Asexuality and Marriage

[LethalMouse]

Also, let us say that I married because I thought that there may even be the possibility of feeling desire once I engaged in the consummation of that marriage. If, however, it turned out that I did not after the sexual act had already taken place, then what?

Would both of us, because I did not feel fulfilled by the sexual act, have to abstain from any future sexual relations?

Yeah, that is what I said:

First fall in love
Second try the physical with that person.
Third find out Asexual is not a thing.

As someone who has been a lapse Catholic, I have experience with the physical. No matter how amzaingly good an encounter is, it is almost nothing when comoared to love sex. The dynamic involved with that is beyond simple physical pleasures.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I guess my question is, if the conjugal act has to be unitive, unittive in what way? Can the sexual act be unitive even if one spouse does not respond to the pleasure ofthe sexual act as the other does? Can it still be unitive even if neither spouse responds to the pleasure of the sexual act? Can this unitiveness be more, in these instances, geared to the proccreation of children together? Or, in the case where one person is sexual and the other is not, can the unitiveness be that the asexual partner still gives to the sexual partner out of love for him/her? But, in this latter case, even if the other partner gave back, the asexual partner would not receive any pleasure from it. Would, then, this still be unitive? in a valid way?

 

[LethalMouse]

I guess my question is, if the conjugal act has to be unitive, unittive in what way? Can the sexual act be unitive even if one spouse does not respond to the pleasure ofthe sexual act as the other does? Can it still be unitive even if neither spouse responds to the pleasure of the sexual act? Can this unitiveness be more, in these instances, geared to the proccreation of children together? Or, in the case where one person is sexual and the other is not, can the unitiveness be that the asexual partner still gives to the sexual partner out of love for him/her? But, in this latter case, even if the other partner gave back, the asexual partner would not receive any pleasure from it. Would, then, this still be unitive? in a valid way?

You state lack of experience, lack of knowing, but are convinced asexual is actually a thing as you decide that God is wrong about how unitive works because you who have never been unitive think you have discovered the new thing that is above all…

 

[AdamP88]

I guess my question is, if the conjugal act has to be unitive, unittive in what way? Can the sexual act be unitive even if one spouse does not respond to the pleasure ofthe sexual act as the other does? Can it still be unitive even if neither spouse responds to the pleasure of the sexual act? Can this unitiveness be more, in these instances, geared to the proccreation of children together? Or, in the case where one person is sexual and the other is not, can the unitiveness be that the asexual partner still gives to the sexual partner out of love for him/her? But, in this latter case, even if the other partner gave back, the asexual partner would not receive any pleasure from it. Would, then, this still be unitive? in a valid way?

For valid marriage in the church, all that has to be present is:

Mutual consent
Consummation
Both parties to be in a state of grace when the marriage takes place
Both parties need to be open to children

I don’t think there’s even a teaching that says that sexual desire is a requirement for a valid marriage. Yes, it helps to be attracted to your spouse. But if you are, as you say, completely non-sexual, then marriage is a possibility.

I would imagine though, that you may find after knowing someone well enough to marry them, you may become motivated to seek sexual closeness with that person.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

For valid marriage in the church, all that has to be present is:

Mutual consent
Consummation
Both parties to be in a state of grace when the marriage takes place
Both parties need to be open to children

I don’t think there’s even a teaching that says that sexual desire is a requirement for a valid marriage. Yes, it helps to be attracted to your spouse. But if you are, as you say, completely non-sexual, then marriage is a possibility.

I would imagine though, that you may find after knowing someone well enough to marry them, you may become motivated to seek sexual closeness with that person.

You address some points I was going to bring up here shortly after having thought on them.

Is prior sexual attraction (though, of course, refraining before marriage) before marriage a necessity for valid marriage? Or, can someone, like myself, simply be romantically attracted to a person in other ways, also being very committed and close to them, desiring to want to do everything for them, etc.?

Also, what if the sexual attraction, after a very very long time, has still not come for me, yet I am attracted to a person in other ways and wish to have a lifetime relationship with them? Ifthat sexual attraction is still not present, can I validly marry?

I mean, I can testify truly that I have never, ever been sexually (though I have been romantically) attracted to a person. I have never seen anyone and though, “I would like to have sex with him.” Never, ever, ever, ever, even after having know those to whom I have been otherwise attracted for a very long time.

And, again, I still haven’t received a good answer to the issue of, what if I get married thinking there is a possibility that I will be sexually attracted when we actually have sex, but, then, nothing happens, but we’ve already had sex? What do I do then?

Also, since sexual attraction hasn’t ever happened in over 30 years for me, isn’t that a real possibility and, since it is, is it better or even required that I not get married because of the increased likelihood of no desire?

I look forward to your response and the responses of others on this.

Thanks in advance.

 

[SilverShadow22]

MMM, I’m not sure we’re getting anywhere new with this.

There’s no real way to answer this. Just because you don’t like sex in theory, and I think I would in theory, this is no guarantee that either of us would (or would not) enjoy it with any man we’d marry. (I say in theory, not because I’m doubting your word, but because neither of us has gotten to this point, we are talking about desire, or lack of it, for something that is still only theory to us.)

It’s a risk. Every human relationship is a risk. I can honestly say I’ve never desired sex with a specific man, either, but the idea of ultimate union is indeed attractive.

I can say I’ve wanted to cuddle, wanted to be wanted, wanted to have absolute trust and honesty with a man. Again, not really a specific man… More like, I needed to find out in my own mind if I could ever feel like that about someone. So I see things I like in fictional characters, and become attracted to it, and wish any of it existed in a real man that I knew.

But since I’ve never been in a real relationship, it is indeed hard to know anything about it.

 

[AdamP88]

You address some points I was going to bring up here shortly after having thought on them.

Is prior sexual attraction (though, of course, refraining before marriage) before marriage a necessity for valid marriage? Or, can someone, like myself, simply be romantically attracted to a person in other ways, also being very committed and close to them, desiring to want to do everything for them, etc.?

Also, what if the sexual attraction, after a very very long time, has still not come for me, yet I am attracted to a person in other ways and wish to have a lifetime relationship with them? Ifthat sexual attraction is still not present, can I validly marry?

I mean, I can testify truly that I have never, ever been sexually (though I have been romantically) attracted to a person. I have never seen anyone and though, “I would like to have sex with him.” Never, ever, ever, ever, even after having know those to whom I have been otherwise attracted for a very long time.

And, again, I still haven’t received a good answer to the issue of, what if I get married thinking there is a possibility that I will be sexually attracted when we actually have sex, but, then, nothing happens, but we’ve already had sex? What do I do then?

Also, since sexual attraction hasn’t ever happened in over 30 years for me, isn’t that a real possibility and, since it is, is it better or even required that I not get married because of the increased likelihood of no desire?

I look forward to your response and the responses of others on this.

Thanks in advance.

Ok…The only requirements to valid marriage are the ones I have already mentioned. There is nothing about sexual attraction. Yes, if you married and had sex with your spouse it’s entirely possible you would feel some kind of desire/pleasure.
Even if you didn’t it would still be a valid marriage.
In fact the main thing required for a lasting marriage seems to be already present in you. A desire to have a lifelong, exclusive relationship. You also seem to be open to having children with your future spouse.

It’s not required that you don’t get married. If you feel called to marriage with a specific man then there really is nothing stopping you from getting married provided that you consummate the marriage and are open to life in any sexual relations you have.

 

[LethalMouse]

MMM, I’m not sure we’re getting anywhere new with this.

There’s no real way to answer this. Just because you don’t like sex in theory, and I think I would in theory, this is no guarantee that either of us would (or would not) enjoy it with any man we’d marry. (I say in theory, not because I’m doubting your word, but because neither of us has gotten to this point, we are talking about desire, or lack of it, for something that is still only theory to us.)

It’s a risk. Every human relationship is a risk. I can honestly say I’ve never desired sex with a specific man, either, but the idea of ultimate union is indeed attractive.

I can say I’ve wanted to cuddle, wanted to be wanted, wanted to have absolute trust and honesty with a man. Again, not really a specific man… More like, I needed to find out in my own mind if I could ever feel like that about someone. So I see things I like in fictional characters, and become attracted to it, and wish any of it existed in a real man that I knew.

But since I’ve never been in a real relationship, it is indeed hard to know anything about it.

You want me though… (if you are who I think you are)

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Is prior sexual attraction (though, of course, refraining before marriage) before marriage a necessity for valid marriage? Or, can someone, like myself, simply be romantically attracted to a person in other ways, also being very committed and close to them, desiring to want to do everything for them, etc.?

MMM, you may very well be asexual. Unlike some of the other trendy sexualities, the state of being asexual I think is validated even in the Bible when Jesus speaks of men who are “born eunuchs” (as opposed to those who are made eunuchs, or those who choose to become eunuchs), I always interpreted this as a reference to asexuality, not just congenital defects that could prevent a person from having sex.

I have never come across any Church document that insists that sexual attraction is necessity for a valid marriage. “Impotence” merely refers the physical inability to have sex. My understanding is that nowadays, with the availability of so many medical treatments for impotence, it is very rare for this to be a barrier to Catholic marriage, limited to such cases as, say, someone who got shot in the crotch resulting in the complete destruction of the sexual organs, to the point no reconstruction is possible.

Not being sexually attracted to someone is certainly not the same as being actually unable to physically have sex with that person. That is certainly true for women excepting rare cases such as vaginismus. Even for men, erections are produced by many other factors, not just sexual attraction. Indeed, agreeing to have sex for the sake of the spouse, even if one is not actually in the mood, is considered a loving act.

All this being said, it may not always be prudent for a person who is asexual, but not aromantic, to marry someone with a more conventional sexual orientation. Certainly, full disclosure would likely be prudent in such a situation.

 

[AdamP88]

One other consideration is that you would have to tell your spouse how you feel in this regard before you married.

Sex is an important of marriage and married relationships. The person you marry would have to be fully aware of how you feel about sex.

I thinkif they weren’t it would leave the marriage open to being rendered null.

 

[LethalMouse]

You want me though… (if you are who I think you are)

You are you! So now I know you do lol

 

[MysticMissMisty]

MMM, I’m not sure we’re getting anywhere new with this.

There’s no real way to answer this. Just because you don’t like sex in theory, and I think I would in theory, this is no guarantee that either of us would (or would not) enjoy it with any man we’d marry. (I say in theory, not because I’m doubting your word, but because neither of us has gotten to this point, we are talking about desire, or lack of it, for something that is still only theory to us.)

It’s a risk. Every human relationship is a risk. I can honestly say I’ve never desired sex with a specific man, either, but the idea of ultimate union is indeed attractive.

I can say I’ve wanted to cuddle, wanted to be wanted, wanted to have absolute trust and honesty with a man. Again, not really a specific man… More like, I needed to find out in my own mind if I could ever feel like that about someone. So I see things I like in fictional characters, and become attracted to it, and wish any of it existed in a real man that I knew.

But since I’ve never been in a real relationship, it is indeed hard to know anything about it.

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”.

 

[LethalMouse]

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”.

yeah, not asexual…and lacking in the experiences that bring these two together. When I was waiting to have sex it was easy to be sort of physically attracted without a mental desire to actually have sex.

The best way I can put it is as a man, I am obviously highly attracted to the physical. So let’s say a super hot porn star wants to have sex with me, I would be highly responsive physically but I would mentally have not just no desire, but actually a disgust and negative mental state about the idea. I have had many a woman that I am highly responsive to physically that I would mentally never have sex with. This is not a disorder. You will see if you find a love and combine the two in marriage as it should be. You are overthinking things.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

MMM, you may very well be asexual. Unlike some of the other trendy sexualities, the state of being asexual I think is validated even in the Bible when Jesus speaks of men who are “born eunuchs” (as opposed to those who are made eunuchs, or those who choose to become eunuchs), I always interpreted this as a reference to asexuality, not just congenital defects that could prevent a person from having sex.

I have never come across any Church document that insists that sexual attraction is necessity for a valid marriage. “Impotence” merely refers the physical inability to have sex. My understanding is that nowadays, with the availability of so many medical treatments for impotence, it is very rare for this to be a barrier to Catholic marriage, limited to such cases as, say, someone who got shot in the crotch resulting in the complete destruction of the sexual organs, to the point no reconstruction is possible.

Not being sexually attracted to someone is certainly not the same as being actually unable to physically have sex with that person. That is certainly true for women excepting rare cases such as vaginismus. Even for men, erections are produced by many other factors, not just sexual attraction. Indeed, agreeing to have sex for the sake of the spouse, even if one is not actually in the mood, is considered a loving act.

All this being said, it may not always be prudent for a person who is asexual, but not aromantic, to marry someone with a more conventional sexual orientation. Certainly, full disclosure would likely be prudent in such a situation.

As far as the Bible and asexuality, I’ve been told and have indeed wondered myself about the same thing.

Again, that is why there is this matter of possible vocation that fits into all of this as well. Is the fact that it seems I’ve had no sexual desire for a person evidence that I am called to some kind of life of celibacy?

yet, again, I am NOT aromantic. In fact, I am very classically romantic, as you guys may (or may not?) have been able to tell from my previous posts. SO, again, the question is, what, precisely am I called to? --Singleness/celibacy or marriage?

Of course, once again, there is the consideration that I just miiiight not be asexual once I actually engage in the act, though, according to Church teaching, that would necessarily have to come after marriage. Seems rather a Catch 22.

Agruments for or against asexuality in the Bible and how it may relate to vocation? If “eunuchs from birth” does refer to asexuality, then are all people who have up to this point experienced no sexual attraction supposed to remain celibate all their lives because of a calling to such by thier very nature/preferences(or lack thereof)?

Thanks.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

yeah, not asexual…and lacking in the experiences that bring these two together. When I was waiting to have sex it was easy to be sort of physically attracted without a mental desire to actually have sex.

The best way I can put it is as a man, I am obviously highly attracted to the physical. So let’s say a super hot porn star wants to have sex with me, I would be highly responsive physically but I would mentally have not just no desire, but actually a disgust and negative mental state about the idea. I have had many a woman that I am highly responsive to physically that I would mentally never have sex with. This is not a disorder. You will see if you find a love and combine the two in marriage as it should be. You are overthinking things.

Here, though, I think you’re speaking in terms of specifcis whereas I am speaking in terms of generalities.

When I say that I do not connect physical response with mental desire for sex, I mean not in regard to a specific person but generally speaking. I just don’t make the mental connection between the physicalness of the response and the emotional closeness of love.

For me, love/attraction is probably around 90% mental. Yes, for me, physical closeness and even cuddling a little is connected for me with emotional closeness, but, for whatever reason, any physical sexual response I have is not connected in the same way with emotional closeness, very generally speaking, with anyone, at least so far.

For me, the physical reaction is just a funny-feeling response to something I love deeply about a person, even regarding something for which I feel great affection in them. It may even result from some vulnerability in them for which I have deep empathy/sympathy, if that even makes any sense. Sometimes, I wonder if there’s something “wrong” with me in even having such a response in situations like that where, to me, it just doesn’t even seem appropriate.

Which brings up another question: Must I experience that “connection” between my physical response and emotional closeness with a particular person before I marry in order to determine whether I am called to marriage with a person? Or, is it all right not to before but realize the possibility of doing so during and after consummation?

 

[AdamP88]

As far as the Bible and asexuality, I’ve been told and have indeed wondered myself about the same thing.

Again, that is why there is this matter of possible vocation that fits into all of this as well. Is the fact that it seems I’ve had no sexual desire for a person evidence that I am called to some kind of life of celibacy?

yet, again, I am NOT aromantic. In fact, I am very classically romantic, as you guys may (or may not?) have been able to tell from my previous posts. SO, again, the question is, what, precisely am I called to? --Singleness/celibacy or marriage?

Of course, once again, there is the consideration that I just miiiight not be asexual once I actually engage in the act, though, according to Church teaching, that would necessarily have to come after marriage. Seems rather a Catch 22.

Agruments for or against asexuality in the Bible and how it may relate to vocation? If “eunuchs from birth” does refer to asexuality, then are all people who have up to this point experienced no sexual attraction supposed to remain celibate all their lives because of a calling to such by thier very nature/preferences(or lack thereof)?

Thanks.

I don’t think it’s evidence of any particular vocation. In my experience, the main indicator of vocation is the desire to live a certain life, be it religious, married or single. I tried out the celibate, religious life myself and left because my desire for a lifelong relationship with a woman (marriage) was too strong and I figured I wouldn’t be happy as a religious. I think if you have a deep desire for a loving relationship with a man then that could well be your vocation. You are capable of love, that’s the most important thing.

 

[LethalMouse]

Here, though, I think you’re speaking in terms of specifcis whereas I am speaking in terms of generalities.

When I say that I do not connect physical response with mental desire for sex, I mean not in regard to a specific person but generally speaking. I just don’t make the mental connection between the physicalness of the response and the emotional closeness of love.

For me, love/attraction is probably around 90% mental. Yes, for me, physical closeness and even cuddling a little is connected for me with emotional closeness, but, for whatever reason, any physical sexual response I have is not connected in the same way with emotional closeness, very generally speaking, with anyone, at least so far.

Which brings up another question: Must I experience that “connection” between my physical response and emotional closeness with a particular person before I marry in order to determine whether I am called to marriage with a person? Or, is it all right not to before but realize the possibility of doing so during and after consummation?

But you have never actually been in a situation where they could connect. I am saying that in my “specific” terms I sort of felt the same way. HOWEVER I think IMO I grasp the concept better so that without the “feeling” of the direct connection I knew what it should/could be. I also grew up a bit before the internet and before all the sexual terms and whatnot were as prevelant as today. Like no one said “asexual” lol…yeah overthinking without understanding or experiences.

 

[LethalMouse]

I might add that I would wager large sums of money that the physical disconnect to cuddling (skipping sex for the moment) or hugging or other possibly non romantic affections stems fromsome issue in the family dynamic rgarding affection. I have literally met quite a few people like this to a degree and literally not one did not have some odd family affection issues. I believe this so ardently that even if you claimed that you had none I would know you were either lying/(unable to identify the truth) I would know this with as much faith as I know tbe sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[Rau]

You make some interesting points about being open to children. If I were sexual, of course I would be open to children. However, my enthusiasm level for them is pretty well ambivalent. I mean, to be very honest, I could take them or leave them. I’m sure I would get joy out of having them, but it is not like I really realy really really want or anticipate them.

The openness to life and the procreative part of the definition of marriage, I think, is the real question here. To those who are here arguing that my marriage would be considered valid even without sexual relations, how do you deal with the procreative aspect of the definition of marriage?

One might argue, since procreation is a part of the definition of marriage, sexual desire on the part of both parties is necessary, or, at least the sexual act, even if the desire does not exist. So, then, it would seem that I am either required to have the desire or required to have the sex even without the desire if I wished to marry another, even if that other would be willing to sacrifice sexual relations to marry me or even ift hat other person was asexual himself. Is this true? And, agian, what of those arguing that my marriage would be valid even without sex? How do you view the apparent necessity for procreation at least if it is physically possible?

Could one argue that the issue is, if the people have sex, THEN, there must be an openness to life? I mean, that seems at least sort of to be the case with NFP. However, I suppose that, even in those cases, at least one child is expected to come of the marriage?

So, then, is a desire for sexual relations or at least having sex a requirement for a valid marriage?

Also, so fr as discovering after marriage that I may like sex, what if I still, in fact, don’t? What do I do then?

There is no duty to procreate. You must be capable of sexual relations. You must not have a firm intention to avoid children. You ought to agree (reasonably) to sexual relations if your husbands requests it.

Open to life is not a clear expression. It is not about pursuing children, but rather about not denying the possibility - one who contracepts is not open to life. IVF is not acceptable to the church - it pursues procreation independently of the unitive aspects of sexual relations. Adoption is a good in itself, but does not go to the issue of “open to life”.

 

[Rau]

But, here, it seems you’re contradicting yourself. You’re first putting sexual desire, at its root, as a physical (non-mental) reaction. Then, lastly, you place the “brain” (I interpret the "mental) as the root cause yielding hormonal reactions.



In any case, you yourself state that this is your opinion: “I would say…” Is there any scientific/philosophical proof as to what comes first? Especially in cases where someone does not even desire to have desire? Indeed, I can see a case being made for “disorder” when the person wants desire but doesn’t have it. I mean, truly, can something like this even be proven, whether it originates ultimately in the mind/soul(?) or in the body?

Your response here betrays a fear. A fear that you could end up drawn to something you currently see has no place in your life - creating a conflict. Intellectually, try to see that if there is a correctable physical problem, and if it is corrected, thd conflict I referred to should also vanish.

Your reluctance, apparent refusal, to even discover if you have a correctable bodily condition, while maintaining a great interest in marriage, seems incongruent.