Slightly different question (out of curiosity): would you be willing to enter a relationship with someone who isn't interested in sex, but would 'give it a shot'?
I was having this debate with some friends; some said no as they would need the person to be sexually attracted to them, or that they didn't believe someone like that would satisfy their needs. Others said they'd give it a try and look past that until sex became an issue, whilst one person said they'd consider not having sex to make the relationship work depending on the level of feelings. Most were fairly put off though?
I mean it depends. At my age (16) I don't think people should expect to have a relationship with sex. If I get into a relationship at this age I hope my partner wouldn't expect sex. But for when I'm older I think they should expect it at some point but only when we both are ready and for some people that might take a while. For me it could take months or just never happen either because I'm not ready or don't want to do it for religious reasons (catholic). Am I alone in having this view point?
**** no.
If it were for religious purposes , I probably wouldn't be with that person, since I'm an atheist.
If it was because of asexuality, then I can't really comment, because I don't understand the definition of it.
If it was Ann Widdecombe or Diane Abbott then definitely yes.......
I would, masturbating, porn and sex toys exists so for me sex isnt a requirement in a relationship
For a little while, or for a few months, sure. But after that, no.
Yes I totally would. I think sex is overrated: society tells us we should be wanting to have sex all the time, that sex is the best thing about being in a relationship, that sex is the best thing about life. People are conditioned to viewing sex in this highly subjective way, to the point where the sex and sexual attraction they get becomes closely tied to their egos. When in reality, there is nothing special or admirable about sex. Animals, cockroaches and snails even, have sex all the time.
The platonic side of a relationship is better in my opinion: far more pure, spiritual and rational. Relationships should be based on a platonic connection, in my opinion, whether or not there is sex. Personally, there are a select few people (guys and girls) who I really love, admire, want to see, want to hang out with and so on without having sex with them. If I were to have sex with them, there is even a chance that it could ruin our relationship for most of them - I would probably end up seeing them differently. Relationships based primarily on a physical/ sexual attraction rely on 'lower' human functions such as instinct (to reproduce), egoic satisfaction and sexual arousal or horniness. Relationships based on platonic connections require the use of 'higher' functions such as empathy, intelligence and respect, and are therefore likely to last longer.
Yes, very easily and in some ways it'd be silently preferred... said the guy with geriatric level low testosterone, ED, and other sexual dysfunction. Some of it is I know I don't perform well, some is I don't understand what it means to perform well, and the rest of it is why bother when there's so many other things I'd rather be doing. My opinion might change now that I'm getting into testosterone therapy, but I can't say there's any immediate change in that department a month into things.
Would depend on the specifics, but in principle yeah sure.
God... yes! Free holidays, company minus commitment. Is like having a local minder/guide/bodyguard!
Go to first unread
