"I will never understand why some women(and men) are willing to throw away a perfectly good, loving marriage just because s/he can't get "some" mating".

Have you ever heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Sex is well beyond a desire, but rather an innate need for most. Something very big is missing in a marriage if there is not sex and I highly doubt that in most situations that everything else could be loving and good and that not having sex would be the only thing missing. Of course, there are exceptions..accidents, health reasons that can cause a abnormal sex life but usually alternates are used if the marriage is otherwise healthy. I remember Christopher Reeves even talking about being able to please his wife (sexually) in other ways. Bottom line, if you really love someone, you want them to be pleased and satisfied. So your comment: "The women should still feel loved if the men is there for her psychologically, spiritually and emotionally!" is an oxymoron because without caring for her sexual needs, he's really not there for her in those ways.

I think you think sex for most people is like a new car or fancy clothing. It's not simply a desire for most; but a need. It is more like food and water. Would you deprive your wife of food and water just because your body didn't need it?

I know you say you were not abused. I take it you mean sexually abused, but I can't help to wonder if you may have been abused, neglected or abandoned in some other sort of way in your childhood. Your way of thinking bewilders me. It even goes way beyond a basic religious procreation-only type of view of sex. I feel for you and wonder if somehow something could help you. I think you are missing out on something that you can't even begin to imagine. Friendships can be good and fulfilling as FRIENDSHIPS, but real romantic relationships usually offer a lot more. Take care, and I highly respect you for knowing yourself and not succumbing to society, marrying and dragging an innocent woman into all of this.

Here is a link that might be useful: Maslow

"I am also antisexual which means I am against all forms of non-procreative intercourse. I know all about diseases, unwanted pregnancy, pathological, physical, psychological, emotional harm. I also believe it's a perversion, sin and transgression of nature to mate for recreation."

Yes, there are negative aspects associated with sex that's had for the wrong reasons, but for the right reasons with the right person it brings a much, much higher level of connection to one person than you could ever imagine. It heightens the emotional/psychological/mental connection with someone in a way that you will probably never know.

When I read your post I actually felt sad for you. The connection and the expression of feelings that you can have through sex goes far beyond that of just friendship.

"After all, the best friendships are based on a much higher spiritual/psychological level that transcends the physical."

Here I disagree. I have had very satisfying, deep life long friendships, but there is no friendship, love, intimacy, closeness, or spiritual connection like I feel with my current partner who I have chosen to spend my life with. And I believe it is our desire to be intimate with each other that only increases and strengthens all of those bonds. He and I talk openly with eachother about our intimate life, usually making sure we're on the same page with our wants and needs and even talking with him about it brings a closer connection.

I appreciate your attempt at trying to explain your situation, but I would guess that for couples who once had the intense connection with their partners that comes with sex would miss it very sorely when it fades away. I'm not sure your advice about 'being happy with emotional support' is really relevant to those who have felt the deeper connection and want it back.

"I never want children nor intimacy and for this, marriage is pointless."

"You definately don't want to marry an aromantic and an aromantic should know well enough to never marry as that person wants nothing more than platonic friendship."

Agree with this. I think its well for people to know about themselves and to respect that knowledge. In terms of marriage and consideration of marriage, that knowledge combined with integrity assumes disclosure. Too many people marry in hope and expectation rather than acknowledgement and acceptance.

OP-

When I read your post, at first, I thought that you might be playing a joke.

Albeit, there are many colors in the spectrum of sexuality. Yours is just another head on the hydra and is normal for you.

Marriage comes with the expectation of intimacy. Within that forum, couples interact and sometimes bring forth children. It is considered "natural".

It is such an integral part of couplehood and marriage that there are laws implemented to protect it. In some states, "alienation of affection" are grounds for divorce. Most states have "no fault" divorces but some allow for grounds. It can be considered a form of abuse.

If you marry and before disclose the nature of your sexuality your spouse might still be able to abscond off with at least half of your fortune. It might be best to obtain a full proof pre-nuptial before you tie the knot.

I have been reading other forums and one married couple agrees that intercourse/mating is a privilege, not a right. I immediately nodded my head in agreement. Otherwise it would be like the husband dragging the wife out golfing every time even though she has zero interest in golf. If she wants to golf along, that is a privilege on her own free will.

I previously mentioned mating as gross/disgusting/dirty and that what it's on a basic fundamental level. Much worse than washing dishes or scrubbing the floor. Someone in another forum said lust/horniness/libido was like wearing rose colored glasses that let one see past the grossness or even to deny any grossness. When libido falls below a treshold, that person loses the rose colored glasses and sees the truth. In some cases, even if libido returns, the person already knows the truth and while may physically crave "pleasure" on a psychological level is grossed out. Often, this person "pleases" own self via masturbation but has no interest in anything other than solo as it's too gross for that person.

There are other ways to express intimacy that preclude physical straight intercourse. Those involve the hands and even mouth and can be known as "third base" some people are willing to do this despite being disinterested or grossed out by actual intercourse. Maybe it's not the same but it's better than nothing. Much like eating a less tasty snack rather than going hungry.

To address each reply:

Carla,

You mentioned alternates. I don't know what works for who, but I reconize intimacy takes on many forms. No one dies from lack of mating, it serves to further the species as a whole. Water, oxygen, food, rest/sleep are essental to our survival as to all animals. In what way is intercourse an innate need? Ive been told and agree it's needed for procreation, but then not everyone wants children.

As for the oxymoron, if she needed physical release, would masturbation not achieve this? She and the husband could cuddle, she gets turned on then goes to the bathroom to "please" herself, wash up, exit the bathroom and cuddle more with the husband. That way she gets all the emotional intimacy from cuddling and her physical intimacy with herself.

I am open to the idea of a romantic relationship but sometimes wonder if I am being selfish and shallow by focusing on physical and aesthetics. I have asked male friends before if they thought I was shallow for finding women "prettier" than men and if they felt offended and they just laughed and said "oh don't worry, I understand and agree" I also find women more romantic and emotional so it does go beyond just aesthetics.

Physical being any form of tactile/touch and romance. It is not an innate need and never has been. I am asexual/nonsexual/zerosexual, however I consider myself a romantic. It has been my experience in life that women usually reluctantly oblige any romance. For instance at a ball, club or party, 90% of the time I have to initate the slow dance and half the time, she flat out declines the offer. The other times she usually is reluctant and appears to oblige out of courtesty. 10% of the time, I get asked and I always accept.

The only time I can recall someone "wanting" me for more than friendship was when I was 12, she wanted to french kiss me. I refused as swapping saliva sounded gross, not romantic. I happily slow danced with her. She lost interest in me, probably due to being adamant in refusing to engage in french kissing sequence.

But I realize that romance is icing on the cake and intelluctual/psychological companionship is the most important. I have been very close to several people who I chat to online, some of which I have no idea what they even look like! They are there for me(not in person) to answer my questions, offer advice and support and we learn new things from each other. Isn't this more important than cuddling? I sure think so. I find that friends usually are willing to talk, especially online friends but most of them don't care much or at all about anything romantic/physical.

*countinued on next post*

All I can say is that you don't know what you're missing.

In the absence of trust, love, security and true emotional intimacy, I can see how one might consider sexual intercourse to be gross, unsanitary and demeaning. But within the context of a solid and loving marriage, when both people truly care for each other and put the other's well-being above or on par with their own -- then sexual intercourse is elevated to an entirely new level. It's much more than the icing on the cake -- it's the sugar in the cake mix, the syrup on the pancakes, the salt on meat, the sunshine in your day...

I've tried to teach my teenage son that there are three kinds of sex:

- Pornography - which is sex for business/profit, and involves some people being exploited and hurt for others' gains. I told him he was sure to encounter some of this, but that I hoped he would remember that what he was seeing wasn't real, and that someone was being hurt and demeaned.

- Casual Sex - which is sex just because it feels good. I told him that even though it might feel good in the short run, there were lots of long-term consequences that needed to be taken very seriously -- physical and emotional. And that he needed to use his heart and head in addition to his other parts to make good decisions -- because bad decisions involving casual sex can be disasterous.

- Making Love - which is mutually rewarding sexual activity within the context of a loving and committed relationship. And that this was something entirely different from casual sex, and that this was the good stuff -- the feelings that inspired songs and movies and poetry and art. That he would never see this kind of sex on the internet or porn movies, and never find it in bars -- that it took time and maturity to develop, and that I hoped one day he would find it, and then he would understand.

hlmhr,

It appears that 99% of the time, intercourse is done for the wrong reason. Back in school, the men would make it sound like a game to "get laid" they only cared about their own physical pleasure, something they could well achieve with their hand and spare the women from being victims of unwanted pregnancy, diseases, emotional, physical, psychological distress/injury. You can understand why I have much anger about recreative/non-procreative mating. It has ruined the health and lives of almost everyone I know. Ive even seen marriages fall apart due to arguements about "love making" and agree when others say the best marriages are when *neither* partner have *any* interest in getting laid, i.e an asexual marriage with both being asexual like me. That way, both will be 100% content with being 100% asexual and no arguement can ever happen in that aspect of marriage.
I have learned much in abstinence education back in school, learned alot more facts online and learned from my friend's mistakes.

Of course being 100% asexual myself means not only am I not interested, I find anything of a sexual nature to be very repulsive. I do not feel that I am missing on anything by being born without a sexual orientation because I have learned that no good can come from mating other than making babies. I am sure some will disagree, at least they should be made aware mating is fundamentally harmful, studies I read show that longevity is much reduced among animals and humans the more they mate. There is also the incidence of physical injuries.

Regarding friendship, Is the main difference between friendship and a serious relationship, such as marriage having to do with the physical act of mating? Don't best friends share all their secrets, communicate about each other's life problems and support each other emotionally, spiritually and psychologically? And can't they hold hands, hug, cuddle, even kiss? I have been told and heard that this is how nearly all marriages become once the lustful passion fades, the marriage becomes a best friends forever relationship and roomate situation.

tenderchichi,

So I am understanding that the real reason to marry is when the two want to bring children into their lives. I do see alot of people starting families without marrying. Perhaps that becomes "common law marriage" The other reason I hear for marriage is religious reasons, they consider it a sin to live together or be intimate before marriage. I hear the "fall in love" reason alot, but could love alone be a reason if intimacy/mating is not an objective? Could they not be best friends and share a different type of love? Theres so many types of love that even I am confused and don't believe in all the types.

Alienation of affection, how is that defined? If the spouse can take half your fortune/assets, then you are saying money is another reason to marry. Sounds greedy, avoid any gold diggers who want you for your money!

To everyone: realize that the biggest reason for a sexless marriage may be due to asexuality. I had started this thread to let you know, I am one of those asexuals too(and a complete 100% asexual, I hate porn and don't even masturbate) some partial asexuals may have just enough drive/libido to want to masturbate infrequently but not to want to mate you nor anyone. I first realized I was asexual around 18 but suspected I wasn't a horny pervert years before that. My disgust and refusal to french kiss at 12 was my first obvious sign. Seeing softporn of a nude female when I was 15 and feeling grossed out was another sign. The fact many men were talking about masturbation and getting "laid" and I thought they were joking/kidding or just shaking my head was another sign. I thought everyone was asexual like me and those who weren't were only pretending, they were always joking about getting "laid" so I didn't take them seriously. We would call them perverts, I still do, it's a learned response.

I am giving you the heads up and helping you reconize when your potentional finance(e) could be asexual. As someone pointed out, society is full of innuedo and sexual themes/vibes that can confuse people. The response could be partially conditional and peer pressure could make some asexuals and even homosexuals be with a woman they aren't physically nor sexually attracted to. I used to think getting a girlfriend was a status symbol to brag about in high school because it seemed that everyone had one. Of course had I gotten a GF, I wouldn't have done anything besides cuddle and kiss as I knew enough about abstinence and was repulsed at even french kissing, I wouldn't have gone far.

If you want to marry, before you do so, find out if your man or woman is heterosexual, that is, unless you also happen to be asexual marrying an asexual. I think there will be obvious signs your lover may be asexual. You will need to be honest with him and talk about the taboo topic. If he is embarrassed to even talk about "it" this is a strong sign of asexuality. If he finds masturbation, porn, the thought of "it" a turn off, that's another strong sign. Also note if your lover is the one asking to sleep with you or if you are doing all the asking and your lover is simply obliging. You should discuss asexuality, perhaps even have him talk to another asexual like me so if he is in fact asexual, he should come out of the closet. This can save you the trouble of marrying an asexual and living a sexless marriage if this is not what you want.

I hope my long posts help. Please feel free to comment and ask questions.

Here is a link that might be useful: wikipedia of asexuality

OP-
I said:

Marriage comes with the expectation of intimacy. Within that forum, couples interact and sometimes bring forth children. It is considered "natural".

It is such an integral part of couplehood and marriage that there are laws implemented to protect it. In some states, "alienation of affection" are grounds for divorce. Most states have "no fault" divorces but some allow for grounds. It can be considered a form of abuse.

If you marry and before disclose the nature of your sexuality your spouse might still be able to abscond off with at least half of your fortune. It might be best to obtain a full proof pre-nuptial before you tie the knot.

You said:

tenderchichi,

So I am understanding that the real reason to marry is when the two want to bring children into their lives. I do see alot of people starting families without marrying. Perhaps that becomes "common law marriage" The other reason I hear for marriage is religious reasons, they consider it a sin to live together or be intimate before marriage. I hear the "fall in love" reason alot, but could love alone be a reason if intimacy/mating is not an objective? Could they not be best friends and share a different type of love? Theres so many types of love that even I am confused and don't believe in all the types.

Alienation of affection, how is that defined? If the spouse can take half your fortune/assets, then you are saying money is another reason to marry. Sounds greedy, avoid any gold diggers who want you for your money!
*******
Pointing out that intimacy within the context of couplehood, not necessarily marriage, is not designed just "to bring forth children". (please see my post) It is a natural part of life. It is so natural that it was designed to perpetuate the species. Without it, we would cease to exist. Science has only just recently advanced the technology to allow for it othewise.

For the sake of argument, please consider that pair bonding also occurs within nature and in other species, such as "Love Birds" who pair for life and both care for the young. They are so devoted to each other that when one of the "couple" dies, the other loses interest in life. Other Love Birds or their parents or the culture didn't mold them into that. It is programed into their genetics. It is "natural" and not feigned.

You are asking if two people, and for the purpose of this post, I am speaking in terms of man/woman, not that alternate relationships would not also apply, cannot live, love, and be friends in the absence of a sexually based relationship. Yes, they could, if they both were the same and there would be nothing to adjust to, change, etc.

You ask, "Could they not also be best friends and share a different kind love?".

Sure, you can be "best friends". But, why marry? Marriage is fundamentally not just about friendship.

Falling in Love, finding a mate, sharing a life, making a family, building a "nest", dreaming of a future, nurturing a garden of hopes, feeling pain for the others losses and reveling in their victories are what makes us Victorious as we advance through a life which is finite. That is what being Human is about. Our legacy is what we leave behind when we finish our time here. We leave our Love...

You mention that it would be best to avoid any greedy gold diggers when you choose a significant other. In deed, that is correct. There are all different types of people. When we make those decisions through the lense of our dysfunctionality our reasons will be tainted by our own need to be accepted. Your choices are limited if they are based upon the context of your needs. Although, it is true that it is normal for you, it is not the norm. There is a chink in your armour.

I agree that you have the right to be as you are. The only way to judge it is as "wrong" would be if the way you are is making you unhappy. If you are honest with yourself you will not be false to any other man/woman. "This above all, to thine own self be true...."

If it is making you miserable, then it is a problem. If you can't find a mate because you cannot be sure of their honesty in accepting you, then it is a problem if you don't want to be alone.

Your situation is not the same as someone who would otherwise want to be "sexual" but can't for physical or psychological issues that are preventing them from interacting as a couple.

In general, people just don't operate the way you do so your choices are limited.

Best of Luck to you!

I question the original stats given here. 3-20 percent asexuals in our midst? Where did those stats come from?

I would agree that 20 percent have sexual issues, such as premature e and anorgazmia, and loss of desire, but this is not the same thing as what the OP is talking about.

Often times, lack of interest is tied to something specific, and it is temporary and isolated. (Temporary meaning that if the issue is solved, sexual problems can dissolve). For women it is often tied to depression and anger. For men, it can be depression. Anger as we all know for men rarely affect the labido! Woe is me. The hubby is torked and he still wants a little action. I dont' get it. LOL!

OP, you're never going to convince this crowd that sex is unnatural and disgusting. To try to change anyone's mind about this is like trying to convince us that chocolate is foul. Well, to some it may be, but to those who must have and find joy in it, why try to change that.

For those trying to change the OP's mind, why?

Ditto amyfiddler

People come in all colors, shapes, sizes, and characteristics. Including sexual orientation. I see no fault to be found unless there is deception promulgated upon an interested prospective partner. And, in fairness, deception -- aka hidden agendas -- are common throughout human interelationships. Always good to know who you are and what you're about.

Where's the edit link? I wanted to contribute more to the discussion. In another forum, this wife says mating feels awful. This could be another reason for a sexless marriage is that the wife finds mating to be gross, awful or painful or all of the above. She might not even be asexual and maybe masturbates and has erotic fantasties, just doesn't want physical intercourse.
I read more and there could be physical and/or psychological medical reasons the woman finds intercourse to be painful. But then ive been told normal women tend to find it somewhat painful but are good at seperating the pleasure from the pain. Let me quote an exerpt from the post:
"My husband wants a sexless marriage enough to remain married to me. It's not like I withhold all contact from him. I do not "tell him where to shove it." Instead, I gratify him with my hand. I "do stuff" with him, but I cannot be motivated to have sex. It's painful, tears my insides apart, and sets me off in tears. I really don't know why I would be encouraged to do something that causes me great pain. I would rather divorce him than have sex at this point, I really would. I know that will seem odd to you, because I assume you like sex, but for someone who hates it so much it is a natural reaction.
I don't have any medical problems, that I know of. It's been suggested the bcps can cause lack of libido, and I think that's a possibility in my case, but I would never be willing to stop taking them, short of to concieve a child. Intercouse is very painful for me. I think part of it might be mental. As if I have psyched myself out. Another part might be that my husband is over a foot taller than me. I've also have had problems with my husband tearing me (or at least, I think that's what's happening). Unfortunately, my insurance will not pay for me to see a doctor about these problems, and my husband is very against doctors so I think he would object anyway."
I had mentioned earlier in this forum that one could "please" the partner with hand and even mouth. Some of my horny friends claim that going oral actually feels *better* than straight intercourse. Of course I can't comment on this as I am asexual. I read more of her story and she has no medical problems but still finds it very painful as do some other women I know. I even know a few men who find it somewhat painful. This could well explain another reason your husbands are avoiding intercourse, even though some of them still masturbate.

Addressing sweeby:
"All I can say is that you don't know what you're missing."
This is what I hear all the time. The analogy could apply to people telling me to try drugs, they say the same and insist how am I to know if I never tried drugs? People have to learn to think for themselves and not do what their friends want them to, be it to get laid, experment with drugs or even jump off a bridge. I know all those things are harmful.
"In the absence of trust, love, security and true emotional intimacy, I can see how one might consider sexual intercourse to be gross, unsanitary and demeaning."
Then I ask, why are some people interested in what amounts to a one night stand or looking for a quick, easy lay? The same can be said for cheating spouses, what does this accomplish? I am against recreational mating because so many people are totally irresponsible!
"But within the context of a solid and loving marriage, when both people truly care for each other and put the other's well-being above or on par with their own -- then sexual intercourse is elevated to an entirely new level. It's much more than the icing on the cake -- it's the sugar in the cake mix, the syrup on the pancakes, the salt on meat, the sunshine in your day..."
Well, let me say I am happy for you. If everyone would keep their pants on till marriage and/or procreation, STDs would be erridicated as well as much of the misery fornication brings. You are correct on the three types, there is a fourth type called procreational mating
which animals adhere to and some humans as well. This is the only "necessary" mating, for any other reason than procreation is known as recreational mating.
Anyhow, who decided that a penis equals love? What if the concensus was running around the house, standing on your head and clapping 20 times means you love each other? Would people then say doing this is the best thing since sliced bread? I know it's just a silly example but so is making love with a penis sounds just as silly. Some will agree, some will disagree is all I can say.
"Pornography - which is sex for business/profit, and involves some people being exploited and hurt for others' gains. I told him he was sure to encounter some of this, but that I hoped he would remember that what he was seeing wasn't real, and that someone was being hurt and demeaned."
Ok, I agree 200% on that. I am against porn(as well as masturbation and recreational mating) books have been written on the dangers of porn. Countless marriages have been ruined by porn. I don't respect anyone who needs porn in their lives.
Thanks for responsing to my post. I would be curious if you got horny or had a libido before marriage. Were you a virgin when you married? Did you ever enjoy porn or masturbation? From your post, I am under the impression that it is love you are after, not lust. Therefore in a sexless marriage, if one spouse isn't interested, would it be lust if the other insists anyway? Even if one spouse obliged, that spouse would be putting their feelings aside and feeling all grossed out for the sake of "pleasing" the other. And why would the other spouse force the first spouse into something s/he didn't want if love is supposed to be mutual? If love is the objective, alternatives need to be found that both spouses mutually enjoyed. Lots of rhethorical questions inquiring minds would like to know.

tenderchichi,

"Pointing out that intimacy within the context of couplehood, not necessarily marriage, is not designed just "to bring forth children". (please see my post) It is a natural part of life. It is so natural that it was designed to perpetuate the species. Without it, we would cease to exist. Science has only just recently advanced the technology to allow for it othewise."

You will have to be more specific or I can safely assume intimacy is so many different levels. Each person or couple has their own ideas of intimacy. I for one consider cuddling quite intimate, but it's something that can safely be done among causal friends or even for fun(without reason) with a stranger. I consider perhaps the biggest intimacy to *not* be in the penis nor any physical organ for the matter but in the mind and soul itself. Humans are supposed to be sentient beings of the highest intellegence and able to express themselves in ways that transcend the physical.

Reminds me of a movie where physical intercourse was outlawed(for procreation, you donated your sperm or eggs and babies were grown in test tubes) and for intimacy, each couple would wear a helmet with all kinds of wires sticking out. Then a psychic/telepathic thought pattern was established where each other could read and communicate with their minds and know each other's secrets, desires, fears, etc as well as communicate effortlesly by mind and thoughts.

"Other Love Birds or their parents or the culture didn't mold them into that. It is programed into their genetics. It is "natural" and not feigned."

If so, I lack this so called programming and can only sit back and pounder the mysteries and phenomenon of "love" I can observe and read about it but love doesn't follow logic. Is love a form of sentimental value and admiration?

"You are asking if two people......cannot live, love, and be friends in the absence of a sexually based relationship. Yes, they could, if they both were the same and there would be nothing to adjust to, change, etc."

So going by this logic, both would need the same sexual orientation or both asexual. Thus the dilemna if one is asexual or simply loses his/her libido. Could I use the analogy that intercourse to an asexual(like me) is as mystifying as the color red to a protan(red-blind) or perhaps sounds to a deaf person? You could try to explain what "red" is all day to a protan and the best understanding he will have is that "red" is supposed to be "different" than the rest of the colors(blues, yellows, browns) he is capable of seeing. For him, red is nothing more than an invisible, abstract concept that is illogical. Someone could say he sees the color yoinks and I would be dumbfounded! My only understanding would be that Yoinks is a color that could be similar to an existing color I already see. Red would be similar to green or brown to a protan but the "red" this protan is seeing is not a "real" red but the "red" in his own perspective.

Mating is something I understand logically in it's strict definition where two animals/humans of opposite gender join private parts and the male delivers the "seeds" into the female in order for the species to countinue and not go extinct. Animals as I understand don't consciously "think" about mating, they just go ahead at a certain time of the year, perhaps spring. Humans on the other hand can make their own decision whether to have children or not. I don't know how much biology plays into that but I can safely say I simply have no interest/need/desire to have children. I generally ignore children as they are too young to have much in common with me as friends, let them interact with other children their own age, I will interact with people my age and older.

What confounds me is how some people are willing to throw a relationship or marriage away because intercourse is absent. One can observe all the cues of friendship and even love and say "wow this couple is so lucky to have each other" yet one or both aren't happy for some reason that is as absurd to me as cooking.

"Sure, you can be "best friends". But, why marry? Marriage is fundamentally not just about friendship."

Marriage is illogical to me too. It sounds like a piece of paper in which the law reconizes the couple as being "legal" from my observations, most couples appear to live just like best friends, including my own parents. I could enjoy a close friendship just like they do without a piece of paper called "marriage" I do see some of them hugging and kissing, I could do the same. I observe that 50-70% of marriages dissolve and this further supports marriage as illogical. I told my sister's best friend about this and she doesn't care, she wants to get "laid" soon and marry someone she says she "loves" her own parents are divorced but this doesn't seem to deter her. I wish her good luck is all I can say.

"Your situation is not the same as someone who would otherwise want to be "sexual" but can't for physical or psychological issues that are preventing them from interacting as a couple."

I can best describe my situation to one who is born of a different orientation. Asexuality is like a heterosexual not being attracted to same gender and a homosexual to opposite gender. Bisexual is both, asexual is neither. Many of you are heterosexuals who don't want to be sexual with your own gender. That thought probably even repulses you. Now imagine this applying to the opposite gender too and you can arrive at an understand of asexual. Not only that, you don't want to be sexual with yourself either, this means no masturbation nor any form of physical "pleasure" Maybe some of you can explain heterosexuality in more detail. I have given my perspective on asexuality and will gladly explain more, I am sure heterosexuals find asexuality as illogical as I find sexuality.

amyfiddler,

"I question the original stats given here. 3-20 percent asexuals in our midst? Where did those stats come from?"

The internet as well as knowing my friends. 3% are completely asexual and probably will die virgins. I am in that 3%. Another 20% are partially asexual which even I can't relate to them, let alone complete heterosexual. I would say a partial asexual would be analogous to a partial colorblind, known as anormalous trichromat. A protanormalous man would still see red but it is much dimmer, reduced, duller. A partial asexual's libido would be dull and weak but not absent totally like mine is. Many partial asexuals could "function" without any intercourse or they might masturbate once a week and be satisfied. Most partial asexuals in fact aren't happy to get "too much" for them once a week to a few times a year is all they need/want/desire.

"OP, you're never going to convince this crowd that sex is unnatural and disgusting."

Oh that would be a waste of time, but may work on a virgin(that person has no idea what mating is like) or a partial asexual. On the flip side, no one can convince a complete asexual like me to go out and get laid(that would be like some form of medieval torture!). Youll have better(probably much better!) luck convincing me that drugs are good for you or that swimming in stinky mud is natural and wonderful.

Please read all my replies to you and comment on them. There is much we can learn from each other and I love knowlege! :)

At the risk of it seeming a stretch....I look at OP's attitude somewhat like eating. Being compelled to eat something I either don't care for or find repulsive is torture. (In my personal case, calves liver falls into that catagory. I can't abide even being in the same room with the stuff.) Feeling compelled to engage in an act that one finds repulsive is the same. People have all kinds of different "desires" sexually. The range is vast. I don't know anyone who considers themselves a "normal" heterosexual with a "normal" libido who isn't repelled to the extent of revulsion by a number of sexual variations that they know full well some others engage in and enjoy. In that way, I don't think its difficult to understand where OP is coming from at all.

I'm sorry, how does one go about getting inappropriate posts flagged here?

BTW - to the OP, how is it that you found yourself interested in the Marriage forum? I can't see myself entering the Crafts forum when crafts make me rolllll my eyes - if i'm not interested then I'm not interested. What interests you in Marriage? This is a genuine question, with not the baiting undertones of the previous post -

Also, more questions. Is "asexual" a term you have defined, or is it actually an official term? Are there associations available for 'asexuals' the way there are for homosexuals and heterosexuals, or is 'asexual' more of a strictly descriptive term?

Im not finding any info online (other than ornpray) regarding asexuality. I'm still questioning the stats given. To say 3% of your friends are asexual doesn't effectively translate into general society - we tend to 'attract' (no pun intended) like personalities -

Again, to say that 20% of people experience sexual dysfunction, which includes sexual aversion, is accurate - but sexual aversion doesn't make a person asexual. For a person to be asexual, there would be no hormones, no sex drive, no libito exisiting - to be anti sex is simply to be celibate, which is not what you're describing. You are saying, if I'm correct, that you are BOTH without a sex drive/libito/hormones (born that way) and you are also anti-sex. I have yet to come across any information on this -

I find this an interesting topic as I am a therapist with a background in sex therapy but have not come across this. Sexual aversions, yes, but such things are very, very treatable, so for those out there who suffer or whose spouses suffer, know that for those who want it, treatment is available. And it works.

OP, I understand you are saying that for those out there who's spouses aren't giving it up, perhaps they are asexual because there are 3-20% of society who are, I'm concerned that this is innacurate. Such a position can put a suffering spouse in a very 'stuck' frame of mind, and if they think there is no hope for their sex lives they may walk away. I'm saying, to everyone, be sure to be smart about this whole thing.

No doubt OP is being truthful about his experience. My guess would be that there is much more to this story than simply 'I was born an asexual' but then again my take on such things is that people are born with all sorts of 'different' situations, why not this? So I'm saying more info is needed to draw accurate conclusions on what is 'normal' and what is 'fact' -

Thanks, sorry so long.
Amy

Info on Sexual Aversion Disorder

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/sexavdis.htm

The fact that this is seen as a disorder would suggest that the psychological community sees this as a psychological disorder and that one is not born this way, and that it is treatable. Of course, not everyone (ie. OP) wants to be treated, which is fine. For example, I for one kind of like my anxiety disorder, dont' want to be treated for it, so even if I was treated I'd most likely be resistant -

Devils advocate here, homosexuality was once in the DSM -

The quote below should apply to all of you. I hope it will help you realize that a sexless marriage is not supposed to be a big deal as marriage is about intimacy rather than physical.

We all want a successful relationship. Where does sex fit in? An article in 'Psychology Today' noted that sex was 'far down the list of reasons for a happy marriage.' #6 Less than 10% of the individuals with successful marriages thought good sexual relationships were important in keeping their marriage together. Research data revealed, in this study of some 300 couples married more than fifteen years, that sex is not the key to a happy, fulfilled marriage. #6

What is the key? The top two reasons given by both sexes as to why their marriage kept going were the same: #6

1) My spouse is my best friend.

2) I like my spouse as a person.

Come on. I doubt ANYONE here would equate those two things. And sex (or what is typically thought of as sex between two persons) is a DESIRE. No one NEEDS sex.

goldfish_lover's comment. This guy above who said this is not against sex, but he does believe it is way overrated. I also fail to see how sex is an innate need, could anyone elaborate on this? For me, it's not even a desire but a strong repulsion.

"Studies show that a relationship based on physical attraction may hold itself together for three to five years. During that length of time two people are fooled into thinking, "Well, we've been going together for so long, surely we can make it for a lifetime. This must be love." On the other side of marriage, they wake up to see they had little in common and no basis for a quality relationship." #7

goldfish_lover's comment. I totally agree with the above. I have observed marriages where the physical passion and lust fade after an average of 3 years. If there is true love, the marriage will last with wife and husband being emotionally, spiritually and psychologically comptable as best friends. Otherwise the marriage will fail as do up to 70% of marriages fail.

There's only one safe way to remain healthy in the midst of a sexual revolution. It is to abstain from intercourse until marriage, and then wed and be faithful to an uninfected partner. It is a concept that was widely endorsed in society until the 1960s (and look what's happened since then..........)

goldfish_lover's comment. This is what everyone needs to learn in abstinence ed.

Addressing Amy:

"What interests you in Marriage?"

Nothing but I wanted to post here to help others understand marriage and make them realize that sex is NOT a big factor in marriage. I also wanted to point out that alot of people are asexual, including me.

"Also, more questions. Is "asexual" a term you have defined, or is it actually an official term? Are there associations available for 'asexuals' the way there are for homosexuals and heterosexuals, or is 'asexual' more of a strictly descriptive term?"

Please google up asexual(human)(orientation) it's official and while there are few associations, it's slowly changing. Asexuality is getting more awareness.

"but sexual aversion doesn't make a person asexual. For a person to be asexual, there would be no hormones, no sex drive, no libito exisiting - to be anti sex is simply to be celibate, which is not what you're describing. You are saying, if I'm correct, that you are BOTH without a sex drive/libito/hormones (born that way) and you are also anti-sex. I have yet to come across any information on this -"

That's correct and you can find all the info you want on Google. You and anyone else is welcome to contact me on AIM messenger, Yahoo or MSN. My email is morganNOSPAMmast at yahoo com. (remove the no spam) make sure the subject line begins with "hello goldfish_lover....."

Seriously, has no one but me studied Maslow or taken a college course in human sexuality? Granted you may not die without sex, but it is usually defined as a "need" rather than just a desire. Sex is needed to procreate to keep the human race alive. The drive is a lot stronger than a general desire. I understand people have different opinions and different or no sex drives, but really calling sex only a desire is way off base. Do animals mate simply because of desire, or is it an innate need? There are anorexics that don't eat...desires or lack of them don't necessairly dictate needs. Do some research on "human needs" as see what comes up.

Here is a link that might be useful: Needs

"I previously mentioned mating as gross/disgusting/dirty and that what it's on a basic fundamental level. Much worse than washing dishes or scrubbing the floor."

Are you kidding? I'd have sex any day over washing dishes or scrubbing the floor!
I'm assuming you are a virgin.How can you judge sex if you've never had it?
I agree you dont know what you're missing.Bonding with someone through love making is the most incrediable exprience there is besides watching your child be born. It is unselfish to be able to give yourself to another in that way and spiritually fullfilling.
I also feel sorry for you for denying yourself one of the most beautiful acts life can offer. It is only dirty if you make it that way. With someone you love,it truely IS A BEAUTIFUL THING and not at all dirty.

"Studies show that a relationship based on physical attraction may hold itself together for three to five years. During that length of time two people are fooled into thinking, "Well, we've been going together for so long, surely we can make it for a lifetime. This must be love." On the other side of marriage, they wake up to see they had little in common and no basis for a quality relationship." #7 "

All this clinical mumbo-jumbo means nothing.
My husband and I slept together the SECOND night we met.That's right.We had little in common when we first met besides sex. The sex was so amazing that our relationship grew from there.
We have been married for 10 years now. We still have amazing sex,but we have so much more than that as well. We are best friends,we have a beautiful daughter,and we now share many common interests.
Kinda shows your theory obviously isnt based on everyone.

Carla35,I DO agree with you that sex is a need.Without it,many people become depressed.
Hey OP~why dont you try doing some research on that? Look up lack of sex and depression and see what pops up.

I'd agree that a relationship BASED on sexual attraction doesn't have great odds.
But that certainly isn't the same as saying that a marriage where there is a strong sexual attraction (in addition to other attributes) doesn't have an excellent chance of surviving.
Strong sexual chemistry or even just a caring sexual relationship can smooth over lots of little bumps in the road, helping keep relationships harmonious.
Mismatched sex drives, sexually-inconsiderate spouses and sexual performance issues can lead to lots of heartache, hurt feelings, strained emotional intimacy, all sorts of things.

I do agree that sex is best within a marital relationship, and that life would be much better if more people experimented a whole lot less sexually outside of marriage. But - I don't see that happening in a big way... Really, how many teens actually believe their parents' advice to wait until marrige? They assume it's just "over-protective Mom & Dad not wanting their baby to grow up," and not because we've learned that the old wisdom has some real value to it.

"I'd agree that a relationship BASED on sexual attraction doesn't have great odds. "

I agree too~for MOST people,but not all. I did the whole date a friend thing,date someone with common interests...I certainly never expected what I had with my husband to last,but it did.
What it comes down to,is if you grow TOGETHER instead of apart.
I couldnt agree more about strong sexual chemistry and/or a caring relationship smoothing things over. Sometimes words just arent enough...

Interesting - Sweeby, I waited for mine - Do I regret it? Sometimes, but bottom line I wanted my first to be the most meaningful in my lifetime, and it certainly was. I certainly didn't hold back for feelings of disgust though -!

Sorry OP - I' can't email you personally. That would feel a little uncomfortable to me - to be honest, I think you're thinking way more about sex than I am and I dig it! LOL. Kinda ironic.

To each his own, for sure - but you'll never convince me that sex between committed married loving partners is evil. Its when sex and relationships are abused that sex becomes problematic - usually things done out of pure selfishness - think about it.

Needs? I don't know. Nuns aren't dying young, they're all old. I would guess there are a few of Maslow's needs that an asexual is not getting - I guess that according to Maslow, an asexual will never be self actualized. I learned that very few people actually ever become self actualized - Maybe that's for the life here after.

I just know that right now I NEED to go to sleep. After I get it on with my very non-asexual husband. (Giggle)

We're a bunch of women posters here (for the most part) and the OP is a man. I'm willing to bet if you ask most men, 90% plus would say that they *need* sex to feel fulfilled in a relationship. If you read any of the mars/venus books, I believe there is some truth that men need sex to stimulate emotional intimacy whereas women need emotional intimacy to stimulate the desire for sex. Which, granted, can create a bit of a problem from time to time, but a little time and communication can overcome it (usually).

I know my partner and I need it. There are times that our lives get busy and we're able to reconnect oftentimes through taking time to go through the whole love making process. It's not just "the act" that re-connects, it's the flirty foreplay, the affectionate moments afterwards and laying in bed chatting, re-connecting, sharing, talking, and yes, eventually falling asleep together. I sound like some big cheeseball - but I think that the OP will never know the positives and strength that a healthy balanced sex life can bring to a partnership. It's closer than just being best friends and talking about everything - it's sharing all of yourself - physically - which in today's society is often made to look ugly, dirty and bad. There is such vulnerability that comes along with full intimacy - emotional and physical - that it completes the circle of really knowing someone and connecting with them. But it's also a connection that needs to be continually strengthened and re-committed too. Hence, the reasons to have a healthy sex life with your partner.

There is, quite seriously, a very visceral change in the way you feel when you're emotionally connected to the one you're having sex with. I will say I never felt it with other partners - not until I was with my current partner. It is the very opposite of what the OP describes.

You can argue and cite studies until the cows come home, but until you *really* experience it, there's no way you can tell us it's wrong, bad or disgusting.

Some information on the genetics of desire. Science is learning more about this subject. Did a search and came across the following article:
Differences in Sexual Desire Can Be Attributed To Genetic Variances
By: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem on May 29 2006
Excerpt from the article:

"The article provides, for the first time, data that common variations in the sequence of DNA impact on sexual desire, arousal and function and lead to differences and diversity of the human sexual phenotype."
If you would like to read the full text:

http://www.emaxhealth.com/48/6045.html

It seems to be stating that most of it is "all in our heads".

This article helps to explain why there is such diversity and why one person may have more and another less drive in the need for romantic intimacy.

It also offers some hope for those that might want to change.

Thought it might be interesting.

Well, "different strokes for different folks" as we used to say. It's always interesting to hear viewpoints outside the mainstream and I think this does shed some light on how a group of people feel, or rather, don't feel. So thank you for the education. I really had not known about asexual/aromantic people before, and it does explain some behaviors that I didn't understand.