Welcome to Inkbunny...

To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )

Sexuality is overrated

:D Let's stick another stick in the anthill

One of the reasons why I sometimes call myself both pansexual and asexual
I think sexuality (I mean physical, sexual pleasure) is overrated.
It is fun and all, but compared to intimacy and commitment, I don't think it matters much. (yeah, even though I draw porn)

While I would happily engage in sexual activities with willing people disregarding looks, gender-gap, or sexual organs, I do not see sexuality as crucial for a deep relationship.
I wouldn't mind being in relationship with someone completely asexual.
To me what matters most in a relationship is a deep bond, intimacy and commitment, an understanding of thoughts, similar interests, compatible philosophies, synergy
I may be an idealist, that's fine with me.

I find it sad that so many people can only look at relationships through sexuality, and often lack much understanding of the other two elements.

***
what I mean by intimacy is "close or warm friendship or understanding; personal relationship"
I believe you can have a deep meaningful intimate relationship, even sleep naked in bed with someone, and at the same time it doesn't have to include any sexual activity.
Sex in the end is mostly just physical pleasure, the love component can be easily archived by just hugging and cuddling each other.
Essentially you can naked-snuggle while not being aroused, and it will be a deep intimate event without sex or arousal
Hence I don't think sex or any sex-related activity is needed.
***

Discuss?

Viewed:	105 times
Added:	12 years, 9 months ago 21 Jul 2011 22:29 CEST

14 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

KhellSennet

12 years, 9 months ago

link

I guess the biggest question is, "how are you defining Sexuality"? Are we talking just gender, the entire rainbow of fetishes, or just the act of sex itself?

I don't know if I want to touch this one. The ants are still crawling all over my stick from poking the last hill, and it seems like the meaning of words are being sliced up in ways I don't recognize, which will inevitably lead to misunderstanding.

supremekitten

12 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 12 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ KhellSennet

Using the proper language gender is what you have in your head (what you feel your are), sex is what you have in your pants (what your organs are). This does get a bit confusing (at least to me, as a non-native speaker) because the word sex means both the act and the type of sexual organs.
By sexuality I mean sex-related part of relationship

KhellSennet

12 years, 9 months ago

link

@ supremekitten

Speaking strictly about sexuality in that context, I don't think it's overrated. I think that we have dozens, hundreds even of relationships with no sexuality. Friends, family, coworkers and other social contacts that don't quite make it as high as "friend". With all these sexless relationships, I feel that an intimate relationship inherently requires sexuality to be complete. It doesn't have to be a lot, but some. Otherwise, it's just a friend who sleeps in your bed, with some extra financial perks if married.

supremekitten

12 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 12 years, 9 months ago by Owner

@ KhellSennet

what I mean by intimacy is "close or warm friendship or understanding; personal relationship"
I believe you can have a deep meaningful intimate relationship, even sleep naked in bed with someone, and at the same time it doesn't have to include any sexual activity.
Sex in the end is mostly just physical pleasure, the love component can be easily archived by just hugging and cuddling each other.
Essentially you can naked-snuggle while not being aroused, and it will be a deep intimate event without sex or arousal
Hence I don't think sex or any sex-related activity is needed.

KhellSennet

12 years, 9 months ago

link

@ supremekitten

And I don't think it's possible to do all that and not develop into a sexual urge. Not an immediate sexual urge, but down the road the desire to move forward beyond cuddling naked will arise inevitably. Intimacy begets sex.

supremekitten

12 years, 9 months ago

link

@ KhellSennet

There may be no sexual urge if the partners are asexual. And in case the partners are sexual then yes, I do think it will end with sexual urges. But even so I don't think they are crucial for the relationship. I think the core of a deep relationship is still elsewhere, even if there are sexual urges added on top.

Aogami

12 years, 9 months ago

link

I think the pansexual mindset is a very idealistic one. The whole nature of sexual desire is driven by our most basic needs as a species. It's in our DNA. While it sounds great on paper to love someone for who they are inside, completely disregarding everything else, I feel that for MOST people (not all of course), this will lead to disappointment.

It's my opinion that in an ideal situation, sex complements an already strong bond between two people, bringing them closer together by allowing them to share physical intimacy and pleasure they get only from that person.

However, I also strongly believe that evidence supports the idea that humans are not, nor have they ever been truly monogamous by nature. Kind of dashes the hopes of the romantics out there, but it's true.

I agree that it is possible to have a loving, fulfilling relationship with another person without sex ... I don't think that ADDING sex to that relationship will ever really cause harm to it :P

supremekitten

12 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Aogami

I probably have been an idealist like that for at least for 10 years,
I've always looked in relationships for some sort of mutual bond, a very deep sort of friendship which is essentially love, and may or may not include sex (sex was just bonus fun).
Of course sex can complement an already created bond, or can help in developing a bond
I also don't believe the bond has to be monogamous. I think you can have a deep intimate relationship with many people at once, but It may be hard to do.
I also don't think adding sex to a loving relationship would harm it, I just don't think It is all that crucial to focus on.

Aogami

12 years, 9 months ago

link

@ supremekitten

I think it's silly to base a relationship on sex, but I also think that totally ignoring sex most often leads to disaster. xD I agree that a person can be in love with more than one person at a time, but I think it just becomes very complicated and difficult to manage the feelings of more than one other person. For example, I personally would be okay being intimate with maybe two people, but if one of those two people wanted to do the same thing I probably wouldn't like it and I'd harbor feelings of resentment. ^^;

Tycloud

12 years, 9 months ago

link

Ha! If it wasn't for sex, there is no way i would put up with my girlfriend! I'm sorry for being blunt but it's how i feel.

supremekitten

12 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Tycloud

While there is nothing wrong with a purely sexual relationship, it does seem that relationship is rather shallow if it's purely sexual.

Caseydragon

12 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Tycloud

"	Tycloud wrote:
	Ha! If it wasn't for sex, there is no way i would put up with my girlfriend! I'm sorry for being blunt but it's how i feel.

Your girlfriend sounds like a total bitch and a shallow person that you shouldn't be with if your only in the relationship for the great sex. If you can't be friends with the person for life or willing to marry them then they aren't worth the time to fuck or play with if your kinky

taronin

12 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 12 years, 9 months ago by Owner

I would disagree that sexuality is overrated in and of itself.  For most people, expressing their sexuality in a healthy way is a pretty important part of life, and makes it much easier to be stable and happy.

On the other hand, I do agree that sexuality is overrated as a measure of the significance of a relationship.  I don't think sex -- or the lack thereof -- should really figure heavily into any measure of how important a relationship with another person is.  It has the potential to be one source of closeness in a relationship, but it's hardly the only one, and how effective and important it is can vary widely from person to person and relationship to relationship.

Furthermore, it's certainly possible to have both casual sex and intimate life-long nonsexual relationships...and you don't have to be a nymphomaniac to have the former or asexual to engage in the latter.  For someone into oddball kinks or something, it often makes sense to pursue both at the same time -- one for sexual fulfillment and the other for stability and emotional support -- without having to find someone who can play both roles.

KitSoone

12 years, 9 months ago

link

It's hard for me to say whether I agree or disagree with this opinion.

I will agree that very rewarding relationships can be maintained without sex. Goodness knows, I've been in a few of them myself. No offence intended to those whom this describes, but I find it foolish when a couple is in a relationship solely because of sex, as though that were the only aspect keeping them together. Too often I see a couple who regard each like dirt, and yet they remain together, often because of the physical intimacy they share. I pity these relationships; no amount of sex is worth that sort of treatment. A successful, complete, and meaningful relationship should be and is so much more than that; it's about loving your partner thoroughly and wanting to share all aspects of their life. This is something you learn as you go through many relationships, and even observe those of others.

However, despite having been in a number of sexless relationships, I can't imagine remaining in that state permanently. I think, for most, sex isn't just about the physical pleasure. Even if you are attracted to someone solely on a personal basis - not necessarily sexually - I think there comes a point in which you need to share that level of intimacy; your body demands it. This can be frustrating, as I'm presently experiencing. I'm not one to actively pursue sex, but not being fulfilled when so close to a member of your respective preference is strangely disappointing. I believe it to be a hormone matter, which then leads to emotional unrest and interpersonal turmoil, even if the relationship is otherwise satisfactory. So, this may be a very specific perspective and not a general observation, but it's from my own experiences.

Also, if one is "asexual" - that is, entirely unmotivated by sex - they are likely excluded from these hormonal leads, which could actually ultimately be a rather fortunate state of affairs. So often I see - both in myself and others - minds becoming fogged by the pressure to follow one's primal instincts to pursue and engage in such activities. Although it's fun and exciting in the moment, it truly does override higher levels of cognition, and tends to lead to illogical behaviour. I hadn't considered this before, but now I think that an asexual individual is more likely to be more down-to-earth and clear-headed than the rest of the population, myself included. Consider watching such behaviour from an outside, objective perspective, and see how silly these humans are when randy, or even considering the possibility of becoming so.

I hope this observation makes sense, as it's difficult to put into words. But I do have a sufficiently strong and (what I think to be) insightful opinion on the matter that I wanted to share my thoughts as best I can.

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Log in or create an account to comment.

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.