Relationship/Sex -My partner is autistic with PDA

Yes, I've been in this situation, having tried sex, realised I don't like it, and decided not to have it again. I would have liked my partner to approach it by taking "I don't want to" as settling the matter and not bringing it up again.

HP35 said:

I would have liked my partner to approach it by taking "I don't want to" as settling the matter and not bringing it up again.

A full discussion of your and your partner's feelings is the very least anyone would expect from a fully sentient human being.

In a sexual context, no means no and never requires a reason, explanation or justification.

All the examples you mentioned have ethics codes that involve exploring the reasons behind the person's consent. Hence being required to have counselling before being allowed to consent to many elective surgeries, for example. It's partly about protecting oneself from litigation or prosecution, and partly just not wanting to do anything unethical. A more appropriate analogy here might be a tattoo artist /surgeon /boxer who asks their partner if they want a tattoo / surgery / fight and then continues asking them every day after they've said no, then goes online to get ideas about how to persuade them into a tattoo /surgery /fight.

Like many ASD/ace people, I'm not mentally suited to any kind of sexual relationship, although I've been in them for most of my life due to the prevailing culture of "who cares if you're not enthusiastic about it, it's what you do." And here people are sharing tips and tricks to bully OP's partner into it too.

So sad.

If you think every time a sexual partner has not been in the mood but agreed to sex anyway to keep their other half happy that amounts to some sort of sex crime you are living in a dream world.

Like I said changing no into yes is part of the art of negotiation and relationships involve a lot of negotiation. No one is compelled by negotiation, requests and offers can always be turned down.

Respectfully why should consent have to be enthusiastic. Do you think a surgeon goes 'well I know I need to chop off his leg to save his life but when he signed the consent form he didn't seem enthusiastic.' Do you think boxers go check on each other before a fight to ask if the other side is enthusiastic about the fight? If some one gets a tattoo on a bet or a dare do you think they can sue the tattoo artist for doing a tattoo when they weren't enthusiastic?

People consent to do things they are not enthusiastic about all the time. Sometimes that's the right choice and sometimes they regret it but it is their choice.

If some one finds the idea of boring, unenjoyable, potentially inconvenient sex with a long term partner genuinely traumatic (as opposed to say disappointing or frustrating) then I question if they are mentally suited to any kind of sexual relationship.

Thank you Han x

I would strongly advise you to read up on enthusiastic consent. Good luck. As long as you start from a position where is clear you're not trying to change his mind I think you'll do ok. He may not have put his feelings into words even to himself though, so don't expect an instant response.

"Changing no into yes is part of living sharing your life with another person."

Peter, that is an appalling and dangerous attitude. Your comment literally advocates sexual coercion (and reproductive coercion?). You could easily end up committing not only deeply traumatizing sexual abuse but even crossing the boundary into criminal offence with that approach.

Sexual coercion:

sexualhealthdg.co.uk/sexualcoercion.php

What's wrong with someone choosing to have sex they don't want to maintain a relationship? From personal experience, the long lasting trauma that results, even in the absence of pressure from the partner, is what's wrong with it.

I have to guess though that if he used to be enthusiastic about sex he’s probably not gone off the idea. I supose enthusiasm could be elaborate masking on his part. Perhaps a bit easier to believe if he was playing a more passive role. But more likely there is some sort of emotional issue he’s struggling with.

performance anxiety, stress, impotence, other issues in the relationship. Or maybe he’s developed some really weird fetish and he’s afraid to tell you but not being able to tell you has put him off sex. Figuring a way to make him open up that doesn’t feel like an attack is the key thing.

Thank you Peter for your comment. This is totally hitting the nail on the head for me. 

I'm ok if he never wants sex again, but I would like him to try and explain to me why so I can be at peace with myself. I wouldn't be missing out as there are other ways to self pleasure. 

A relationship is about give and take and compromise and that's what i would like. 

Thanks x

Changing no into yes is part of living sharing your life with another person. When you share your life with someone else there are some decisions that need to be made are aren't me or you decisions any more but us decisions. She wants a cat, he wants a dog. Do you get both, neither? She wants children he doesn't. He wants a new car she wants a new conservatory, they can't afford both.

In relationships sometimes some one says no and the other side has to work to turn that no into a yes, and sometimes it stays a no. I'm sure that applys to sex just like it applies to any other disagreement in a relationship. What would actually be worse would be pretending it wasn't an issue. What happens if your significant other says no and you don't question or challenge that no? If you're afraid to 'pressure' them.

What happens if you get so sick of no but never say anything about it it kills the relationship? Is that fair on them? They might have preferred turning their no into a yes to the damage resentment has done to their relationship with you?

It may shock you to learn some people choose to have sex they don't enjoy because they know the person they care about is enjoying it. And what's wrong with that. After all there are lots of things people do for their other halfs they don't enjoy for their sake.

One can ALWAYS "dictate" (strange verb choice, but OK) what can and cannot happen to one's own body, and one never owes anyone an explanation for that. Relationship status has no effect on basic human rights.

The idea that someone owes you an explanation for not wanting to have sex simply because they've had sex with you before is rape culture.

I don't understand what your comment is in reference to. I'm referring to the original post and the "tips and tricks" replies it has generated.

HP35 said:

No means no. It doesn't mean argue against it and see if you can change your partner's mind. It doesn't mean go online and try to crowdsource strategies to manipulate them into changing their mind.

The origin of your rather extreme position on discussion within relationships is now obvious. 

HP35 said:

Martin said:

Such an idea is monstrous and inhuman.

Rape culture on display. Refusing to have sex is never "monstrous and inhuman," even if you can't express your reasons or don't know what your reasons are. Trying to change someone's "no" into a "yes" is.

You appear to be unable to understand that a sentence refers to that immediately preceding it. My sentence: "Such an idea is monstrous and inhuman.", refers, not to sex or rape, but to the preceding sentence whose subject is the hideous suggestion that, within a relationship, one partner can dictate something and the other partner should just accept it without discussion.

I know your type, you quote out of context and deliberately utilise straw man arguments. It is a very poor substitute for engaging in real dialogue. 

You do seem to be entirely obtuse, if you are not wilfully avoiding the thing being discussed, which definitely is not rape, or the choice not to have sexual relations, but the right of someone in a relationship to have discussion about, and input into, anything which may affect them personally or affect the relationship. My point has nothing to do with sex at all and everything to do with treating another human being with consideration and respect. Have you heard of the concept of 'common decency'?

Martin said:

Such an idea is monstrous and inhuman.

Rape culture on display. Refusing to have sex is never "monstrous and inhuman," even if you can't express your reasons or don't know what your reasons are. Trying to change someone's "no" into a "yes" is.

Sure. It's always totally legit to end a relationship if you're not happy in it. What's not OK is to challenge and chip away at another person's boundaries, particularly in a sexual context. No means no. It doesn't mean argue against it and see if you can change your partner's mind. It doesn't mean go online and try to crowdsource strategies to manipulate them into changing their mind. It means no.

Many people would consider saying no to sex over and over, with out giving a reason, grounds to end a relationship / divorce. It is unreasonable not to give a reason in that context of an established relationship. And being unreasonable all the time is liable to end a relationship.

As I said, and you seem to have not understood, "Consent is everything, what I am objecting to is the horrible idea that one partner can just announce that a moratorium on sex is now in place and expect this to be accepted as if it were divine writ, and not be discussed ever again. This is at best horribly selfish and arrogant, at worst abusive."

It is the arrogant tone you have espoused that is morally repugnant, NOT the decision to abstain from sex. As I said before, no one should feel pressured into sexual relations if they do not want them. However, in a romantic relationship, neither partner can expect the other to accept being dictated to with the proviso that the dictat is never to be discussed. Such an idea is monstrous and inhuman.

Choosing not to engage in sex is never selfish. Never. In any situation.

Coercing someone into sex is abuse. Refusing to take no for an answer but instead chipping away at a decision with "but wwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyy?" until your partner gives in is abusive. Saying "no thank you I don't want to have sex with you" is not abusive, in any situation, regardless of the history. Comparing decisions about one's own body to the purchase of a car is... well, it's sad, but I guess it's a perfect example of the rape culture we live in.

Ridiculous! We are talking about people in a long term romantic relationship, all aspects of such a relationship should be open to negotiation. I am most definitely not saying that anyone should be forced, coerced or manipulated into having sexual intercourse. Consent is everything, what I am objecting to is the horrible idea that one partner can just announce that a moratorium on sex is now in place and expect this to be accepted as if it were divine writ, and not be discussed ever again. This is at best horribly selfish and arrogant, at worst abusive. Anyone wanting to withdraw from sexual relations in a relationship absolutely must give explanations to his or her partner and take on board their feelings. Anyone doing less is just an egotistical monster. Consider if a man announced to his partner that he was going to spend all his savings on an expensive car, that the partner would receive no benefit from and would be placed in potential financial insecurity thereby, would not that partner expect some say in the matter?

Voting on ones own posts is considered very bad form.

You don't appear to understand consent. Having sex with someone once, twice, or 1000 times doesn't imply you will want to have it again, nor does it mean the other person is at all justified in expecting it. That is an extremely dangerous mindset.

You don't appear to understand consent. Having sex with someone once, twice, or 1000 times doesn't imply you will want to have it again, nor does it mean the other person is at all justified in expecting it. That is an extremely dangerous mindset.

One can ALWAYS "dictate" (strange verb choice, but OK) what can and cannot happen to one's own body, and one never owes anyone an explanation for that. Relationship status has no effect on basic human rights.

The idea that someone owes you an explanation for not wanting to have sex simply because they've had sex with you before is rape culture.

HP35 said:

Martin said:

Such an idea is monstrous and inhuman.

Rape culture on display. Refusing to have sex is never "monstrous and inhuman," even if you can't express your reasons or don't know what your reasons are. Trying to change someone's "no" into a "yes" is.

You appear to be unable to understand that a sentence refers to that immediately preceding it. My sentence: "Such an idea is monstrous and inhuman.", refers, not to sex or rape, but to the preceding sentence whose subject is the hideous suggestion that, within a relationship, one partner can dictate something and the other partner should just accept it without discussion.

I know your type, you quote out of context and deliberately utilise straw man arguments. It is a very poor substitute for engaging in real dialogue. 

You do seem to be entirely obtuse, if you are not wilfully avoiding the thing being discussed, which definitely is not rape, or the choice not to have sexual relations, but the right of someone in a relationship to have discussion about, and input into, anything which may affect them personally or affect the relationship. My point has nothing to do with sex at all and everything to do with treating another human being with consideration and respect. Have you heard of the concept of 'common decency'?

Martin said:

Such an idea is monstrous and inhuman.

Rape culture on display. Refusing to have sex is never "monstrous and inhuman," even if you can't express your reasons or don't know what your reasons are. Trying to change someone's "no" into a "yes" is.

As I said, and you seem to have not understood, "Consent is everything, what I am objecting to is the horrible idea that one partner can just announce that a moratorium on sex is now in place and expect this to be accepted as if it were divine writ, and not be discussed ever again. This is at best horribly selfish and arrogant, at worst abusive."

It is the arrogant tone you have espoused that is morally repugnant, NOT the decision to abstain from sex. As I said before, no one should feel pressured into sexual relations if they do not want them. However, in a romantic relationship, neither partner can expect the other to accept being dictated to with the proviso that the dictat is never to be discussed. Such an idea is monstrous and inhuman.

Choosing not to engage in sex is never selfish. Never. In any situation.

Coercing someone into sex is abuse. Refusing to take no for an answer but instead chipping away at a decision with "but wwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyy?" until your partner gives in is abusive. Saying "no thank you I don't want to have sex with you" is not abusive, in any situation, regardless of the history. Comparing decisions about one's own body to the purchase of a car is... well, it's sad, but I guess it's a perfect example of the rape culture we live in.

Ridiculous! We are talking about people in a long term romantic relationship, all aspects of such a relationship should be open to negotiation. I am most definitely not saying that anyone should be forced, coerced or manipulated into having sexual intercourse. Consent is everything, what I am objecting to is the horrible idea that one partner can just announce that a moratorium on sex is now in place and expect this to be accepted as if it were divine writ, and not be discussed ever again. This is at best horribly selfish and arrogant, at worst abusive. Anyone wanting to withdraw from sexual relations in a relationship absolutely must give explanations to his or her partner and take on board their feelings. Anyone doing less is just an egotistical monster. Consider if a man announced to his partner that he was going to spend all his savings on an expensive car, that the partner would receive no benefit from and would be placed in potential financial insecurity thereby, would not that partner expect some say in the matter?

Voting on ones own posts is considered very bad form.