I loves the way U think!! U say what alot of us feel!!! who gives a crap what others think? they have their mrals and U have YOURS!! Go for it love!!!

The original question though still remains "is it necessary?" And by definition that means is it absolutely needed or required in a relationship.

And my answer still remains no, it is not. It can be desired, wanted, enjoyed, utilized, applied, find it pertinent, important, pleasurable, and invigorating... but still not necessary in the overall scheme of things.

Using the term necessary in my opinion is on par with the phrase "put out or get out", and this in turn boils the idea of relationships down into a single solitary part instead of the grand scheme that act is in itself a part of.

Of course many do find it necessary in a relationship, and although I disagree based upon my definition of that term used in that stance, I accept not everyone thinks like me. I like sex, I enjoy sex, and I want sex... but sex would not be one of the requirements for me to partake in a relationship with someone.

The original question though still remains "is it necessary?" And by definition that means is it absolutely needed or required in a relationship. And my answer still remains no, it is not.

The original question though still remains "is it necessary?" And by definition that means is it absolutely needed or required in a relationship.

And my answer still remains no, it is not. It can be desired, wanted, enjoyed, utilized, applied, find it pertinent, important, pleasurable, and invigorating... but still not necessary in the overall scheme of things.

Using the term necessary in my opinion is on par with the phrase "put out or get out", and this in turn boils the idea of relationships down into a single solitary part instead of the grand scheme that act is in itself a part of.

Of course many do find it necessary in a relationship, and although I disagree based upon my definition of that term used in that stance, I accept not everyone thinks like me. I like sex, I enjoy sex, and I want sex... but sex would not be one of the requirements for me to partake in a relationship with someone.

See, this is where I think that your argument is a straw man. People are saying that they think that sex is necessary and then you are moving to some argument about how sex isn't sufficient to make a relationship work. Nobody claimed that sex is the be all and end all though. The claim is that sex is a necessary part of a healthy "relationship". Without it being a physical relationship it is really only a friendship or something like the sort of relationship that you can have with family.

And what planet, O Wise Owl, do you live on? If it's a relationship between a man and a woman then sex is indeed a very important aspect of that relationship. Unless, of course, you live on the same planet as the owl.

I understand what you are saying and I don't think your argument is a straw man...However, assuming the OP is questioning only romantic relationships, I do think you are wrong....
Sex is NOT ordained solely for the purpose of "human" reproduction..If it was, humans would only desire sex when the female is in heat or fertile...Humans mate in and out of estrus because sexual intercourse is a necessary component of expressing romantic love...It is driven by romantic feelings, the desire for human bonding and intimacy, not the desire to reproduce...IMO, suppressing this "nature ordained" desire would ultimately destroy the "romantic" relationship by rendering it platonic....

The original question though still remains "is it necessary?" And by definition that means is it absolutely needed or required in a relationship.

And my answer still remains no, it is not. It can be desired, wanted, enjoyed, utilized, applied, find it pertinent, important, pleasurable, and invigorating... but still not necessary in the overall scheme of things.

Using the term necessary in my opinion is on par with the phrase "put out or get out", and this in turn boils the idea of relationships down into a single solitary part instead of the grand scheme that act is in itself a part of.

Of course many do find it necessary in a relationship, and although I disagree based upon my definition of that term used in that stance, I accept not everyone thinks like me. I like sex, I enjoy sex, and I want sex... but sex would not be one of the requirements for me to partake in a relationship with someone.

Who said it was unimportant? But it is hardly the beginning and end of it unless you seriously are that unable to control yourself. Hardly the remark I would expect from someone who claims in other threads to be such a romantic. Thanks for clarifying.

LOL....so because I want to have sexual relations with someone I'm having a relationship with this disqualifies me as a romantic?

Not at all. In fact just the opposite actually. But I still would have expected a more open minded reply earlier than snarkiness relegated to the cosmos.

Are people with different ideas than you a myth where you live? Reread everything I and a few others have written. Don't interpret it, read it. I don't deny sex is a part of a relationship, a healthy one and a romantic one. But not everyone wants that in their relationship for whatever reason. Just because you can't fathom it does not make it so. Quit using the term straw man to describe other ideas than your own. This is not some sort of contest about who is correct, it is a thread on a dating forum sharing opinions and ideas.



Who said it was unimportant? But it is hardly the beginning and end of it unless you seriously are that unable to control yourself. Hardly the remark I would expect from someone who claims in other threads to be such a romantic. Thanks for clarifying.



I'll go on a limb and say unless the OP clarifies, that they mean a romantic relationship. And I am not denying anything you have said here, not in the slightest. But again, reread what I said.

Is it necessary? In other words "DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE SEX IN A RELATIONSHIP?
" And yes, that includes romantic. Unless the OP clarifies it, that is the question.

The question is not would you enjoy it, would you participate, is it romantic, could you accept it, how many clowns are involved, and how many positions can you assume?

It can be beautiful, romantic, fun, enjoyable, yadda, yadda, yadda.... It is obviously important, and healthy in a loving relationship for most.

But you still don't have to do it to be in one.

Are people with different ideas than you a myth where you live? Reread everything I and a few others have written. Don't interpret it, read it. I don't deny sex is a part of a relationship, a healthy one and a romantic one. But not everyone wants that in their relationship for whatever reason. Just because you can't fathom it does not make it so. Quit using the term straw man to describe other ideas than your own. This is not some sort of contest about who is correct, it is a thread on a dating forum sharing opinions and ideas.

I'm reading what you are saying but it just isn't clear what you mean. Now you are saying that, "I don't deny sex is a part of a relationship, a healthy one and a romantic one", so is it necessary in that sort of relationship or not? Nobody here is interested in what's necessary in a family relationship or a business relationship or a platonic relationship and it is natural to assume that this thread is about whether sex is necessary in a healthy romantic relationship.

I'm calling it a straw man argument when people like you keep posting to say that sex isn't sufficient to make a healthy romantic relationship. That would be a stronger claim than just saying that it is necessary and nobody at all has said that, so it seems a bit beside the point.

What is the point of this thread then? You seem to think that it is for individual posters to say how important sex is to them and whether or not they want a sexual relationship. I'm perfectly capable of "fathoming" why someone that doesn't believe in sex before marriage would claim that you can have romance without sex. I would still call that just a friendship really and it sounds like a rather frustrating sort of "relationship" to me but if people are going to insist on using the term in such a broad sense as that then it starts to become virtually meaningless.

The discussion is interesting to the extent that a couple needs physical intimacy in a longterm relationship. Maybe it is also interesting to talk about how important it is but if you want to say that it isn't necessary that does imply that it isn't important at all because that follows from the definition of "unnecessary".

What is the point of this thread then? You seem to think that it is for individual posters to say how important sex is to them and whether or not they want a sexual relationship. I'm perfectly capable of "fathoming" why someone that doesn't believe in sex before marriage would claim that you can have romance without sex. I would still call that just a friendship really and it sounds like a rather frustrating sort of "relationship" to me but if people are going to insist on using the term in such a broad sense as that then it starts to become virtually meaningless.

The discussion is interesting to the extent that a couple needs physical intimacy in a longterm relationship. Maybe it is also interesting to talk about how important it is but if you want to say that it isn't necessary that does imply that it isn't important at all because that follows from the definition of "unnecessary".

This brings me to a question that might cast the issue in a slightly different light, or at least clarify it to the point where perhaps we can all agree to be talking about the same thing:

I think you can have something that's more than just a friendship even without having sex. After all, if I'm in a romantic relationship but we haven't had sex YET, that doesn't mean we're just friends up until the moment we have intercourse. (And to avoid further complicating this discussion, let's leave aside entirely the related concept of "friends with benefits" and how or whether that changes a friendship.) I got engaged at a young age, and didn't have sex until after that point, but I can tell you for certain that the man in question was NOT 'just a friend' in the time leading up to his proposal, nor from then until the time we first had sex together.

So here's my question... Let's take the initial premise and re-word it to remove the focus on "doing" and place it on "feeling":

Is sexual attraction necessary in a (romantic) relationship? Yes or no?