Well, I don't have to have sex to be IN a relationship (one that's already established) if there is a physical reason he can't. The romantic feelings I have won't just vanish due to issues that arose after the fact.

That type of situation aside, I expect sex...yes, tons and tons of sex from someone I'm in a relationship with. In fact he should have trouble keeping his hands off me he's so ate up with desire for me. That's what I expect from a new relationship. My definition of relationship, however, is preliminary dating is over and we are committed to HAVING SEX...with only each other, indefinitely. Indefinitely here is defined as: until we call it off, get married or just decide to HAVE SEX with only each other until we die.

If there is no physical reason for a lack of or complete halt in sex later?

If he has no physical desire for me early on, then I've chosen poorly to start with and we don't belong together anyway. If he loses his physical desire for me down the road, I need to take a look at what changed and do whatever I need to do to get IT back. If I've become neglectful of his needs/feelings in some way, then I need to get my shiznit together and address them. If he is not communicating them to me, then I will pry them from him myself. If over the years I've let special moments fall by the wayside; stopped giving him his especial Easter egg hunts and Birthday surprises...then I need to dust off the bunny suit, and hope that I can still hold the blasted Birthday candle in my belly button, and bring the spark back. If he holds some responsibility for the death of our sex life, then I will do what I can to get him on the same track I would take; as stated above.

What I'm trying to say, is that barring physical ailment or injury, there should be no reason why a couple WOULD want/need to go without sex in an ROMANTIC, ADULT relationship. If they are, they need to get back in touch with each other and not accept that as their life together, or their relationship will suffer and they will probably end up resenting each other and splitting.

That being said, I will admit that I'm not likely to go into a romantic relationship without believing I will GET some eventually. But that's simply a view based on my experiences up til now. Having never fallen in love with a man who could not engage in bed sports or who does not want to, for whatever reason, does not mean that it's not possible.

Who knows who I will fall in love with or how I will feel about any hardships I would contend with in order to be with a person. If I wanted to be with him that badly, I suppose it's possible I would change my tune.

I think relationships are each as individual and unique as the people in them. How people love each other, what constitutes a relationship to them; how they behave toward, and what they expect from one another is going to vary too much to generalize.

So long as the two people in the relationship are agreeable with how they conduct it, why should we care if they are having sex or not?

So, which is it? If we shouldn't care what two adults have decided among themselves to do, then why make the first-quoted statement?

Two single adults who are dating each other may have a religious reason for refraining from sexual intercourse before marriage. Are you telling such adults that they shouldn't obey the teachings of their religion?

Why does this have to be a thread about religion?

Nothing in this thread, including the original question, is intended to be prescriptive of how anyone other than the person answering should conduct their relationships. I think I've said this before. It's all about opinions. DD, obviously your opinion is that no one should have sex until after marriage, and even then it's probably optional. Fine, if that's what works FOR YOU.

For some of us, religion doesn't enter into it. Either we aren't religious, or (like me) we hold spiritual/religious beliefs that do not preclude sex without marriage. I'm getting a bit tired of the idea that someone else's religion should have a bearing on MY sex life -- obviously excepting a situation where I might fall in love with someone unwilling to have sex with me unless he married me first, and in that case we'd have to be pretty damn compatible in all other areas AND he'd better make with the proposal and the wedding date toute de suite. (He'd also have to be cool with the fact that our beliefs differ. Frankly, this person probably does not even exist.)

Cynderella's post makes perfect sense to anyone not reading it through a narrow religious lens.

Let me quote the statement that I was objecting to:



In the above-quoted statement, its author is telling single adults that they should not have a reason to refrain from sexual intercourse while in a romantic relationship. In short, the author is telling others what to believe about sex,and I object to the author doing that.

Excuse me there Dodo.

I'm sure I could have written that to include everyone, but tend to think in the same manner as how I believe.

I'm sure I should have said, "I don't see a reason", to make it clear that this is my own opinion based on my own beliefs system.

I was fairly certain that most would pick up on the fact by the time they reached, "I expect sex...yes, tons and tons of sex..."

If you had said that, then I would not have objected to what you said.

DD, you don't preface every statement of your own opinion with a disclaimer or reminder that it is, in fact, your opinion. Therefore, I really do think it's petty, picky and slightly ridiculous to insist that everyone else must do so with THEIR opinions.

Context is key.

In the case that we are talking about, the author misspoke. She has now clarified what she meant. I accepted the clarification, and so all is well.

I suppose sex isn't necessary if your relationship is with a hand puppet from an 80s TV show.

I'm with you on that. If I want to have a relationship without sex, I'll go hangout with my friends. Not with someone im dating and attracted to.

Dude, that there is nothing but a personal attack. Not good.

yes & no

I'll summarize what I have learned from this thread thus far.

There are single adults who, for personal reasons, find themselves unable to have a meaningful romance that doesn't include sexual intercourse.

OK, if that is the way they are, then so be it. I wish them well. Live and let live.

At the same time, there are single adults who, for personal reasons, find themselves able to have a meaningful romance that doesn't include sexual intercourse.

OK, if that is the way they are, then so be it. I wish them well. Live and let live.

I wish that the "live and let live" philosophy were shared by everyone, but it appears to me that not everyone shares it.

You're forgetting that there are also single adults who choose not to leave sex out of romance.

You're also forgetting that marriage is also a relationship.

I agree with you there.



The last time that I checked, people here (in general) have been talking about non-marital relationships.

I've been reading the same thread you have, and nothing in it says to me that we've been exclusively discussing non-marital relationships. We've been discussing relationships overall, and that's a blanket term that includes marriage. Also, many of us have specifically referred to marriage in some of our posts.

As far as I can tell, there has been no disagreement on this thread about sexual intercourse within a marriage. Even I mentioned marriage in my first post on this thread.

Meanwhile, the bulk of the comments have been about non-marital relationships.

Actually, the bulk of the posts have been about relationships, period, without categorizing them. That's the point I was making. You seem to see the word "relationship" and in your own mind you automatically exclude marriage from that category. I include it.

I'm in a relationship with nobody...therefore I don't know the answer!


Am I a genius or what?