Well, I'm using the phrase "sexual attraction" to mean that the person turns you on; that thinking about them or being around them makes you want to kiss them, touch them or make out with them and that you could at least imagine yourself having sex with them under whatever you consider the proper circumstances... regardless of whether or not you intend to act on that urge anytime soon (or at all) and regardless of whether those 'proper' circumstances exist at present.

I can imagine sex with just about anyone under the right circumstances,,,but thats another issue altogether,,,lol

there has only been one romantic relationship where being around a person made me think about having sex with them but I have had more than one romantic relationship

so Id still have to say no to 'sexual' attraction specifically being required, and yes to having to feel attrected to the person,,,,

So if you'd stayed in one of those other romantic relationships permanently, you and your romantic partner would've been celibate for life?

Maybe a better question for me to ask is this:

What do you mean when you say "attraction"?

And I can accept and agree with this. I do think in the long term for most of us sex would be necessary or required. However, the OP did not specify such a boundary and as such I am speaking more for the short term over "the long haul". That is something I should have done a better job indicating. I am not speaking of married couples, or those in truly long term relationships who know what they want, but of those in the early romances or dating as mentioned early in the thread. How many people do you see who get into a relationship and pretty much immediately expect to start having sex and claim "it is necessary"? And of course time and comfort varies between couples.

I do not agree that a relationship has to have sex to be called a relationship as many do. The OP asked a basic question and used an emoticon for their thoughts... not a lot to go on there so without clarification I am answering in the basis of the question with my opnion.






And perhaps some of the fault lies in my wording and meaning, since I am not speaking about truly long term relationships or those with a clear understanding of what they want in one.

It is impossible to get every scenario out of a topic utilizing an emoticon as a synopsis.

However, I do think you just have a royal issue when people don't think the way you do. Or am I wrong? Furthermore, I do not think it is "sufficient" (meaning good enough) for a healthy relationship, since a healthy relationship requires a lot more than just sex as any person in one knows. And if you re-read the thread, quite a few people feel it is necessary and sufficient and have outright stated it. Which of course is the "point" of this thread, since you have to put your own thoughts down and explain their meaning. Is there some other point I am unaware of?

And who said marriage has to be involved? There are numerous other reasons as well ranging from religion, to safety, to outright comfort. It is your hypothesis that two people dating each other for a year, calling each other a couple who choose not to have sex because they each do not feel that are ready are just buddies? I am sure they would appreciate you belittling their thoughts and questioning their motivations and labeling it such things as frustrating and meaningless.

I'll give you that in the long term it is most likely necessary for most couples, but not every couple is "long term".

I can't make it any clearer than that.

I think it would be possible , but not often,, our culture makes sex very 'mandatory' part of adult relationships and most cultures make it very 'mandatory' for males,

and I dont think I was with anyone in those relationships that would have been able to be without ,,,,,,,,

so it would have occurred eventually, because of their inability to feel like men without it,,,,but then I was attracted to very alpha males,, and I do think there are other types out there who would be able to abstain and find other intimate activities to fulfill the relationship

if we are defining sex as that act in nature which produces children,,,,

I do think some type of PHYSICAL interaction is necessary for human beings, from hugging a child, to kissing or caressing a partner,,,,I just dont believe sexual intercourse has to be one of them

an interest in, a curiousity about, a connection with,,,,,,,another person or thing,,,

In my opinion, Yes.

I'm not asking about the guys, though. I'm asking about you. I wouldn't want to be in a lifelong romantic relationship that didn't include sexual intercourse unless sexual intercourse were impossible for some reason. And in that case, I'd want there to be other acts of physical affection even without intercourse. Sort of like what might be described as "going not quite all the way" if you get my meaning. Are you saying that you'd be happy in a lifelong romantic partnership without any of that?


Well, it produces a lot more than children, and can produce lots of other good things even when it does NOT produce children, as in my own life. It's a bonding mechanism as much as a procreative one.


Sexual attraction and sexual intercourse are not the same thing. You can be sexually attracted to someone without ever having intercourse with them. I altered the initial question to reflect attraction rather than intercourse because I wanted to explore the attraction side of things rather than focusing on the actual physical act of intercourse.

But I'll admit I'm curious now: In your mind, what is the difference between hugging or kissing a platonic friend and doing the same with a romantic partner? Because for me they are VERY different things.

the difference is in the action, a hug is a hug, for me

a kiss, however, occurs on a continuum from friendly to familial, to lustful, to romantic

I kiss a friend on the cheek or maybe a quick peck on the lips,, I dont kiss a romantic partner that way when I am being 'romantic'

You're right Kartagane, every relationship type does not have to involve sex to be a relationship... Because there are many "types" of relationships, the question cannot be properly answered until the OP (who seems to be missing in action ) returns to her thread and specifies which type she is questioning...Here, from Wiki, is a list and explanation of relationship types..My answer to her question was based on formalized and non-formalized intimate relationships...

AND....Until she specifies, there is NO WRONG ANSWER!


Types of interpersonal relationships:

Kinship relationships, including family relationships, being related to someone else by blood (consanguinity). For example, there is fatherhood or motherhood. Kinship relationships can also be made through marriage. For example, there are father-in-laws, mother-in-laws, uncles by marriage, or aunts by marriage.
Formalized intimate relationships or long term relationships through law and public ceremony, e.g. marriage and civil union.
Non-formalized intimate relationships or long term relationships such as loving relationships or romantic relationships with or without living together; the other person is often called lover, boyfriend or girlfriend (not to be confused with just a male or female friend). If the partners live together, the relationship may be similar to marriage, and the other person may be called husband or wife. In Scottish law they are so regarded by common law after a time. Long term relationships in other countries are often called common law marriages, what is not quite correct as they have no special status in law. Mistress is a somewhat old fashioned term for a female lover of a man who is married to another woman, or of an unmarried man. She may even be an official mistress (in French maîtresse en titre); an example is Madame de Pompadour.
Soul mates, individuals who are intimately drawn to one another through a favorable meeting of the minds and who find mutual acceptance and understanding with one another. Soulmates may feel themselves bonded together for a lifetime; and may be sexual partners but not necessarily.
Casual relationships, relationships extending beyond one night stands that exclusively consist of sexual behavior, the participants of which may be known as friends with benefits when limited to considering sexual intercourse or sexual partners in a wider sense. levels. appearance. similarity. proximity.competency.complementarity.recipricity. disclosure
Platonic love is an affectionate relationship into which the sexual element does not enter, especially in cases where one might easily think something else.
Friendship, which consists of mutual love, trust, respect, and unconditional acceptance, and usually means that there is common ground between the individuals involved; see also internet friendship and pen pal.
Brotherhood and sisterhood, individuals united in a common cause or having a common interest, which may involve formal membership in a club, organization, association, society, lodge, fraternities and sororities. This type of interpersonal relationship also includes the comradeship of fellow soldiers in peace or war.
Partners or coworkers in a profession, business, or a common workplace.
Participation in a community, for example, a community of interest or practice.
Association, simply being introduced to someone or knowing who they are by interaction.


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_relationship

Sex with Sylvester the cat!

I'm just messin with you, Nothing personal about it

I believe that it was Dodo that brought up marriage and as I recall, he also said that he did want to have sex but chose not to, presumably because of his religious principles. How is it belittling to say that that sounds like a frustrating sort of relationship? It would certainly be frustrating in one respect anyway.

I'm not really sure how it is belittling people that are not actually lovers to call what they have a friendship. It's not like I said that they are mere aquaintances. It's certainly hard to see how you could say that whatever you want to call their "relationship", they could be said to have the closeness that comes from being in a relationship that does involve physical intimacy.

The problem that I have with this is that people tend to say that they are or are not in a relationship in a quite arbitary way and it really does boil down to commitment. People back out of so-called "relationships" all the time and they will say that "We were only friends", or "We didn't even have sex", or even "It was only a fling". I personally think that the realisation that you are actually in a relationship is just something that hits you once it has developed to a certain stage. If a couple isn't doing things that most other couples do then it becomes a little bit unclear whether they really are a couple. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion I could say that I am in a relationship with somebody that I have never even met that I have only communicated with on the internet and that is absurd.

Just a note: It's possible to have physical intimacy without having full-on sexual intercourse. So yes, it is possible to be more than "just friends" without having intercourse.

seems like people forget what love is.. do you love them, or do you love sex with them? if your in love, sex is a plus, but not required... if you love sex with them, love is a plus, sex is required...

actually well put,, if you only love the sex, sex is required but if you love them , sex is not,,,,

refreshing to hear from a man,,,,

Bah... He's just trying to get into your pantz!

Well, that sort of goes without saying as most people would consider passionate kissing or "sexual contact" with someone that is not their partner to be cheating on their partner if they have one. I'm still not sure though that you can call it a full blown relationship when all you have had is a kiss and a bit of a grope with someone.

When you've been seeing just that one person for several months and you're in love with each other and you tell each other regularly that you love them? You bet your arse that's a full-blown relationship.

That's how it is for people who DON'T have sex until after they get married. That's how it is for people who, for whatever reason, are waiting for something before they have sex (which could be anything from engagement to marriage to the end of an illness or something else that precludes sexual intercourse).

Yes, you can have a full-blown relationship without having yet had sex. Sex does not define a relationship, in and of itself.

That said, I think that if at some point there isn't sex (whether before or after marriage) or something very close to sex... or if a couple stops having sex for reasons unrelated to capability... then a relationship is going to be in trouble.

And it's difficult for most people to begin and maintain a romantic relationship without sexual attraction, even if that attraction is not being acted on. Without that attraction, what you have is a friendship. At least in Western cultures and most others. It may well be different in cultures where dating doesn't happen and marriages are arranged by people other than the couple getting married or something like that.