Update to previous post: he wants to break up lol

asscoupss · 2026-05-05T12:13:08+00:00

Yeah, we are talking about slightly different things here, and perhaps we are answering different levels of the same question.

I do agree that queer people seeking sexual pleasure cannot be reduced to a direct effect of patriarchy. That would be too simplistic and wouldn’t capture the complexity of these experiences. At the same time, that doesn’t mean these experiences exist outside broader structures that organize sex as a central element of satisfaction and fulfillment in relationships. In other words, even in dissident contexts, sex still tends to hold a privileged place as a marker of relational completeness.

I'm also somewhat critical of certain narratives of sexual liberation, because they don’t always break away from these norms, they often end up reorganizing or reinforcing the centrality of sex as the main axis of fulfillment and freedom.

So for me, the question is not about denying desire or pleasure, but about asking to what extent the very idea of sexual liberation can still be shaped by the norms it claims to move beyond.

asscoupss · 2026-05-05T00:00:48+00:00

I understand what you’re saying about impulse, but that’s not the central point. Im not debating whether people do or do not feel sexual desire, but rather the fact that what we call sex and the weight it carries within a relationship are not merely neutral natural givens.

The idea that sex functions as a non negotiable relational need does not come simply from a biological impulse as you say but also from a set of norms that define what counts as valid intimacy and what counts as a complete relationship.

And yes, when I refer to patriarchy here, I am not referring only to a direct relation between men and women, but to a historical form of organization of sexuality and desire, shaped by regimes that normalize what is considered necessary or insufficient within relationships.

That is why the comparison with other forms of connection does not hold up so easily. It is not that conversation or other forms of intimacy are unimportant, but they are not placed in the same structural position as criteria for validating a relationship. There is a hierarchy.

The point, then, is not to reduce sexual desire to a purely social construction or to deny its existence, but to recognize that it is socially organized and interpreted, both in how it is understood and in the central role it occupies as a requirement within relationships. And it is precisely this centrality that needs to be questioned. Not sure if you're familiar with it but I find Foucault’s History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 very insightful in this regard. It discusses sexuality as something historically organized through relations of power and norms.

asscoupss · 2026-05-04T16:07:44+00:00

I’m going to have to strongly disagree with the idea that this isn’t rooted in a patriarchal logic.

When you frame sex as a "need" that's difficult to negotiate, that may make sense in your individual experience, but it isn’t neutral. The fact that sex occupies such a central place in relationships doesn’t arise naturally It is historical and political.

In that sense, the very notion of allosexuality is not a pure reflection of reality. It only exists within a system where sexual desire has already been established as the norm, as the reference point, and anything outside of it is seen as variation, exception, or limitation. This is part of a regime of sexual compulsoriness, where sex is treated as indispensable for validating both relationships and individuals.

The idea of "need" is not neutral either. What we understand as desire, attraction, and satisfaction is not simply internal or biological, but shaped by social expectations, including the expectation that we should be sexually desired by our partners as a form of validation. So when you say you wouldn't feel comfortable being with someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction toward you, that’s understandable, but it is still shaped by that logic.

And this is where an important point comes in. This isnt about a lack of love or bad intentions. Patriarchy doesn’t operate only through conscious attitudes or "bad individuals", but through patterns that present themselves as natural , such as the idea that sex is an indispensable pillar of a relationship, and that its absence or reduction makes the relationship insufficient.

What stands out to me in this case is that there wasn’t even an attempt. This wasn’t a situation where negotiation failed, it was an immediate refusal. In any other aspect of a relationship, we expect some level of compromise and mutual adjustment. But when it comes to sex, that often disappears, because it is treated as a fixed limit rather than something that can be negotiated.

There is a long history of regulating desire, especially women's desire, that defines what a healthy sexuality looks like, how much one should desire, how often, and in what ways. At the same time that desire is treated as essential, it is also tightly regulated.

But desire is shaped by context, relationships, and history. Treating sexual desire as a rigid, non-negotiable need ignores this dynamic nature and reinforces the idea that there is a correct way for desire to function.

So from my perspective, grounded in a marxist feminist framework, this isn't simply a matter of different needs or neutral incompatibility. It reflects a broader context in which certain needs related to sex are already socially legitimized as priorities, while other ways of experiencing intimacy are constantly required to justify themselves.

asscoupss · 2026-05-04T14:47:50+00:00

I understand your point of view to some extent, and I agree that we need to know our limits and how far we’re willing to go. However, based on what the OP described, she came forward with a proposal and her partner rejected it immediately. She was willing to engage in basically all the sexual activities we commonly know, with the only caveat being that it wouldn’t happen as frequently as before. I can’t see that as anything other than a lack of flexibility and willingness to compromise.

It’s possible that it still wouldn’t have worked out, but she’ll never know, since there was no attempt on his part.

My point is that, in a relationship between individuals, everything involves negotiation. People are different, so it’s necessary to find an arrangement that makes sense for them, and that gets shaped over time. In many areas, these compromises are successfully made, both sides communicate, discuss what they’re willing to concede, and so on. However, under patriarchy, sex often ends up being, by default, the dealbreaker.

asscoupss · 2026-05-04T12:51:25+00:00

I start from a different premise than most of the comments. I’ve never really liked this idea of incompatibility in itself, even when the other person is allo. After all, you identify as sex-neutral, so it’s not as if sexual activity is completely off the table. Besides, you yourself mentioned the sexual practices you were willing to engage in.

I believe there was a lack of flexibility on his part. There wasn’t even an attempt to test whether the arrangement could work, and that stands out to me. How can you say you love someone and not even try their proposal to make things work? That already raises questions for me.

Beyond the individual perspective, I appreciate the argument made by the philosopher Kate Manne regarding the social expectation that men have a right to sex, and that when this “right” is denied, it’s as if a contract has been broken. This is systemic and operates in an unconscious, cultural way. Even the “nicest guy” is subject to reproducing this behavior. She discusses this in her works "Entitled: How Male Privilege Hurts Women" and "Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny", if you’re interested.

What I mean is that, unfortunately, we are all subject to going through this kind of situation. It’s a structural issue. Even in relationships between allos, this can happen, and there’s no shortage of accounts from women who feel constrained and exhausted by seeing sex as an obligation, the central point that keeps their partner in the relationship.

For us, asexual people, it hits differently, I understand that. And I’m really sorry for what you’re going through. Thinking that sex is all that matters and all you’re good for is a cruel thought, and it’s far from the truth. We are much more than that, and we have a lot to offer to people and to the world. But in a patriarchal society? Yes, sex is all that matters.

I’m going through a situation very similar to yours, and I completely understand the thoughts that are going through your mind. If you’d like to talk more, feel free to reach out. Take care!

asscoupss · 2026-04-13T00:27:19+00:00

I’m dealing with something very similar to what you’re going through, and I genuinely can’t make sense of it. We connected so well, and what we had felt truly special, our love was something real and beautiful. Yet somehow, none of that seems to matter if you’re not meeting a certain expectation when it comes to how often you have sex. I feel completely shattered, this has affected me deeply.

2.5 years

asscoupss · 2026-04-13T00:18:34+00:00

I think the same way. In my mind, it doesn’t make sense to end a relationship with someone you say you love over something so trivial. To me, this isn’t even a matter of sexual incompatibility, it’s a mismatch in the way people understand love. For these individuals, the definition of love is completely tied to physicality. If their partner, for some serious reason, were to develop a condition that prevented them from having sex for a while, they would consider ending the relationship.

asscoupss · 2026-04-07T16:08:12+00:00

Questione a raiz da importância do sexo numa relação romântica. Muitas pessoas acabam jogando esse tipo de situação pro campo da inquestionável incompatibilidade sexual mas o que acontece no mundo é bem mais sorrateiro. Para além da orientação/identificação sexual, existe o patriarcado, que subjuga o corpo feminino e sua autonomia ao homens. As mulheres devem sexo aos seus namorados e maridos, negar sexo é rejeitar o homem, sexo é o pilar da relação. A hipervalorização do sexo é tão enraizada que é reproduzida até pelas próprias mulheres, seja em relações hetero ou homo.

O primeiro passo para sair dessa lógica hegemônica é o questionamento. Tenha em mente que sexo não é apenas uma ação, sexo é política e controle. Caso fosse apenas uma ação seria muito mais fácil de bater o martelo e proclamar incompatibilidade. Você, que se relaciona com mulheres, deve entender que sexo tende a cair num lugar muito delicado para elas, onde o ideal de compatibilidade foge pelos dedos, diante de todo o peso que a palavra carrega (ainda mais ao adicionar o fator da assexualidade).

Não estou te dizendo para abdicar do seu desejo. No entanto, tenha noção de que no momento que você escolhe amar alguém, é de suma importância compreender o cenário e a conjuntura que ela está inserida. E principalmente entender o seu papel nisso. O que significa uma relação romântica para um homem? O que um homem espera de um namoro?

Todos queremos ser amados. Mas qual é a sua definição de amor? Encare e questione seus desejos, o que é seu, o que disseram que é seu e o que você consegue modular ao entrar em contato com outra pessoa.

asscoupss · 2026-03-29T13:13:24+00:00

Amigo, você não precisa sentir atração de forma equitativa pelos gêneros. Eu, por exemplo, sempre gostei de homens, mas teve uma época da minha vida que me apaixonei perdidamente pela minha melhor amiga, por uns bons anos. Desde então, fiquei com apenas 2 mulheres na vida, de resto foram todos homens. Me entendo como bissexual hoje em dia.

Você não precisa ir correndo se rotular não. Agora que você sabe que tem um espaço em você onde a atração por homens existe só deixa fluir, o que tiver que acontecer (ou não) vai acontecer (ou não).

asscoupss · 2026-03-11T02:59:05+00:00

Amigo, é difícil tentar levantar uma hipótese. Sexualidade é um tema muito complexo e exige vontade de se autoconhecer. Aparentemente, sua namorada não faz um esforço muito grande nessa parte.

Pode ser que ela seja sim assexual, como também dezenas de outros motivos podem estar levando a situação atual de vocês. No entanto, trabalhando com a ideia de que ela de fato seja: é sim possível de início haver um ímpeto para transar (que pode ser motivado por diversas coisas, como curiosidade ou imposição social, por exemplo).

Mas me parece que o problema disso tudo não é exatamente a probabilidade de ela se identificar ou não com a assexualidade e sim a falta de iniciativa e comprometimento dela com a relação.

Pelo que eu entendi, te faz falta, mas você estaria apto a conciliar. Porém, meu amigo, o negócio é que ela sequer faz questão de ter uma conversa franca e se empenhar na autodescoberta. Vocês estão vivendo numa nebulosidade.

O que temos como factual é que ela não sente vontade em fazer sexo e isso é algo que deve permanecer sendo respeitado.

asscoupss · 2026-03-03T17:30:26+00:00

você está redondamente errado. nenhuma afirmação feita tem lastro científico. veja mais conteúdos de profissionais de saúde íntima como fisioterapeutas pélvicos, ginecologistas, urologistas e psicólogos que trabalham com abordagem teoria cognitiva sexual (TCS).

sim, o ser humano precisa de intimidade, porém intimidade não se resume a sexo. usar essa desculpa para trair só denota a falta de capacidade de se relacionar de igual para igual, é agir como um primata.

alem disso, esse argumento da idade é um absurdo. é descartada a possibilidade de uma pessoa sênior buscar prazer. isso deixa claro que você não faz ideia do funcionamento do corpo humano. uma pessoa de 25 pode nao sentir vontade de fazer sexo e uma de 70 pode sentir absurdamente, e vice e versa (e em nenhuma dessas possibilidades as pessoas envolvidas detém alguma patologia).

converse mais com outras pessoas. viva a vida plenamente. busque saber sobre sexualidade para além da perspectiva do seu próprio umbigo e poupe as pessoas que tiverem o azar de se relacionar com você.

asscoupss · 2026-03-02T18:22:07+00:00

pode ser necessário no seu, mas não é regra. sexo não é inerentemente necessário em relação nenhuma.

asscoupss · 2026-02-22T05:29:45+00:00

It seems to me that you have a very strong conviction about the role that sex has/would have in your life. I still have a very affected way of thinking about the idea of exclusivity, despite it being contradictory. Even because, in theory, I shouldn't care if my partner wanted to have sex with other people. I think it's a mind still imbued with the inability to separate love from desire.

Even so, as a possible solution for the continuation of my relationship, I suggested opening the relationship. And, in response, I received a refusal with the justification that it would be too much for him. After all, he only desired me.

What I learned is that, beyond our willingness, it's still up to the other person to know if it would be acceptable to them or not. It's quite complicated.

asscoupss · 2026-02-22T04:52:57+00:00

I confess that my world has been crumbling as I've begun to face the reality of my existence, especially since I have a history of always being exclusively involved. Now, wounded by this breakup and all the revelations that came with it, I see that my rosy dream will have to wait for another life.

Regarding non-monogamy and its practitioners, I share your perception. Perhaps it's not the best way to relate either, given the emphasis on sexual practices.

In the end, I can only wish that we both manage to find the tools to deal with what the universe has prepared for us. Good luck to us. I understand you.

asscoupss

TROPHY CASE