Romantic Relationships, is sex a necessity?

Wow you can put people like you in the 'majority' so effortlessly, not knowing how many normal human beings like me exist too.

Ah, here lies our problem. You're an atheist and I'm a religious person.

It's a matter of beliefs and you seem to believe that your beliefs are supposed to be the right way of living. It's all a matter of your opinion and what you think is right or not.

Sexual attraction plays a major part in romantic relationships but the way you feel is that sex that must be added to it.

The truth is, there are many people like you and like me and none is wrong and deeming the other wrong is not a good thing either.

If they are sexually attracted they should be having sex- again, your opinion.

Couples should discuss their sexual needs before they start having sex. It's what I feel.

You are not the only person who has these sort of opinions and neither am I. You can't put a label for having ' fears, hang-ups and distorted views' just because their opinions clash with yours.

I am not a car that can be used over and over again. I am a woman.

It's just sex, that's all. A basic, normal, human need. It's not sordid or a sin; it's there to be enjoyed, and is a normal part of any non-platonic relationship.

As I said, the majority of people see sex as a normal part of a romantic relationship.

It's not normal to have romantic relationships without a sexual element.



Where did I ever state that I am an atheist? Just to correct you, although I don't like to put a specific label on my beliefs, I'm actually a deist. That means I believe in the existence of God, but I'm against the concept of religion. I see God and religion as 2 separate things. Religion is a MAN MADE concept, designed to control the masses by fear. God didn't create religion, man did. I do believe in a higher power, I just don't buy into the man-made concept of organised religion, that's all.

And since the higher power created sex, obviously it's there to be enjoyed. It's daft to think otherwise.



This subject of this post isn't merely a 'matter of opinion'. The subject in question is whether sex is required in a romantic relationship. The answer is yes, sex IS required as part of a 'romantic relationship'. That's not simply a 'matter of opinion', it's a FACT.



No, I don't feel sex must be ADDED to a romantic relationship - I feel sex is a natural and normal part of a romantic relationship. It is an integral part of any healthy romantic relationship, not something that is merely 'added on'.



The crux of the matter is not who is right or wrong, but whether there is such thing as a romantic relationship without a sexual element. And I've said no, there is no such thing as romantic relationship without sex.



No, not merely 'my opinion'. I stand by what I said: why get into a relationship with someone you're sexually attracted to if you're not going to have sex? That's stupid. That's like a hungry person going into a restaurant but not eating the food. Pretty dumb! Better just to stay single or just be platonic friends if that's the case.



Yes, they should discuss their sexual needs BEFORE getting involved and if they are not compatible they shouldn't get into a monogamous relationship and they shouldn't get married.



The bottom line is: anyone who has a 'romantic relationship' with someone of the opposite sex without any sexual element at all either: 1) has massive hang-ups about sex, 2) has let religion colour their views about sex, 3) is secretly gay, 4) is asexual, or 5) is really young and naive.



I never said anything about being 'used over and over again'. I think you misunderstood the car analogy there. What I said was, it's better to find out whether you are sexually compatible with someone BEFORE you get into a relationship or BEFORE you marry them. Just as you wouldn't buy a car without seeing if it met your needs first. What is so hard to understand about that?