Would you enter into a non-sexual relationship?

[DBella]

Feel like I'm in a Bill Clinton Interview, it uh depends on what you mean by sex.

Bill Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman. But she did give me a *******. And that's not sex, dammit!

 

[Ronny Shade]

The people who reject him.

I'd have to ask to be rejected

 

[Halcohol]

I'd have to ask to be rejected

Not necessarily, it could be a pre-emptive rejection. For instance:

"Just so you know, don't even think about it. No. Just... don't."

 

[Darren Daring]

That's even worse

 

[Ronny Shade]

Not necessarily, it could be a pre-emptive rejection. For instance:

"Just so you know, don't even think about it. No. Just... don't."

Maybe that happened. If it did, I wasn't paying attention.

 

[redmarvel]

Red really has shocked me on how open she is

t: Then it was worth getting out of bed today. After all, by now you ought to know I'ld rather spend the day in bed. t:

 

[Ahura Mazda]

as the elsewhere fun seeker or as the non-sexee

ummm a bit of both

 

[Ronny Shade]

as the elsewhere fun seeker or as the non-sexee

I forgot the context of that for a minute and it made zero sense whatso ever

 

[enterthemadness]

I suppose if we made out, kiss, hugged, talked, and did kinky stuff (not disgusting stuff...kinky...there's a difference folks), then...yeah, why not?

 

[War Lord]

That depends. Lots of things can happen in a relationship that causes it to become non-sexual.

Things like hysterectomies or impotence or various kinds of accidents that lop off body parts or mental disabilities.

I'd say that if the relationship, once made permanent, becomes uncontrollably non-sexual that's something I'd have to live with because a commitment is forever, but if the partner simply chooses to become non-sexual, than it's the equivalent of abandonment and the relationship can then be broken, because it is broken.

 

[Equint77]

hell ****ing no.

my goal in life is to never get in that "friend zone" with my girl-friends..

of course if they're just friends that's different.

 

[Union Jack]

i wouldnt even think of going into a relationship like that,i'm a physical kinda person so like to be all touchy feely!!

besides if you're physically attracted to someone whats the point seeing them unless you can touch them....thats why lapdances are crap...its like being in the bakery,starving hungry...with no money to eat anything with!!

for me the physical side of things is as important as the rest.

 

[cryptic name]

This isn't a 'i'll-buy-my-time-and-wish-that-someday-i-might-get-lucky' relationship.

or a 'no-sex-before-marriage' relationship.

just a guarantee that you will never have full sex with your partner. EVER. You could still have babies and children via the turkey baster method (if your relationship develops to that stage) but there will never be (full) sex.

So would ya?

try and not be too crude folks...

no.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Animals need sex,human beings need love.

 

[Kmack]

Bill Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman. But she did give me a *******. And that's not sex, dammit!

OMG we talked about this in Health class today! My teacher went on about how "oral intercourse" is actually sexual intercourse.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind entering a non-sexual relationship. It would be very refreshing imo. I always like to try something new

 

[tzarinna]

I'd be fine with it.
Eventually I'm going to want some nookie. But I'd like to get to know someone with out that being top priority.

 

[Herr Logan]

I'm not sure, maybe if everything else was really good and they were kinky to make up for it

I don't get it. Where does "kinky" come into it if it's a non-sexual relationship? Is this something where my partner does kinky things with other people and I watch? Either there's a sexual component to the relationship, or their isn't. Kinkiness usually implies sexuality, so you might want to consider editing your poll.

What does that mean, "full sex?" Does oral sex not count in your view? If that's on the table, then that's dandy with me.


The answer to the original question, ignoring the possibility that you somehow don't consider something "sex" unless it's vaginal intercourse, is "no fecking way." Either you want the whole package, or go shack up with a monk.

I don't think I could be with someone who would make a conscious decision to keep physical intimacy out of our relationship.

This is unquestionably my position on this.


While this is a valid point:

Let's hope you never experience a debilitating accident...and your partner feels the same way.

I feel this answers that satisfactorily:

Well, at that point I wouldn't be entering into a non-sexual relationship.

Maybe once I've settled into a relationship that was previously sexual and found it so fulfilling that I can't imagine being without it after an accident takes away the possibility of sex, I might stay, but there's no way in hell I would enter a serious relationship and stay in it once it's been made clear my partner won't have any form of sex with me.
That's not what I'm looking for, and nobody could ever make me feel ashamed of holding that position. Nobody should be trying to make anyone feel ashamed of being true to themselves and not accepting a relationship they think they won't be satisfied with, or for not being satisfied without sex in a long-term relationship. That's sanctimonious crap, and unrealistic. I would scoff at anyone so foolish as to think they could expect a prospective life-long partner to accept a life without sex.

It could be argued that it is cold or selfish to leave a loving partner after they suffer a physical injury that prevents them from having sex, but nobody could ever argue with any validity that it's somehow wrong, while one is not in a relationship yet, to seek only long-term relationships that satisfy their sexual needs along with their other needs. That's absurd on every level. Not that it couldn't happen, but the idea that you would expect that kind of acceptance... it's simply absurd.


Caveat: I'm answering this question as a person who is presumably within the central tendency age range. Perhaps this question would garner a completely different average response from a group of predominately older people, but for people in their mid-twenties... let's be reasonable.

 

[Herr Logan]

Then the cripple should love the other person enough to perform hours and hours of oral sex.

I approve this message?

I know I do.

that's acceptible within the realms of non-sex according to the first post (as long as the 'cripple' is fine with such).

just non- full on or whatever equivalent lesbian couples would get up to (not trying to discriminate).

would this mean you would be more willing?

Okay, see, that's ridiculous. How the hell is oral sex not "full sex" if it's performed to completion? If a person can get off from it, it's "full sex," period.

Is that a limited sex life? Yes, but it's still a sex life. Maybe I'm simply biased and could personally live with only getting oral sex if it was on a regular basis, but I'm sick of this nonsense about how oral isn't "real" sex. Maybe that's what kids in middle and high school and people who are "saving themselves" for marriage say as excuses, but in the real world, sex is sex.
The only kind I would even consider as "not real sex" is manual stimulation. That's definitely below par, at least, for my tastes.



By the way, I still can't vote on the poll because of the invalid and unclear classifications of sex in the beginning of this thread and the archaic and prudish notion that oral sex may count as "kinky."

 

[Herr Logan]

That depends. Lots of things can happen in a relationship that causes it to become non-sexual.

Things like hysterectomies or impotence or various kinds of accidents that lop off body parts or mental disabilities.

I'd say that if the relationship, once made permanent, becomes uncontrollably non-sexual that's something I'd have to live with because a commitment is forever, but if the partner simply chooses to become non-sexual, than it's the equivalent of abandonment and the relationship can then be broken, because it is broken.

This sums it up decently, despite its "traditional values" undertones.

God damn you to hell (again) for making me mostly agree with the likes of you.

 

[Crowforge]

No, why bother if there's no intimacy? Might as well play footballm, at least you'll feel a sense of acomplishment.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Bill Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman. But she did give me a *******. And that's not sex, dammit!

I've been trying to explain this to women for years...

 

[danielisthor]

what do you think marriage is after a few years or a couple of kids.

 

[zanos]

No sex at all? What's the point? Isn't that what you call being friends?

 

[cryptic name]

what do you think marriage is after a few years or a couple of kids.

the same as it's always been if you care enough to keep it that way.

 

[DBella]

OMG we talked about this in Health class today! My teacher went on about how "oral intercourse" is actually sexual intercourse.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind entering a non-sexual relationship. It would be very refreshing imo. I always like to try something new

Non-sexual as in not even oral sex or no hanky panky... in a marriage? That would be kinda hard for me coz I think that touching is very important and an extension of expressing love and affection. Teling someone you love them is great but showing them is even better.

I've been trying to explain this to women for years...

That oral sex is not sex?