The premise, like marriage, sucks.
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.
I wouldn’t want either, either, but I have to mention this Woody Allen quote:
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?
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.
I think it’s a trick question. How do you define “sexless” love?
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.
To paraphrase a quote erroneously attributed to Winston Churchill:: “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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.