One love language that makes all the difference.
Recently there have been several posts questioning the importance of sexuality in a relationship, posed in words sharing much of the sensibilities of my used-to-be-SO. We continue to share a house and raise kids (mine from a previous marriage, and almost done), but I am working on myself and planning my next chapter. After several years of decreasing intimacy she finally came out and told me she had no interest or desire for me, and considers herself or identifies as asexual. This has caused a great deal of conflict, as she doesn't understand why 'this little aspect' would threaten our relationship (when it effectively had ended it). The whole thing makes me terribly sad and I've written a bit on this, so I thought I'd share the collection of approaches.
-
From a functional practice perspective, romantic heterosexual/homosexual/XYZ-non-zero-orientation intimacy is fundamentally physical. A nice example is that I can spend time with, cohabitate, share finances, raise children, work together, vacation together, get old together, and spend all my time talking until the wee hours of the morning every night... with my sister or brother, and no one would think that excessively weird or requiring intervention. But sex... sharing physical intimacy, being open, naked, sharing vulnerability, expressing care and communication that transcends talking... THAT is what makes an otherwise platonic relationship into a romantic one. If you won't touch me, if there is no desire, passion, or wanting... then you are offering no relationship beyond good friendship or familial love.
-
Some, including me, would say that exclusivity is a key element of a romantic relationship. If I cross that with "5-love-languages" as a well-rounded view of the things one can share, what makes a relationship exclusive and thus special? Gift giving? No, I give thoughtful, valuable, or high-effort gifts to many people as a mark of kindness and inclusiveness, or as a transactional repayment. Acts of service? No, the biggest recipients of acts of service are my children and elderly parents; I consider my partner to be much more of someone I act in concert with, than a recipient of service. Quality time? Somewhat more so, but I give my time and quality effort to many recipients; I read stories to my children at bedtime, I cried with my brother when his daughter was hospitalized for the umpteenth time, I sell my logical quality time as high-dollar consulting hours, and I share my feelings and thoughts of the day with my partner at home... but quality time may be more or less special, and is certainly not exclusive. Words of affirmation? Oh hell no, in fact I find that kind of irritating: "Nice" words or unconditionally saying supportive things and affirmation all the time -- instead of being good and constructive which sometimes means being harsh and truthful -- are a mark of shallow or fragile relationships, more than a product of deep love. But then what about physical touch? Yep, different from all others. With even basic physical touch such as hugging, we tend to be more and more selective, and as we progress deeper and more closely to sexual sharing, most people (tho not all) quickly become steadfastly exclusive to one other person. Exclusivity usually means physical intimate touch over all other things.
-
Delving further into the the idea of "quality time", one poster mentioned talk as a mode of intimacy, which is something that my ace/ex/friend has said several times: "we have insightful, meaningful conversations where I feel like our souls are connected." I find this particularly irksome, as we are both quite expressive verbal people. But -- and please forgive the self-referenced gender stereotyping -- many men perceive this absolutely opposite to a progression of intimacy. The more one talks about a situation, feelings, and relationship, the colder it gets. The maximum amount of talking might be done with a therapist, where the purpose of such thoughtful, deep, probing, voluminous talking is to depersonalize, disassemble, and diagnose with cold precision. This is, I think, the opposite of what that poster was expressing as intimacy through talk. But from this side of the fence, after a certain point so much talk murders intimacy, because it's all disassembled on the floor. "We're not intimate because all we do is talk," that's what I told my now-friend. Shared quiet experience and 1-on-1 nonverbal communication are what makes a connection unique or special.
-
From an identity perspective, I do respect those who identify as asexual, and their right to express themselves, and to be comfortable in their identity. But -- and it's a big BUT -- there are limits to that comfort and expression, particularly when it impinges or impedes another person's sexual identity or expression. This causes ugly conflict when one of two people in a formerly-hetero relationship determines that they are asexual, yet somehow expects or demands that their partner remain in some sort of exclusive relationship or marriage with them. This is no different than a gay man demanding his wife remain married to him after he comes out, or one of a lesbian couple expecting the other to remain committed after she unexpectedly has a child and marries the father. What's happening in each of these is that one person's identity+orientation is being squashed or subjugated by the other person's orientation. Specifically here, the other partner in a relationship is denying and invalidating my expression of partnership+intimacy, substituting their own orientation for mine, and then demanding that >>I<< accept it as valid and sufficient >>for me<<.
It's depersonalizing and deeply humiliating. It's as if I'm hungry and need to consume physical food, but my partner has inexplicably decided to photosynthesize, demanding or expecting that I stand next to them but not touch anything especially them. When I start to starve they insist I should not be hungry, that sunlight and words should be enough. But I'm not a fucking potted plant. And why should I want to be? -
What if I die? Will I be loved after I'm gone? One poster asserted intimacy isn't a necessary or unique part of a relationship because love transcends death, that after the death of a partner an aching heart in old age proves the point. But that's loneliness and loss, and joy from the memory of chapters that are now fully written, not love itself. And if I'm in a relationship that causes me to be that kind of lonely, or loving the past -- while the person still stands next to me still living and breathing -- something is terribly, terribly wrong. And even in long-distance affairs where the romance is conducted entirely by letter and voice? Do those letters and calls not always revolve around wanting to be together? Show me a box full of letters between two sane lovers who remain apart yet write "yeah, this is good, let's stick with this" and I'll eat my hat.
I'm off to a pool party with a bunch of LGBTQ friends, who tho most of them want nothing from me, will at least share a hug. Because touch is a goddamn important part of being human.
my $0.02.
Posted Aug 11, 2018, 3:55 AM UTC · edited
Physical touch in the 5 love languages isn't about sex. The quiz flat out says that it's about physical touch, and that physical touch is much more than sex.
I have two friends who are physical touch people and LL in their relationships. They want hugs, cuddles, and physical affection.
I'm a physical touch person, and I have a higher libido than my partner (not a DB). I often seek out cuddles when he's not up for sex, and it makes me feel loved and close to him. Since it's not a DB, that's enough for me, as we also have sex 2 or 3 times a week.
Yes, the authors have been pretty clear that physical touch in the 5 love languages isn't only about sex, it's about the full range from basic affection to NC-17 marathons.
FWIW I'm pretty middling libido myself, and I'd be over the moon for virtually any form of physical intimacy based on meaningful desire once or twice a month. But I haven't even seen her knees in almost two years, and the offered hug once a week is insufficient for me to perceive the needle moving off the zero mark. I quite literally get more physical touch over the course of a year from the woman who cuts my hair once a month or so.
Just a thought, while not a substitute for physical intimacy from a loving partner and BECAUSE physical touch is crucial for many of us, have you thought of receiving massage therapy as part of your self care?
When you mentioned your hairdresser, that thought came up.
Touch is important and for many of us imperative.
[I also just want to add that not all massage therapists are necessarily good at their chosen profession, so just like most things, its important to find someone who you feel comfortable with and who has an exceptional touch.]