Would you give up sex for companionship? [Archive]

TruePisces

04-15-2001, 02:43 PM

I got into a discussion with a friend of mine the other day about sex vs companionship. The discussion basically concerned whether someone would give up sex in a relationship for companionship. I'm speaking mostly in situations where sex is an impossibility for whatever reason on either partner's part. I personally prefer the companionship with someone special over sex with just anyone. I'm curious now, though, how many people would give up sex in this situation? Just how important is sex to a relationship?

UncleBill

04-15-2001, 02:59 PM

Tough, one, Am.

I feel that sex is a very vital part of a healthy, loving relationship. (duh)

I would stay with the woman I loved if the sex BECAME an impossibility, but I'm not exactly sure I would enter into that relationship if the sex were impossible first. Not sure how I feel about that, am I a BAD person?

Purd Werfect

04-15-2001, 03:31 PM

Being on my own for the last two years, I've given this some thought. At first, I missed sex most. But as time went by, I found that what I was really missing was emotional intimacy. But the two are intertwined, for me anyway. I have a platonic friend who is extremely close, who I can hear anything from and say anything too, but no matter how close, it's rare that our conversation is as warmly satisfying and enveloping as that which is shared between two people laying in bed after having big fun. So if I gave up sex, I fear that I would also be giving up a certain amount of non-sexual companionship.

If I absolutely had to choose though, I would give up sex. Though not nearly as satisfying to do so, sex is something I can take care of for myself. Companionship by definition requires a companion though.

Uncle Bill, I'm sure that you know you aren't a bad person for desiring both aspects out of a relationship. Situations where companionship is possible, but sex is not happen all the time in the guise of friendships. It would be unusual to meet someone who would be unable to share sexual activities and yet would insist on otherwise living in a monogamous relationship. Like you, if I was in a situation where sex became impossible later in the relationship, I would stay with that person.

Gozu Tashoya

04-15-2001, 04:46 PM

Does "sex" here mean all physical intimacy, or are we going by the Bill Clinton definition?

Personally, I have issues with Bill Clinton defined sex, so I could probably give it up fairly easily. Kissing, petting, and general making out, OTOH, I'd miss a lot.

Grok

04-15-2001, 05:33 PM

Definitely need both if I'm in a relationship.

I'm selfish. I want it all...

TruePisces

04-15-2001, 06:35 PM

UncleBill, you know I don't think you're a bad person! Wanting both doesn't make you any less of a person, it's natural. If I knew the answers I'd get, I wouldn't have asked the question.

KKBattousai, I was thinking generally intercourse, but since the two go hand-in-hand, it could be a Monica as well. However, I don't think it precludes the hugs, kisses, hand holding, or just lying in bed holding one another. That's much more intimacy than sex, IMO.

For me, the intimacy is what matters. The sex (which I enjoy a lot) is fun, yeah, but what good is it if you have to give up spending your life with someone you love?

Journeyman

04-15-2001, 07:37 PM

To be honest, I'm probably not the most qualified person to comment upon this, but I'll toss in my two cents anyway.

I'd rather be with someone I care about, even if sex was an impossibility. Emotional intimacy is one of life's most wonderful things, and sex pales by comparison, IMHO.

hardygrrl

04-15-2001, 08:20 PM

As you all well know...I have a VERY high sex drive.

Maybe it makes me shallow but....sex is one of the MANY ways I show my love to that special somebody.

Of course if I don't have a special somebody I do have a fuckbuddy lined up to keep me from pulling out my hair:)

But when I do find THAT person I am completely faithful and have been known to fuck a few of them into comas.

Amedeus

04-15-2001, 08:25 PM

I'd have to say I'd give up the sex. Companionship is(to me) far more important than bending in to some hormones. Of course thats not to say I wouldn't want to bend into those hormones. Just that given circumstances that require one or the other, I would definately choose the companionship.

Lyllyan

04-15-2001, 08:30 PM

Get married, have three kids, open your own business, and then ask yourself this question in 20 years. Oh, and intersperse this bliss with a few trips to hell and back.

While sex is a good thing, a great thing...companionship is better.

Just my .02

Johnny L.A.

04-15-2001, 09:10 PM

Uh... what do I have to give up to get either one?

Tequila Mockingbird

04-15-2001, 09:39 PM

I doubt I'd enter into into a relationship knowing the possibilty of sex EVER was a big NO. Companionship is better, but what good is cranky, horny companionship? (And, yes I am talking about myself...I get cranky without sex..may take a LONG while until I get cranky, but I do.) If I were the one unable to have sex, I would not limit my mate to my companionship only. Life is to be lived, and sex is a part of life. Not a huge, overwhelming part, but a part. I would hope the one who's companionship I desired felt the same as I do. I have a feeling they would, as I tend to be rather open and blunt about my needs and desires, but for me, love and sex are not mutually inclusive. I prefer to have both though. In an extreme case though, I MIGHT be able to give up sex with another person as long as I had the cuddling, kissing, snuggling, mental connection with the mate in question. As long my supply of batteries were unlimited. It's a long shot, but I might be able to do it.

thinksnow

04-15-2001, 09:55 PM

Well, I did for 6 months with my ex-fiancee, kinda. We literally went from having sex 3-4 times a day to having it 2 times our last half-year together, but I loved her with all my heart and was willing to do anything, sacrifice any of my own comfort or desires just to be with her.

Would I do it again? I hope I won't have to, but I think I would. Love makes you do amazing things. Companionship and interpersonal relations can mean so much...

lurkernomore

04-15-2001, 09:55 PM

At lot depends on the age of the person asking it. Some people who say NO at 25 say yes at 55. You should be able to get both, particularly when you're young. It's a lot to give up. They'd really have to be special. Never say never, though.

ModernRonin2

04-15-2001, 10:18 PM

Some things you should be aware of in conjunction with
my answer: A) I'm male B) I'm 25 C) I'm very much a loner type and can quite happily go weeks and weeks without
passing more than a casual comment with anyone.

The answer is quite simply "no way". If I want
companionship, I have friends. Good friends, who I can
share anything with. But they cannot provide me with sex.
Sex is the extra thing that makes a male/female relationship
special. Without sex, a relationship is "merely" a friendship.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Call me a
terrible, horrible person if it makes you feel better. ;]

Incidentally, I figured this question would be split
mostly down gender lines. Women saying "yeah, I could
deal with that" and guys saying, "no way." I'm both
surprised and gratified to see some women saying they
would have a really hard time going without, too. So now
I guess my only complaint is... how come none of you
seem to live in my town? ;D

-Ben

rjung

04-15-2001, 10:50 PM

Isn't that what happens when you get married? :)

BlackKnight

04-15-2001, 11:12 PM

If I had the sex to give up then of course I would, if I had to.

Balance

04-15-2001, 11:50 PM

So, I'm getting something for nothing here, right?

Seriously, sex-crazed as I am, it's companionship and intimacy that I find myself missing most during my dry spells. I'm going to have to waffle a bit and say that I wouldn't try to develop a relationship in which I knew sex wasn't a possibility. If such a relationship jumped out of the bushes, hit me with a frying pan, and dragged me off...well, I'd live with it. I could always date Mother Thumb and her four daughters on the side. I'd still miss giving pleasure, though.

Reeder

04-16-2001, 01:44 AM

In any relationship the time will come that sex takes a back seat. Just hope you and your SO will have things in common to discuss..do..play..whatever. A relationship based entirely on sex is doomed to die.

Pammipoo

04-16-2001, 01:58 AM

Yes. If it were the right person for me, and sex were absolutely out of the question, I would give it up. I would, however, spend a lot of time with my vibrator...

Christina25

04-16-2001, 02:34 AM

In a heartbeat...if snuggling and kissing is allowed... in a blessed heartbeat.

Airman Doors, USAF

04-16-2001, 03:59 AM

For me, it's an easy answer.

Absolutely.

I'd just like to meet someone who cares. Sex is not a consideration.

I've waited 25 years so far, I can wait a couple more.

TruePisces

04-16-2001, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by ModernRonin2
The answer is quite simply "no way". If I want
companionship, I have friends. Good friends, who I can
share anything with. But they cannot provide me with sex.
Sex is the extra thing that makes a male/female relationship
special. Without sex, a relationship is "merely" a friendship.

Here I think I have to disagree, ModernRonin2. A relationship without sex is not "merely" a friendship. I have many male friends that are just that. Friends. I laugh and joke with them, use their shoulder to cry on when things are going wrong... but I don't feel a connection with them as anything more than just a really good friend. And then there's lurker. What I share with him is all that I described in the friendship, along with so much more. There's the emotional intimacy there that goes beyond anything I feel for any other "friend", male or female. When he left to go back to NY after his trip to Tampa to see me, it wasn't the sex that I missed, but the little intimacies, the being with him. And this is someone that I won't go so far as to say I'm in love with yet, though the possibility is definitely there. If that's "merely" friendship, why don't I feel it with others?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Call me a
terrible, horrible person if it makes you feel better. ;]

Not in the least. Just a person with a different opinion than my own. ;)

hardygrrl

04-16-2001, 06:53 AM

Update to previous post....

I have to agree(big surprise there!) with UncleBill...

If something happened and the SO suddenly couldn't perform I guess I COULD live with it but I'd buy stock in Duracell first :)

But...if from the beginning they couldn't....it may make me shallow but I think making someone scream your name as they quiver does show love...maybe not in a Hallmark manner but still.

That out of the way....as I said in my girly momoent thread-I do like the cuddling and the flowers. Mixed with roof shaking orgasms makes hardygrrl a happygrrl.

ruadh

04-16-2001, 07:38 AM

OK....

Maybe this is just me ...

... but it seems to me that if one person in a relationship is actually unable to have sex, it is only fair that the other person in the relationship be allowed to get it elsewhere. If I were the incapacitated one I would allow my partner to do so. I wouldn't necessarily want to know about it, but I would assume and accept that it was happening. So to answer the OP, no, I wouldn't give up sex for companionship - I'd just get it from somebody else.

I'm sure somebody's going to think that's horrible, but, whatever.

handy

04-16-2001, 10:53 AM

Ah, the sex Vs friendship debate. Sometimes I do sometimes I don't. Dunno about the rest of you but sex often messes up a relationship! If you like someone a lot & want to be with them, then be friends.

I can't count the number of people who wish they had just stayed friends cause the person that they liked so much would still be with them.

Gozu Tashoya

04-16-2001, 12:21 PM

You know what I find scary about this question? That it brings up converse "would you give up companionship for sex?" and that there are a hell of a lot of people out there who, in an actions speak louder than words kind of way, "hell yeah!" Sad, ain't it?

And, well, if "all" I'm giving up is intercourse, like I said, no problem. After all, just because you can't cut the mustard doesn't mean you can't lick the bottle. :)

Jonathan Chance

04-16-2001, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by ruadh
OK....

Maybe this is just me ...

... but it seems to me that if one person in a relationship is actually unable to have sex, it is only fair that the other person in the relationship be allowed to get it elsewhere. If I were the incapacitated one I would allow my partner to do so. I wouldn't necessarily want to know about it, but I would assume and accept that it was happening. So to answer the OP, no, I wouldn't give up sex for companionship - I'd just get it from somebody else.

I'm sure somebody's going to think that's horrible, but, whatever.

Here's hoping I'm not the only one who just flashed on "Lady Chatterly's Lover" here.

God I feel so old.

And on the OP? I've done it. It's called pregnancy and newborn.

Davidbw1

04-16-2001, 04:29 PM

Well, considering that I don't get much sex anyway (Interpert this as none), I'd have to say that I'd go for companionship. If you could have both...that would be great.

Giraffe

04-16-2001, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by KKBattousai
You know what I find scary about this question? That it brings up converse "would you give up companionship for sex?" and that there are a hell of a lot of people out there who, in an actions speak louder than words kind of way, "hell yeah!" Sad, ain't it?

I don't this is true. I think people who aren't willing to give up sex for companionship are saying that they would instead go looking for both companionship and sex. Sex is an important part of a relationship, and some people wouldn't be happy in a relationship without it.

That said, if my girlfriend was suddenly unable to have sex, I wouldn't dump her. I bet it would strain the relationship, as we both like sex very much, but we could probably work it out.

Creaky

04-16-2001, 08:18 PM

Nah. Sex is way too fun. And most people are way too annoying out of bed. I'll take sex anytime.

lucky henry

04-16-2001, 08:29 PM

For the first five years, you have what is called anywhere sex; you're both eager to do it any place, any time.

For the years between five and twenty, you have bedroom sex; you still have it pretty regularly, but it's generally confined to the bedroom.

After twenty years of marraige, you have hallway sex; that's when the closest you come to sex is when passing in the hallway you glare at your partner and say "Fuck you!". ;)

Gozu Tashoya

04-16-2001, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Giraffe
Originally posted by KKBattousai
You know what I find scary about this question? That it brings up converse "would you give up companionship for sex?" and that there are a hell of a lot of people out there who, in an actions speak louder than words kind of way, "hell yeah!" Sad, ain't it?

I don't this is true. I think people who aren't willing to give up sex for companionship are saying that they would instead go looking for both companionship and sex. Sex is an important part of a relationship, and some people wouldn't be happy in a relationship without it.

That said, if my girlfriend was suddenly unable to have sex, I wouldn't dump her. I bet it would strain the relationship, as we both like sex very much, but we could probably work it out.

I think I got misunderstood. When I meant "out there" I pretty much meant off the boards, as the SDMB seems to generally have a pretty high "no cheating" standard. And by the "giving up companionship for sex" I pretty much meant cheaters.

Specifically, I was thinking of Hugh Grant (cheated on Elizabeth Hurley), David Justice (cheated on Halle Barry), as examples of this. Of course it was more that their SOs were so hot that they had to be clinically insane to cheat on them, but that's besides the point. :)

But in short, I was saying that it's sad that guys (and, I suppose, some gals) would cheat on their SOs knowing it would end the relationship. Sad I tell you...