Asexuality and Marriage

[Rau]

Canon 1061, para. 2 is interesting in that it presumes that, if a couple has lived together for a long period, the marriage has been consummated. For one or two asexuals, this may not be the case. It seems that these canons have not even taken into consideration situations of asexuality. This, indeed, makes things very confusing. What if it is “proven otherwise” that a marriage has not beeon consummated after a long period of time. Does that, then, not make it a marriage. Or, rather, does the “unless otherwise proven” clause relate only to situations where the two wish the marriage to be dissolved?

In a way, it asexual marriage in any form is permitted, it may be a good thing that it can be dissolved, especially ifthe other partner is sexual, the asexual partner is unwilling to have sex and the sexual partner therefore is not finding his/her needs met.

Very confusing indeed.

So, then, also, would a marriage between people whose sexual equipment does not work be able to be dissolved also? What about a marriage between those that are too old?

It seems that the presumption is that sex will happen sooner or later. So, then, is this simply because canon law has not taken asexuality into account or has it and does not allow marriage unless sex is to be a part of it at some point? In other words, is consummation eventually a requirement? Again, then, what about those who can’t or won’t for reasons other than not being open to life?

It’s not confusing. A presumption can be wrong. It just means that a person can’t seek a dissolution on grounds of no consummation without accepting responsibility to prove the claim. If no proof, then their claim fails because consummation will be assumed after a period of living together.

 

[Rau]

Your last statement very much mirrors my own feelings. I have had the desire to love fully, deeply, to have that complete trust. And, yes, I have had this for specific individuals. I have just never had a desire to have sex with them.

Interestingly, and I am fine talking about this, don’t worry, I do believe I have had, shall we say, a physical response to things other than the body of another, even to their personality. It’s just being able to connect my mind with what’s happening in my body. My body responds, but I have never apparently quite connected it with the kind of mental/spiritual love/closeness I desire. There just seems to be a disconnect between my physical reaction and my mental one. I can physically react but I still don’t have the mental desire to have sex with the person. It’s merely for me a physical reaction with no mental desire to have sex, though it is often connected with a deep love for the person. However, this response has sometimes even happened with guys I would have otherwise considered “just friends”.

Is the physical reaction pleasant? Is it such as to encourage a furtherance of it?

 

[1ke]

So, then, canon law would consider asexuality a mental impediment to marriage? Even if both parties, whether both asexual or only one, loved each other romantically and deeply?

I did not say that.

Depending on the severity of the condition, an *individual person *might be impeded from marriage based on:

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;

3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

or

Can. 1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.

§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

Can. 1102 §1. A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly.

I suppose the same would be the case for impotent people, which, being quite honestly with folks, seems very unfair to me.

It is not a matter of fairness. It is a matter of whether the people are capable of validly consenting to marriage and of the essential properties of marriage. A person incapable of sexual intercourse is not capable of marriage.

So, then, what if an asexual person either marries another asexual person or a sexual person and they both agreed to have sex even if one or both did not desire it simply for the procreation of life? Since there was no sexual desire for one or both parties (an impeditment to the procreation of life?), would the marriage still be valid?

How many ways and how many times must it be said? Yes.

Indeed, is sexual desire necessary for marriage, according to the Church’s definition?

No.

Or, rather, as long as the parties have sex, would their marriage still be recognized?

As previously stated, a ratum tantum marriage is valid even without consummation.

In the case of impotence, would the marriage of such person still be invalid even if they adopted and raised children?

Impotence is a divine law impediment to marriage. Such a person cannot marry. If they (invalidly) married, adoption has no bearing on validity.

I just think it would be a horrible situation for two people who love each other not to be able to get married simply because of a physical disability.

And again, I return you to the purpose of marriage and the essential properties of marriage. One cannot exchange a right to sexual intercourse if one cannot have sexual intercourse.

 

[1ke]

In fact, I am very classically romantic

Define “classically romantic”. Giving examples in addition to defining your terms would be quite helpful.

 

[1ke]

So, if I would not get sexual fulfillment from the act after marriage, but even if the other person did from me, I would still not be permitted to marry because I wasn’t being fulfilled by it? So, then, both people must inherently have sexual desire in order to have a valid (?) marriage?

No one said that.

I guess what I am concerned with here is the unitive aspect of the sexual act? Or, rather, is that unitive aspect referring to marriage as a whole? Does the sexual act itself have to be unitve or can it simply be for the procreation of children?

Sexual intercourse is per se ordered to both procreation and unity of spouses (i.e., by its nature).

If the sexual act itself has to be unitive, then I am wondering, since I may not find fulfillment in it, whether that unitiveness would therefore not exist? I mean, we could be united in our desire to have children from the act, but likely would not be in the pleasure derived from the act.

No. It’s objectively unitive.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Even without the antecedent desire for sex, wouldn’t there still be an oxytocin rush? If there wasn’t, wouldn’t that prove there was some physical thing that was malfunctioning?

Oxytocin is responsible for most of the bonding feeling between sexual partners. It can be torn down and shattered by being used repeatedly on different people, giving one a resistance, so to speak, but it can’t be wholly denied.

I would think this is a very important factor that can’t be weighed until sex is in fact experienced in a moral context.

 

[Kamaduck]

Hey, all. Disclaimer: I’m sort of currently a mess, so feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt. I just figure another perspective can’t hurt.

I’ve privately ID’d as asexual for a while now (almost three years, I think?). Words like “asexual” are map, not territory— they’re an easy way to describe a person’s internal desires, but they’re not hard-and-fast categories. I use the word to explain that I don’t have any particular sexual interest in specific people of any gender. It’s possible that this will change as I grow older, but I’m not holding my breath, and I don’t think it would be wise for me (or anyone) to enter a marriage while relying on the possibility that things will instantly change as soon as the sacrament is complete. That seems risky and foolish, especially when the outcome is so important.

On the other hand, I really, really like the idea of raising children with another person, and I think I’d be pretty good at it, provided I was in good mental health. I’m also not so opposed to the idea of sex that I don’t think I could bring myself to have sexual relations with a specific person, even if I might not enjoy it in quite the same way that other people do. In my case, I think a fulfilling marriage would at least be a theoretical possibility, even if it might be difficult to find a suitable partner. Of course, it’s also possible that marriage isn’t my vocation, and that I’ll have to give up that desire for a family in order to walk some other path. Every vocation involves some sort of sacrifice, I think. I’m not really giving much serious consideration to my vocation right now (as I said, currently a mess), but I’m sure that God will prepare me for whatever path I was created to walk, when the time comes.

I have to agree with OP that asexuality is not likely to be due to a treatable medical condition, any more than homosexuality is likely to be due to a treatable medical condition. Yes, there are sometimes physical issues that inhibit a person’s libido, but that’s a separate issue. I’m pretty sure nobody has any idea how to induce attraction in a person who doesn’t experience it (or who experiences very little of it). It may be disordered— I wouldn’t know, honestly— but if so, I don’t think it’s something we know how to correct.

That said, OP’s posts do make me uncomfortable. In particular, Misty, I worry that your focus is on what you want, rather than on how you are called to serve. You emphasize that you want to experience a close, loving relationship with another person. Honestly, though, I don’t think that’s what marriage is about— or, in any case, that isn’t what makes it a marriage, and marriage is by no means the only way that people can experience close, loving relationships. Marriage is about much more than that. It’s about raising children, yes, but it’s also about giving yourself totally to another person, without holding anything back. If you don’t want to do that, then I would seriously reconsider whether marriage is your true vocation.

That may sound harsh, but you and I are hardly the only people in this position. There are lots of people who can’t get married, or who can’t marry the people they would like to marry. Think of people who would like to marry members of the same sex, or people with mental disabilities that prevent them from forming a stable bond with someone else. These people aren’t unworthy of love, but they may still be unable to marry (either unable to marry the people they love most, or unable to marry at all). That doesn’t mean the Church is being cruel or unfair, it just means they’re not able to fulfill the duties associated with marriage, and are therefore called to serve in other ways.

The Church certainly never said that anyone should not love or be loved by others. Love and relationships are an integral part of every vocation. They’re an integral part of being human. Even if you’re not called to marriage, that doesn’t at all mean that you shouldn’t experience closeness, friendship, trust, or love. It just means that they might look a little different for you than they look for married people, and that’s OK.

So. In terms of canon law, I think 1ke has answered your question— sexual attraction is not, strictly speaking, a necessary component of a valid marriage. On the other hand, if you only want to marry someone because you want to love and be loved, I suggest that you might benefit from expanding your understanding of “love”. You might find that what you’re looking for isn’t necessarily exclusive to marriage or married couples, and that you’re actually called to love and serve others in some other context.

Anyway, all the best. I hope at least some of this was helpful.

 

[Kamaduck]

Even without the antecedent desire for sex, wouldn’t there still be an oxytocin rush? If there wasn’t, wouldn’t that prove there was some physical thing that was malfunctioning?

Maybe, but I’m not convinced. You could say, I think, that humans are created in such a way that they enjoy the taste of sweet things and dislike the taste of bitter things, and that there are biological reasons for this. Sweetness = sugar = energy, and bitterness can be a sign that something has gone wrong with the food. On the other hand, there are people who like bitter foods and dislike sweet ones, and we don’t generally say that such people are “malfunctioning”.

Maybe someone gets the oxytocin rush, but they’re the equivalent of someone who doesn’t like sugar.

Oxytocin is responsible for most of the bonding feeling between sexual partners. It can be torn down and shattered by being used repeatedly on different people, giving one a resistance, so to speak, but it can’t be wholly denied.

That sounds fake, but OK.

I jest, sort of… I know what oxytocin is, but declaring it responsible for “most” of the bonding feeling between sexual partners seems… a little silly, I guess? Do you really think it’s all down to a single chemical, and not, I dunno, the fact that intimate contact of any sort tends to bring people closer together?

I would think this is a very important factor that can’t be weighed until sex is in fact experienced in a moral context.

Maybe, but I wouldn’t roll the dice on something that important. That’s just irresponsible. If someone can’t get by without a sex-induced oxytocin rush, it seems like a very bad idea to assume that an unknown factor will definitely clear things up.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Sure, there’s more to bonding than a single chemical. But that chemical is in spades with sex. Am I experiencing an oxytocin rush when I speak on the phone with a man, about the darkest secrets of our souls, with the stars and the moon above me? Maybe. I don’t know.

It feels like a bond, sure. My mind is still in charge, sure. But it’s only a shadow of a shadow. I’m only hearing his voice. I’m not seeing him, feeling him, smelling him. Does the closeness produce the oxytocin that then produces closeness? I don’t know. Which comes first, the chemical or the closeness? Again, I don’t know.

And all I meant was, none of us know. I could have been described as ‘asexual’ although I dislike all labels with the word sex in it. That is, I had no interest at all in sex because there was no reason to be. I’ve know since before I knew what sex was that two people who are not married are not to be naked or in the same bed together.

So because I wasn’t married, I couldn’t have sex, and I’m a professional at not wanting what I can’t have. And it wasn’t until I was well over 21 that I had to ask myself, could I go all the way for someone I loved? And the answer was yes. Once it came down to a specific person and not a vague and general idea, it took on meaning. My fertility flared up, and for the first time in my life, I felt actual desire.

And still, because I’ve never actually had sex, because I’ve never felt it, because I’ve never even held hands with a beloved, because I don’t have memories and sensations to recall or desire, I don’t want it the way those who have had it can do. I can’t. It’s like seeing someone eat chocolate and enjoy it, and maybe smelling it a little, and assuming you’d like it, but you don’t know, because you’re not allowed to have it yet.

But, for the fertile phase every month, I’m different. I do want it, it does haunt me, I do have restless sleep filled with whatever desirable male character has lately been occupying my mind. And when the hormones are over, so are the desires.

What I’m saying is, it’s a two-part gig. I wouldn’t have the mental longings without the physcial (because I’m perfectly capable of not even thinking about sex for my entire infertile phase) but also, these same physcial changes in me might get mis-applied or disordered, such as if I’d trained myself to apply them to the wrong gender, or abusive men, or married men, or what have you. My mind was formed properly first. When the desires kicked in, they were properly ordered, to want one man and one man only.

So yeah, if I got married and found out how lovely it was to join completely with a man forever in matrimonial consummation, I’m sure the pleasure of it would make me want it even when not at the peak of fertility. So what I’m saying, is that if I have no sexual desire outside of fertility, but believe I would after having experienced it, then I don’t find it out of palace to suggest the same may be true of a person who is essentially in an ‘infertile’ phase all the time.

I also find it hard to believe that someone who is fully functional in the hormone department doesn’t experience something translatable as sexual desire. And MMM seemed to say that she DOES experience a response, she just doesn’t connect it in her head to the idea of sex as a pleasant one. I’m sorry, so maybe that’s not physcial, but instead a mental habit, but it does seem a little amiss, and possibly subject to amelioration.

I cycled for seven or eight years before the ovulation really knocked me flat with longing. That was a real and measureable physcial change. I can measure the strength of the cycle by the strength of the changes. And indeed, I may have been feeling some of the same things prior to my realization (soppy mooning girl, wistful sighing, looking longingly at the moon, feeling lonely and sad at night, feeling snuggly, etc) but not connecting that to the fertile phase of the month - not connecting that to sexual desire. Because for the longest time, I was only paying attention for the bleeding part.

Idea of someone you love → reality vs theoretical → connection of desire and realization → sex now sounds good.

If you will read my previous posts, you will see that I have been very respectful and sympathetic to the OP throughout, and never dismissed or belittled her self-assessment. I’m only extrapolating possibilities from personal experience that I feel should be added to the discussion.

 

[LethalMouse]

Sure, there’s more to bonding than a single chemical. But that chemical is in spades with sex.** Am I experiencing an oxytocin rush when I speak on the phone with a man, about the darkest secrets of our souls, with the stars and the moon above me? Maybe. I don’t know. **

It feels like a bond, sure. My mind is still in charge, sure. But it’s only a shadow of a shadow. I’m only hearing his voice. I’m not seeing him, feeling him, smelling him. Does the closeness produce the oxytocin that then produces closeness? I don’t know. Which comes first, the chemical or the closeness? Again, I don’t know.

And all I meant was, none of us know. I could have been described as ‘asexual’ although I dislike all labels with the word sex in it. That is, I had no interest at all in sex because there was no reason to be. I’ve know since before I knew what sex was that two people who are not married are not to be naked or in the same bed together.

So because I wasn’t married, I couldn’t have sex, and I’m a professional at not wanting what I can’t have. And it wasn’t until I was well over 21 that I had to ask myself, could I go all the way for someone I loved? And the answer was yes. Once it came down to a specific person and not a vague and general idea, it took on meaning. My fertility flared up, and for the first time in my life, I felt actual desire.

And still, because I’ve never actually had sex, because I’ve never felt it, because I’ve never even held hands with a beloved, because I don’t have memories and sensations to recall or desire, I don’t want it the way those who have had it can do. I can’t. It’s like seeing someone eat chocolate and enjoy it, and maybe smelling it a little, and assuming you’d like it, but you don’t know, because you’re not allowed to have it yet.

But, for the fertile phase every month, I’m different. I do want it, it does haunt me, I do have restless sleep filled with whatever desirable male character has lately been occupying my mind. And when the hormones are over, so are the desires.

What I’m saying is, it’s a two-part gig. I wouldn’t have the mental longings without the physcial (because I’m perfectly capable of not even thinking about sex for my entire infertile phase) but also, these same physcial changes in me might get mis-applied or disordered, such as if I’d trained myself to apply them to the wrong gender, or abusive men, or married men, or what have you. My mind was formed properly first. When the desires kicked in, they were properly ordered, to want one man and one man only.

So yeah, if I got married and found out how lovely it was to join completely with a man forever in matrimonial consummation, I’m sure the pleasure of it would make me want it even when not at the peak of fertility. So what I’m saying, is that if I have no sexual desire outside of fertility, but believe I would after having experienced it, then I don’t find it out of palace to suggest the same may be true of a person who is essentially in an ‘infertile’ phase all the time.

I also find it hard to believe that someone who is fully functional in the hormone department doesn’t experience something translatable as sexual desire. And MMM seemed to say that she DOES experience a response, she just doesn’t connect it in her head to the idea of sex as a pleasant one. I’m sorry, so maybe that’s not physcial, but instead a mental habit, but it does seem a little amiss, and possibly subject to amelioration.

I cycled for seven or eight years before the ovulation really knocked me flat with longing. That was a real and measureable physcial change. I can measure the strength of the cycle by the strength of the changes. And indeed, I may have been feeling some of the same things prior to my realization (soppy mooning girl, wistful sighing, looking longingly at the moon, feeling lonely and sad at night, feeling snuggly, etc) but not connecting that to the fertile phase of the month - not connecting that to sexual desire. Because for the longest time, I was only paying attention for the bleeding part.

Idea of someone you love → reality vs theoretical → connection of desire and realization → sex now sounds good.

If you will read my previous posts, you will see that I have been very respectful and sympathetic to the OP throughout, and never dismissed or belittled her self-assessment. I’m only extrapolating possibilities from personal experience that I feel should be added to the discussion.

Studies show you get the same chemical reaction from even texts sometimes. There was one that showed phone addiction was basically digital cuddle addiction to oxytocin. The main thing that makes any one form of acquiring oxytocin seem “undesirable” is psychological. So if one likes texting but niot cuddling it is generaly a psychological thing that affected their ability to show that kind of closeness.

And the tendancy of some to dislike the phone/text is again psychological irritation toward the cultural aspects of the phone rather than the act itself or a negative experience ie: misunderstood texts or hard time physically typing making it “bad” rather than the act itself.

 

[Kamaduck]

And all I meant was, none of us know.

Yeah, that’s fair.

I could have been described as ‘asexual’ although I dislike all labels with the word sex in it. That is, I had no interest at all in sex because there was no reason to be.

Also fair. Really, “asexual” is just useful shorthand for some people. If you don’t think it’s particularly useful for you, there’s no need to apply it to yourself. For me it was useful, and I guess I’ll keep using it until it stops being useful.

My fertility flared up, and for the first time in my life, I felt actual desire.

Huh. I think my cycles might affect my thoughts some, but if that’s what’s happening, it’s only in the form of “wow, I kinda wish I had a baby”, and doesn’t get translated to sexual attraction or desire.

I wouldn’t have the mental longings without the physcial (because I’m perfectly capable of not even thinking about sex for my entire infertile phase) but also, these same physcial changes in me might get mis-applied or disordered, such as if I’d trained myself to apply them to the wrong gender, or abusive men, or married men, or what have you. My mind was formed properly first. When the desires kicked in, they were properly ordered, to want one man and one man only.

Interesting. It sounds like you’re in a fairly healthy place, then, and I am happy for you.

I can’t speak for MMM, but that’s not really where I’m at. I grew up in a protestant community that was pretty heavily influenced by purity culture, and they tended to operate under the assumption that all young people wanted to have lots and lots of sex. I could have had a very easy time of things, but instead I ended up poking at the missing interest over and over, trying to figure it all out. I know everyone in this thread means well, but the assumption that there’s something wrong with me that needs to be fixed has given rise to approximately all of my chastity-related problems, which probably could have been avoided if I’d just avoided seeking out things I didn’t actually want.

For me, the word “asexual” helps me remember not to poke. If it’s just the way I am, and not a problem that can be easily solved, then there’s no reason to try to figure out whatever it is everyone else is so invested in. There may come a time when I need to change (or attempt to change) my outlook, but I’m content to leave things the way they are for now.

So yeah, if I got married and found out how lovely it was to join completely with a man forever in matrimonial consummation, I’m sure the pleasure of it would make me want it even when not at the peak of fertility. So what I’m saying, is that if I have no sexual desire outside of fertility, but believe I would after having experienced it, then I don’t find it out of palace to suggest the same may be true of a person who is essentially in an ‘infertile’ phase all the time.

That sounds entirely plausible. I didn’t mean to say that you were necessarily wrong, only that there were also other ways a situation like that might play out, and it wouldn’t be good to depend on one outcome and wind up getting another. It seems equally plausible to me that MMM might not enjoy sex regardless, and I don’t think she should enter a marriage unless she’s pretty sure that she’ll be able to accept either outcome.

I also find it hard to believe that someone who is fully functional in the hormone department doesn’t experience something translatable as sexual desire. And MMM seemed to say that she DOES experience a response, she just doesn’t connect it in her head to the idea of sex as a pleasant one. I’m sorry, so maybe that’s not physcial, but instead a mental habit, but it does seem a little amiss, and possibly subject to amelioration.

Possibly. Worth checking into if MMM really does want to get married, I suppose. Even if it is a solvable problem, though, I doubt it’s a hormone issue. It’s probably something subtler, if everything physical seems to be in working order.

For what it’s worth, MMM’s description sounds familiar to me, and trying to fix whatever’s “amiss” in my case has caused a lot more harm than good. Not no good, maybe— I did figure out I had untreated vaginismus, so I guess getting that taken care of was a good thing, though it seems to have been a separate issue. But overall, I think I’d have been better off if I’d just shrugged and gone on my merry asexual way.

Idea of someone you love → reality vs theoretical → connection of desire and realization → sex now sounds good.

This is entirely possible, but given past experiences, I don’t think it’s universal.

If you will read my previous posts, you will see that I have been very respectful and sympathetic to the OP throughout, and never dismissed or belittled her self-assessment. I’m only extrapolating possibilities from personal experience that I feel should be added to the discussion.

Oh! Yes, you have been, and I’m very sorry if my message came across as rude or condescending. I think your personal experiences are relevant and helpful. I was just trying to add some contrasting possibilities, I suppose, not say that the possibilities you suggested weren’t valuable contributions. I apologize if that didn’t come across.

Studies show you get the same chemical reaction from even texts sometimes. There was one that showed phone addiction was basically digital cuddle addiction to oxytocin.

Huh. I apologize if this is a silly thought, but if oxytocin rushes are that easy to set off, it seems like there’s really no point in trying to avoid becoming “desensitized”. I guess at that point you should just try to act responsibly, and avoid worrying about which particular chemicals your brain decides to deploy at particular times.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Well, Kamaduck, it seems then that we do not essentially disagree. I try to stay away from absolutes when I don’t know all the facts, so essentially I’m theorizing as I go, and also asking questions.

I got in on the thread because it’s a topic that doesn’t get candidly discussed often and I thought I might have something to add.

I’m sorry that your environment was less than helpful with your experience. To be honest, there wasn’t much pressure on me either way. My father would pause the movie when we reached a certain age, and say ‘now, you know that they aren’t supposed to be sleeping in the same bed because they aren’t married, right?’
‘Yes, Dad.’
‘Ok.’

And then he would fast forward the most inappropriate parts, and we would move on. He also told me not to be alone in a room with the door shut with a boy, which truthfully I did not understand at the time. He did a good job not scaring me about it, but I’m very touchy about personal space to begin with, so I’m certain nothing would have happened regardless.

And then of course mom explains that I’ll start bleeding, and why. (Generically, like, that my body gets ready for a baby, but didn’t fully connect sex to it. Since I started at 13, it was wise of her to warn me ahead of time but not give me all the details.)

Fast forward a little bit, and I’ve seen the breeding of horses and I know the biological facts. This is immediately connected to the spiritual facts - that humans are not animals, how sex is different for us, and why.

Ok, no problem. I’m homeschooled and the only boys I’ve hung out with are my cousins. Dad says no dating until I’m 18. I don’t know anyone anyway. The issue simply never came up. I didn’t know there was a lack of something I didn’t realize I could have. It simply served no purpose, and had nothing to bring it out of the theoretical. I knew all about the true purpose of sex, and nothing about its implementation other than what is required for pregnancy.

So obviously my understanding kept (and keeps) growing. But if what LM says above is true, then I have in fact tasted oxytocin. That is to say, if we go ahead and call sex chocolate, then I haven’t unwrapped the bar, but I’ve researched it and heard about it and imagined it, and maybe even smelled it through the foil. So I guess from that I can figure that I like chocolate.

All I was saying is that if two people have never eaten chocolate, and one thinks they’ll like it and the other thinks they won’t, then maybe there’s still time to change your expectations before you taste it.

I’ve psyched myself into liking food I was unsure of, simply by making sure the first time I tried it, I was hungry, that I tried a good quality version first, and that I removed all mental ‘ick’ factor prior. The food in question was sardines. For some reason I was convinced I would hate them. When I realized they had neither scales nor bones, and smelled no worse than tuna… I tried them on a Friday when I was also starving, and, well, they tasted amazing. I made sure to use a good brand. And now I eat sardines out of the can.

I’m just saying.

 

[SilverShadow22]

I could have had a very easy time of things, **but instead I ended up poking at the missing interest over and over, trying to figure it all out. I know everyone in this thread means well, but the assumption that there’s something wrong with me that needs to be fixed has given rise to **approximately all of my chastity-related problems, which probably could have been avoided if I’d just avoided seeking out things I didn’t actually want.

I feel you here, I really do. Only it wasn’t sexual desire that was the issue (see my previous post) but other things, like me not having the ‘proper’ emotional reaction, or asking questions no one could answer, or choosing stuffed animals over baby dolls, and disliking what I should like, and liking what I shouldn’t, or being ‘cold’ and ‘uncaring’ when I simply didn’t believe in being emotional when it wouldn’t change or fix anything.

That sounds entirely plausible. I didn’t mean to say that you were necessarily wrong, only that there were also other ways a situation like that might play out, and it wouldn’t be good to depend on one outcome and wind up getting another. It seems equally plausible to me that MMM might not enjoy sex regardless, and I don’t think she should enter a marriage unless she’s pretty sure that she’ll be able to accept either outcome.

Well, yes, I agree. That’s a substantial issue, and risk for not only her, but whoever she’d be contemplating marriage with. But, just because I THINK I’ll like chocolate… Still doesn’t mean I will. I mean there’s an element of risk for anyone who doesn’t have sex before marriage. Idk, maybe that’s part of the grandness of it all.

Oh! Yes, you have been, and I’m very sorry if my message came across as rude or condescending. I think your personal experiences are relevant and helpful. I was just trying to add some contrasting possibilities, I suppose, not say that the possibilities you suggested weren’t valuable contributions. I apologize if that didn’t come across.

My primary interest here is accuracy

 

[Kamaduck]

Well, Kamaduck, it seems then that we do not essentially disagree. I try to stay away from absolutes when I don’t know all the facts, so essentially I’m theorizing as I go, and also asking questions.

I got in on the thread because it’s a topic that doesn’t get candidly discussed often and I thought I might have something to add.

I’m glad you’re here! It was threads like these, in large part, that got me to the point where I am now— not that everything’s sorted out, exactly, but I think I’ve made progress.

I haven’t seen many other threads on asexuality per se, which is why I stopped by (I haven’t logged on in more than a year, and now this is the first thing I see). But I learned a whole lot about the proper context of sexuality in general, and this forum has been an invaluable counterpoint to both the messages I grew up with and the secular ideas I’ve encountered since. I kind of don’t know where I’d be without it, so I’m very grateful for all the discussions I’ve read, even if they weren’t quite enough to keep me on the ideal path without any missteps.

Hopefully other people will be able to learn from discussions like this, too, and not have quite as much trouble as I did. I’m sorry if I come across as a little combative. It’s just really important to me that there’s a place to discuss things like this and bat ideas around.

I’m sorry that your environment was less than helpful with your experience. To be honest, there wasn’t much pressure on me either way.

My parents were actually pretty reasonable, I just absorbed some harmful ideas from the private school they sent me to. And honestly, I’m sure the teachers meant well and were doing their best to keep everyone chaste. It’s just that there was so much “don’t talk to boys, don’t look at boys, don’t think about boys— we know you want to, more than anything, but don’t”.

They ended up drawing a lot of unnecessary attention to the metaphorical cookie jar, and I guess I’m not the sort of person who passes up the chance to investigate cookie jars. Apparently I’m also the sort of person who eats non-tasty cookies out of curiosity. And then does it again. And again. And again, just to make really really sure they 100% definitely don’t actually taste good. But I do that with actual stale cookies, too, so I guess I should just admit that that’s a weakness of mine. I’m terrible at trusting my initial reactions to things, but at least I know enough to correct for it now.

And then of I knew all about the true purpose of sex, and nothing about its implementation other than what is required for pregnancy.

I’m not sure I was ever in that position. It’s sort of amazing, but the purity stuff actually never touched on the true purpose of sex, just on how it was badbadbad. Which, again, is why I’m very grateful to the CAF posters. Now it all makes sense, at least on a theoretical, intellectual level.

All I was saying is that if two people have never eaten chocolate, and one thinks they’ll like it and the other thinks they won’t, then maybe there’s still time to change your expectations before you taste it.

That’s true. I’ve just decided that it’s also totally OK to decide that I don’t want chocolate, too, and only re-evaluate if I decide I’d like to do something that generally requires eating chocolate. Either attitude is fine, I think, as long as we’re both trying to remain chaste and determine our vocation honestly.

I’ve psyched myself into liking food I was unsure of, simply by making sure the first time I tried it, I was hungry, that I tried a good quality version first, and that I removed all mental ‘ick’ factor prior. The food in question was sardines. For some reason I was convinced I would hate them. When I realized they had neither scales nor bones, and smelled no worse than tuna… I tried them on a Friday when I was also starving, and, well, they tasted amazing. I made sure to use a good brand. And now I eat sardines out of the can.

This sounds smart, but I’m again reminded of my habit of eating cookies that I don’t like. I know I won’t like them, and I also know they’re not good for me, but sometimes I eat them anyway because I think I’m probably misremembering the taste of all the 27 other identical cookies I ate. I’m getting better at keeping my priorities straight and not doubting myself so much, but I have a surprising number of problems along these lines.

I feel you here, I really do. Only it wasn’t sexual desire that was the issue (see my previous post) but other things, like me not having the ‘proper’ emotional reaction, or asking questions no one could answer, or choosing stuffed animals over baby dolls, and disliking what I should like, and liking what I shouldn’t, or being ‘cold’ and ‘uncaring’ when I simply didn’t believe in being emotional when it wouldn’t change or fix anything.

Ooh, that sounds familiar. I once had a grief counselor who insisted that crying was important, and wouldn’t accept that I was grieving “properly” until I cried. In hindsight, he was not a very good grief counselor.

Anyway, I’m trying to get better at accurately identifying whatever I feel, and then responding to those feelings in an appropriate manner. I’m not sure exactly what “responding appropriately” would entail in OP’s case, but that’s what I’d aim for.

I mean there’s an element of risk for anyone who doesn’t have sex before marriage. Idk, maybe that’s part of the grandness of it all.

Maybe so. I guess the important thing is to be ready to accept whatever path the Lord entrusts us with.

 

[SilverShadow22]

It’s perfectly fine to never try ‘chocolate’ and never want to.

But if you’re contemplating a state in life where you’re gonna have to consume it at least sometimes, well, then cultivating a desire to like it becomes sorta important. For your own sake, and that of the person giving it to you.

Her lack of desire may or may not be fixable. But I’m growing convinced that wanting said desire is a personal choice.

If she really, truly wants marriage, she needs to want everything that goes with it. Nothing says she has to want it or like it as much as another person does. But she needs to try to want it as much as she, personally, can.

If she absolutely never wants to want sex, well… I think we’ve established that almost certainly rules out marriage. It just isn’t fair to the man involved.

After all of this discussion, about the only thing left is a lot is soul-searching. Much can be accomplished in the mind. We can even change things we thought were set in stone, like what we eat or decide to like. Until that option has been fully explored, further discussion will probably end up being very redundant.