# Can you picture yourself being happy in a sexless relationship?



## qingdom (Apr 5, 2011)

For those who answered yes, how much sex do you crave for to satisfy your sexual hunger? 

once a week? twice a week? more than three times a week?

once a month? twice a month?

Would you be able to deal with once a year or perhaps twice a year instead of more without going mad?

Not to say masturbation is out of the question, but it's not 'sex'... such that you need your other half to be with you.

Quite a few have mentioned they too, believe sex shouldn't be the primary reason to hold a relationship together as there are other bonds emotionally to tie people together.


----------



## Enkidu (Apr 19, 2010)

Nope. That's an impossibility for me. I tried and found out the hard way once upon a time. I don't suggest trying it, either.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

*For those who answered yes, how much sex do you crave for to satisfy your sexual hunger?*

I crave a lot of sex. I would have sex several times day if it were an option for me but I can go a long time without sex. Mostly, however, I don't go very long without sex because my primary relationship is completely platonic and we're both free to pursue romantic and sexual relationships as we see fit. My secondary relationship is also non-romantic, but we have a semi-regular sexual relationship. She's grey-ace so I let her decide when and in what ways we're sexual. If she decided she didn't want to have sex anymore that would be fine and if I found masturbation wasn't satisfying my sexual needs I'd find someone else to have sex with, but it wouldn't negatively impact our relationship at all. I couldn't resent someone for not having sex with me, a person's sexual autonomy is too important to me. If someone doesn't want it with me then that's all their is to it, no one owes it to me or anyone else to want sex no matter what our relationship status.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

If I care about the person, then yes. I've been in a relationship before with a woman who I later found out had been raped, and as a result, she was understandably uncomfortable with sex. I respected it and didn't pressure her to do something she wasn't comfortable with (nor do I pressure any woman to do anything she isn't comfortable with). As far as now, it's been a while since I last had sex anyway, so it wouldn't really make a difference at this point.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

qingdom said:


> Not to say masturbation is out of the question, but it's not 'sex'


Nonsense. Statements like this are partly due to the idea that anything that can't potentially result in procreation isn't "sex," and partly to do with phallocentrism, which doesn't consider anything other than penile-vaginal penetration to be "sex."



> Intercourse does not define all that sex is; fellatio, cunnilingus, ‘mutual masturbation’ and even nipple manipulation are surely ‘sex’, as indeed are private masturbation and any other activities undertaken to arouse or enhance sexual desire and lead to orgasm. It is perfectly reasonable to say that we have sex with ourselves when we masturbate, although no penetration may be involved.


----------



## Siren (Jun 25, 2011)

No way. I'm forceed to be sexless at the moment as I'm in a LDR but when we do see each other we can't keep our hands off each other. Ideally I would have sex 3-4 times a week.


----------



## Yardiff Bey (Jun 5, 2011)

No. If there's no sex involved, then there's no children gonna come along, and no need to be together in that way.

Assuming that I'm in a relationship (ie marriage or even cohabiting) with no sex: at that point what's happening is that I'm supporting someone else financially for no gain. I can be friends with someone without having sex with them, yet why should I voluntarily and continually support a friend monetarily?

Wilfully supporting someone, allowing them to sponge off my sweat and effort, letting them direct how I should spend my efforts and life, and have them bitch at me randomly for any or no particular reason - just because they're PMSing or have had a bad day. I'm not that messed up in the head!


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

I may be able to do without for a while, but ultimately, the option has to be there. So no, I can't picture it.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

I could do it. Masturbation works fine for me. Plus, I'd rather be with someone who I like, love, and enjoy spending time with more than someone I could have sex with. Sex is good and all, but if I had to choose, I'd choose the former every time. Also, I always think about what would happen if my partner got injured and was unable to have sex. I wouldn't mind. Life is too short to worry so much about sex.


----------



## Brianne (Nov 19, 2011)

Yes. I could be (and am) happy with my sexless relationships. Let's see, there's my best friend, my boss, my parents, brothers, etc. etc...
I'm interpreting this question my own way. So there.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

My immediate gut reaction was "No, of course not!" but... the more I ponder over it... maybe I could. Love is so much more than just sex, and vibrators exist for a reason. It obviously wouldn't be ideal, but I could make the sacrifice if I was in love with that person and felt they were truly perfect for me otherwise.

Note: I doubt I would enter a relationship if it had to be sexless from the very beginning, but I wouldn't leave a relationship if it met the parameters I stated above and then suddenly became sexless for whatever reason. I'm thinking more medical reasons here and not just a sudden "Hhhhmph, I don't wanna have sex anymore" revelation or anything like that.


----------



## basementbugs (Apr 5, 2012)

For sure. Sex is not important to me in the least. Occasionally I can enjoy it, and I understand why people like it, but I really have no sexual needs whatsoever and most of the time, I feel I'd _rather_ be in a relationship that didn't involve sex. Masturbation isn't important to me, either. It's no different to me than the idea of going on a roller coaster; can be fun now and then, but my life would not be missing anything if I never bothered to do it again.

There's a reason my husband and I met on an asexual forum, haha. I'm not sure if I'm completely asexual, but sex is just so very unimportant to me. I'm glad I've found someone to whom it's equally unimportant, as it means there's never any pressure to have sex. We will if we want to... but it's pretty rare. I think it's been somewhere near four months since the last time and I'm quite happy this way.


----------



## Deathbagel (Feb 18, 2012)

I voted yes. I could be happy with a person without sex, obviously. But... I'm not sure I could be happy with never having sex ever (or ever from any given point in time). I don't think I could live my life purely chaste. I'd want sex eventually, but I could wait a while.


----------



## hackm (Apr 19, 2012)

No.

For a man, a relationship is two things: beautiful and mind-numbing.

The sex is beautiful and the rest is mind-numbing.

Remove the sex and the relationship is mind-numbing.


----------



## DefLeppardTShirt (Oct 22, 2010)

no sex means its a friendship, and it's healthy to have many friends at one time, but not many sex partners, so at that point the relationship is not unique or special in any way


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

Why would I do so? Don't we call that a friendship?
One of my closest friends is a woman and I view her like a sister. We are very close and I love her like family but we are not in a relationship, we are friends.

I feel confident I can care for someone I don't have sex with, but I don't understand how that could be a relationship. The purpose of finding a mate is to mate. If there is no mating that person is not my mate, although they could still be one of my mates.

If we're talking late in life, unfortunate tragedy, or situations like that, well I'll have to make that choice when I come to it. I know better than to think I could predict its outcome right now.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I would, why not? After a while, people become best friends and the relationship progresses to another level anyway. I think for me, what's more important is if I can share intellectual conversations with someone and at the same time feel that heart-to-heart connection. Sex in the beginning may be there and may be great, but nothing can really replace having that best-friend bond that makes me feel understood and warmly accepted for who I am.

Besides, I think if someone primarily enjoyed me for sex and our relationship didn't grow anywhere beyond that, I'd start to question how irreplaceable the relationship is, which I'd consider it to be a dime a dozen. And, if someone likes me for just the physical aspects they could easily drop me in a heart beat once I started getting old and show signs of aging. Best friend bonds- no matter how old we get, we still feel young together.. our connection is more spiritual. How beautiful is that?


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

Yup, it wouldn't bother me any. But I'm demi, so it's never been in issue one way or the other.


----------



## basementbugs (Apr 5, 2012)

For those who say that a relationship without sex is simply a friendship... while that may be true for some people, it's not that way for everyone. As I mentioned in my other post in this thread, my husband and I have a more-or-less sexless relationship and neither of us would be bothered if we never got to have sex again. There are other things we share, though, that certainly make our relationship far more than just a platonic friendship. I don't feel romantic love for my friends or family, I don't cuddle with them, I don't kiss them, I'm not comfortable sharing every single thing that crosses my mind with them, I don't really express myself in very emotionally-intimate ways with them, etc. There's just such a huge difference. Of course I do care for my husband in the friend and family sense as well, as he's both a friend (my best friend, actually) and someone I consider part of my family, but there's more to it than that. The romantic element is undeniably there -- and actually, it has very little to do with whatever sexual interaction we've chosen to have. Although sex can occasionally be fun, it has absolutely nothing to do with love for me. (Although, simply because of personal views, I would likely never have sex with someone I wasn't close to; that makes even less sense to me.)

Anyway, I completely understand that many people find sex and romance to be connected, and would consider a sexless relationship to be some form of friendship instead -- and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course -- but it's not that way for everyone -- which is also okay.


----------



## Dashing (Sep 19, 2011)

Nope. Simply doesn't work for me. If I find someone I really really really like I want to share every possible emotion, and sex is a strong one. Maybe I'm just a very sexual person but I enjoy every part of it. Denying me that in a relationship will lead to me breaking up to prevent cheating.


----------



## basementbugs (Apr 5, 2012)

@Cat King Cole Ah okay, gotcha then.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

I could.. but only for a limited time.


----------



## Cat King Cole (Mar 11, 2012)

You do raise a good point though, @cuddlebug. I think "benign" affection, outside the context of a relationship is bad news. A "cuddle buddy" implies you're trying to service some needs while shirking responsibilities that come with the territory of a proper relationship IMO, and would make me instantly too suspicious to even be friends. This is my own issues with unshakeable paranoia in dealing with others speaking, though, and I'm not offering it as a prescription for what A Relationship Ought To Be.

Now, could I be in a celibate relationship that had all the other hallmarks of what I'd expect, like sharing time and experiences and commitment? It's an interesting question, and not one I can answer from experience; hence not one I can comfortable answer at all. If I have to speculate, I don't think so, because I'd have to draw lines I don't really want to.

As a thought experiment, to isolate the different factors, if I had someone who checked off all the items on my list but only wanted to cuddle and gaze at the heavens, I'd just cut the cuddling, but let's be great friends underneath the starry skies and the auspices of the drifting clouds.

It is interesting how we draw lines about what we find acceptable, and the relationship boxes we put people in. A "romantic friendship" with florid declarations of affection is fine for me, but an "affectionate friendship" with anything more than a best bros hug is not. And yeah, you're absolutely right, that's very personally my sense of what relationships ought to be


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

L said:


> I have a question for everyone that needs sex in the relationship, what if it was just bad sex?


If someone keeps having sex and it doesn't get better they have a very unfortunate learning disorder. If you have a lover and the sex never gets better that's a pretty good sign of sexual incompatibility. If you're paying attention you'll learn something and it should get better. If you're not paying attention.....well that too is a pretty clear sign, if someone is having sex and has to zone out to do it, then they probably shouldn't be wasting their time on that sex.


----------



## Antichrist (Apr 6, 2012)

No.

Sexual connection and reciprocity is extremely important for most long term relationships. I find it ludicrous for anyone to truly believe that a relationship could function without it; a healthy individual has carnal and lustful urges when they truly have an amazing mutual connection. Factoring sex out of a relationship is just like taking any flour out of a cake recipe. It can only work if you think pudding is a delicious cake.


----------



## basementbugs (Apr 5, 2012)

Antichrist said:


> Sexual connection and reciprocity is extremely important for most long term relationships. I find it ludicrous for anyone to truly believe that a relationship could function without it; a healthy individual has carnal and lustful urges when they truly have an amazing mutual connection. Factoring sex out of a relationship is just like taking any flour out of a cake recipe. It can only work if you think pudding is a delicious cake.


First you say "most long term relationships", so I assume you're acknowledging that not _all_ long term relationships need to involve sex (even if those that don't constitute a very small portion)... but then you go on to say that you "find it ludicrous for anyone to truly believe that a relationship could function without it". Just thought I'd point out that by way of being a member of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network for eight years now, I've met many individuals who have healthy and fulfilling romantic relationships, including marriages and other long term partnerships, that don't involve any sex. The vast majority of them seem to be healthy individuals -- or at least, the healthy/unhealthy ratio seems to be on par with society as a whole.

Of course, for most people who are sexual (hetero-, ****-, bi-, pan-, whatever), sex is a necessary component in a romantic relationship, yes. It's just not that way for everyone.


----------



## Antichrist (Apr 6, 2012)

@basementbugs

Fair enough. 

I'll assert my position for normal heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual individuals who are not lacking in their primal instincts and have developed healthy physical/emotional attractions towards their own species in a sexual manner. 

Note: No one misinterpret this statement as a jab against asexuals.


----------



## basementbugs (Apr 5, 2012)

Antichrist said:


> @basementbugs
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> ...


I definitely don't interpret it as one, and yes, I agree with you. I have yet to meet anyone who was "fully sexual" who wouldn't eventually become distressed by an entirely sexless relationship or a complete loss of their own sex drive. That's probably when one should consider heading to the doctor, as sex does seem to be important for a healthy relationship for most people. Sexual incompatibility seems to be one of the most common reasons for relationships not working out.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

So people who are incapable of engaging in sexual activity for any number of health related reasons are thereby never going to have the chance at romance then? Unless they were already in a relationship, ended up in some accident, and thus have a partner who feels obligated to remain there out of some sense of sacrificial duty, of course.

Now *that* I find ludicrous. :dry:

Anything can happen to anyone at anytime that makes sex no longer a possibility, assuming it ever was to begin with. It doesn't mean they'll never find love, or be able to have a long term, committed, romantic relationship. You could drive to work tomorrow, end up in a crash, and be paralyzed from the waist down. Are you single? Well, sucks for you. Forever alone. Apparently.

Expect to be with your SO until you die? What if you live to be 100 and you can no longer have the sex at, oh, I dunno, say 75? Gonna separate for those last 25 years cuz that magical Orgasm duct tape that held your "relationship" together faded away? Yeah, didn't think so. Or what if you're 80, single (widowed or whatever) and meet someone great who could be your SO but you're never going to have sex with them? Oh well. Guess there's no relationship there.

Gimme a break. Sex is a sign of affection, but it's not the only one. It's not even the one that can last. Hell, it's the thing that breaks up relationships, more often than rather keep them together.

"He's a great provider. He loves his kids. He has a great job. I love the guy, but we have a boring sex life, so I'm going to get a divorce."
"She's a wonderful mother and an amazing cook, but she's lousy in bed. Gonna have to get a girl on the side. You know, 'work late' every now and then."

Anyway, just my take. Figured I'd put that pedestal on a more realistic level before it's so high up no one can actually see it anymore. P


----------



## daydr3am (Oct 20, 2010)

I could be content in a sexless relationship, but not happy. Sex is how my partner and I bond. It's a way of showing our affection for each other without words. One of the greatest pleasures in my life is pleasuring my SO. Us being exhausted, cuddling, and falling asleep together afterward is great too.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I can imagine almost anything, but that doesn't mean I would prefer it. It would depend on my partner's reasons for not wanting to have sex with me. Each individual case would be different.

If he were a virgin waiting for the ideal time, a panromantic homosexual, an asexual, had health issues, or wanted to remain non-sexual for spiritual purposes, I think I could be happy in a sexless relationship indefinitely, but only if we had other ways of expressing affection. I couldn't be happy in a relationship in which I never felt loved or cared for. Sexual bonding is one of the most powerful ways of expressing emotional connectedness. There would have to be some other way of sharing those same feelings, or else I would eventually start to feel like the relationship was missing something. 

That being said, I have been in six relationships, and half of them have been non-sexual, by mutual choice. I haven't ever had a problem with respecting a partner's sexual boundaries, and I would far rather be with someone who wanted to wait for sex than with someone who was sexually pushy, who made me feel disrespected or objectified.

If a partner were sexually neglecting me to punish me for not looking a certain way, or were doing it to communicate his rejection of me, or if he were withholding sex to express his desire to detach from me emotionally, then I would not be okay with it.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@_GoodOldDreamer_ 

People don't tend to think like the crude examples you've given, it tends to be that they have natural sexual desires that aren't being satisfied in the relationship. Regardless of how 'strong' some people may think they are, until they've been in the situation of being in sexless relationship you have no idea how powerful the unconscious desire is to be fulfilled sexually. And it can be a painful experience to see the years unfold in your life and to never experience a fulfilling sex-life.

I don't personally like perspectives that either paint sex as the most important aspect of a relationship, or as inconsequential - I don't think either are realistic or healthy assesments.

A relationship is supposed to be a mutually beneficial association - and sexual fulfilment is a natural and strong desire. It's nothing to be ashamed of if a deep desire (sex, affection, communication, quality time, etc) isn't and can't be fulfilled in a relationship and you want out.


----------



## Alice_Morgan (Dec 14, 2011)

Yes.
Granted, this is coming from a girl who has never had nor desired for sex, but despite this, I'd like to think I could live with such a relationship.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jul 18, 2010)

No way. I feel that sex and physical attraction are necessary ingredients needed for a really great relationship. It isn't all about sex, but there is enough evidence to support that, biologically-speaking, humans need to get off or they start to go crazy. Just as all sex and no emotional connection would not be a very good relationship, all emotional connection and no sex would be the same way.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

I voted no based on past experience, but I don't think this is really something so black and white. I want intimacy, and physical expression of emotional love. I also know that there are powerful bonding hormones involved that strengthen relationships. I haven't experienced that without sex. If I could get that without sex, I think I could be happy.


----------



## The King Of Dreams (Aug 18, 2010)

Stephen said:


> I voted no based on past experience, but I don't think this is really something so black and white. I want intimacy, and physical expression of emotional love. I also know that there are powerful bonding hormones involved that strengthen relationships. I haven't experienced that without sex. If I could get that without sex, I think I could be happy.


Well, okay, but I'm not sure @Kayness will be too happy seeing us together like that...... LOL jk


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Wow, given the nearly equal number of votes for yes and no, I'd say that might partially explain why there are over 25,000 members to this group...I Live In a Sexless Marriage | Group with Personal Stories, Forums and Chat

Either that, or the virgins are clouding the results.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Enfpleasantly said:


> Either that, or the virgins are clouding the results.


Sorry...:sad:


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

It's been three years since last time I've had sex, so yeah, I think I could handle it.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Of course I could, I have little interest in sex.


----------



## hello HELLO (Mar 11, 2012)

I don't need sex to be "happy" but having sex would make me a lot happi*er*. Different kinds of "happiness" exist, and though sex ≠ intimacy, sex contributes to a certain kind of happiness.

Although sex shouldn't be the only thing holding a relationship together (and it definitely does not make a relationship), it does fulfill a deep emotional need (being desired, worthy, special, cherished, etc) for both parties. Like other posters have said, oxytocin, released during sex, has been shown to contribute to pair bonding. It's pure science, I promise.

I think those who are downplaying its importance are only lying to themselves (religious, moral reasons, etc), or are virgins, or aren't doing it right.

Though one thing I have to say, it can cloud your judgment temporarily about someone


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

hello HELLO said:


> I think those who are downplaying its importance are only lying to themselves (religious, moral reasons, etc), or are virgins, or aren't doing it right.


I agree that the virgins aren't doing it right :wink: but there are people with low sex drives or asexual tendencies who can live without it in a relationship without it being linked to loving someone 'despite' what they're missing out on. The 'not doing it right' way of viewing things puts it through a lens of your experience, reality is not everyone values it the same way. Can't say I get that myself but it's not about lying to themselves.


----------



## leadintea (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm not a huge fan of sex at all and can go several months without it, but if I'm in a relationship, there has to be some sort of sexual activity we do every once in a while or else the relationship will fail quickly.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Personally, I could be happy in a sexless relationship. They would have to accept the fact that I would have to release that tension somehow however. 

My personal view is that I am happy as I am now (mostly) and do not have an active sex life, so with someone where there is an emotional relationship, I would be happier than I am now. Therefore, I would be happy. Obviously, sex just acts as a nice cherry-on-top. It also subconsciously acts as the driving force for just wanting a relationship, whether you have sex or not.


----------



## chrisu (Mar 6, 2012)

yes, i can and i do. one of my relationships is nonsexual.
we have sex with our other partners, but this one connection doesn't include desire. just a lot of endearment, love and closeness.
it's not that we consciously decided not to have sex. we do whatever feels right to us and that contained one incident of... something, not considered sex by most people, in six years.


----------



## HorribleAesthete (Aug 5, 2010)

No. While I can be quite content for long periods without sex, I could not be happy in a sexless relationship.


----------



## FreeSpirit (Jun 1, 2011)

Here's the funny part: You'd better hope you said "Yes"
or no 50 year long marriage for YOU, bub.


----------



## telepariah (Jun 20, 2011)

My marriage is sexless. There, I said it. I have not had sex for 15 years. I'd be lying if I denied that it bothers me a lot. But love is more than sex. My wife is unable to have sex and has zero libido. I gave up trying to turn her on a long time ago. Before, I would have answered no. But here I am. Overall, I am happy in ways that are not defined by my relationship. This is what I think. You either are or are not happy. And that should be the baseline before entering into a relationship. My love and my commitment to her is separate from my sex drive. I've accepted that I will more than likely never have sex again in my life. But I still love her and will do anything to support her personal growth.


----------



## emperor_domi (May 2, 2012)

I couldn't do it. I was actually in one once because he lived across the country, but it wasn't completely sexless because we both had webcams. I was unhappy in that relationship for a number of other reasons. But a purely sexual relationship where the person didn't even want to see me naked let alone masturbating or having intercourse with me......it wouldn't last.


----------



## Elveni (Feb 22, 2012)

I may be a virgin who has never been in an actual relationship, but I still answered no. Mostly because I can't imagine there being any valid reason not to, unless the other person was physically incapable, in which case I'm completely unsure of what I would do.

(I notice most, if not all, ENTP's that commented here voted no.


----------



## waitwhat... (Feb 24, 2012)

I actually voted no, because I believe that there is so much in sex in a relationship that brings you closer together as a couple. I've noticed that in my relationships that there is a lot more tension and fighting when we aren't having sex, than when we are. I don't know what it is about sex, that relieves this (maybe certain hormones come into play here), but I do feel much more secure and less anxiety in a relationship with sex.


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

I don't really think that is something i would want. I have a sex drive that isn't small and I don't see much point of going past friendship if there is no possibility of sex. 

I'm not exactly proud of that but thats honestly how i feel


----------



## Disfigurine (Jan 1, 2011)

No.

Not in a romantic relationship.
No sexual connection = friendship.

For me, not anyone else. I need that intimacy, or I become completely detached.
If I'm detached, I might as well be single.
That's just how I work.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

SenhorFrio said:


> I don't really think that is something i would want. I have a sex drive that isn't small and I don't see much point of going past friendship if there is no possibility of sex.
> 
> I'm not exactly proud of that but thats honestly how i feel


I don't think it's healthy to either be proud or ashamed of that desire. Desiring sexual intimacy in a relationship is no less 'selfish' than desiring basic affection, quality time, honesty, etc


----------



## Finaille (Aug 8, 2010)

I voted no, at least not for a marriage relationship. I like the idea of separation between relationships... I mean really if I didn't choose to have sex with my fiance then how would it just be different than my relationships with my best friends? I like the idea of establishing close intimacy and getting to know my partner on an extremely physical level... not just an emotional one.


----------



## Kaspa (Jul 11, 2011)

Nope - too sexual being for that matter.


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

waitwhat... said:


> I actually voted no, because I believe that there is so much in sex in a relationship that brings you closer together as a couple. I've noticed that in my relationships that there is a lot more tension and fighting when we aren't having sex, than when we are. I don't know what it is about sex, that relieves this (maybe certain hormones come into play here), but I do feel much more secure and less anxiety in a relationship with sex.


That's interesting because for me it's the exact opposite. I find there's more tension and fighting when there's more sex in the relationship. However, in my case that's probably because having more sex means that I'm being pushed beyond my natural drives.

Having sex when I'm not really interested is one of the most mentally and emotionally draining things that I can do to myself. It breeds massive resentment towards my partner, leading to more fighting and arguments.


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie (Apr 11, 2012)

Yes, and I'm not sure if many people are considering what happens once you are married for a very long time and then something suddenly happens, such as a chronic illness or emotional trauma, that prevents your partner from desiring sex. 

Are the people who are saying "No" also saying that they would divorce their long time mate because they were unable or unwilling to have sex with them? 


- ZDD


----------



## Nintendo 64 (Feb 13, 2012)

Happy? Yes.

Truly happy? Nope. 

Either way there better be a whole lot of cuddling <3


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

NFW

Good sex is certainly not the only necessary element in a relationship, or even the most important one, but it's definitely an essential one.


----------



## ShiningArmour (May 9, 2012)

Not a chance I would be happy... I need physical love just as much as i need emotional love i mean damn i can respect that people are different but damn that would be one boring relationship...


----------



## Wasp (Apr 29, 2011)

Gut reaction was No. But i can see how people might answer yes. 

... My answer is still No, however. Perhaps my intuition is right. 

Although, perhaps i didn't fully read the question right. I automatically imagined what my fantasized idea of happy is... and, to be frank many of my "happy" places are sexual fantasies. In dreamland, being sexually satisfied is as automatic to hope for as world peace is. I mean, sure, there's possibility of being happy without world peace, but if it's available, why go without?


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

It kind of depends on how long said relationship is. If it's after too long, I might not be as much. I haven't had a lot of experience, but my desires don't quite match up to that.


----------



## blackpeppergeneral (Nov 7, 2011)

I am not able to picture myself in one, but as for being in one - it isn't necessary.


----------



## 3053 (Oct 14, 2009)

no.way. !!


----------



## KittyKraz13 (Jan 3, 2012)

I _could_, but I wouldn't want to. But I'm currently in a sexless relationship right now and I'm very happy, so yes.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I could be happy without sex. It's been 19 years without, so I'm fine. I can give myself an orgasm when I want to. I just want the emotional closeness and warmth,


----------



## Symphi (Oct 16, 2011)

I'm withholding my vote, but offering my opinion;

I'm still a virgin. 3 boyfriends later. So currently yes, sexless relationships are just fine with me. I've kept them this way on purpose. However, sharing intimacy and tender moments with a partner is a must. I want to trust and be close to someone, moreso than any of my friendships. My significant others are always friends, but they are also the ones who know my hidden vulnerabilities and strengths.

Touchy shenanigans still happen when my partner and I are feeling like it, so it depends on your definition of "sex" I suppose.

If I was married?... No, probably not. I know myself enough to know that I'd crave that connection with my husband pretty constantly. I'm hot-blooded under an armor of self-control.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Eh, I resisted answering this, but I might as well.

Yes, as long as it was an open relationship.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

_Hell _no. I guess I'm just an animal.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Infrared said:


> _Hell _no. I guess I'm just an animal.


Yes, you are an animal. All humans are animals. Even those that aren't as influenced by their more primitive instincts.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Yes, you are an animal. All humans are animals. Even those that aren't as influenced by their more primitive instincts.


We are all _influenced_ by them, but some people _suppress_ them to unhealthy extents, thereby still being affected indirectly, while others try to understand them and aren't ashamed they are there.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Spades said:


> We are all _influenced_ by them, but some people _suppress_ them to unhealthy extents, thereby still being affected indirectly, while others try to understand them and aren't ashamed they are there.


Oh yeah, we all are, although there's a difference between how influenced a highly sexual, high sex-drive person and an asexual, low sex-drive person are.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> All humans are animals. Even those that aren't as influenced by their more primitive instincts.





Spades said:


> We are all _influenced_ by them, but some people _suppress_ them to unhealthy extents, thereby still being affected indirectly, while others try to understand them and aren't ashamed they are there.


Both of you pretty much outlined my drift, without me outright saying it in my comment. You are both right.


----------



## Nixu (Jun 2, 2010)

I voted no. My sex drive is just too strong, and I think sex and lovemaking has it's part in a relationship. However, the other stuff definitely has to be here too. It's not even close to the most important thing, but it's important.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Oh yeah, we all are, although there's a difference between how influenced a highly sexual, high sex-drive person and an asexual, low sex-drive person are.


Oh definitely, but that says nothing about how much they're influenced by other instincts =)

For some people it would be a bigger deal to be in a sexless relationship than others. For some people it would be a bigger deal to lose weight than others. Genetic variation, yay!


----------

