fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3263 ]

[ SECRET POST #3263 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3263 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 019 secrets from Secret Submission Post #466.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

okay, I AM ace, but people choosing the second one... puzzle me so much...

"I literally prioritize stroking my own ego over the mental wellbeing of the love of my life and the healthiness of our relationship"

Yeah idgi either. I think the second option is doomed to end poorly if both parties want to have sex but are completely prevented from doing so.

What about the second option suggests it would hurt their mental wellbeing or the relationship, though? Like, all it says is they find you hot but sex between you is impossible. That's not unhealthy. Lots of people are in relationships where they can't have sex.

Nor is it stroking one's own ego to want a relationship where you're desired. Personally the first one sounds pretty awful to me. Like, you can fuck them but it's not something they're ever going to want, nor do they actually find you sexually desirable? No thanks.

It says that they would enjoy the sex, though. It wouldn't be, like, rape. You'd both have a fun time. I think that's massively better than both of you being sexually frustrated forever.

The worst part about the second one is that it sounds like the other person is doomed to always want sex with you and never have it. "Incredibly sexually attractive". Why would anyone want to inflict that on themselves and their partner unless it's to alleviate their shallow self-esteem issues? Of course, it IS possible to have a relationship where you're both very much sexually attracted to one another but unable to have sex for e.g. medical reasons, but I believe this does require some work.

ayrt
I wouldn't enjoy the sex though. Having sex with someone who's not sexually attracted to me is not something I would ever do willingly. We're people, not sex toys. Emotions, even sexual ones, aren't something I'm willing to toss aside.

I've gotten by without sex for years at a time. I could certainly handle that if my partner were unable. At least with the second option we'd be on equal footing in terms of our desires and needs. We'd be dealing with the issues together.

I wouldn't enjoy the sex though. Having sex with someone who's not sexually attracted to me is not something I would ever do willingly.

+1000

I went with the second one because even though I'm not asexual, I have zero interest in having sex. If I had an asexual partner I wouldn't want them to feel like they HAVE to have sex with me, which they very well might, judging from what I've seen asexual people say about this topic.

Honestly wasn't thinking of "stroking my ego" at all.

Well, if you had an asexual partner, it stands to reason that they wouldn't find you sexually attractive in the first place. So there would be no problem with the second option.

This is very difficult to explain to an ace person, but I personally find the thought of having sex with someone who doesn't find me sexually attractive repulsive - like the person is using my body to masturbate themselves or like they don't acknowledge my personhood.

Okay, if this is a normal sentiment in sexual people, then I understand better why someone'd choose the second option! This sure sounds unpleasant.

I'm bi and don't have get that sentiment, so. I mean, the op said they'd enjoy the sex, and I assume I'm the love of their life, too? So, that's okay with me.

I don't get the second one at all. It just sounds deeply unhappy.

I don't think that's a normal sentiment in sexual people. Personally I'd be more worried that they weren't actually enjoying themselves and that I was the one using the asexual person to masturbate.

It'd take a lot of convincing for me to actually want to have sex in that kind of relationship... hence why I'd probably just resort to having a sexless relationship, which would be totally fine with me. :)

DA

When I found out my partner wasn't sexually attracted to me it really fucked me up and changed how I viewed everything about our relationship. On the one hand I felt like I had been taking advantage of them the whole time, because they weren't attracted to me the same way I was attracted to them. I felt like some kind of horrible freak.

And on the other hand I felt like they had taken advantage of me. I wouldn't have ever had sex with them if I knew they didn't find me attractive. I'm not interested in being someone's fleshlight.

Eesh. That sounds kind of awful. :|

I'd say I'm someone who really likes sex, and it baffles me too.

i mean, any situation in which the second option is realistic, would cause huge frustration on both ends.

However, I think it's a rare scenario, in the sense where I can get someone might, say, lose a penis in an accident - but that doesn't rule out sexual activity altogether.

See, I interpreted the second option of no sexual pleasure is possible for that person no matter what you do. Even if what you do isn't the usual thing.

That scenario just seems awful to me.

Same. The second option to me feels as if your partner wouldn't EVER be satisfied. No matter what you two did. In which case, it sounds like an awful situation. I wouldn't ever want that for someone I cared about.

Yeah. For me I'd rather have a relationship where the option of a compromise that met everyone's needs existed instead of a fruitless one. Even if that meant I didn't have sex with the person... it really seems like a smaller sacrifice than dooming someone to want me sexually and never be able to have that.

I'm sure that's how it was written...and yeah, it IS awful.

But, what would cause that in a real life situation...not much I think? Maybe those people who need to stay in one of those chambers because they're immuno-deficient and can't have human touch. But that's an extremely rare scenario. It also oes further than sex (you couldn't cuddle etc).

Basically all manners of biological function loss can sort of compensated for, unless you're talking about a couple who both ave locked-in syndrome or something.

There are actually tons of brain and spinal injuries, surgical complications, etc that a person can have which would make that scenario reality. Your ability to have an orgasm is basically down nerve function and if those get severed somehow you're out of luck.

Okay but then we're talking orgasm.

So fair enough partner who can't orgasm but desires you?

But in a lot of scenario's they could still bring *you* to orgasm, or they might sexual stuff without orgasming.

Which, sort of brings you to the same situation as the asexual partner who's willing to have sex...only with more frustration.

Re: Would you rather...

herpymcderp - 2015-12-11 01:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Would you rather...

kallanda_lee - 2015-12-11 01:28 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Would you rather...

herpymcderp - 2015-12-11 01:31 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Would you rather...

kallanda_lee - 2015-12-11 01:36 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Would you rather...

herpymcderp - 2015-12-11 01:42 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Would you rather...

kallanda_lee - 2015-12-11 01:45 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Would you rather...

herpymcderp - 2015-12-11 01:48 (UTC) - Expand

For some people it might be vanity, but...eh. As someone who hasn't had sex, and has spent much time pining, I'd be okay with the second, because there'd be relief in knowing it was a mutual desire. I'm okay not having sex. I'm sure it'd be great, but...a relationship doesn't necessarily need to have sex to be fulfilling (for some people). I prefer knowing that my desire for someone is reciprocated over knowing that they don't share in the attraction. But that's just me. L

Also, can you imagine all the lovelorn letters we'd write to each other? Assuming distance is something keeping us apart.

yes, I believe I sense the potential for an epic epistolary novel here! :D

I think either is selfish to an extent, though. I mean, prioritizing your own desire for sex over someone else's repulsion or what they are or aren't attracted to also seems selfish to me. I mean, I chose 1 for entirely selfish reasons. I wouldn't want to give up sex even if it mean the person I was with wasn't attracted to me.

It's not really about ego-stroking, and I don't think that's a fair judgment to make at all. :/

For a lot of people sexual attraction is a really important part of the experience. I would be considerably less satisfied with a partner who wasn't attracted to me.

For what it's worth though the second choice isn't very appealing either, and sounds like it could be really frustrating/upsetting for my partner...so I don't totally disagree with you. I guess I just take issue with the phrase "ego-stroking" being applied here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only