Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Asexuality


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Asexuality Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Asexuality - 11/11/2014 3:48:47 AM   
gurotrash


Posts: 11
Joined: 10/23/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

Don't forget y'all--There's first dibs on getting Top & bottom classifications set up. (Do we really need a separate "slave" category, after all? It's fairly meaningless as a distinction here the way this term gets used by most.)

S/switches need to get their own color-coding (green for male, orange for female?) and not get lumped in with submissives (baby blue & pink).

Then there's something that needs straightened out with Transgenders and how they get color-coded by orientation not corresponding correctly.


Agreed entirely! The entire paradigm seems to be based in the 1980's, and that's on an optimistic note. An updated spectrum would allow for a greater access both to those seeking and those to be sought, especially in such terms, as I'd argue to be the most accurate while most simplified for the use of a mass medium as this. =)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmpressElsa

Do remember gurotrash, being bruised or seeing bruising in others isn't necessarily on the sexuality spectrum. I know, the DSM only classifies paraphilias like masochism as a sexual disorder. However, one can be a masochist and still be asexual. One can love bondage and still be asexual. One can still be dominated and be asexual. Yes it is common for sex and BDSM to be associated, but this is not always the case (though it IS far less common than the aforementioned association).

To some people BDSM is about sensation but not about their sexuality. For some it's interesting, exciting, stimulating, but definitely not in relation to one's self or sexual nature. For others it is a matter of aesthetics- seeing someone tied up can be beautiful, as can well-placed marks and bruising. After all, one can appreciate art without being an artist.


Certainly so! My apologies again for having been unclear in my understanding of an issue. However, as per the most recently (and that is quite recently, to be sure) update of the DSM, it is seen that sexuality is largely considered less per disorder and more per spectrum, which is a huge step forward, especially in spite of the existing academic database leaning mostly towards archaic evolutionary paradigms. Regardless, paraphilias are largely less considered as disorders as they are considered a part of the sexual spectrum in the proposed modern paradigm. Practitioners, however, are very likely to vary much more by culture than by academia, so take this in mind, especially in the light of personal or projected experience. Clinical issues have a particular tendency to be more detached from research than any other part of academia, even regarding other sciences. It's a particular note of which to be wary, especially when considering the cultural tendency away from "self diagnosis," nevermind the economic stigma. Ah, but regardless of that, an identity remains an identity, as I've stated thus far in this thread. Regardless of criteria and my personal agreement to it or not, (which generally I do in such cases as were stated), it is depending upon the individual's interpretation of one's identity.

As per Inghammar's case, it relates closely (and conveniently, ahaha) to AAkasha's case. The appetite for an action which many would consider as a sexual appetite is largely considered asexual at the present time, given the idea that sexuality purely involves genital involvement, at its least. Aside from that, it does connotate the general idea behind traditional sexual values in other senses, which these premises do not encompass. Many people who identify as asexual have similar experiences, but it can also be said that those who identify their sexuality based on the notion of gender also have similar backgrounds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75:
The basis of D/S is about control and never about sex.


This is another good point regarding the philosophy of identity. The given aspects of a dynamic may be more enticing or as much enticing as a sexual gravitation as per normative standards would be, leading to an individual's identity to a given spectrum. That's the short of it, at least, and if I've left something to be desired between myself and others, please do leave a response as such. It's far past my time to sleep, so I do look forward to what is to come upon my waking. Thanks all around, as always! The discussion generated is always interesting and compelling, nevermind otherwise for myself. Again, many thanks!

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Asexuality - 11/11/2014 7:31:17 AM   
starkem


Posts: 159
Joined: 2/2/2007
Status: offline 		Thanks for the clarification of your premise and purpose of discussion gurutrash. As you might discover, we have already made quite a lovely mess of things without any prompting.


(in reply to gurotrash)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Asexuality - 11/11/2014 7:34:57 AM   
FieryOpal


Posts: 2821
Joined: 12/8/2013
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gurotrash
<snip>
The appetite for an action which many would consider as a sexual appetite is largely considered asexual at the present time, given the idea that sexuality purely involves genital involvement, at its least. Aside from that, it does connotate the general idea behind traditional sexual values in other senses, which these premises do not encompass. Many people who identify as asexual have similar experiences, but it can also be said that those who identify their sexuality based on the notion of gender also have similar backgrounds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75:

The basis of D/S is about control and never about sex.

This is another good point regarding the philosophy of identity. The given aspects of a dynamic may be more enticing or as much enticing as a sexual gravitation as per normative standards would be, leading to an individual's identity to a given spectrum.

D/s is all about control and the TPE-Total Power Exchange which takes place consensually between Dominant and submissive. Keep in mind that "Total" as 100% can mean totally in the moment per setting or scene, not permanently or around the clock (24/7). There are varying opinions on this. A purist might say that short of 24/7, the power exchange which takes place is not a total one, being transitory in nature. Bedroom Dominants & submissives may see it differently. Since consensuality is key, and consent can be withdrawn at any time via safewording, then reinstated without altering the D/s structure in place; then I would place emphasis upon the D/s authority dynamic itself rather than the time window. After all, when you commit to a marital partner, you don't suddenly become unmarried when you both are apart or separated by distance. Btw, there are D/s-M/s couples who choose not to safeword because they have a long-standing intimate relationship where neither one feels this is necessary, but which doesn't negate the issue of mutual consent. Even consensual non-consent is understood to be consensual.

(Having said that, I am not the only one who doesn't see a professional or business arrangement as being D/s. The rented illusion of D/s in practicing BDSM gratification alters the fabric of the power exchange taking place. A client may act as if he is handing over control, but he determines the size of the tip if any to give for a convincing performance. The BDSM provider may draw up the menu, but his Do-Me list will either match up with this catering menu or it won't, and he will take his business elsewhere, just as one might choose to dine at a different restaurant.)

Back to the control aspect. When I was married, we got into the BD(SM) because I wanted the D/s. He wanted the kinky sex and fetish fulfillment more than I did, which isn't to say I didn't want it also, but the kinkiness part was not a priority to me. Because we were married, sexuality was not an issue, in that it was a given that we were doing this together for the sake of eroticism. Neither one of us viewed sado-masochism as being erotic--in fact to us, it was the asexual aspect which turned us off to S&M.

Yes, there is non-sexual BDSM and completely non-sexual D/s which is more service-oriented (the sub enjoys feeling Dominated or ordered around in exchange for his or her submission and/or possibly getting an asexual fetish gratified, such as performing tasks in a maid's outfit or in the buff while acting as houseboy). It isn't uncommon to see non-sexual or asexual Topping in Dungeons where neither the Top nor the bottom expect to have sex (there are private scene rooms where they could engage in sexual activity), more like providing a friendly service. One sadistic Domme claimed to be getting orgasms during impact play with a bottom who was splayed on a St. Andrew's Cross without any direct physical contact, and I don't think she meant mental orgasms either, like AAkasha was describing in separating the BDSM activity from sexual activity. There are Dominants who get off on doing CBT or bare-bottom spankings, and while there is genital contact on the part of the bottom (receiver), this isn't usually considered by them to be a sexual act in terms of having engaged in sex, although either Top or bottom might climax as a result. (The same with a foot fetishist who gets off or is allowed to ejaculate because the foot worship he performs gets him excited.)

_____________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage. - Lao Tzu
There is no remedy for love but to love more. - Thoreau

(in reply to gurotrash)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Asexuality - 11/11/2014 8:59:21 AM   
starkem


Posts: 159
Joined: 2/2/2007
Status: offline 		For those trying to keep up:

DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  This is a reference guide used by social sciences to distinguish by classification and define persons by behavior and phenomena.

In this relevant instance, gurotrash has an interest in people's perspective on the phenomena of BDSM.  The behavior herein is the spectrum from sexual to non sexual behavior.  The themes so far from the responses in this regard are espousing the BDSM spectrum presents as sex or physical chemistry (topping bottoming penetrating or what's the point), at one end of the spectrum, and to the varying degree towards its fundamentally polar opposite: mental satiation or control (non-physical non-sexual -or its superficial, lacks intimacy, realness or substance).  

As if it were not difficult enough to select the degree upon the aforementioned spectrum for which one wishes to identify oneself, we wish to administrate the categorization even further by diagnosing the problem of how the identify of others are relative to where the others are in juxtaposition to "my" perspective.  It is quite natural to do so.  It may be suggested from my perspective that your self identity would be better suited elsewhere in the spectrum.

This is further complicated by, our title, gender, sexuality, etc.  these factors are now gauged for ones self and then by others.  The dialogue continues.

I am not sure which is more fascinating gurotrash: the many facets by which one measures their interests and identity within the the phenomena or the integral internal conflict that arises from our mutual acceptance that we are normal for the most part with a few exceptions.  Hence, the ensuing conflict as to who that really is that doesn't understand BDSM.  

It would seem, however, that BDSM is one of the easiest concepts to understand.  Thereto, asexuality can be understood.  "Its complicated, but I know myself and what I desire.  I am just not as certain that I can put an amenable name to it, because BDSM means different things to different people.  Moreover, BDSM, thereby is an acknowledgment to encompass a myriad of dynamics and behaviors -none of which are lacking, better or extreme to the others.  

It is foremost a community of unclassified sexuality of collective minds of pseudo secular liberty and to love for which the edicts of vanilla relationship parameters are unable to define or accept.

I :)

(in reply to starkem)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Asexuality - 11/15/2014 5:06:23 AM   
DerangedUnit


Posts: 660
Joined: 2/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gurotrash

Hello!

Without anyone having to take the trouble to go to my profile, I'm a Psychology enthusiast with some research background, at that, ahaha.

I've done a bit of digging into various communities, but I'm curious on a personal level; what does everyone here feel about asexual spectrum individuals in this community of kinksters? Please do be as candid as possible for my curiosity's sake! Although delicately worded responses are, of course, in favor of those marginalized members, so I do encourage those. Personal and mental distress may occur given any response regardless of my introduction to the subject in this forum, so do be wary, as I'd suggest those susceptible members would be.

Without further ado, however!

Autochorissexualism as a term heavily applies to this community, especially in the case of asexual spectrum individuals but also in the cases of other identities. The idea is that one's sexuality does not necessarily need to relate to oneself, e.g. the idea that one would find the bruising of an individual stimulating, but not in the case of oneself or one's potential (or lack thereof) partners. This is the meat of what I'd like to discuss, if possible. While asexuality is generally a disregarded community, as per my observation (which is flawed, of course), this specific intersection is of interest and I do anticipate the opinions of anyone who deigns to respond. This will be a great boon to not only my curiosity, but also potentially to future research projects, so please do respond to one's heart's content! Thank Y/you very much!



I quite like your writing style... can't say that's a compliment if you were going for normal and all encompassing generality. But the board personality references were cute.

I considered myself asexual for a period of time, 4 years, where I didn't engage with others or myself except one or two unavoidable cases. For me it was about control. Proving that I could have control over my own body. There were a lot of periods in my life when that wasn't an option and I viewed not having sex in the way people view making money. The more I make the more powerful I am, the less I indulge the more powerful I am... eventually, after just turning 23, someone managed to come up with a valid point by posing a question "what are you winning?" And I decided sacrificing a large portion of my life so that someone else didn't feel like they had control over me was essentially giving it. Decided to fuck whether or not other people thought they were in control and focus on myself.... met someone I believed up to the attempt of turning back on my junk, and after a long arduous process I could cum again! And I had to admit it felt a lot better than the wins where I didn't cum.

Still if he wasn't around I would either stick to masturbating or go back to being asexual... I doubt I'd stumble across someone who could convince me twice, I'm solitary by nature and would rather live under the assumption that no one else has the patience for that than consider silly ideas about finding someone worth following twice... I don't want to be greedy after all.

(in reply to gurotrash)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Asexuality - 11/15/2014 6:03:05 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		Hi Fiery Opal :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal


quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
quote:

ORIGINAL: starkem

demisexuals are not sexually attracted to anyone of any gender

Demisexuals are not choosing to abstain; they simply lack sexual attraction until a close relationship is formed.

Though factors such as looks and personality do not affect primary sexual attraction for demisexuals,

I've never heard the term before, but that does describe me.
<snip>
Got any wisdom on that? Does it mean the term does not fit me?


V, I went back to reread where you had quoted starkem, and this is not quite the definition of a demisexual.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=demisexual

Demisexuals are characterized by a lack of sexual attraction toward any person unless they become deeply emotionally or romantically connected with a specific person or persons.

Not feeling "sexual attraction toward any person" until you have bonded emotionally is not the same as having no gender preference.

Just checking... I didn't read that colored part of the quote way above as meaning that a person did, or did not, have a gender preference. I think it means that regardless of a preference, or lack of preference, the person is not attracted to anyone at all.

Is that how you read it, too, Opal? I'm trying to clarify if you read the point differently, or if you were simply expanding on the point when you say:

I can be physically attracted to a man but not wish to have sex with him. This is because sex and intimacy go hand in hand with me, and without having bonds of intimacy, I don't desire to have sexual relations. This is not unusual with women. When we aren't feeling close to our partner, or that he isn't showing that he cares and appreciates us, then sexual desire can get snuffed out. It used to be in my vanilla relationships that if my partner was not in my good graces, I wouldn't feel like having sex with him.



Right, I'm not so sure if that's a myth about female sexuality... the traditional love and sex connection, or if it's a true reflection of fact. IME, it's a myth. It's a powerful one, though and as such, girls are indoctrinated to believe it before even learning about their own sexuality and actively questioning themselves. And, THAT indoctrination, de facto, makes it true. It's not a natural state of being for women to connect love with sex, it's a cultural traditional teaching. I refer to anthropological research that shows that women who grow up in cultures which support their sexual freedom of expression, are neither monogamous nor motivated to act sexually, by loving feelings.

But, okay, I'm in a repressed culture, so for this discussion, I'll go with that idea. This is why I stated that my lack of everyday attraction is NOT due to any traditional limitations on female sexuality. That's not even a thought in my head. I reject, and look down on, those who deceive others. If someone "sleeps around" but does it honestly and fairly and exercises respect for the rights of others involved, then I applaud. If someone tells a partner they are sharing a monogamous commitment (no need for marriage... I refer to keeping your word) and then they change their minds about keeping that commitment, then the partner has a right to know.

So, neither cultural expectations nor any kind of limitations on sexuality hinder me from feeling attracted to anyone. I'm just not. The switch is turned OFF, until it isn't. One relationship lasted almost a decade and it was constant sex. We had to find time to fit other things in. LOL It was like making love for a decade, with some interruptions. I wouldn't call it mutual obsession because we grew emotionally, parented together, participated in community, Church and family activities. It wasn't like being that way hurt us or those around us. We simply lived with sex as a priority, secondary only to parenting or to the emergencies/celebrations of those whom we loved. My point is that I know I am a highly sexual woman and I wouldn't choose a life partner who wasn't the same. (not that this is criteria for everyone... but it is for me)

It has struck me as odd, and it feels like a paradox, that it is true that I am completely engaged sexually, or completely not. It's not religion, conservative beliefs, lack of offers, emotional struggles, illness or lack of libido. I am both liked and loved by family and friends. I've never worried about not having a boyfriend or a lover. I've liked being in a couple and being alone. I've preferred being alone during certain periods of my life because I was focused on a goal, usually large ones which require full commitment, energy and time. When I feel like dating, guys appear. That has been how it is with me. And, I'm not a commercial beauty... never was, but I am sexy and attractive and exude that kind of self-accepting confidence and comfort.

It may appear I'm jumping all over the place, so I'll pull the proverbial drawstring on these paragraphs now. :) When I read the description for demisexual, it made me feel less "odd." Generally, I don't equate differences with anything negative, but I have wondered at the "why" of how I am in this regard. The label, and definition, imply that others are the same. And, if that's true, then there's nothing to fix. It's simply a matter of "know thyself." I guess newbies experience a similar thing when they learn BDSM labels that sort of fit them. So, I entered this discussion to clarify whether I fit, or not. All I've written above is to eliminate other reasons why I might be this way... such as no, I'm not being picky, I'm not suffering from frigidity and I don't believe that sex with love is superior to sex without love.


quote:

Furthermore, I very much have a gender preference. Elsewhere I read that demisexuals are not influenced by physical characteristics. To the far extreme spectrum of this would be for a demisexual to not be influenced by anatomical differences whether it's with the opposite sex or same sex because the intimate bonding process itself takes ascendancy.



I'm in my 50's and am fairly confident that I'm heterosexual. I've played with women but only in the context of sharing "his" fantasy with him and one time, because a close female friend was experiencing a dry spell, I shared a fiance with her for a 10-day, 3-way, tryst. Neither of those motivations were sexually titillating to me. Fun? Sure. But nothing mind-blowing. Anyway, what I refer to is the fact that I think psychologically, this fits too: "a demisexual to not be influenced by anatomical differences..." I'm not attracted to women, however, even at this late stage in life, I remain open to the thought that I could experience love and sexual bliss, with a woman. I don't seek out lesbian alliances, although they are among my closest friends. So, maybe I am only open to the thought because I'm also not attracted to most men, so I can't be sure if a lack of attraction to women, confirms heterosexuality. This "demi" label, perhaps does.

ETA: Yes, sapiosexual is a term I use to describe myself. My IQ is well above MENSA's qualifying number and I do experience a difference when discussing some subjects with others of equal or greater intellectual resources. It can get frustrating when dealing with lesser minds. However... I don't value that above the other kinds of intelligence. I far prefer what variety of perspective can offer, including those from minds which society fears. Criminals, extreme artists and rebels, for example.


< Message edited by BecomingV -- 11/15/2014 6:10:23 PM >

(in reply to FieryOpal)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Asexuality - 11/15/2014 6:34:54 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		FieryOpal :)

quote:

The pattern I've seen, informally, with some bisexuals is a sexual attraction for the same gender, while romantic attraction remains heterosexual. I don't know what this is called, do you?


Marriage. LOL

Okay, I (sort of) jest. Could be closeted homosexuality after giving into cultural, familial or religious pressure to hate the self and to "act normal."

If all is done honestly and openly, then my answer changes to calling that an open and loving and sexually active person.

(in reply to FieryOpal)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Asexuality - 11/15/2014 6:46:36 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline 		Hi Elsa :)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EmpressElsa

the DSM only classifies paraphilias like masochism as a sexual disorder.


Two thoughts... first, sadomasochism, sadism and masochism, are no longer classified as mental disorders. They went the way of homosexuality's inclusion in the DSM and are now understood to simply be a part of the spectrum that is human sexuality.

That correction to the DSM is recent.

The second point is that people should be aware of what the DSM is, and give it the appropriate amount of disrespect that it deserves. It's no more a valid source of information on mental health than we now know Freud was. Meaning, completely suspect and irrelevant except to see the harm done to others in the name of social control using the guise of "psychiatry."

You tube offers this quality documentary free:

Psychiatry: The Marketing of Madness - Are We All Insane?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFkivsEy3CI

_____________________________

Talk about loving travel!!! My BDSM journey to Switch took me to these places...
Previously known as:
sub - TwoHeartsBeatOne
Domme - Lady Q

(in reply to EmpressElsa)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Asexuality - 11/15/2014 7:00:26 PM   
BecomingV


Posts: 916
Joined: 11/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: starkem

For those trying to keep up:

DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  This is a reference guide used by social sciences to distinguish by classification and define persons by behavior and phenomena.


You needn't be so insecure. Other posters are obviously, equal or superior, in intellect and in comprehension.

It would be helpful for your academic purposes to acquaint yourself with the opposing viewpoint. It appears that you are limited in your exposure to the history and current ridiculous practices used to comprise the DSM. It's not a thinking person's resource but it is a profit-mongering tool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFkivsEy3CI

(in reply to starkem)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Asexuality - 11/20/2014 2:54:10 PM   
gurotrash


Posts: 11
Joined: 10/23/2014
Status: offline
quote:

Original: DerangedUnit

I quite like your writing style... can't say that's a compliment if you were going for normal and all encompassing generality. But the board personality references were cute.


Ahaha, it's a positive in my book. Thanks!

quote:

Original: BecomingV

The second point is that people should be aware of what the DSM is, and give it the appropriate amount of disrespect that it deserves. It's no more a valid source of information on mental health than we now know Freud was. Meaning, completely suspect and irrelevant except to see the harm done to others in the name of social control using the guise of "psychiatry."


Excellent point! To add to the thought, there's a lot of academic debate around what goes into any edition, much of which is more credible in my own opinion surrounding the medical regards to diagnostics. Cultural sensitivities are generally considered, as well, but insurance is a heavy consideration behind whether a diagnosis is pulled from the book, altered, or left as is. For obvious reasons, I'm most familiar with that play regarding the changes to gender diagnostics with the most recent edition, with the wording changed, but the diagnosis essentially left the same due to the consideration of insurance for individuals. No diagnosis, no medical coverage, lots of bills to pay.

O' course, there's also a lot that goes on in academia that basically amounts to a pissing contest. (I'm lookin' at you, evolutionary psychology.)

(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Asexuality - 11/20/2014 6:18:50 PM   
FieryOpal


Posts: 2821
Joined: 12/8/2013
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		OMGosh BV, somehow I completely overlooked updated posts to this thread. Thank you for your comprehensive feedback. [Brackets mine]
quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
quote:

ORIGINAL: starkem

demisexuals are not sexually attracted to anyone of any gender

Demisexuals are not choosing to abstain; they simply lack sexual attraction until a close relationship is formed.

Though factors such as looks and personality do not affect primary sexual attraction for demisexuals,

Demisexuals are characterized by a lack of sexual attraction toward any person unless they become deeply emotionally or romantically connected with a specific person or persons.

Not feeling "sexual attraction toward any person" until you have bonded emotionally is not the same as having no gender preference.

Just checking... I didn't read that colored part of the quote way above as meaning that a person did, or did not, have a gender preference. I think it means that regardless of a preference, or lack of preference, the person is not attracted to anyone at all.

Is that how you read it, too, Opal? I'm trying to clarify if you read the point differently, or if you were simply expanding on the point when you say: [See below]

Not to be nitpicky, but saying that somebody is 'not sexually attracted to anyone of any gender' is pretty much saying the individual is asexual in a chaste manner, as in being a psychological eunuch, having neutered sexual desire or no sexual desire for others. That's not how I interpreted demisexuality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV
quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

I can be physically attracted to a man but not wish to have sex with him. This is because sex and intimacy go hand in hand with me, and without having bonds of intimacy, I don't desire to have sexual relations. This is not unusual with women. When we aren't feeling close to our partner, or that he isn't showing that he cares and appreciates us, then sexual desire can get snuffed out. It used to be in my vanilla relationships that if my partner was not in my good graces, I wouldn't feel like having sex with him.

Right, I'm not so sure if that's a myth about female sexuality... the traditional love and sex connection, or if it's a true reflection of fact. IME, it's a myth.

It's only a myth to you if it does not apply to you personally. I don't see romanticism as a myth. Have we all been influenced as children by what we've seen on TV and on the silver screen? Damn straight, we have. But if it didn't resonate within our psyches, then we wouldn't have internalized it. Also, if you are to fully embrace the concept of myth in terms of mythology, there are timeless archetypes that get activated within each one of us. These did not materialize out of thin air or out of a vacuum.

Did Shakespeare influence me when I saw the 1968 movie "Romeo and Juliet"? (Gawd, the actor Leonard Whiting who played Romeo was hawt, hawt, hawt! ) I saw it overseas about a year later as part of a 4th grade class field trip. The bedroom scene where Romeo climbs onto Juliet's balcony after wooing her, then spends the night with her. Ever since then, I was fantasizing that I kept a man in my bedroom at night (which I later understood this *imaginary playmate* to be a kind of sex slave for me). Did I get socially and culturally indoctrinated into girly Disney-rescue myths about riding off into the sunset with Prince Charming? Sure, just like any other kid my age. But I always mentally rewrote stories and story endings to suit myself.

_____________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage. - Lao Tzu
There is no remedy for love but to love more. - Thoreau

(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Asexuality - 11/21/2014 5:48:41 AM   
NookieNotes


Posts: 1720
Joined: 11/10/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

Right, I'm not so sure if that's a myth about female sexuality... the traditional love and sex connection, or if it's a true reflection of fact. IME, it's a myth.



It is not a myth. It is also not a constant with every individual. However, it is generally true, within specific parameters.

To put it simply:

Women are the child rearers. Even when we are not having sex for procreation, our bodies and thought-processes have evolved for hundreds of thousands of years with that in mind.

We seek connection, because our bodies and minds respond more powerfully to those males who will provide us with the feelings we need (security, stability, etc) to feel comfortable possibly having a child.

I can have an orgasm with a man without that connection, but it is as fulfilling as masturbation. Without the extra input/source of energy from another, it is no more than mechanical, even if fun.

Not all women are like this. Not all men enjoy sex without the connection, either. But they are evolutionary anomalies, and would not have likely survived and raised many offspring to adulthood in the far past.

Just saying.

*smiles*

_____________________________

Nookie
--
https://datingkinky.com

I Write! A few of my books on Amazon: http://amazon.com/author/msnnotes

(in reply to BecomingV)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Asexuality - 11/21/2014 7:48:52 AM   
FieryOpal


Posts: 2821
Joined: 12/8/2013
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

It is not a myth. It is also not a constant with every individual. However, it is generally true, within specific parameters.

To put it simply:

Women are the child rearers. Even when we are not having sex for procreation, our bodies and thought-processes have evolved for hundreds of thousands of years with that in mind.

We seek connection, because our bodies and minds respond more powerfully to those males who will provide us with the feelings we need (security, stability, etc) to feel comfortable possibly having a child.

I can have an orgasm with a man without that connection, but it is as fulfilling as masturbation. Without the extra input/source of energy from another, it is no more than mechanical, even if fun.

Not all women are like this. Not all men enjoy sex without the connection, either. But they are evolutionary anomalies, and would not have likely survived and raised many offspring to adulthood in the far past.

Just saying.

*smiles*

I don't even know why any of this has to be pointed out to grown adults (no offense BV, or to those with sincerely questioning and open minds). The very same evolutionists are the ones who should know better, yet go around acting as if nurture takes precedence over nature. These are both equally valid processes (soft-wiring & hard-wiring), and yet they are also among the first to deny basic and fundamental biological-physiological/psychological differences between males & females.

As for masturbation, I can get a better orgasm and sexual experience with that than I can from having unfulfilling sex with some man I have no intimately enduring relationship with. With any new partner (so far) in fact, I am usually not able to come at the onset of our relationship--not from his actions alone. It has little to do with skill or expertise and everything to do with bonding emotionally.

_____________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage. - Lao Tzu
There is no remedy for love but to love more. - Thoreau

(in reply to NookieNotes)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Asexuality - 11/21/2014 7:55:37 AM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NookieNotes

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

Right, I'm not so sure if that's a myth about female sexuality... the traditional love and sex connection, or if it's a true reflection of fact. IME, it's a myth.



It is not a myth. It is also not a constant with every individual. However, it is generally true, within specific parameters.

To put it simply:

Women are the child rearers. Even when we are not having sex for procreation, our bodies and thought-processes have evolved for hundreds of thousands of years with that in mind.

We seek connection, because our bodies and minds respond more powerfully to those males who will provide us with the feelings we need (security, stability, etc) to feel comfortable possibly having a child.

I can have an orgasm with a man without that connection, but it is as fulfilling as masturbation. Without the extra input/source of energy from another, it is no more than mechanical, even if fun.

Not all women are like this. Not all men enjoy sex without the connection, either. But they are evolutionary anomalies, and would not have likely survived and raised many offspring to adulthood in the far past.

Just saying.

*smiles*


Yep.

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to NookieNotes)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Asexuality - 11/21/2014 10:49:18 AM   
starkem


Posts: 159
Joined: 2/2/2007
Status: offline 		I agree that the DSM book has its utility for insurance purposes.  I wasn't aware of this practitioner's guide until about six years ago when I received a diagnosis for my own depression.  I had been aware of another reference source, entitled, "the Psychology of Human Bahavior.". The aforementioned book did not appear to have averted interest in marketing psychiatry.  My interpretation of the latter on its merit was that it was trying to compile a glossary of terminology in a social context.  The DSM series, to the contrary, has given me an introduction to a clinical guide to medicine, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.  I guess each has its purpose and audience.

To clarify another point: I took the demisexual definition from wiki I believe.  It is not my contention as to how it was defined -merely a copy and paste so I could understand the concept better.  I admit to being unfamiliar with most of this terminology and their implications.  I was hoping that there were others in the same situation that needed a reference point to absorb such highly technical terminology.

Lastly, I watched another YouTube video in my quest for YouTube pseudo science mastery -not in a derogatory reference, but in an attempt to make a layman's approach to comprehending all of this esotericsm.  Nevertheless, my porn watching may have incidentally caused impotency (erectile dysfunction in sexual performance with others in this case) by virtue of utility or necessity.  Now what does that mean?  Instead of warmly embracing asexuality, I may be denying sexual impotency of one sort or another.  Surely, I don't wish to give my detractors a win moment in their narrowmindedness.  I think they get the porn thing wrong in context, but right in utility.  Here is the following conclusion thusly: if you can find arousal in porn then there is a potential catalyst for impotency dysfunction.  This is also what I surmised from a YouTube video. It is not my conclusion, but I am open to its context.

It is much deeper than it sounds because it addresses the question of switches (and all for that matter) in the sense that sex is indeed a privilege.  Some will have more privileges than others in old world matters.  However, the Internet porn has in large part leveled the playing field of so called privilege while simultaneously creating a dysfunctional sub group of impotency surrepticiously (perhaps interpreted)  as asexuality.  It is not that the former is greater or lesser than the latter.  It speaks to the same issue of the the subjective and arbitrary summation that I gave earlier.  

Moreover, people with no initial inclination to certain types of porn find themselves open to a myriad of once forbidden taboo porn for the purpose of arousal -eventually the least acceptable societal acceptances become the necessary fix those of such inclination acquire.  We as a society can put on the hard limits and scoff at those that need a higher dosage of kink; we do so in the right, but not in the understanding that such persons lack the privilege or opportunity for intimacy and a scab has developed - or so they think.  You remind them of this every day.

If anyone with reason similarly exists, I am hoping that they can see that either extreme of the spectrum herein (or the varying scale betwixt) that has been discussed, simplifies to the same same conclusions but in different context.  It is more for the purpose of discussion rather than disagreement.  

It would not hurt anyone to say that this a disagreeable but interesting point for the sake intellect, experience, or anything else.  I assure you that I am confident in my insecurity as you are in your certainty or whatever it is that you claim.  What I, personally, dislike is the notion that what works for you is somehow universal by default.  This universal has its merits in applicable  circumstances like medical insurance, but it has no place in a discussion of what is deemed beneficial -with exception to criminal tolerances.  

I am not with the criminal stuff, but my tolerances for things I wouldn't personally engage remains open and subject to objective acceptance.  I did not address to anyone in particular, but to the notion that some non-criminal act is wrong or not properly categorized.

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Asexuality - 11/21/2014 3:47:44 PM   
FieryOpal


Posts: 2821
Joined: 12/8/2013
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		I think we had gathered that you did not make up your own definition, but that it helped as a starting point of reference. If I am understanding you correctly, you are attributing watching porn to impotency and therefore to asexuality? You're just 40, and far too young to be experiencing ED yet, unless there are other mitigating factors to be checked out medically.

It would seem to me that it would be the other way around. Waning arousal might be a motivating factor for someone to feel compelled to watch porn, beyond simply wanting to get into the mood for sex. But as with any sort of compulsion or addiction, desensitization takes place, and then the type of porn that once got a person aroused no longer does the trick. I don't want to use the term "perverse" because it's so subjective, but I've inferred that you are also saying that this can lead to craving a more deviant type of stimuli. Of those I have known or been acquainted with who do make a habit of watching porn, their sexual tastes start getting more outlandish and take on a bizarre twist, almost phantasmagoric (or that which is humanly impossible or unfeasible).

The question then is which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Btw, I did want to tell you that being as forthcoming as you are, and your ability for self-introspection, is commendable.

_____________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage. - Lao Tzu
There is no remedy for love but to love more. - Thoreau

(in reply to starkem)
Profile   Post #: 116
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Asexuality Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109