relationships and sex

[darkoshi]

The following questions came up during a conversation (are lj-posts considered conversation?) with theazureman. In case anyone else would like to express their opinions on any of them, I'm posting them here.

1. Does a marriage/close partnership-type relationship need some form of regular intimate physical contact, whether sexual or otherwise, to survive?

2. If your significant other rarely, or never, wanted to have sex with you, would this make you to feel that they didn't really care about you anymore?

3. Is there such a thing as love without sex? (Excluding parent-child type love, I suppose... but that gets into the whole issue of what love really is.) Perhaps I should rephrase that. Is there such a thing as romantic love without sex? (which probably depends on what "romantic" really means...)

4. Is a relationship without sex really just a friendship, and not love?

5a. Is it possible to have an enjoyable marriage/relationship where one person wants sex but the other doesn't? (between a given 2 people, either in a monogamous or poly situation)

5b. If both people were to agree that the person who wanted sex could have sexual relations with other people, could the non-sexual relationship between the initial 2 people still survive without diminishing in quality?

5c. Would such sexual relationships with other people feel more satisfying and/or important to the person having them, than their non-sexual relationship with the initial person?

6. All other aspects being equal, is a relationship with sex always better than one without it?


Bah. I feel so stupid sometimes. Some of the answers to these questions seem obvious. But it all depends on... a lot of factors, I suppose.

Comments

[heron61.livejournal.com]

1. Does a marriage/close partnership-type relationship need some form of regular intimate physical contact, whether sexual or otherwise, to survive?

Not at all. I lived with my friend Aaron for 11 years in a non-sexual close-bonded friendship. I was less happy then than now because most of this time I didn't have a lover, but having a secondary relationship with a lover and a primary relationship with a non-sexual life-partner seems perfectly reasonable (primary and secondary being terms from polyamory discourse).

2. If your significant other rarely, or never, wanted to have sex with you, would this make you to feel that they didn't really care about you anymore?

My primary partner is a highly sexual person, so such a change would mean that she was severely depressed or otherwise troubled or that she loved me less.

3. Is there such a thing as love without sex? (Excluding parent-child type love, I suppose... but that gets into the whole issue of what love really is.) Perhaps I should rephrase that. Is there such a thing as romantic love without sex? (which probably depends on what "romantic" really means...)

I do not distinguish in feelings between people I want as lovers and people I want as close friends (such is the result of me being both bi and poly). In general, when I meet someone (and they are fairly infrequent) who I feel a close bond with, I end up their very close friend if they see the relationship as one of non-sexual partners and as their lover if they see such relationship as a sexual one. I don't particularly feel closer to lovers than to very close friends.

4. Is a relationship without sex really just a friendship, and not love?

I love everyone that I am significantly close to. These days, that is 3 people, only one of whom is a lover.

5a. Is it possible to have an enjoyable marriage/relationship where one person wants sex but the other doesn't? (between a given 2 people, either in a monogamous or poly situation)

Being in that situation is begging for disaster. I've seen such relationships and they are never stable. There are two answers (assuming both people's feelings aren't changeable) - either the two people need to separate or the person who wishes sex needs to find another primary, secondary or tertiary partner with whom they can have sex. The 2nd option can certainly be done w/o compromising the initial relationship. In fact, I know of several examples of such relationships and they can be extremely stable.

5b. If both people were to agree that the person who wanted sex could have sexual relations with other people, could the non-sexual relationship between the initial 2 people still survive without diminishing in quality?

In my experience, it certainly can. The best option is for the person who wanted to have sex to find lovers who were poly and had no desire to end the person's relationship with the non-sexual partner, and if at all possible, partners who got along well with the non-sexual partner and who could at minimum be casual friends with them.

5c. Would such sexual relationships with other people feel more satisfying and/or important to the person having them, than their non-sexual relationship with the initial person?

I don't see any reason why this would need to be true.

6. All other aspects being equal, is a relationship with sex always better than one without it?

No, definitely not.

[andrewducker]

There is no always. There are no guidelines. There are no procedures.

In my experience (and from the external evidence I've seen) most people would not survive in a relationship without sex, and will move from love to friendship with someone they aren't having sex with.

To most people, love is a very passionate, emotional feeling. They are swept up in it and they desire the person they love with almost physical intensity.

But... there are always people that are different. Some people will be happy not to have sex. But there are a lot less of them.

Oh, and Gina/Ed, my transexual ex, felt the same as you. Interestingly, since changing the gender he identifies with, he's now interested in sexual relationships. Lord, that was a very frustrating time for me.

Completely off topic...

[theazureman.livejournal.com]

I'm not here to answer these again; I gave already. But I'm glad to see you posted them.

I added you, but you probably already know. So hi.

I read some of the stuff you had posted on your website, in a half-ass attempt to get to know you a little better. I feel like I do, a little. You're surprisingly candid, and that's a good thing.

One thing I noticed, moving from your views on gender to your erotic fantasies, is this fascination you have with the assumptions of a male/female dichotomy.

You're familiar with a double-bind, right? It's where someone wants to do or be something, but simultaneously forbids themselves from doing or being that very thing. ...wait.

Specifically: So many of your fantasies seem to involve power. Someone "dominant" who overpowers you, and your "surrender" to them. What I'm saying is, you've built up this rejection of the feminine to the extent that it's a touchpoint for your whole personality - it's integral to holding your beliefs together.

You're so freakin' tough-minded, always removed, always trying to be objective, resisting emotional commitment when you discuss even your erotic temperament.

And when you discuss the past, it's so apparent that you view it as a struggle against the traditional feminine social expectation. There's nothing wrong with that, but you've taken it to such an extreme. I sense that even if you had a whim of doing something "girly," you'd browbeat yourself out of it before it came to fruition.

You resist the feminine with such intensity. You struggle against it, reject it, and will fight it continually without ever considering surrender. And that might be where you've gotten bound up (and not in a BDSM way).

Because part of intimacy, of desire, of sexuality, is submission (again, not in a BDSM way). It's simply surrendering control of your desire to its object, in the hope that something good will come of it.

Scary. Risky. "Weak," in the sense that it demands the surrendering of power, control. It's feminine, in the most archetypal, yin / water / yielding way, whether a man or a woman is the one doing it (& from my view on this side of the fence, the boys give it up more than the girls).

I don't know you at all, really, but this really hit me, and I thought I should share it. Take it or leave it, for what it's worth.

We're all masculine. We're all feminine. Rejecting either side of that equation makes us less open, and leaves us with fewer options.

Well, that's my 2 cents. Read you later~

Re: Completely off topic... (part 1)

[darkoshi]

You're so freakin' tough-minded, always removed, always trying to be objective, resisting emotional commitment when you discuss even your erotic temperament.

Yes, I try to be objective when thinking about things or trying to figure them out.
But in what way do I seem to be resisting emotional commitment when I discuss things?

And when you discuss the past, it's so apparent that you view it as a struggle against the traditional feminine social expectation.

Well, no, I don't view my past as a struggle against traditional expectations, or really even a struggle at all. I've just been the way I've been; it's all happened quite naturally.
I suppose you might mean things like me "struggling" against my parents wanting me to wear dresses? That might have been a struggle of sorts, but really not much different from any kid not liking what clothes their parents have chosen for them.
I don't feel that the world is acting against me, or that I'm struggling against it... I just feel like I don't fit in much of the time. And that's not just on gender issues, but also my shyness / non-sociableness.

I sense that even if you had a whim of doing something "girly," you'd browbeat yourself out of it before it came to fruition.

hmmm... What kind of things do you mean by "girly"? I suppose you might be right, as there are many things that I would consider "girly" and wouldn't want to do. But that is mostly because I don't have any interest in doing them.

I did recently wear a skirt to work for the first (non-Halloween) time... over a pair of pants. It was a novel experience, although too much trouble to be worth doing on a more frequent basis. (makes using the bathroom complicated).
I have considered wearing the skirt without pants underneath... and, yes, I have reservations about that idea, which might indeed be because of the "feminine" look it would give me. But there are also practical reasons against it (air-conditioning would make my legs cold; so I would ought to wear tights or nylons underneath, but I don't like them because they feel icky... I might wear my stretch pants instead, but that's not all that different from wearing pants then.)

And I have considered wearing nail-polish, black specifically. But that is perhaps because I can imagine androgynous people, both male and female, having black nails. I wouldn't care for red nails... There's really no reason to be against red, except that it is a common color for women to wear. I don't want to look like a typical woman, because I don't feel like a typical woman, and I don't want other people to see me as a typical woman. But that doesn't seem like browbeating to me. It's a choice, based on logical reasons. Now, my not wanting to be seen as a typical woman might be less than logical. It's based on biases/prejudices in my head...

Let's see... what have I done that might be considered girly?... That's a hard one. Obviously, if I've done it, it can't be all that girly! LOL
I bleached my hair this year. But guys do that too.
I pluck the occasional hairs from my chin. Does that count?
I don't particularly want to use men's restrooms, because I have a notion that they must be dirtier and yuckier than the women's restrooms. Is not liking dirty/yucky bathrooms girly?
I like being clean, and don't like getting dirty (although I don't overly fret over it). Is that girly?
I think it's much easier to let automotive shops change the oil on my car, than to do it myself, especially considering how yucky and dirty I would get trying to do it myself (even if I knew how). Is that girly?
I like the color pink, especially hot-pink. Now, that's girly, isn't it?! Although I also like most bright colors, and I don't particularly associate liking bright colors with femininity. However, there does seem to be a masculine tendency against wearing bright colors, so does being non-masculine on this amount to girlyness?

Re: Completely off topic... (part 2)

[darkoshi]

In fact I am non-masculine in many ways, and that is part of why I don't really consider myself transsexual or FTM. I would have a hard time fitting in as a male. Much too shy, soft-spoken, non-aggressive, etc.

I agree that we are all have feminine and masculine parts. I don't want to exclude my femininity nor my masculinity. But I consider true "femininity" to be different than those things that culture has often defined as feminine, and it is mostly the latter that I am biased against, as well as assumptions that females (and therefore me) are mostly feminine and that males are mostly masculine.

Because part of intimacy, of desire, of sexuality, is submission (again, not in a BDSM way). It's simply surrendering control of your desire to its object, in the hope that something good will come of it.

Scary. Risky. "Weak," in the sense that it demands the surrendering of power, control. It's feminine, in the most archetypal, yin / water / yielding way, whether a man or a woman is the one doing it (& from my view on this side of the fence, the boys give it up more than the girls).

I haven't had any real-life objects of desire to surrender to... There might be reasons for that beyond just not having come across any. It's something for me to think about.

And I don't think I have a problem with the general idea of submitting or surrendering control, if it is to the right person (that's the difficult part though, which might be the double-bind you speak of). In fact, my fantasies have made it quite clear to me that I yearn to surrender. And as long as I don't think of myself submitting from a female submissive perspective, it doesn't bother me. I usually view myself as non-female (non-male / androgyne / whatever) anyway, so any situation I would get in wouldn't be as a female submissive... But I would also need to feel that my friend/lover didn't view me as a (typical) female. Which is a serious issue in my head, I think. But I am realizing/discovering that there are other genderqueer individuals out there, who hopefully wouldn't necessarily see me as "female", so... there are possibilities even without totally rearranging my mind.

But then there's the perhaps even greater issue of my non-sociability/fear? of people in general, which I would need to get over in order to actually meet anyone, before I could even consider love and surrender. As long as I don't get over that, it does make all my other considerations rather academical in nature.
Yet without me believing that there are possibilities out there for me, there wouldn't be any reason to get over my shyness. So the issues are sort of connected.

[darkoshi]

Thank you, everyone, for your comments
(including ratboystinks aka Windmaster Jing - if you don't mind, I'd like to post your reply here too, even if it would need to be split due to its length. Let me know if that's ok with you).

I guess I'm glad that there aren't any clear-cut answers; that there are always exceptions.

these are ratboystinks' comments...

[(Anonymous)]

Ive only had 2 female sex partners in my life (one male, but I dont really consider it enough to really count)... the first I was very much in love with... the second i was very confused with. So with my worlds n worlds of experience I'll take your survey to the best of my knowledge :P

1. I believe it does. Otherwise youre just friends... but even with my friends I tend to either tap, wrestle, or sometimes even hug them. Although there's just a need to have alot of contact with that "special someone" I cant explain. It's very pleasurable and comforting. It also brings a very "bonded" feeling... a closeness. Mainly because this one person allows you this...

2. Having a young man's insane labido, it's rather hard to answer. When I was with a partner, and went long periods without intimacy, mostly sex, I would get extremely itchy. And yes, that would make me very irritable and emotional and even moody and brooding... but it only lasted until the itch got scratched and I was better.. not even sexually... just being with her. But sex was the best long term cure. :P
Like a junky needing a fix ahaha

3. I believe there is. Sex is like a really high step to take if it's meant romantically. Ive loved people dearly, even like that, without sex or anything physical. Or even with something as simple as hand holding and cuddeling. My first girlfriend and I went about 4 months before having sex. Yet in those 4 months all the romanticism was still there. I still felt madly in love. I still felt the same way *after* having had sex...
and when abstaining for a period... only then i knew what i was missing, and answer 1 would ensue :P

4. I dont believe so. Sex isnt everything. It just feels really good, is a fun thing to do, and I think a really good way of bonding. But you dont need it. If myself or my partner were completely stripped of our ability to have sex, I believe i would still feel the same about them if it was there in the first place.
I've also had the pleasure of experiencing the opposite... friends who had sex. I thought it was love... but it wasnt.

5. a) Ive been in a position where I wanted sex, but my partner didnt. And vice versa...
I cant honestly answer this one because my last girlfriend and I didnt have sex for some time before we broke up... for reasons... and Im still not sure if it was even a small factor... but I think it is possible to have an enjoyable relationship, although it can cause alot of problems and insecuritys between the 2. Not to mention guilt. But all depending on the people.

5. b) That differs between people. I dont believe it possible. Sex is intimate, especially with a regular partner. Plus the person recieving the 2 satisfactions could get distracted and have trouble devoteing themselves to either completely. Causing feelings of unfulfillment and guilt between both (or all 3 partners)... I believe you should give ALL of yourself or none... even if it doesnt mean sex or intimacy.

5. c) I think once again said person would become torn. Both bring them pleasure. You dont have to be having sex with someone to be utterly pleased with thier company, or even the thought of them. But mind and body are constantly at war anyway.... and to try to seperate them would cause chaos and in the end pain for everyone.

6. Well, once again in my experience, Ive enjoyed a wonderful relationship with sex, and a horrible relationship with sex. So I'd say it all depends on the relationship. Sex is secondary... You can't have sex with that person all the time. So there has to be much more there for the relationship to thrive. in my experience, Relationships based on sex= bad. I myself am choosing to put it aside for now, and focus on getting myself straight before I worry about anybody else. I can wait :P Although I still get itchy at times... and I miss that closeness and comfort of touch alot... :/

and sure it all SEEMS simple... but one thing im learning in life is that NOTHING is simple and NOTHING makes sense no matter how hard you work at figureing them out. All you can do is live and learn... it's simple as that.
Plus EVERYBODY's different... like it or not :P
heeh