Polyamory and Virgins

I am paying attention. All i did was point out that the OP did NOT say they were asexual. Before that all i did was speculate about the 3year plan
for Having Sex. It is NOT about YOU. It is NOT about denying that "aces" exist. Go start a thread about that, or i think there might be one already. Sheesh.
 
I am paying attention. All i did was point out that the OP did NOT say they were asexual.
Tone makes the music, doesn't it. Especially when I hadn't said that they were, either.

Before that all i did was speculate about the 3year plan for Having Sex.
To which I actually agreed, so I don't see why you felt the necessity to reply to me at all.

It is NOT about YOU. It is NOT about denying that "aces" exist. Go start a thread about that, or i think there might be one already. Sheesh.
Sigh. Whatevs. Like it or not, there's a definite chance the OP could be asexual without having realized it (maybe even without having come across the information yet that asexuality exists, especially if they're just in their late teens), nothing suggests otherwise, and it's not helping anyone that you get in a huff about that possibility getting brought up.
 
This is a great post. I had a poly relationship for 7 years and just because it didn't include sex, it gets "demoted" to "just good friends" repeatedly. I try to explain to people that it is/was SO much more than that but because I never had sex with him, it gets treated as much less than what it was.

Thank you for your post, I was starting to question it myself.
 
"Plenty of asexuals masturbate-- a lot"???

Well, shut my mouth! They are horny for themselves but not for others? How very peculiar!

My mind is kind of blown.

If you're having sex with yourself, imo, you're not A-sexual, you're-- hmmm... self-sexual. And sexually misanthropic. I wonder what the fantasies are when an "a"sexual masturbates. :eek::rolleyes:
 
This is a great post. I had a poly relationship for 7 years and just because it didn't include sex, it gets "demoted" to "just good friends" repeatedly. I try to explain to people that it is/was SO much more than that but because I never had sex with him, it gets treated as much less than what it was.

Thank you for your post, I was starting to question it myself.

But did you WANT to have sex with him? I've read of others here with non-sexual bfs or gf. Redpepper and Baggage Control come to mind. Circumstances prevent the sex. Not desire.
 
I wonder what the fantasies are when an "a"sexual masturbates. :eek::rolleyes:

I'm not asexual, and this is probably bordering on TMI, but I rarely fantasize when masturbating. It's all about the sensation for me. Fantasizing distracts me from the sensual. Detach the brain and go... :D
 
Woah, a whole debate went on after I went to bed. Can I clear a few things?

I don't consider myself asexual. I label myself as bisexual and biromantic, though even that isn't set in stone since I haven't met anyone outside the gender binary to determine whether I could be attracted to those individuals. I have a flexible attitude about my sexuality.

It's not that I don't want sex-- trust me, I do. I was very sexually attracted to my past boyfriends and am sexually attracted to my current girlfriend. My point was that I was taught to wait for someone special for such an intimate act.

As for my being okay with things like petting and not actual sex acts, that's my choice because I put sex on a different level than close touching. I can't really explain why-- it's just the view I evolved based on what I was taught when I was raised.

In addition, I didn't say I have a soul mate ideal. That's what I thought when I was little and enjoyed fairy tales a great deal (I still like fairy tales but that's beside the point). I'm young and naive, but I know enough that soul mates are a concept invented by romantics and that there isn't one perfect person for every other person. A lot of romantic situations wouldn't exist if that were the case.

I do, however, believe in loving certain people very strongly and not wanting to share parts of yourself unless you trust that person/those people well enough. I'm a virgin by choice that allows certain types of touching because the pleasure I get from masturbation is the kind of pleasure I want to share only with a certain person or people. It doesn't always make sense, I'm aware, but sex shouldn't be required to share a wonderful romantic connection.

I've given myself plenty of pleasure in the past few years by myself-- I have no strong desire to share that pleasure with a partner unless I love them a great deal, but that also doesn't mean I don't enjoy the idea of sex with another person.

That's enough ranting from me.
 
Well, shut my mouth! They are horny for themselves but not for others? How very peculiar!

My mind is kind of blown.
*shrugs* Libido is just a bodily function. Masturbating isn't too different from going to the toilet... and in both cases, I'd rather not involve another person in removing the bodily waste. It's annoying enough that I have to deal with that chore on a regular basis myself.

sexually misanthropic
Lol, I gotta say, that's one I haven't heard before... You do realize that by that logic, not only are gay men sexually misogynistic, but there's suddenly validation again for that dusty old idea that a heterosexual woman can't really be a feminist? ;)


Woah, a whole debate went on after I went to bed. Can I clear a few things? [etc.] That's enough ranting from me.
Nah, that was less of a rant, more of actual information about your sitch and your motivations, in a more precise way than you had given before. It really did clear up a lot... so, thanks for that. :)
 

*shrugs* Libido is just a bodily function. Masturbating isn't too different from going to the toilet... and in both cases, I'd rather not involve another person in removing the bodily waste. It's annoying enough that I have to deal with that chore on a regular basis myself.


Ah, I see. You're of the camp that masturbation isn't really sex, and an orgasm is just like a sneeze. I started a poll on that here once.


Lol, I gotta say, that's one I haven't heard before... You do realize that by that logic, not only are gay men sexually misogynistic...

Sure, that would follow.

but there's suddenly validation again for that dusty old idea that a heterosexual woman can't really be a feminist? ;)

But I don't get that one.
 
I think that if someone says that they don't want to have sex, for any reason, that should be respected. In the mentioned scenarios where there is above waist fondling between the OP and another, the other would have been informed that the OP wasn't going to have sex with them. Therefore if they're going to get all iffy about being sexually frustrated after the fondling, they could have just not started in the first place.

In a mono relationship, this would perhaps be more difficult because the pleasure and intimacy involved in sex could not be gained by any other method, in this case it COULD. The other could be with the OP and someone else. They could have a sexual intimacy with another person and romantic intimacy with the OP until she felt that she was ready.

All the OP is saying is that she doesn't want to have sex (by her own personal definition) before she is ready. For her to be ready, she wants to love and trust the individual. I don't see what's wrong with that. It's her body and her choice. I do agree with other posters that that may not take 2-3years, it could be a much shorter amount of time, but the feel I get from the OP is that love and trust are necessary for her to open other people to a part of herself that she finds very personal. She's not being a tease, she's stating her needs and is sticking to them.
 
Ah, I see. You're of the camp that masturbation isn't really sex, and an orgasm is just like a sneeze. I started a poll on that here once.
I'd say masturbation isn't sex; IMO, sex means a form of erotic/sensual interaction with another person, that involves at least one of the participants' genitals. And virginity, to me, means your own genitals haven't ever been touched by another person (excluding medical examinations and such, of course).

I'm not really sure on the second bit. I can't reach orgasm by masturbation, anyway; it just cleans the muck out of the pipes and gets rid of uncomfortable tension. So, to stay within the realm your metaphor, masturbation is kinda like blowing one's snot-clogged nose.

Sure, that would follow.
Well, at least that's internally consistent then. I can respect that view even if I don't agree. :)

But I don't get that one.
Well, hetero women are "sexual misogynists", too, as they do not boink gals - and it's hard to see any kind of misogynist as a feminist.

Anyway, we're spiralling off topic fast here... :p
 
All the OP is saying is that she doesn't want to have sex (by her own personal definition) before she is ready. For her to be ready, she wants to love and trust the individual. I don't see what's wrong with that. It's her body and her choice. I do agree with other posters that that may not take 2-3years, it could be a much shorter amount of time, but the feel I get from the OP is that love and trust are necessary for her to open other people to a part of herself that she finds very personal. She's not being a tease, she's stating her needs and is sticking to them.

Thank you! That's basically stating everything I meant more concisely.
 
I think that if someone says that they don't want to have sex, for any reason, that should be respected. In the mentioned scenarios where there is above waist fondling between the OP and another, the other would have been informed that the OP wasn't going to have sex with them. Therefore if they're going to get all iffy about being sexually frustrated after the fondling, they could have just not started in the first place.

...
She's not being a tease, she's stating her needs and is sticking to them.

This. I may not personally believe that those needs are likely to be stick-to-able when the rubber hits the road -- love + lust = powerful like woah -- but that's for the OP to find out, and it doesn't make her a "tease" as long as she's straightforward with people.
 
I think if you're planning to make someone audition for two Yeats before they get to fuck you, you should date people who don't regard sex as very important.
 
I think that if someone says that they don't want to have sex, for any reason, that should be respected.
Another +1 to that. :)

I think if you're planning to make someone audition for two Yeats before they get to fuck you, you should date people who don't regard sex as very important.
I agree... and there's the additional complication there that a sizeable portion of those (rather few to begin with) people who'd be okay with going sexless for 2-3 years would probably not be okay with it if you'd suddenly start strongly desiring sex with them after that time. I think there's still a non-zero chance for finding someone, but the pool of people who it would work out with will probably be even smaller than with a "sexless forever" arrangement.
 
Yep, I think it's very selfish to want someone with a relatively high libido and then deny them sex until you feel purty and "valued" enough for them to give them the amount of sex that you require. Sex should be awesome, not a chore or a gift you give people who do what you want them to do. I'm not saying fuck on the first date, well not every first date anyway, but I am saying not to let societal pressures based on oppressing the sexuality of women deny you an activity that could not only lead to the type of commitment you want from someone but be loads of fun and pleasure too.
 
Yep, I think it's very selfish to want someone with a relatively high libido and then deny them sex until you feel purty and "valued" enough for them to give them the amount of sex that you require. Sex should be awesome, not a chore or a gift you give people who do what you want them to do. I'm not saying fuck on the first date, well not every first date anyway, but I am saying not to let societal pressures based on oppressing the sexuality of women deny you an activity that could not only lead to the type of commitment you want from someone but be loads of fun and pleasure too.

It is selfish to want someone who will want to have sex on the first date
It is selfish to want someone who will never want sex
It is selfish to only want waffles for breakfast

The "that's selfish" card doesn't mean anything. It just means that they're looking out for number one... exactly the same as everyone else.

This sounds like a monogamous argument. In monogamy you only get the one romantic partner so they necessarily have to be as close to a perfect fit as possible when it comes to romantic needs. The two people involved depend on each other to get their romantic and sexual needs met so the OPs proposition in this scenario would be crazy unreasonable and incredibly unlikely to be successful.

In polyamory I can get whatever I want from whomever I want. If a partner wants to not have "sex" for quite some time I don't see what the problem is. If having sex is the only way I can experience closeness with someone (this is not the case, just a hypothetical) then I would be wise to turn down such an arrangement. Problem solved. Or I guess I could argue with the person, calling them selfish for 'denying' me sex with them. Maybe I could make the OP cry and guilt her into sex with me... man that sounds like fun.

The OP isn't talking about denying anyone anything. She was talking about not having sex until she has a particular sense of closeness. She is deciding what she wants to do with her own body, as long as she's up front about it I don't see how it's unreasonable.

Josie said:
All the OP is saying is that she doesn't want to have sex (by her own personal definition) before she is ready. For her to be ready, she wants to love and trust the individual. I don't see what's wrong with that. It's her body and her choice. I do agree with other posters that that may not take 2-3years, it could be a much shorter amount of time, but the feel I get from the OP is that love and trust are necessary for her to open other people to a part of herself that she finds very personal. She's not being a tease, she's stating her needs and is sticking to them.

This is the only opinion about the OPs situation that makes any sense to me. It's her body, she's deciding what she wants to do with it... and?
 
I need sex in all my romantic relationships or they are not romantic relationships. I have a higher than average libido. I'd argue that the vast majority of people with a high libido need sex in their romantic relationships. It's unreasonably selfish to want someone who needs sex in their romantic relationships to wait for two years whilst you deem them worthy of banging you. You are asking them to deny their needs to meet yours which are based on some bullshit about your vagina being a trophy. Why not seek people who won't really care if they have sex with her?
 
I need sex in all my romantic relationships or they are not romantic relationships.

How selfish of you to DEMAND that someone who is in a romantic relationship with you want to have sex with you! How dare you DENY them the ability to not have sex with you!!

Kidding aside, this whole 'selfish' thing can quite literally be thrown at every preference every person has. I don't see it as adding any value to a discussion.

I'd argue that the vast majority of people with a high libido need sex in their romantic relationships.

Again, this is a monogamous problem. I am polyamorous and therefore do not demand that everyone I am romantic with sate my needs exactly according to my formula. You and I have gone round and round about this before so I'm just saying it out loud one last time for the lurkers.

Polyamory allows more flexibility in this regard. People are wonderfully varied and I have the opportunity to sample from them what they would like to offer me. I do not control what they offer me nor make demands on them, I just enjoy what they instinctively give. Should I feel that something in particular is lacking in my life I am free to seek it elsewhere while still enjoying what my other partners offer me freely and naturally.

If I have a hard limit for what a person must offer me in order for me to enjoy them then that is MY limitation... not theirs.

You are asking them to deny their needs to meet yours which are based on some bullshit about your vagina being a trophy.

Her vagina is a trophy now because she doesn't offer it up? I hope the OP has enough sense to ignore this sex-negative garbage.
 
Back
Top