Scientist actually believed that, and that theory was written in medical journals, and other works thought to be correct.
I’m sorry, but this world is full of concepts, and so many people want them to be white or black, so to speak, but it just doesn’t work that way.
For you straight guys who believe that sexual orientation is a choice, does this mean that if you have a really close male friend, you could actually talk your self in to enjoying sex with him if you really wanted to?
It's true that people become religious or go through one of those sexual orientation conversion programs and for a while, they end up living the life that they think they should live, but most of the time, their desires get the best of them. It might take a few years, but it usually happens. It's never a good idea to try to be something you're not.
Nope, Anthony is right. And Wayne and Chelsie both are talking about a very specific sexual demographic, that being pansexuals. By definition a pansexual does not link sexual relationships to biology, meaning they are just attracted to a person in general.
It's not going to go anywhere, pansexuals cannot understand the limitations placed upon straights or gays by biology. But biology does play a factor, unless you are in the pansexual demographic.
Anthony is only in part correct. The other side of the coin has nothing at all to do with desires but ruined lives caused by so-called therapies, often including shock treatments and the like. There's plenty on this and how these groups who try this so-called therapy on gays or what have you cause immense damage. Is it irreversible? Scarred for life? I leave that to a psychology type to write about. But the stuff I've read from government documents on the subject makes my blood run cold.
Sex is only freed from biology if you are a member of the sexual demographic known as pansexuals. And again, pansexuals basically don't link sex with biology. A common phrase from a pansexual might be: "I don't care what the person has between their legs, I just fall in love with the person."
You can only have that if your biology doesn't constrain you. And for most humans and other life forms, biology constrains us to either straight, gay, bisexual or what have you, but biological attraction including pheromones which are different for biological males and females plays a major part.
In our pursuit as humans to ascend and be masters of our universe, we for some odd leftover Puritan reason think that biology as a factor is somehow a lower state than is mental.
But I can prove this about biology with a total non-sexual example. There are peple like my wife who cannot eat hot peppers because of what it does to their throats. It's not technically an allergy but it's biology fighting back. And no amount of mental reparative therapy could change this, no amount of so-called cult deprogramming or any other pseudoscientific mental manipulation can change biology.
leo, even though you don't agree with Wayne's and my outlook on this matter, I appreciate the fact you recognize where we're coming from, at least to some extent.
you understand that not everyone looks at sexuality as biological. in fact, you may remember that, although I've never used the pansexual label in reference to myself, I've told you that I don't care what's between a person's legs. that never, ever crosses my mind. I see them for who they are.
Right, and for you to do that you have to have a particular biological wiring, ironically, Meaning, you are not constrained to a particular orientation based on your biology.
This iss unusual but is not enlightened or ethically enhanced, it's a simple trick of biology to allow you this.
Another point Wayne confused, that many in our mutual age range confuse:
Sex, gender, sexual orientation.
Just because someone is raised with different so-called gender roles, or without roles at all, does not change the pheromone and other triggers that influence almost all sexual life form, with a few exceptions in the pansexual demographic. What this means is someone can be raised female, born a male, and be attracted to women only. Someone can be raised neutral and have male biology, but still turn out gay exclusively.
Even in government documents now, sex, gender and orientation are entirely separated from one another as they are entirely different things, apparently.
Ah but what the hell do I know? I'm a straight white guy who has no real concept of so-called roles for a lot of things since I was raised in the 70s, and so am just fine doing domestic chores or anything else. That makes me rather roleless, if you will, but I still identify as straight because of my biological attractions, and identify as a man due to my nature I guess, and am biologically a male.
I don't think any of these things can or should be manipulated for ideological reasons, be it a fundamentalist or a new so-called enlightened one, both with their spurious dogmas. There was a case overseen by a doctor whose last name was Money. The boy was raised a girl after having been castrated at age one. The mother reported he never wanted to be a girl, and even though they trield later to repair the damage mentally and physically, they could not and he suicide. Scarred for life irreparably, apparently, and all for the sake of the new version of fundamentalism, so-called enlightenment.
Truth is, you are what you are. No amount of silly dogma or woo can change that, no matter whose version of woo we're talking about.
I honestly don't understand being attracted to both sexes, or at least, maybe I'm better off to say that I just can't relate, but that doesn't make other people's views and prefferences any less real. I find it interesting, and am always willing to learn. My own prefferences baffle me at times. I prefer a bi guy, or at least a guy who is very subtle when it comes to being with another guy. Once we're behind closed doors, then it's cool, but Maybe what I'm getting at is that I don't find myself attracted to the really overly flamboyant type. I don't always completely understand myself, so I certainly won't pretend to understand others and how they think or what they like.
I was talking about force of will. If I really wanted to fast for a week, I could. I don't know who would want to but people have done it.
Yes, they've done it, but the question is, did they enjoy it? Is it something they look forward to doing again? If we're equating this all with sex, it's supposed to be enjoyable. Sure, I suppose a gay guy could manage to be with a woman by sheer will alone. It's been done, but does the enjoyment matter or not?
Well, again, I'm not suggesting people should be changed, nor can they be change if they have decided, or feel they are hard wired,to use Leo's terms.
I just feel depending on the situation, it is possible.
What got us in this discussion in the first place, was Chelsea's and my thoughts on the possibility that positive experience might help to change only one person's sexual feelings, not that we felt it was possible to do this for everyone in the world.
We aren't fixers, we just are wonders.
Anthony, I'm a straight guy, to use that term, but if I wanted I could have great sex with my male friend, and even enjoy it more then once. I have never had sex with a male before, nor wanted to, but I'm telling you, I could.
Am I specially hard wired? I have no idea, I just know it is so.
I'm also not a killer, but put me in the right situation, I'm killing.
I don't understand this, I just know it is possible and not only for me, but generally.
One thing you should make more clear before people agree with you Leo, is that for the most part pansexual attraction is nonphysical. They don't have a lot of sex. They fall in love, but don't usually have a lot of sex, if any. It is usually a romantic strain of asexuality.
Wayne still doesn't realize what the word gender means, or sex when used as a synonym for it. So I don't really think I can help him. I hope I've made it clear to others why you shouldn't assume that having a good experience with sex could change your sexual orientation, and why its insulting to say so.
Ah Cody I must have missed that regarding pansexuals. Well I stand corrected on that one then.
mind if I complicate this discussion a little?
A good friend of mine is A-Sexual, other friends are beastialists and are only attracted and have only ever been attractedto animas. what about objectophiles and other fetishists? Where does the biological orientation switch and the mental experience switch trade off their duties? Does an objectophile get to argue that his attraction to objects is anorientation? Please understand I'm not trying to be argumentative, just thought that this discussion could be broadened a little.
Well maybe I'm uneducated on this, but I thought objectophiles were / are an orientation. Don't they perceive to have full sexual relationships with objects? The famous case of the woman marrying the Eiffel Tower comes to mind.
I saw a documentary on them once, and the ones on that documentary seemed to describe an attraction to objects from puberty on just like any of the rest of us with our orientations. But I don't really know, admittedly it's really hard for an average unrecognizable straight white guy to weigh in on this I guess. We haven't had the same societal challenges many of these groups have.
leo, I've never heard of that being classified as an orientation.
also, while Cody seems to think he knows the general thinking pattern of pansexuals, I'll say that he's sorely mistaken.
the word pansexual is a label, and it means, as leo stated, people whose attraction towards others is strictly based on who those people are. there's nothing in that definition that signifies less of a sex drive, or less sex being had.
Cody think I'm not aware of what gender means. Where he's missing my point, is why I used the example of gender, and parents raising children non gender.
I am not seeking help, thank you.
You'd have to think a bit out of the box and see the gender roles as related to sex to see my point.
bermuda-triangulese, this is a discussion, and I, for one, appreciate your thoughts.
I am hoping others will post, so I can learn different view points, and why. I don't have to agree, but I can't say they are wrong.
I can only state why I don't agree.
I have an issue seeing life in absolutes.
Let me toss another thing here. What about people that enjoy sex with animals? If we are hard wired to be A sexual, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, or Straight, would it not be a fact these people are wired to be Bestialities?
That is a made up term, because I simply don't have or know a correct term for them.
How about the girl placed in a harem. Many times, while waiting on the King, or harem owner, these girls become bisexual. If they are hard wired to be Straight, why does this happen?
I don't have any proff on this, and I'm not trying to insult anyone with my next statement, just place a thought here.
I'd bet Nuns that go in to the order have problems with sexuality, just like the priest.
If these women are not having sex with men ever, and they haven't totally given it up, they are Lesbians by necessity, not because they are hard wired to be so.
Objectifilia is not an orientation but a psychological thing only.
Not sure on objectiphyles. Usually phylias are psychological I believe. I know they are classified as being such. The example of the guy who had sex with a bunch of cars springs to mind, but I can't really comment more on that because I simply don't know.
Wayne, the problem with what you said is that words have meanings. If I made a post that read only, "Ice cream sandwich blasphemer mongoose tube sock", the first question you'd ask is, I hope, what the hell are you talking about Cody. Quickly followed by, ok, cody has lost his ever loving mind.
You used words that have set meanings. You can't then give them objective meanings to sui your purposes. You can't use gender to equate to sexual orientation because the word gender has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Just like you can't use the word bookshelf to equate with sexual orientation because bookshelves have nothing to do with sexual orientation. You're talking about completely unrelated subjects. Use the correct words to phrase what you're trying to get across, and then maybe I'd understand this apparently-complicated thought of yours, and then I'll be able to tell you why you're wrong.
My reason for using gender was basicly that parents believe they can set gender traits, or lack of specific gender traits, by raising a child this way.
We are born male or female, that is a given, but these parents have decided they will decide how the child acts.
Now, if we took a male gender child it might be possible to raise him believing and feeling perfectly comfortable being bisexual.
No. That isn't how biochemistry works. You can raise a child to be ok with what he turns out to be, but you can't raise a child to be what he isn't.
Let me put it this way, what you're saying you can train into a child, is coded genetically. They have discovered, and isolated, the homosexual gene, its in your DNA. You can't train DNA. It would be like training your son to have brown hair. It isn't going to happen. You can train him to ignore it and be ashamed of it, but you can't train him not to be it.
they have discovered a homosexual gene? Can you please cite a source for this that is legit?
Some are trying however. I personal am not, but that was my point about gender.
Lots of thought out there.
The poster before me has an interesting question!
I think for those who have attractions to animals they call it zoosexuality though in most countries that attraction cannot be legally acted upon due to consent or lack thereof.
So I wonder why objectophilia is a philia then? Since we're dealing with nonsentient objects, and no victims.
I thought sexual 'philias' had to do with misuse of unwilling participants. Obviously I'm even more ignorant on the subject than I previously thought.
I do believe the orientation is hard-wired, because I cannot imagine being anything other than what I am - a straight male. Also once we do open that door without complete objective evidence, we've got some real problems. If straights could truly go gay and gays go straight, the late Exodus International would not have folded. It was a behemoth organization sponsored by political strata, organized religion and government. It even had its hand in the African human rights violations against gays and other non-heterosexuals.
In other words, it was absolutely desperate. Were it grounded in anything that resembled objective reality, it would have needed no deceptive tactics and false flag allegations to self-sustain. To me at least, all its "unholy alliances" (in quotes) have always demonstrated the fragility of its argument. and the gay-is-a-choice argument has been politically paid for by that organization. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy had its hat hung on Exodus International. The Defense of Marriage act signed into law by George W. Bush had its hat hung on Exodus International. The speech at the signing demonstrated this to all who were watching.
For as extremely fragile an argument as they had, theirs was the most sound game in town for arguing the orientation-is-a-choice generalization. Can't even really call it a hypothesis, there doesn't seem to be any objective data verifying it.
If you want to believe orientation is a choice, save a few sexual demographics like maybe the pansexuals, just try to imagine yourself in a consensual sexual situation with a lower life form or a nonsentient object. And, I don't care how sexually enlightened or "in-the-cool-club" you are, you simply can't do it without a reflexive, dare I say rather biological, revulsion as a response, as demonstrated by the human tendency to pull away, pull into oneself, maybe shudder, or even get nauseated.
Hell, when I first learned about the zoosexuality in some countries being allowed, before I had any sort of moral response regarding consent or even aesthetic response to the idea of someone being with an animal I was quite nauseated and completely put off my food. I'm no animal lover, dogs to me are just genetically altered wild wolves and no more. I see nothing about a person's best friend, more like a perpetual pest oftentimes. So this was not a response from a lover of dogs.
My moral response, if you will, regarding consent only came after the biological revulsion. So I can only assume that had I been raised in an environment where people routinely ignored consent issues in this regard, I would still be biologically repulsed.
This is all anecdotal of course, my experience having read that blog, but what was most interesting to me about it was that in that case the moral or character-based reaction regarding consent and enslavement in that situation came after, and disparate from, the biological response. I hate to call it an "ick" factor because that sort of minimalizes the response, it was counter to my own ability to even process most of it.
In an earlier example of mine Wayne said he could learn to like paint and eat it if it kept him alive. I don't really know about learn to like, more like learn to live with. My mother as was common in the 70s wanted me to learn to like certain foods one of which in my case was baked squash. Something that was pretty readily available to a big family.
I said at one point that I learned to like it, I worked my mind to tolerate it, but the thought of it still grosses me out. It doesn't gross me out for some psychological reason involving my parents having me eat it, it simply doesn't to me appear to be for human consumption and I'd rather go without than eat it. And that's just food. And a great deal of effort was invested by not just my parents but even myself to achieve this status of having learned to like it. That would be advantageous in that environment, wouldn't it? I mean, then you are eating food for which you no longer have a huge "ick factor".
I distinctly remember having this sort of rational discussion about it in my head, probably I was around 10 or 11, whenever you start to really reason things a little bit.
I think instead of "learn to like," one could more accurately say "make the best of."
The situation of men in prison "going gay" has more to do with that, and their so-called gay relationships end as soon as they get out or have the freedom to resume the sexual life their orientation is geared for.
And if someone could just "learn to like" being gay, why are so many gays divorcing from straight marriages and coming out of hiding? They, like me and baked squash, probably rationalized themselves to try to learn to like it. Only unlike me and baked squash, the other party was a poor sentient human victim who is now also in an unimaginably difficult situation involving lack of fidelity and treachery.
This is just how I see things.
I see you Leo, but here’s the question.
The people that practice these things are not biologically repulsed, you are, so it that biological?
The people that practice will tell you they love their sheep, dogs, horses, goats, monkeys, or whatever, and aren’t interested in men or women.
What went wrong?
It seems my information is a little outdated. I hadn't checked the scientific literature on this subject for a while. Here's the most recent article I found. http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/new-insight-into-the-epigenetic-roots-of-homosexuality/#wrapper
I'm leaning more towards what Cody's saying here. Parents can try and try as hard as they want to raise a child to either society's standards, or to what they believe is correct. This doesn't necessarily mean that a child will always be that way though. Take for example the boy who feels as though he is in a boy's body but truly believes 100 percent that he is a she in a boy's body. The parents are not accustom to this trying to raise him to be a man but he does not feel right. They don't understand and become angry with him. Kids in school bully him because of how he feels. I've heard of people in this situation being driven to suicide because no one understands. The point is society gender roles aren't the same anymore. Even if parents and family try to go by these tradditions in a few cases it causes more harm than good. I guess the only viable thing is to raise your child the way you feel right though, and if he believes anything opposing, then be a supportive parent. Even if it's hard to understand.
Some parents are lessening the problems by home teaching or private schools. They are keeping them within a set community for the tender years I've read.
Canada seems to be doing this often.
It is an interesting thing, and I wonder how successful it will turn out over time.
The problem is psycho-simatic in nature. Some sort of issue allows someone to feel atracted to someone or even something.
can I just correct a few things on the paraphilias issue, since I have a few of them.
Philia, the suffix, just means attraction to, it does not imply consent or anything else. I.E. pedophilia is attraction to kids, pure and simple, it makes no moral judgment o anthing else. So paraphilias can be completely innocent I.E. plushophilia (attraction to stuffed toys) or harming as petophilia is. Objectophilia is a subset of paraphilias.
MJ
Does it always mean you want to have sex with that thing or can it just be a miled atraction?
usually philia means sexual attraction. You can have more than one attraction so the paraphilia may just be an extra ot your attraction to women or men or whatever or you may be entirely orientated towards that paraphilia. it depends.