Would you prefer a lifetime of loveless sex, or sexless love?

[SSG Schwartz]

One of the chapter end discussion questions in a sexual psychology class I took was the following: You are allowed only one person to spend the rest of your life with. At the start of the relationship, however you must make the choice between loveless sex, or sexless love. What do you choose and why?

I would choose the loveless sex, because a relationship can survive without love. Humans have a biological need for sex and cannot maintain good physical and mental health without it.

[kanicbird]

They again sex with the same person that you can never love might turn you off to sex altogether - then you have nothing.

Not sure what I would choose, and it might very well depend on the person.

Humans have a biological need for sex and cannot maintain good physical and mental health without it.

I'm not sure I buy this one. I think humans have a need for release of sexual tensions, but I'm not sure sex is actually needed.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Humans have a biological need for sex and cannot maintain good physical and mental health without it.

Cite? (Not the need for sex part)

[levdrakon]

Sexless love, as long as cuddling is allowed. I can sex myself, thanks.

[SSG Schwartz]

Kinsey did discuss the physical effects of a lack of sexual experience in women.
See this link for more info:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=642847&tool=ExternalSearch

[Eve]

Oh, Kinsey, my eye. A great many of us get along quite well without sex or love, because we have to. It's really no big deal. As my mother says, "you can get used to hanging, if you hang long enough."

[Mr. Blue Sky]

As my mother says, "you can get used to hanging, if you hang long enough."

Especially if you're well hung.

[Tevildo]

Probably "neither", given that we only get _one_ partner.

If forced to choose, sexless love as opposed to a relationship with one person I didn't like as a friend and didn't have the chance of leaving.

[TheLoadedDog]

Sexless love.

I've just come out of a dodgy relationship. Was every guy's dream at first. My lady was not only tightly built with curves in all the right places, but she had a very high sex-drive.

Last couple of years it was almost a chore.


I'd much rather have somebody I can stay up late with, drink, smoke, and talk shit to.

[DianaG]

Ten years ago, I would have said loveless sex. Now, no question about it, I'll take love.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some orgasms, but those I can have them all by myself, and I need someone else for conversation.

Besides, IMO, relationships can't survive without love. Without love, what you've got is a business arrangement.

[Askia]

I've had loveless sex. Invigorating at first, not so good over the long haul. Even if the two of you are a really good fit for each other in terms of physical combatibility and adventurousness, eventually you lose interest in the purely physical, especially if you're at it constantly, monogamous and get all the freaky stuff out the way. Although a nice long break will have you climbing all over other again.

I've had sexless love. I have sexless love now. Sexless love never lasts for me. I've made an ass out of myself with female friends insisting we needed to take the relationship to "the next level" and lost several close friendships / relationships because of it. The two relationships that started out platonic that became sexual were very fulfilling, at least a first, but something happened both times that made each not so nice after awhile.

So I want both. Gimme one woman to regularly have sex with and I'll happily be emotionally intimate with another.

[Manda JO]

By "sexless love" do you mean "No coitus" or "no yearning"? If the act of sex was not possible, for whatever reason, I could accept that. What I couldn't accept would be a lack of intimacy-- I couldn't be with someone who didn't want to touch me or who didn't want me to touch them, even if we couldn't (for whatever reason) escalate that. Even if there was no proper libido (and there are medical conditions that kill your libido), in a romantic relationship there is this quality of physical yearning for the other person that I would have to have and would have to be recipocated.

Without that, a relationship is just a friendship. I have plenty of those, and the love there is rea and truel, but they don't substitute for a romantic relationship.

[ErinPuff]

Definitely sexless love. That's what I want, anyway. :)

[Good Egg]

There is no evidence that doing without sex makes one mentally unhealthy. That sounds like a line a guy made up to get sex. I would choose love without sex. Some couples have it where one partner was in an accident and cannot have sex, and the love is there. Sex without love just makes one a body with no feelings inside. Heck, they could become a prostitute and make money off it.

[CynicalGabe]

OA great many of us get along quite well without sex or love, because we have to. It's really no big deal.

But you aren't claiming that sex wouldn't make it better, are you?

[Shakes]

I too would need to know why we can't have sex.

Going from my own assumptions though, I'll take the love.

My highspeed internet can help cover the rest of the bases.

[Martin Hyde]

There is no evidence that doing without sex makes one mentally unhealthy. That sounds like a line a guy made up to get sex. I would choose love without sex. Some couples have it where one partner was in an accident and cannot have sex, and the love is there. Sex without love just makes one a body with no feelings inside. Heck, they could become a prostitute and make money off it.

I think for some people going without sex could be harmful. But I think there are a lot of people who not only can actually do just fine in such a situation, there are some people who prefer it.

There's an entire "asexual movement" comprised of people who feel little desire for sex. IF you check out some asexual message boards there are many posters on there who, while they may have had sex, indicate they really have no interest in it, don't actively pursue it, and many of them have been happily living without sex for years.

[Scumpup]

Eve has the right of it. Plenty of us out here getting along quite nicely without either one. First step is discarding the misconception that there must be somebody else in your life.

[ErinPuff]

There's an entire "asexual movement" comprised of people who feel little desire for sex. IF you check out some asexual message boards there are many posters on there who, while they may have had sex, indicate they really have no interest in it, don't actively pursue it, and many of them have been happily living without sex for years.

The biggest asexual message board is AVEN, at asexuality.org (http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/). The main site also has some good general information about asexuality.

[Misnomer]

Loveless sex, please. I'd rather spend my life having sex with someone I like than not having sex with someone I love.

[raz]

Definitely sexless love. Don't get me wrong, sex is awesome and all, but if I had to choose one over the other, I would choose love any day. I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic like that. My boyfriend would say the same thing so we could just have our sexless loving relationship and be cool with that.

But I'll never have to choose something like that so I'll just keep my sexy-lovey relationship, thank you very much!

[eleanorigby]

I've had loveless sex--within my marriage, no less. To hell with that. I suppose it could work if you're only interesting in er, plumbing--pressure and release and all that.

Then again, sexless love doesn't appeal at present (there was a time when this would have been perfect for me).




Why the black and white choice? couldn't loveless sex become more intimate over time (one would hope) and the sexless love find ways to physical satisfaction.

Call me a spoiled bitch, but I want both!

[PinkMarabou]

To me, there's nothing more fulfilling than being in love. I like having that best friend who I can talk to and confide in. I crave emotional security. Basically I see it as choosing between having 20 minutes (or a couple hours, what have you) of fulfillment a day, or having 24 hours of fulfillment a day.

Love is the one thing that pulls my life together, that gives me comfort. I feel truly blessed to have my husband and can't imagine life without him. I would choose living the rest of my life with him without sex, than to lose him to be with someone I won't be attracted to for very long anyways.

YMMV of course.

[Manda JO]

To me, there's nothing more fulfilling than being in love. I like having that best friend who I can talk to and confide in. I crave emotional security. Basically I see it as choosing between having 20 minutes (or a couple hours, what have you) of fulfillment a day, or having 24 hours of fulfillment a day.

Love is the one thing that pulls my life together, that gives me comfort. I feel truly blessed to have my husband and can't imagine life without him. I would choose living the rest of my life with him without sex, than to lose him to be with someone I won't be attracted to for very long anyways.

YMMV of course.

But what would it do to you to feel that way about him and have it not be recipocated? No sex becasue of an accident or something, OK, but if he were just like "look, I love you as much as ever but I don't ever want to have sex again", could you stand that? I couldn't. I couldn't take the rejection, I couldn't take the constant unfufilled yearning. It would drive me away, even if I didn't want it to.

On the other hand, before my husband came along, I was emotionally pretty self-sufficient. I suspect that I could learn to be again, and it would be easier if I was getting laid on a regular basis. I would never be HAPPY with loveless sex, but I think I could reach a point of fuctional misery/near contentment. Sexless love, however, would drive me crazy with the rejection and the wanting.

[PapSett]

Right now, I would be happy with either.


:D


Oh, all right . If I HAVE to choose, I woud rather have sexless love. Just as long as we can cuddle and snuggle, and genuinely love one another.

[pbbth]

If I were with someone who wasn't physically able to have sex, I hope that I would be okay with it. There are many things available on the market to make up for the lack of sex. However, part of the wonder that is having sex with a person rather than a battery operated device is the closeness that goes along with it. It isn't just having an orgasm, it is about letting someone else inside of me (or I guess for men it would be about being inside someone else) and sharing the experience together. I am going to be selfish and say that I don't want one or the other, I want both love and sex.

[Anastasaeon]

As much of a nympho as I am, I would choose sexless love in the end.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

As much of a nympho as I am, I would choose sexless love in the end.


I will not go for the obvious joke.

[Anastasaeon]

I will not go for the obvious joke.

Freud would have adored me.

[PinkMarabou]

But what would it do to you to feel that way about him and have it not be recipocated? No sex becasue of an accident or something, OK, but if he were just like "look, I love you as much as ever but I don't ever want to have sex again", could you stand that? I couldn't. I couldn't take the rejection, I couldn't take the constant unfufilled yearning. It would drive me away, even if I didn't want it to.

On the other hand, before my husband came along, I was emotionally pretty self-sufficient. I suspect that I could learn to be again, and it would be easier if I was getting laid on a regular basis. I would never be HAPPY with loveless sex, but I think I could reach a point of fuctional misery/near contentment. Sexless love, however, would drive me crazy with the rejection and the wanting.

Love not being reciprocated is not the question. You cannot have love without both giving to the relationship. One-sided love is obsession . . . not love.

If my husband told me he had no interest in sex, I'd be okay with it as long as he still showed me he loved me. If there was an accident, I'd still be okay with it. I guess I've just reached a point where I don't see sex as the only thing that keeps us together. I also have a hormone deficiency that has caused my sex drive to go into a major slump, so I'm used to not having rabbit-sex every day.

We're best friends, buddies, family. We spend enormous amounts of time together (when our schedules permit), and we love every minute of it. After our wedding, we had a falling out with his family and our closest friends. We were virtually alone for 6 months and we learned how to depend on each other for everything. Seriously, if everyone on earth dropped dead, it would not even compare to how horrible I would feel if I lost him. When I think about not being with him (divorce, death, etc.), I don't think about missing sex; I think about missing the one person who knows me better than anyone else, the person I'm happy to see every single day, the person I love to look at and hear his voice.

Love is beyond sex, way beyond. I understand it has an intimacy factor, but how intimate can you be with someone you're just using for physical enjoyment alone? Before I started dating him, I had my choice of men. But it was the lonliest I've ever been. It's so sad (for me) to come home to an empty house, have no one to talk to, no one to share dreams with, no one to help you through this nasty world with.

A lot of people don't experience true love and are miserable for it. Some people think what they have is love and realize it's not. Then there are us lucky ones, who will go to their graves knowing they have felt the greatest feeling on earth, a far greater feeling than sex: love.

[Creaky]

Sexless love.

Efficient and convenient! :D

[Manda JO]

Love not being reciprocated is not the question. You cannot have love without both giving to the relationship. One-sided love is obsession . . . not love.

If my husband told me he had no interest in sex, I'd be okay with it as long as he still showed me he loved me. If there was an accident, I'd still be okay with it. I guess I've just reached a point where I don't see sex as the only thing that keeps us together. I also have a hormone deficiency that has caused my sex drive to go into a major slump, so I'm used to not having rabbit-sex every day.

I guess it's just that I express love through sexual affection: I'm not just talking about coitus, I am talking about stoping for a steamy kiss as we pass in the hall, casual groping as we watch TV on the couch, double entendres in our conversations,naughty games of footsy that aren't going anywhere because we are too tired. All these things are part of our sex life. If he pulled back from all that, I would be devastated. I would feel like I'd been kicked in the face. And that would would be reopened every day. I've been lonely. I know how to handle lonely. This would be worse than that.


Love is beyond sex, way beyond. I understand it has an intimacy factor, but how intimate can you be with someone you're just using for physical enjoyment alone? Before I started dating him, I had my choice of men. But it was the lonliest I've ever been. It's so sad (for me) to come home to an empty house, have no one to talk to, no one to share dreams with, no one to help you through this nasty world with.

Oh, I agree that loveless sex would not provide intimacy, but it wouldn't be as bad as craving intimacy from a specific person and having that forever rejected. Day after day after month after year of that would drive me mad.

For me, part of loving my partner is lusting after him, and it has nothing to do with physical attractivness: neither of us are attractive people in the physical sense. I react to his wit, his kindness, his humor, his intelligence with lust. If I couldn't express that lust, if all the sex stuff were gone, I'd have this huge aching pile of emotion with nowhere to put it, no one to share it with. I'd rather just not feel anything much at all--a banal, dreary existance of loveless sex--than suffer through that.

[Sensibility]

I guess it's just that I express love through sexual affection: I'm not just talking about coitus, I am talking about stoping for a steamy kiss as we pass in the hall, casual groping as we watch TV on the couch, double entendres in our conversations,naughty games of footsy that aren't going anywhere because we are too tired. All these things are part of our sex life. If he pulled back from all that, I would be devastated. I would feel like I'd been kicked in the face. And that would would be reopened every day. I've been lonely. I know how to handle lonely. This would be worse than that.



Oh, I agree that loveless sex would not provide intimacy, but it wouldn't be as bad as craving intimacy from a specific person and having that forever rejected. Day after day after month after year of that would drive me mad.

For me, part of loving my partner is lusting after him, and it has nothing to do with physical attractivness: neither of us are attractive people in the physical sense. I react to his wit, his kindness, his humor, his intelligence with lust. If I couldn't express that lust, if all the sex stuff were gone, I'd have this huge aching pile of emotion with nowhere to put it, no one to share it with. I'd rather just not feel anything much at all--a banal, dreary existance of loveless sex--than suffer through that.

WOW!

Well, first off I agreed with you wholeheartedly, then waivered a little having read others points of view - but after this last post Im definitely WITH you all the way!

In public and in a stranger to stranger situation, I can appear a bit aloof and perhaps even a little stand offish, but when Im with someone I am attracted to - be it their wit, their humour, their kindness (all of which I TOO consider IMMENSELY attractive) I ALSO react with lust! I WANT to be near to someone who attracts me and who makes me feel warm inside - not to be able to express that, not to be able to reach out and touch his face, stroke his cheek, smooch up and kiss him, WRAP my arms around him? hurts more than I could say. Youre right - more than lonely.....much more...

[PinkMarabou]

I guess it's just that I express love through sexual affection: I'm not just talking about coitus, I am talking about stoping for a steamy kiss as we pass in the hall, casual groping as we watch TV on the couch, double entendres in our conversations,naughty games of footsy that aren't going anywhere because we are too tired. All these things are part of our sex life. If he pulled back from all that, I would be devastated. I would feel like I'd been kicked in the face. And that would would be reopened every day. I've been lonely. I know how to handle lonely. This would be worse than that.

That's where we're different. My relationship with my husband doesn't depend that much on sex, not that it's a bad thing between you and yours, just ours is in a different stage. We have our moments, but we don't spend an immense amount of time playing like you two do. And there's nothing wrong with either, it's just how it works.

Just because you don't have sex, doesn't mean you don't find other ways to connect with your SO. I could go months without sex and not feel the slightest bit like my husband didn't love me or wasn't attracted to me.

But I think you and I have different interpretations of the question at hand. As you've stated, you express love through sex. But the questions asks love OR sex - not both. Could you have sex with your husband knowing he didn't care if you dropped dead tomorrow? Or knowing he had no feelings for you whatsoever and never would? I'm sure that would crush you more than not having sex. Unrequited love hurts, no love at all is a business deal.

[Manda JO]

That's where we're different. My relationship with my husband doesn't depend that much on sex, not that it's a bad thing between you and yours, just ours is in a different stage. We have our moments, but we don't spend an immense amount of time playing like you two do. And there's nothing wrong with either, it's just how it works.

Just because you don't have sex, doesn't mean you don't find other ways to connect with your SO. I could go months without sex and not feel the slightest bit like my husband didn't love me or wasn't attracted to me.

Fair point, but when, earlier, you said "Love is beyond sex, way beyond", which implies that a relationship where affection is expressed in a sexual context is somehow less profound or real than a relationship that is less sexual. I don't think the lust I feel for my husband in any way suggests that my love for him is anything other than strong and deep and true. For me, and the way my brain seems to work, it's a sign that it's strong and deep and true: love and lust are intertwined for me.

But I think you and I have different interpretations of the question at hand. As you've stated, you express love through sex. But the questions asks love OR sex - not both. Could you have sex with your husband knowing he didn't care if you dropped dead tomorrow? Or knowing he had no feelings for you whatsoever and never would? I'm sure that would crush you more than not having sex. Unrequited love hurts, no love at all is a business deal.

I'd leave if I couldn't have BOTH love and sex--I'd rather be lonely than only have one or the other, and I do sort of think loveless sex would make the lonliness more bearable, provided no one was feeling love.

[Dr. Woo]

Well, I have to say that sexless love is, well, preferable to loveless sex. Having said that, I recognize that I have neither.

I need a divorce.

[LurkMeister]

Well, I'm currently in a long distance relationship which I suppose technically comes under the heading of sexless love. Although it depends on how you define "sexless" since we do sleep cuddled together, and generally at some point before we fall asleep there is a certain amount of physical intimacy. Neither of us has a particularly high sex drive which, combined with some personal issues resulting from her marriage, has made sex a low-priority item.

In fact, we recently had a talk about this issue, and both agreed that even if this does lead to a long-term/permanent relationship (which is highly likely, considering how we feel about each other) we'd both be perfectly satisfied with our current level of intimacy.

[Zjestika]

The biggest asexual message board is AVEN, at asexuality.org (http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/). The main site also has some good general information about asexuality.


Thanks for the link. Although I'm not asexual myself, that's some fascinating stuff.

ZJ

[woodstock989]

Love? Don't believe in love.......I'll take the sex, thankyewverymuch.

[SmartAleq]

See, the trick here is that while loveless sex is possible, sexless love isn't, really. If two people with sex drives of similar levels love each other, there will be sex to whatever extent their physical selves allow. I've had lovers who weren't physically capable of erections or coitus and we had very successful sex we were both happy with. It just took a little accomodation and a rather flexible definition of "sex." The only physical impairment which would prevent me from having sex with my SO would be complete, 100% paralysis on both our parts, and even then we'd probably figure SOMETHING out! Telepathic mutual masturbation or something...

When a couple is separated by distance for months or years, and they talk dirty on the phone, does that count as sex? How about jerking off together without actually touching, does that count as sex? Frottage, does that count? If physical contact of any kind is allowed in the "sexless love" category, who exactly determines where the cuddling ends and sex begins? I've had orgasms while thinking about someone--did it count as having sex for the person I was fantasizing about when I came, or was I the only one actually engaged in sex? What if he was fantasizing about me at the same time and messed his pants--did we have sex? Since I don't think it's possible to love someone and live with them without any physical contact at all, then it seems ruling out "sex" to define the parameters of this discussion relies pretty heavily on a narrow and specific definition of what constitutes "having sex" as opposed to "all the other touching that's going on all the time in this supposedly 'sexless' relationship." Didn't Spider Robinson write a passage once in which a character described his marriage as one long act of lovemaking during which there were passages of time when they weren't actually touching?

So yeah, gimme that "sexless love" category and don't effin' ask what those funny noises are when the doors close... We're CUDDLING!

[Gatopescado]

The premise, like marriage, sucks.

[Thudlow Boink]

While I wouldn't want either, I imagine sex without love, with just one person for the rest of my life, would get old pretty quickly and wouldn't be that much better than masturbation. So, if I had to pick one, I'd go for love without sex.

In particular, in a relationship that started out with plenty of both, I'd rather be in one where the sex ended before the love did (due to old age or ill health or whatever) than vice versa.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I wouldn't want either, either, but I have to mention this Woody Allen quote:


Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.

[Anaamika]

Sexless love. And I've got to be just under (snerk) Anastaseon in drive. But you know, I'd rather have someone by my side to grow old with. Isn't that the point of love?

[ratatoskK]

I think it's a trick question. How do you define "sexless" love?

[Knorf]

The question is fatally flawed, and therefore rather pointless. No one is forced to make such nonsensical dualisitic decisions.

I agree with the poster that loveless sex is possible, but sexless is not. Not if you mean "Romantic" love, anyway. If you're talking the kind of love between close friends, or family members, well duh. But physical intimacy is at the core of what Romantic love is--sexual expression of some kind is essential. It might not be vanilla heterosexual intercourse, but as posters above have noted, there has some to be some kind of intimacy.

Frankly, I think most of you who have said you'd be happy with nothing more than cuddling for the rest of your lives are lying.

[filmore]

I suppose your age might have a lot to do with how you answer the question. Later on in life you'd better have some sort of love in the relationship, because you're going to be heading towards the sexless end of the spectrum anyway.

[Sternvogel]

To paraphrase a quote erroneously attributed to Winston Churchill: (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:edkxUWXF45wJ:blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/06/21+Winston+Churchill+conservative+liberal+heart+head&hl=en&ie=UTF-8): "Anyone who would prefer sexless love at 20 might as well have no genitalia. Anyone who would prefer loveless sex at 40 might as well consist entirely of genitalia."

I'm 46, and (although unmarried) in a relationship which I indeed hope will last until death do us part. Thus, I'm figuring on intimacy surviving even as the physical options for expressing love dwindle.

Disclaimer: First paragraph of this post is presented for entertainment purposes only, and is not to be perceived as actual ridicule or condemnation of any poster or lurker's choice in the matter at hand.

[Siege]

I don't have time to answer this properly, but if double-entendres count as sex, then I'm afraid little old sexually conservative me has had sex with large portions of this message board, and large numbers of Mensans and SCAdians, not to mention, I think, some coworkers! :eek:

As I said, I'm sexually conservative. If I have to choose, I'll take love without sex, although I prefer my current situation in which I have ample amounts of both. I've also done without both for long periods of time to the point where I thought I'd never experience them. Doing without love was worse.

CJ

[Menocchio]

I'm with Manda Jo and Smart Aleq. It depends on what kind of love, and how strictly we're defining sex.

If "no sex" merely precludes coitus, but not other acts of physical intimacy (including some stuff beyond chaste cuddling and hugs), then yes, I could be quite happy in such a situation.

OTOH, if I was romantically in love with a woman, being denied physical intimacy would be devastating. Either I'd go crazy with desire (and I'd be better off with neither love nor sex), or else the relationship would cool to the point where we'd be good friends, but not "in love" in the strongest senses of the term. I've already got loving friends and family. Getting laid on the side would just be gravy.

However, if "loveless" means my existing close platonic friends and family also vanish, then I'd be really screwed, even if I was getting screwed.

I need love, of some kind. I only want sex. When I'm "in love", I need to touch and be touched, although actual sex, while desirable, isn't strictly necessary.

[Lemur866]

I don't understand how you can have "sexless love", if you're talking about romantic love. Even if your partner has absolutely no sexual desires of their own, surely if they loved you they'd find some way to accomodate your sexual needs? Even if they found sex somewhat repulsive? Look, I've changed hundreds of poopy diapers and been vomited on and peed on by my baby daughter many times, and while I didn't enjoy it I took care of her needs because I loved her. Of course I'd rather that she didn't leak horrible noxious fluids out of every orifice, but she does, and she needs my care.

If I had no sexual needs but my partner didn't, I'd still take care of those needs to the best of my ability. If I my partner loved me but had no sexual needs herself, she'd still take care of my sexual needs. If my wife came to me and said that she loved me and wanted to spend the rest of our lives together but she was never going to have sex with me again, I wouldn't believe her. If she wasn't willing to have sex with me, knowing that I absolutely needed sex, how can she say she loves me? I can understand one person not wanting sex anymore, but how can you impose that on the person you supposedly love, when all it takes is a few minutes of inconvenience every few days to help them?

As an example, my wife loves having her feet rubbed. I know some men would find it sexually stimulating, but it does nothing for me sexually to rub her feet. What if I said to her, "Honey, I know you like having your feet rubbed, but it does nothing for me and I don't like it, so I'm never rubbing your feet again." Wouldn't I be a grade-A jerk? It doesn't hurt me to rub her feet, why should I just refuse to do it? Similarly, if I had some medical problem where I lost all interest in sex, I'd still be a jerk if I refused to give my wife whatever sexual satisfaction I was physically capable of giving her.

Of course, if neither partner wants sex, then sexless love is certainly possible. But I don't see how the situation where I want sex but the person I love who loves me refuses to have sex with me can exist. If I had a soulmate who didn't enjoy sex it would be difficult, but I can imagine tolerating it. If I had a soulmate who didn't enjoy sex and therefore decided that I shouldn't enjoy sex either? How exactly can that person be my soulmate?

I'd much rather be with a person who liked to have sex with me but didn't love me than with a person who claimed to love me but refused to have any kind of sex with me. It's not the "no sex" part, it's the refusal part. "Honey, I love you but I find you so repulsive that I cannot bear to have you touch me ever again." How does that work exactly?

[Creaky]

... sexless is not [possible]. Not if you mean "Romantic" love, anyway. Frankly, I think most of you who have said you'd be happy with nothing more than cuddling for the rest of your lives are lying.

That's a good point, but I guess I'm not looking for "romantic" love at this point in my life. I'd rather just have somebody to talk to and hang out with who understands me. Somebody of similar background, education, religion, etc. For both my boyfriend and me, the sex is secondary. Not because we think we're above it or better off without it; we're just too busy / lazy / distracted / whatever. We do love each other though. More like good friends. Uh, really good friends. I don't know. Hard to define.

[SSG Schwartz]

If I had no sexual needs but my partner didn't, I'd still take care of those needs to the best of my ability. If I my partner loved me but had no sexual needs herself, she'd still take care of my sexual needs. If my wife came to me and said that she loved me and wanted to spend the rest of our lives together but she was never going to have sex with me again, I wouldn't believe her. If she wasn't willing to have sex with me, knowing that I absolutely needed sex, how can she say she loves me? I can understand one person not wanting sex anymore, but how can you impose that on the person you supposedly love, when all it takes is a few minutes of inconvenience every few days to help them?

If there is love in the relationship, somebody has to make the sacrifice? Is that the understanding? Either the partner without the drive has to give up her/his body, or the other person has to go without. I really can't feel right about that if it is someone I am in love with. Sex is a very intimate act, and if someone is doing it just to please me, I'd rather do without.

[Manda JO]

If there is love in the relationship, somebody has to make the sacrifice? Is that the understanding? Either the partner without the drive has to give up her/his body, or the other person has to go without. I really can't feel right about that if it is someone I am in love with. Sex is a very intimate act, and if someone is doing it just to please me, I'd rather do without.


That's a very different view of sex than what I have. I don't ever see sex as "giving up" anything.

And we do things just to please our partners all the time: we sit through silly movies, we go visit in-laws, we spend money on things we don't enjoy because they bring the other person joy. It would be hard for me to be happy in a relationship without that element of giving and recieving: I enjoy both knowing my partner values my happiness and I enjoy valuing his happiness. I don't see why sex couldn't fall into this range.

Of course, a relationship can't be all about sacrifice: what dating is FOR is to determine if a relationship will require more sacrifices on wither or both person's part than they are willing to handle. But the idea that two people should mesh so perfectly that they will never have to defer thier wants to the other person is hopelessly romantic and unrealistic.