Don't ask, Don't tell policies

[soleilselene]

Also he told me he wouldn't ask, or question. We don't have sex, so nothing would change there. He really doesn't want to know. I even told him about something once. I was frustrated thinking I would never be able to do this. I had gone on OKCupid and tried to find someone. I meet a couple of guys. I just didn't like any of them.

So I was sitting down and told my husband. "I can't do this, you think it is easy for me? I made an account I met some guys, it didn't work out. I can't do this" I said it like that.

He simply looked at me and told me "Don't tell me... you do whatever you want, just don't tell me." That is it.

[JaneQSmythe]

Originally Posted by soleilselene

I did finally have casual sex with a hookup I had. We had sex 2 times. I was hoping that it would last more but I don't think it will. ...

This guy I knew through a friend and so I knew he was not a psycho. He is very free spirited and hippie like so he doesn't want any strings or expectations. ...

I did get a little attached but it was due to me finally having sex after a year... I wanted to do it all the time now. I was not falling for him, he was not romantic it was just sex.

Just my two cents...from my own early experiences (which you can read about in my "Journey" blog here if you like):

When I was young, before MrS, I was only interested in fuck-buddies and friends-with-benefits - I was specifically NOT looking for "romantic" entanglements. (For the record, many people do not consider FWBs to be, strictly speaking, "poly" - I do, but definitions matter little). I was always very up front about this. One of the "rules" that I had for myself was that I wouldn't sleep with someone more than three times. In my (limited) experience, people tended to develop feelings for people that they slept with repeatedly - I wasn't afraid of this for myself but for my potential sexual partners. (I also wouldn't sleep with someone if, in my opinion, they had a high likelihood of developing an attachment before that point.)

Perhaps your "free spirited...hippie like" guy has concerns that you might become attached in ways that could threaten a.) your marriage (hurting you) and b.) his freedom (hurting him), so he is pulling away? (this is what I would have done back then)

I think there are probably people out there who would love to have a long-term FWB if you are very up-front about what you are looking for. A bit of a warning though, many men SAY they would love that type of set-up...but it turns out that they are wrong (not that they were lying, but that in practice they don't respond in the way they thought they would theoretically). (This may also be true for many women - I don't know, my longest FWBs are all women, so it hasn't seemed to be a problem.)

JaneQ

PS. I totally understand wanting to have sex "all the time" after a long dry spell - when I first got together with Dude I had a LOT of horny stored up. Now that my libido is back to its normal level I think he is a little disappointed.

[SchrodingersCat]

Originally Posted by redpepper

Just a small little thing to be aware of; asexuality is an identity, like gay or lesbian. Its not something one turns into. Just adding that as an educational piece.

So while we're educating...

Identities can and do change. I identify as asexual at times, other times as sexual. It's not that sometimes I'm just not in the mood so I'm like "I'm asexual today." I lose all interest in sex for extended periods of time, sometimes years. That includes masturbating, watching porn, and getting kinky. During those periods, I identify as asexual. So to me, your statement comes across as the Sexuality Police telling me how I may and may not identify, and I take exception to that.

To say that one's identity cannot change is to assume that sexuality is hard-wired, a claim that is not well-established. For some, it may be the case, for others, not. Personally, I'm inclined to take the viewpoint that a person may identify however they want based on how they are feeling at that point in their lives, and that a person's own feelings and inclinations override the accepted viewpoint of a bunch of biased psychologists who do not live inside my head.

[SchrodingersCat]

Originally Posted by soleilselene

I have no idea is this is considered poly or not. But that is my situation.

I've always felt it's much more important to establish your own personal situation than to worry about whether it is considered poly or not. It is what it is. If it's working for you, and you've established clear boundaries and agreements between you and your husband, and both of you are comfortable with those agreements, then the label is irrelevant.

When I was young, I started preparing a recipe for cookies. I started by mixing sugar, butter, and eggs. Then I licked the spoon. It was yummy. My mom called it custard. So I spent the next 6 years thinking I liked custard. That ended the day a friend made me real custard. It was disgusting. I was so confused. According to my mom, I loved custard! So now what? Do I stop enjoying sugar, butter, and eggs, and try to develop a taste for custard? Or do I acknowledge that custard was never really what I enjoyed and that my mom had mixed up her labels?

Labels have a place. That place is the supermarket. Relationships are not cookies. Relationships don't need labels; they need understanding, communication, and agreement.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat

So while we're educating...

Identities can and do change. I identify as asexual at times, other times as sexual. It's not that sometimes I'm just not in the mood so I'm like "I'm asexual today." I lose all interest in sex for extended periods of time, sometimes years. That includes masturbating, watching porn, and getting kinky. During those periods, I identify as asexual. So to me, your statement comes across as the Sexuality Police telling me how I may and may not identify, and I take exception to that.

To say that one's identity cannot change is to assume that sexuality is hard-wired, a claim that is not well-established. For some, it may be the case, for others, not. Personally, I'm inclined to take the viewpoint that a person may identify however they want based on how they are feeling at that point in their lives, and that a person's own feelings and inclinations override the accepted viewpoint of a bunch of biased psychologists who do not live inside my head.

That's awesome. Good for you. I take offense that you say I'm policing. I thought perhaps it would of been of interest to the writer. I am only passing on what I've heard from people I know in the asexual community. What do I know, I'm not asexual. You can take it up with them as I am no expert.

[InsaneMystic]

@Schrödinger & redpepper...
It sure is possible for sexual orientations to change, but it really isn't common. Yes, you can "become asexual"... but you can also be gay for 30 years and then suddenly "become straight". The fact that a lot of (normative/right winger) folks will more than happily jump at the chance to consider this a cue for all the "see, we can heal you and turn you normal! you just haven't found the right one yet!" talkage is the reason why I don't think it's a too productive idea, in terms of acceptance and visibility of non-heteronormative identities, to be too quick to mention fluidity of orientation. Yes, it exists, but in most cases, it's a too marginal phenomenon to be brought up without creating much more trouble than it's worth.


@soleil...
I'm in a similar situation; asexual with a sexual partner, R.. We don't have, and never had, sex with each other, but see e/o as "emotional primaries"; she's my only partner, currently - I'm open but not looking, and doubt I'm compatible with all that many folks anyway... basically, I feel a need for non-exclusitivity to be agreed on as the basis of any 'ship I'd see worth entering, but no need to act upon it by having (an)other partner(s) in my life right now.

We do not have a full-on DADT policy about other folks she sees (which is not limited to "just sex", R.'s had a 'ship with a woman for over one year of our four-plus years together), but I, too, will not question her on what she does with others, and certainly don't ever want to hear explicit bedroom details.

What we do have, though, is the knowledge that both of us are always open for the other to talk to if and when stressful situations with another partner come up. I trust her to be able to sort out the everyday goings on - being a grown-up woman and all - but I'm always there for her if she needs to talk about stuff, provided she leaves out the "explicit details". I wonder how you and your hubby would handle such a sitch, if you're stuck in a sore spot that way (which I'd daresay happens in any but the utmost casual hookups sooner or later)? Could you talk to him about it, or would he insist on the "don't tell" part? IMO, I'd think the latter would be worrying in terms of a basis of healthy, loving communication between the two of you.

[SchrodingersCat]

Originally Posted by redpepper

That's awesome. Good for you. I take offense that you say I'm policing. I thought perhaps it would of been of interest to the writer. I am only passing on what I've heard from people I know in the asexual community. What do I know, I'm not asexual. You can take it up with them as I am no expert.

Well, I said that's how it came across to me, which is slightly different from accusing you of doing it. But that can just as easily be turned around on me, as my statement came across to you as offensive. But I think we both know that no harm was meant in either case, and I apologize for being unclear.

[SchrodingersCat]

Originally Posted by InsaneMystic

[FONT="Georgia"]@Schrödinger & redpepper...
It sure is possible for sexual orientations to change, but it really isn't common. Yes, you can "become asexual"... but you can also be gay for 30 years and then suddenly "become straight". The fact that a lot of (normative/right winger) folks will more than happily jump at the chance to consider this a cue for all the "see, we can heal you and turn you normal! you just haven't found the right one yet!" talkage is the reason why I don't think it's a too productive idea, in terms of acceptance and visibility of non-heteronormative identities, to be too quick to mention fluidity of orientation. Yes, it exists, but in most cases, it's a too marginal phenomenon to be brought up without creating much more trouble than it's worth.

I don't disagree that discussing orientation fluidity can have that effect on ignorant people. But frankly, the social responsibility is on those normative/right winger folks to pull their heads out of their asses. The solution is not to stifle all the people who don't fit into neat little boxes. If I didn't have the self-esteem that I do, I might take that as you telling me not to express myself, and that would probably hurt my feelings.

I have friends who are gender fluid and identify more as a male or female or neutral depending on where they are in life at the time. Does that mean they should stifle their identity as gender fluid just to avoid causing problems for trans* folks, who might be told "Look, this person used to feel like she was a boy, but now she feels like a girl. Just wait it out and you'll feel like a girl again." ?

But perhaps it's more accurate, then, to say that my orientation "is" something like "a/sexually fluid" (I don't know what asexual equivalent would be of gender fluid). I.e. it's not my "orientation" that changes, that would always be "fluid" ... but that means sometimes I'm a sexual and sometimes I'm an asexual. I don't know, I haven't thought about it that way before. I'm definitely going to give it some thought. Sorta like how a gender fluid person always "is gender fluid" and sometimes "feels more like a male" or "feels more like a female."

What I am going to say is this: It's not that I bring it up every time someone talks about asexuality, nor do I have a tendency of bringing up orientation fluidity whenever people talk about sexual orientation in general. I recognize that the majority of people who identify as asexual have always identified that way, and can't imagine ever identifying otherwise. But in this case, someone explicitly said "Asexual orientation cannot change." I had to pipe in that this was not always the case. As much as I agree with not giving the extreme Right more fodder for discrimination, I also don't want anyone to feel like they're "wrong" in feeling that their orientation is fluid, and feeling like they "have to choose" one or the other.

[opalescent]

Originally Posted by InsaneMystic

[FONT="Georgia"][COLOR="Purple"]@Schrödinger & redpepper...
It sure is possible for sexual orientations to change, but it really isn't common. Yes, you can "become asexual"... but you can also be gay for 30 years and then suddenly "become straight". The fact that a lot of (normative/right winger) folks will more than happily jump at the chance to consider this a cue for all the "see, we can heal you and turn you normal! you just haven't found the right one yet!" talkage is the reason why I don't think it's a too productive idea, in terms of acceptance and visibility of non-heteronormative identities, to be too quick to mention fluidity of orientation. Yes, it exists, but in most cases, it's a too marginal phenomenon to be brought up without creating much more trouble than it's worth.]

This statement really bothers me. First of all, it's just wrong. Many people experience and understand their sexuality as fluid. I identified as a lesbian for many years. Currently I date men and identify as bisexual/pansexual. I know many people like me. There is social pressure against acknowledging sexual fluidity from within gay communities and from heterosexual people. So many folks rarely talk openly about how their sexuality had changed over time. Dan Savage encourages bisexual people to come out - in part to show that het and homo are far from the only points on the continuum. The existence of bisexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, pansexuals and queers and other undefined folks highlights the fact that it's a continuum. As more people encounter and understand that sexuality can be fluid, more are being open about it. For example there are more men being more open about being bisexual.

Second, it is wrong to allow people like right wing fundamentalist to set the parameters of what is marginal. These people don't 'believe' in evolution, think the earth is 6000 years old and preventing any meaningful action in global warming. They are anti-science, anti-reason and can't find a fact with both hands if one should happen to hit them in the ass. Not talking about fluidity or other uncomfortable, uncommon topics gives these irresponsible, dangerous people too much power. Stop it.

Finally I resent being called marginal. I don't know anyone who identifies as asexual. Not even demisexual. I didn't realize for a long time that such folks exist. I was ignorant and once I heard the term I've learned about it and try to keep in mind that someone I know or meet could be asexual. For me, asexual are marginal in my life. But they exist. Not talking about them or dismissing them as a tiny minority is not useful. In fact it could be actually dangerous if this silence prevents someone from learning a critical fact about themselves.

I realize you had no intention of making this personal. You are not saying anything many gay rights people have also said. And obviously I have strong feelings about it.

[InsaneMystic]

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat

I have friends who are gender fluid and identify more as a male or female or neutral depending on where they are in life at the time. Does that mean they should stifle their identity as gender fluid just to avoid causing problems for trans* folks, who might be told "Look, this person used to feel like she was a boy, but now she feels like a girl. Just wait it out and you'll feel like a girl again." ?

But perhaps it's more accurate, then, to say that my orientation "is" something like "a/sexually fluid" (I don't know what asexual equivalent would be of gender fluid). I.e. it's not my "orientation" that changes, that would always be "fluid" ... but that means sometimes I'm a sexual and sometimes I'm an asexual. I don't know, I haven't thought about it that way before. I'm definitely going to give it some thought. Sorta like how a gender fluid person always "is gender fluid" and sometimes "feels more like a male" or "feels more like a female."

I identify as genderqueer myself, actually. I don't think I could take myself serious if I ID'ed as trans one day, neutrois the other, and something yet more difficult to be put into words on a third day... I very much relate to how you put it in your second paragraph - the queerness/fluidity is my gender ID, the day-to-day differences are just "day-form" feelings.

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat

What I am going to say is this: It's not that I bring it up every time someone talks about asexuality, nor do I have a tendency of bringing up orientation fluidity whenever people talk about sexual orientation in general. I recognize that the majority of people who identify as asexual have always identified that way, and can't imagine ever identifying otherwise. But in this case, someone explicitly said "Asexual orientation cannot change." I had to pipe in that this was not always the case. As much as I agree with not giving the extreme Right more fodder for discrimination, I also don't want anyone to feel like they're "wrong" in feeling that their orientation is fluid, and feeling like they "have to choose" one or the other.

Point taken. Put like this, I can completely agree with you.

Originally Posted by opalescent

This statement really bothers me. First of all, it's just wrong. Many people experience and understand their sexuality as fluid. I identified as a lesbian for many years. Currently I date men and identify as bisexual/pansexual. I know many people like me. There is social pressure against acknowledging sexual fluidity from within gay communities and from heterosexual people. So many folks rarely talk openly about how their sexuality had changed over time. Dan Savage encourages bisexual people to come out - in part to show that het and homo are far from the only points on the continuum. The existence of bisexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, pansexuals and queers and other undefined folks highlights the fact that it's a continuum. As more people encounter and understand that sexuality can be fluid, more are being open about it. For example there are more men being more open about being bisexual.

I don't really get your point here. Even if fluidity didn't exist at all, it would still be the same wide spectrum... just that one's own point on the spectrum would be fixed.

Originally Posted by opalescent

Second, it is wrong to allow people like right wing fundamentalist to set the parameters of what is marginal. These people don't 'believe' in evolution, think the earth is 6000 years old and preventing any meaningful action in global warming. They are anti-science, anti-reason and can't find a fact with both hands if one should happen to hit them in the ass. Not talking about fluidity or other uncomfortable, uncommon topics gives these irresponsible, dangerous people too much power. Stop it.

Finally I resent being called marginal. I don't know anyone who identifies as asexual. Not even demisexual. I didn't realize for a long time that such folks exist. I was ignorant and once I heard the term I've learned about it and try to keep in mind that someone I know or meet could be asexual. For me, asexual are marginal in my life. But they exist. Not talking about them or dismissing them as a tiny minority is not useful. In fact it could be actually dangerous if this silence prevents someone from learning a critical fact about themselves.

I realize you had no intention of making this personal. You are not saying anything many gay rights people have also said. And obviously I have strong feelings about it.

Huh. I guess we react to the word "marginal" quite differently. Being asexual - a spectrum that comprises an estimate of only 1% of all people - means that my experience is marginal, compared to the overwhelming majority of folks on this planet. That's just a statement of fact, I don't react negatively in any way to it.

Acknowledgement to exist is very important, I grant you that immediately - asexuality and bi/pan are easily the most ignored/erased minorities in that regard, not just by right wingers, but even by the gay and "sex-positive"* communities; in terms of being simply acknowledged to exist, even gay/Lesbian folks have a far easier time. And yet, that doesn't invalidate that a tiny minority is just that - a tiny minority. Should we be seen and heard? Yes, definitely. However, is our experience an adequate gauge to measure the majority of sexual identity on? Most probably not.

Overemphasis on fluidity, IMO, creates more problems than it solves - especially for aces and bi/pan people. I'd daresay we hear that "you'll grow out of it" way too often already (though at 38, it's finally dying down for me ); with fluidity being overstressed, I'd reckon we'd just get to hear it that much more often. I'd be afraid that not seeing fluidity as a comparatively rare occurrence and (semi-)permanency as statistically normal, brings too much a risk of ace and bi/pan identities becoming (further) invalidated and silenced.



* Putting "sex-positive" in airquotes there just for one single reason - true sex-positivity has to mean to support everyone's right and freedom to have as much or as little sex in their lives as they want (provided it's all SSC, of course). IMO, someone calling themselves "sex-positive", but who automatically ridicules folks who out of their own free choice remain virgins all their life, is false advertising.