Relationship without sex--yes or no.

[Angel of the Lord]

Assume the following:

The relationship is a long-term romantic relationship, either married or together so long that you might as well be.

The relationship had sex to start with.

There has not been sex for about a year, and there is no sex in the forseeable future, either for a physical reason (counting things like depression in treatment), or because the person just doesn't want it. Otherwise, the relationship is average in all regards.

What do you do, dopers? What do you do?

Elaborate below, since I know that everyone has their own little quirks ("I'd leave, but only if it were on a Tuesday and he'd left the toilet seat up...")

[sandra_nz]

Stay, no hesitation about that, but keep working on whatever the issue is that's stopping the sex (from my limited life experence, it's usually stress/depression related and those are treatable).

If it was a physical reason, then I would accept as part of the 'for better or for worse' that I signed up for. Sometimes you just gotta be a bit more inventive and a bit looser of your definition of sex, and find something that works for both of you.

[breaking-reality]

I would stay if it were because of a physical condition.

I couldn't be with someone who simple didn't want to have sex with me, or wasn't attracted to me in that way...then we'd just be friends and I'd find another person to have a relationship with.

[AClockworkMelon]

I'm only 20 years old. There's no way I'm becoming celibate.

[Manda JO]

Which do you mean: No coitus? No "anything but"? No heavy petting? No light petting? No kissing? No physical affection? "Sex" is a pretty broad term.

[Angel of the Lord]

I screwed up when I posted my response--I meant to put, "stay if it's due to a physical condition" instead of "stay no matter what."

I recognize that shit happens, and that sometimes that shit means no nookie. If someone's going through, say, a medical treatment that makes sex not happening, then that's something that I would deal with. If someone were being actively treated for depression, then that's also something I'd have to deal with, at least as long as the person were actively trying to get better.

If it's just because the person doesn't want to, though? I would be gone. For me, it comes down to respecting the other person's needs. If you don't want to have sex anymore--and you wanted to at the outset--you have no right to keep me in the relationship under those terms. And it's not as though that need for physical intimacy can be met by those outside the relationship (if the relationship is monogamous, anyway; I'm not getting into polyamory, since that significantly changes the meaning of what I'm asking here). You'd be forcing the other person to do completely without--no negotiation, no compromise. Screw that.

ETA--this is assuming that the other person is okay with there being no sex.

[jsgoddess]

I'd stay if the relationship were good and if I felt that reasonable steps were being taken to get back to a situation that included sex. If I felt like there was no good faith effort being made, or if there had been a change in the partner's feelings toward me, I'd probably leave. I would view these things not as problems because they lead to no sex but as problems because they change or devalue the relationship.

[Palo Verde]

I'd stay. Sex just isn't that important to me.

[Angel of the Lord]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Which do you mean: No coitus? No "anything but"? No heavy petting? No light petting? No kissing? No physical affection? "Sex" is a pretty broad term.

Sorry; I should have defined that better. Let's say. . .nothing beyond kissing and cuddles.

[Gus Gusterson]

I would stay, but I would expect my wife to let me sleep with other women. We're actually in a similar situation. We have sex once or twice a month but she is only doing it out of obligation. As soon as she gets over the fear that I would leave for another woman (which I have no interest in doing), I'll be free to get it elsewhere.

[Asimovian]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

I'd stay if the relationship were good and if I felt that reasonable steps were being taken to get back to a situation that included sex. If I felt like there was no good faith effort being made, or if there had been a change in the partner's feelings toward me, I'd probably leave. I would view these things not as problems because they lead to no sex but as problems because they change or devalue the relationship.

That actually sums up my feelings pretty well, too. I don't find sex to be essential to a good relationship, but I think that a change in our sexual relationship that is that dramatic and that extended is symptomatic of some other, very serious problems. If nothing is being done about those issues, I'm probably not going to stick around indefinitely.

If there is some physical issue that prevents sex, there is nothing we can do about it, and our relationship is otherwise happy, then I wouldn't leave solely over that.

[tdn]

I put leave, but there are tons of variables in that. If it's due to an emotional or physical condition, I'd do my best to help her through it.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by Gus Gusterson

I would stay, but I would expect my wife to let me sleep with other women. We're actually in a similar situation. We have sex once or twice a month but she is only doing it out of obligation. As soon as she gets over the fear that I would leave for another woman (which I have no interest in doing), I'll be free to get it elsewhere.

If you were in an accident and paralyzed from the waist down and were incapable of ever having sex again you'd be happy to let your wife have sex with other men? Just curious.

[even sven]

I couldn't do it. I adore sex, and without it or even the possibility of it, I'd feel like something essential to me and my human experience was missing. It's just such a vibrant, beautiful, fun thing. How could I give that up?

If there was a physical issue, I could see working out an "arrangement" where I have NSA sex with other guys.

[MeanOldLady]

Originally Posted by breaking-reality

I would stay if it were because of a physical condition.

I couldn't be with someone who simple didn't want to have sex with me, or wasn't attracted to me in that way...then we'd just be friends and I'd find another person to have a relationship with.

Yes. And even then I would have to really, really love him. A lot.

Edit: I've changed my mind. I can't live with just kissing and petting. Sorry. Move one "Female, but would stay if it were due to something physical" over to "I'm out. Peace."

[even sven]

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

If you were in an accident and paralyzed from the waist down and were incapable of ever having sex again you'd be happy to let your wife have sex with other men? Just curious.

If I were in that kind of accident, I doubt I'd be happy about any part of it. No doubt lots of things in my life would change, probably mostly for the worse.

But absolutely I wouldn't expect my SO to go without sex for the rest of his life. Why would I? To prove something about how special I am? To make absolutely sure that he doesn't decide to leave me (as if that would be effective?) I just don't see the point. I'd want my SO to live a happy and full life, ideally with me in it. And if that means we have to make some unusual arrangements, I'd rather do that than try to ask him to abstain forever just to calm my ego. Of course it'd be difficult to deal with, but it's just one of many difficult things that you have to deal with when you are injured like that!

[Anaamika]

I'd have a really really hard time of it. Sex is one of the things that makes this world worthwhile. I firmly believe it is one of the things that separates us from the animals, that we can have sex whenever we want to, just for pleasure, and that we, men and women, can get so much pleasure out of it.

If I was paralyzed it might take me a bit of time to come around to it but I know I would be the first one to tell him to go outside of the relationship. I would not be that broken up over purely physical cheating even now.

[Gus Gusterson]

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

If you were in an accident and paralyzed from the waist down and were incapable of ever having sex again you'd be happy to let your wife have sex with other men? Just curious.

Yes, I would let her have sex with other men under those circumstances. In fact, if she came to me right now and said, "We don't have sex because I don't like having sex with you. I want to have sex with other men," I would let her. It's just sex. To me, sex and love are not intertwined. I don't think she would love me any less just because another man's penis was in her vagina.

[MeanOldLady]

Originally Posted by Gus Gusterson

Yes, I would let her have sex with other men under those circumstances. In fact, if she came to me right now and said, "We don't have sex because I don't like having sex with you. I want to have sex with other men," I would let her. It's just sex. To me, sex and love are not intertwined. I don't think she would love me any less just because another man's penis was in her vagina.

Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. I'm pretty much with sven on that matter, but if my old man said, "I'm going to go fuck other broads now," I'd say, "Have fun with that. Twas nice knowin' ya." No, love and sex are not necessarily intertwined (in fact I've never loved any of the people I've shagged except the ones I was in a serious relationship with) but I thought part of being in a committed relationship was not boning other people, barring any extenuating circumstances like, say, becoming suddenly crippled.

[overlyverbose]

I was the lone (so far) vote for the nitpicky answer. So, here's my nitpicky answer:

I'm kind of in this situation now with my husband. It's not due to a physical condition, but we have two children - the second was born in November - and he just changed jobs to one that requires a lot of overtime. By the time we do get to spend time together, it's late and the both of us are exhausted, so it just doesn't happen. Plus, having a baby hanging on to me when I'm not working makes me touched out by the end of the day, so gearing up for that type of activity can be difficult.

That said, we've decided to make time for it, even if it means scheduling it. Not exactly romantic, but it's something both of us miss very much, and we never wanted to be roommates.

So, yeah, I'd stay as long as it was something we were working on.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by even sven

If I were in that kind of accident, I doubt I'd be happy about any part of it. No doubt lots of things in my life would change, probably mostly for the worse.

But absolutely I wouldn't expect my SO to go without sex for the rest of his life. Why would I? To prove something about how special I am? To make absolutely sure that he doesn't decide to leave me (as if that would be effective?) I just don't see the point. I'd want my SO to live a happy and full life, ideally with me in it. And if that means we have to make some unusual arrangements, I'd rather do that than try to ask him to abstain forever just to calm my ego. Of course it'd be difficult to deal with, but it's just one of many difficult things that you have to deal with when you are injured like that!

The question wasn't posed at you. I was judging how much of a role gender played in his statement.

[olivesmarch4th]

If I said I would leave, I'd be a raving hypocrite, because my husband has chosen to stay with me despite the fact that he gets nookie an average of once every three months, with dry spells up to a year (in fact I think we are going on a year right now.)

I am the person causing the problem, but it's due to a condition that is not my fault. We've done our best to deal with it, we've tried couples therapy, etc, it's not like we ever give up hope (I'm trying to get more help as we speak), but it's something we have been forced to regard as a lower priority in our relationship. We struggled a lot to accept it in the beginning, because I kept blaming myself and feeling like it was something I alone was dealing with, but once we addressed the fact that it affects him just as much as it affects me, we were able to come together and address it as a problem we both face. Thus when we find ourselves going through a dry spell, we can come together and say ''Damn this issue!'' instead of ''Damn you!'' or ''Damn me!''

We have a very physically affectionate relationship in all other regards, very cuddly and close in a lot of ways. Lots of hugging and kissing and flirting. I do feel that touching and canoodling is necessary for a good relationship, and I would struggle to be in one where I could not touch my partner.

I consider this a rather painful circumstance, but not anything that significantly impacts the quality of my marriage. And he would agree. In fact, he gets kind of pissed off when I start the whole ''I'm sooooorrry I'm not a better wife'' stuff. He doesn't blame me, he doesn't resent me, he doesn't push me, he just loves me.

[Leaffan]

Male--I would stay, no matter what.

Believe it or not, I don't find sex to be the panacea that most others do.

[Rushgeekgirl]

I'd stay with Mig, no doubt about it. I'd be more than happy to stay. I've had more than enough sex to keep me satisfied in my life. I don't even care about it anymore.

I can't say Mig would stay though. I doubt he would unless it was physically impossible for me.

[Procrustus]

I won't be in another relationship without sex. Did that for 10 years. If my current wife couldn't have sex, I'm sure she'd suggest I get it elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure I'd stay under those circumstances. (And yes, I'd suggest the same for her if the roles were reversed)

[olivesmarch4th]

The way I look at it, no relationship is perfect. Every one has some cross to bear, some part where things just don't quite work out to be ideal. Maybe for some it's having to deal with a partner with a high-demand career, maybe for others it's having to deal with a mother-in-law who hates your guts. I just view this as the inevitable cross we have to bear -- the part of our relationship that's not ideal. That's just the way life is. We don't make it out to be more than it is but we don't sugar-coat the reality either.

[Voyager]

I voted leave no matter what, since mess around with other people is not given as an option. There are lots of ways to do it besides the normal one, way which even injured people can participate in. An absolute refusal to be interested would drive a relationship right over the edge in short order.

I'm assuming here the conditions of the OP, that this was for more or less over. There are periods of time in which things don't work out - like long trips and childbirth and young kids. Going without during them is no problem.

My wife and I have had this discussion, inspired by the frequent no-sex letters in Dear Abby, and we're on the same page.

[AClockworkMelon]

I understand that your situation sucks, Olive. But sex is too important to me. If I were with a woman who was perfect for me and I'd been with her for years and suddenly she couldn't have sex anymore but was willing to let me get it elsewhere I'd stay with her.

If I were paralyzed and couldn't have sex anymore I would not be able to handle the woman I love fucking another man. That's just how it is. I wouldn't lie about that when it came to having that discussion with my hypothetically paralyzed girlfriend.

I would rather be single than deal with what that would do to me.

[Asimovian]

Originally Posted by MeanOldLady

Edit: I've changed my mind. I can't live with just kissing and petting. Sorry. Move one "Female, but would stay if it were due to something physical" over to "I'm out. Peace."

I wasn't under the impression that the OP was excluding all affection -- just sex. Of course, we can define sex a number of ways, but I choose to see it as a lack of intercourse for this discussion.

[MeanOldLady]

Well he said "Sorry; I should have defined that better. Let's say. . .nothing beyond kissing and cuddles" as the definition of no sex. If the guy were injured, but could make some magic happen in another way, I'd stick around if I really loved him.

[AClockworkMelon]

Nm.

[Chessic Sense]

I wouldn't leave right away. If I really loved the person, I'd start cheating. I know that sounds weird, but since I can't not have sex, I need to either get it from somewhere else and stay with my partner, or I need to get it from somewhere else and leave my partner. I figure that the first option would be what she'd want.

Mind you, I'm only doing this because you said we're married or together for a long time. If it was a new relationship, I'd just drop her right from the start.

[MeanOldLady]

Originally Posted by Chessic Sense

If I really loved the person, I'd start cheating.

I LOL'd at this.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by MeanOldLady

I LOL'd at this.

It took my reading this for me to start LOLing.

[olivesmarch4th]

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

I understand that your situation sucks, Olive. But sex is too important to me.

I respect that. I'm sure there is some conceivable relationship somewhere where ''spends too much time at work'' would be a deal-breaker too. Some people might not like your double-standard, but, then again, those people are free to not have a relationship with you. It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

Not only that, but there is concrete scientific evidence that indicates that the quality of most relationships is significantly affected by lack of sex. It's a perfectly rational thing to value, and is a key facilitator of that bonding chemical oxytocin.

Who knows? If I had a normal sex life, maybe I'd be in the ''absolutely must have'' category myself. Sometimes experiences change your priorities whether consciously or not. I can only say that for me in my relationship, we've learned to adapt. And I do consider myself very fortunate to be with someone as understanding as my husband.

ETA: However, I do want to stress, he DID know what he was getting into at the start of the relationship. He was very aware and still very willing to make the commitment. So that's slightly different than the scenario the OP is envisioning.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by olivesmarch4th

I respect that. I'm sure there is some conceivable relationship somewhere where ''spends too much time at work'' would be a deal-breaker too. Some people might not like your double-standard, but, then again, those people are free to not have a relationship with you. It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

I've been in a few (read: like one and a half :P) relationships where things were pseudo-open. As in, I could see other girls but they couldn't see other guys. I never forced this type of relationship on anyone but I've gotten some outraged responses from people I've told this to. My response is always the same: "You're right, it is a double standard. But so's not wanting my girlfriend to fuck me with a strap-on."

[the lone cashew]

Sex is important to me. But there are so many other aspects I would prioritize more - interests that are of an oddball sort (like bicycling to a special spot in the wilderness just to see some unusual wildflowers, for example) and as a person who isn't into sooo many things that the mainstream seems to be (like nascar, cigarettes, tattooing, harleys, horses, going to bars and clubs) I could go without the sex to be able to connect with someone on other levels.

The lady friend I have now just turned 60 (I am 47) and she isn't as interested in sex as she used to be when a lot younger. But it's great just to hang out together since there's a high level of mutual understanding on many various topics - the ability to discuss issues, (agreeing most of the time but also able to agree to disagree without getting too pissed off at each other) - have similar interests in movies, cooking, nature scene.

And she even owned her own kayak before we met! Now how cool is that?!

It's all about compromise for me. And as much as I miss some things that I have experienced in my life, there are just too many other things I would prefer to connect on that have been difficult to find.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

After twenty years and three kids I'd stay for almost anything short of just "I don't wanna."

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by the lone cashew

The lady friend I have now just turned 60 (I am 47)

Ew.

[Anaamika]

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

Ew.

Oh, cut it out.

20 years old and he thinks he knows everything. Why, it's almost cute. Now get off my lawn, you whippersnapper.

[psycat90]

I would stay and have sex with other people. With his blessing, of course.

[Chimera]

I'd stay with no sex only as long as there was an agreement that I was free to get sex somewhere else. Given that I am not and never have been much of a ladies man, this probably means 'no sex', but hope is a wonderful thing.

[NinetyWt]

I think I'd have to be faced with it before I could answer. I'd like to think that I would stay, no matter what. I just don't know.


ETA: female.

[Hari Seldon]

At 73, married for 46 years, I will stay no matter what.

[MaddyStrut]

I'd stay if it were for physical reasons. If I loved him, then I'd find a way to deal with it (not involving cheating). Sex is important to me, but so are other things.

If it were for emotional reasons, I'd stay if he were willing to work on it. If he wasn't willing to work on it for my sake (and sex is important to me), then I'd have a hard time staying.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by psycat90

I would stay and have sex with other people. With his blessing, of course.

What if he didn't give you his blessing?

[Asimovian]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What if he didn't give you his blessing?

Dammit, Dio! Beat me to it.

[psycat90]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What if he didn't give you his blessing?

Well, he would, there is no question about that, but if for some reason he wouldn't, then.... I'd stay. I guess I'd just masturbate an awful lot. It wouldn't be the same, and while I do love sex, I love him more, and can't imagine not having him to share my life with.

[HazelNutCoffee]

If it were the relationship I have now, and it was due to something physical, then yes, I'd stay. I love the sex we have but it's only one part of our relationship. I can't imagine him denying me sex just because he doesn't feel like it. If that were the case there would be something seriously wrong with us.

The OP says a hypothetical "average" long term relationship, though (I rate my current relationship as well above average). I don't think I'd stay if that were the case, unless there were children involved. Then I might consider it.

[DigitalC]

I have lots of wonderful relationships without sex, they are called friendships.