Is sex a really important part of a relationship?

[Batya33]

Problem is that it's very difficult for a relationship to GET serious without sex. Sex is the glue the binds you romantically. Without, you're just friends. Sure, I believe in waiting, and a few weeks or couple of months should be enough. If a guy is still there after 2 months, and really likes you, then go for it. It seems you are more afraid of making a bad decision than anything else, but as long as you practise safe sex, then all should be fine.

 

You can't prevent a relationship from ending by being too careful. You could wait years to have sex, and it could still fail after a few months, especially if it turns out you two aren't sexually compatible.

 

S

 

I never believed that discovering sexual compatibility required intercourse unless you're a person who is very focused on technique or positions -if you have chemistry, passion, kiss well, enjoy touching each other then IMO intercourse will be good too. Often when people have intercourse too early and discover it might take work to get used to each other sexually they end the relatonship because why work on it if it's someone you don't know well?

I don't agree that without intercourse you're just friends or that intercourse is required to bind people romantically. I do think physical and sexual affection is part of dating/romantic relationships but to me the difference is chemistry and desire -if you are dating and have chemistry and desire each other sexually then that means you're not just platonic friends and if you have goals for the long term to be together romantically you're not just friends. To me "really likes" me after two months was not enough to feel comfortable having intercourse. It's cool if that works for others but to describe those others as "platonic" just because there's no intercourse is inaccurate.

[Sim54]

I didn't say no intercourse, I said no sex, which is also what the OP said. Intercourse is a specific act. Sex, in my opinion includes all sexual touching.

If you engage in oral sex, are naked together, touch each other and bring each other to orgasm but don't have intercourse, you are still having sex IMO.

 

Nowhere did I use the word intercourse.

[Batya33]

I didn't say no intercourse, I said no sex, which is also what the OP said. Intercourse is a specific act. Sex, in my opinion includes all sexual touching.

If you engage in oral sex, are naked together, touch each other and bring each other to orgasm but don't have intercourse, you are still having sex IMO.

 

Nowhere did I use the word intercourse.

 

My understanding is that when people are deciding whether to start having sex it refers to intercourse because that's the main reason for using protection - and that's typically part of the discussion and why it's a bigger decision for most couples than sexual touching and oral sex (which also requires the STD discussion but not the pregnancy discussion).

 

I don't think sexual touching defines the difference between a platonic and romantic relationship.

[Lucidity]

Hmm... I guess it really IS a matter of opinion. I was raised in the old-fashioned way and those were the core values that I've been looking for. I am totally on the same page as you and my definition of an ideal relationship would be... to have a best friend who understands me, who is always there but who I am also extremely attracted to. At the same time, I do understand the fascination with sex and I do understand the argument that sex creates a different type of intimacy within the relationship. It's really a personal preference thing...

 

Perhaps this is just a case of finding someone non-religious who is also old-fashioned like me... maybe he does exist somewhere.

 

He is out there. Find him and be honest with him just as you have with the one that sparked this post. Stick to your beliefs and continue to be the person you are now, even if it's difficult and goes against what modern society deems "normal" in the here and now. Think about it this way: Without sex we can call everyone we care deeply about a friend and still have intimate relations with them. The boundaries that get formed when sex enters the picture are special and are meant to hold a unique place in our hearts, but dont let the euphemism of intimacy, as it pertains to sex, cloud your thoughts and cause you to make decisions that goes against your core beliefs....ever.

 

It is refreshing to see that there are people like you out there that feel and believe the way that you do. I wish you the best of luck in your search.

[BriarRose]

Some people need sex more than others. I don't think a guy is a jerk or is shallow because he needs sex by 3-6 months. If they are breaking up with you because of that then perhaps you will be more compatible with someone with a lower sex drive and/or someone willing to wait several months for sex.

[Sparkly Eyes]

Honestly, if I was a guy, I would be wary of getting into a relationship with a woman who wants to put off sex for that long. I would assume she has low sex drive. Have you had sex in your past relationships? How often did you desire it?

[lostnscared]

I agree with Bataya, Rouge and others. Personally I find it baffling that many people believe that sex is the only way to have a serious loving relationship. I have more to say but Rouge and TOV covered my opinions. I personally would not have sex with a man I've only dated for 3 months, just not my cup of tea. To me it has little to do with sex drive and more to do with ones values and morals. Sex is sacred to me and an act that comes after you fell in love not before.

[90_hour_sleep]

seems like a debate on what defines the terms 'want' and 'need'.

 

i dunno...for me...i can't imagine not wanting to have sex with someone after 3 months (let alone 3 days) together. but...i also can't see it as being an essential need either. i'm not going to explode if i don't have sex (i haven't heard of this ever happening). will it kill me? seems unlikely. i see a distinction between these ideas of want and need. more often than not...it seems that i subscribe to a particular belief of what it is i need...based on my previous experience. but...just because i want something...doesn't mean i need it. quite the contrary. many things that i've been held captive under the illusion of needing were actually ridiculously toxic influences! but i invested heavily in the sensation of need. whoops!! i'm sure, as far as sex goes...that we've been socially brainwashed to shine a spotlight on it. it's everywhere. and (for my generation i'm sure of this) it's been there from the moment we were conscious enough to notice it. of course we view it with such high regard! honestly...i feel like i'm a victim of an elaborate scam. subscribe to the power of sex...and you will be forever happy!! actually...from what i've observed...it seems to be more of a hinderence to finding acceptance in someone. it's just one more way that we objectify people. another way in which we treat each other like commodities.

 

yes...it's a magnificent experience to be shared. basic human need? hardly. unless there's a statistic for years of life lost because of lack of sex.

 

i agree. sex does not define a long-term relationship (at least not in it's ability to weather storms). it's definitely important as i see it though. want it for sure...but i'm pretty sure i could live without if it came to that.

 

still...i'm conflicted. part of me still puts it high on the list of compatibility factors.

[Aurora11]

I'm not saying (and I don't think you are either) that the guys you are dating are total shallow jerks who only want you for sex or anything like that. ... having sex earlier just to appease the guy will only lead to your feeling disappointed that you didn't hold fast to your views or to feeling resentful towards the guy who asked for sex even after you explicitly told him you wanted to wait for awhile.

 

I don't feel like they are shallow jerks at all! The reason why I talk about it so early on is because I know it's just a difference in opinion. If it's important to him, I don't want to make him wait for a long time... it's not fair to him. At the same time, it's not fair to me because I don't want to be pressured into it. I guess I just wanted to know if having sex really DOES change the nature of the relationship? Does it really pull you closer? or is it just way too hyped up in our society? If there was no sex, does it make the relationship platonic?

[OptomisticGirl]

Sex is important in a relationship for those who WANT sex. For those who want to wait for marriage (or the relaitonship to become serious) it's not as important. My fiance and I agreed early on sex while not all a relationship is, is a good portion of it, especially if both people are sexual beings. If you don't have a high sex drive or don't see the need for it as much then you don't see it as a big portion of it - which is fine, nothing wrong with that. But instead of aligning yourself with men who WANT sex, be with men who view sex the same as you.

 

It's not your view on sex is right or wrong and there's is right or wrong - you just keep repeating the problem. You want to wait and you start relationships with guys who DON'T really want to wait.

[90_hour_sleep]

I don't feel like they are shallow jerks at all! The reason why I talk about it so early on is because I know it's just a difference in opinion. If it's important to him, I don't want to make him wait for a long time... it's not fair to him. At the same time, it's not fair to me because I don't want to be pressured into it. I guess I just wanted to know if having sex really DOES change the nature of the relationship? Does it really pull you closer? or is it just way too hyped up in our society? If there was no sex, does it make the relationship platonic?

 

thinking those are very personal questions.

 

honestly...i think it helps create the illusion of closeness. i mean...how close can you be after a few days? sex early on will definitely enhance the feelings of closeness. if anything though...it raises the expectation bar. now you've got this illusion of closeness...based mainly on lust. lust tends to have a short taste though.

 

and yes...it's definitely hyped up. culturally...sex is revered. but...platonic without sex? hmmmm. that's a good question. would you consider an elderly couple (one that is no longer sexual) to be devoid of romance? is their relationship reduced to a mere friendship simply because they're no longer sexual? i don't know. my answer to that question is 'no'. they're so much more than platonic...and it has nothing to do with sex at all.

 

what do you think, aurora?

[Lonewing]

Ever notice how it's older men in the viagra commercials? As in, OLD? I don't think our old people are nay less frisky than we are, they're jsut more discrete on what they let us know and they're better at hiding their evidence.

 

Ignoring the role of sex in a relationship usually leads to one person breaaing the relaitionship due to an affair...usually for more reasons than sex alone, but it really helps increase the desire for another if the one at home isn't willing to give it up. And why would I want to be with someone who holds back large parts of herself, anyways? She's getting all of me - so I had better be with a girl who's giving me all of her, for better or worse, in sickness and health, the good with the bad. Relationships aren't just about what's good for you - sometimes it means doing for your partner even though you'd prefer not to, because you know they'll do for you when you know they'll prefer not to. if it were the same things, obviously both of you would not do them - but it's different for all people! But you're not going to find someone precisely like yourself, every human being will require some degree of compromise - that's the nature of the species.Find someone who shares a close degree on these matters and you won't have as much to worry about, And obviously, if it's heinous or a negative to your health, then it shouldn't be done. the rest, well, it's on the table unless you take it off - at which point, you're withholding it. If it's something the other person wants and you refuse to give it up or you want to be extra expensive about it, sooner or later that other person is going to go elsewhere and be with someone who DOES put it on the table.

[Aurora11]

what do you think, aurora?

 

To be honest, I don't know. As I've never gotten that far in a relationship, I don't know the answers to those questions. I dont' know if I'm missing out by not doing it.. but at the same time, I'm scared that I will regret it. As it would be my first time, I don't really want to "just get it over with" because I could've done that in the past couple of relationships. I'm actually relieved I never caved because those particular guys ended up to be people who weren't very nice (to put it lightly.)

 

For me, personally, if there was no sex, it doesn't make the relationship platonic. If I like someone, then I like him for who he is.. and for how he makes me feel. I like the support that i can give him.. and the support that he gives me.. those are the most important things of being in a relationship. How that differs from a friendship is the simple fact that there is mutual attraction and we've chosen to act on this attraction by being in a committed relationship with each other... and from there... trust, reliance and love will build. Love is what makes it a relationship... and love grows, while lust fades. I've been in a situation before where there was a lot of chemistry with the guy, but it would never work out because we were very different people. I'm sure the sex would've been amazing... but that would've been where things would end.

[OptomisticGirl]

No, never just get it over with if it's your first time. I did and I regret it. Not that I did it but the age I did it at and who I did it with. Yes, I do wish I had at least waited a few years to do it with my first real boyfriend.

 

For me I view sex as a part of a relationship but that's because I place a high value on sex. I'm a very sexual person - to me sex is just another way to show that person how much I love them.

[hc_afifan]

No, never just get it over with if it's your first time. I did and I regret it. Not that I did it but the age I did it at and who I did it with. Yes, I do wish I had at least waited a few years to do it with my first real boyfriend.

 

Yep, same here. I had always wanted to wait at least until the relationship was serious, but I made the mistake of dating a guy who was a complete jerk and just about raped me for my first time. Not fun. I'm still not over it after it's been about a year and a half...it never hurts to be selective, don't be afraid to be a little picky. The one major good thing I've learned from that experience is what not to do if my boyfriend gives me his virginity. I remember how awful my first time was and how disgusted I was with myself for a long time, and I just want to do everything I can to make it a happy experience for him. Even if you make a mistake and do something you regret, you can learn from it, so don't be too scared about "messing up" either.

 

The current guy I'm with is like the OP. After maybe our second date, he told me he wanted to wait until marriage, so we'd know early on if it would be a deal breaker. After the first guy I was with, I knew I wanted to wait a while, but marriage was longer than I ever thought I'd wait. I'm not religious at all, and have a pretty high sex drive. I stayed with him, thinking maybe he'd change his mind after a while, but ironically, I've now become the one set on waiting. Sometimes he wants to cave in and I refuse to let him because I know he'd regret it. We've agreed oral sex doesn't "count" so we do have some sexual experience together, but we use it more as an extra tool for closeness than anything else (we even have a code word for it: "bonuses", we see it as just the icing on the cake of our relationship). I was the first one to ask if oral sex was alright with him, and if he would have said no, I wouldn't have pushed it. I don't agree with the people who think you need to have sex for it to be a "real" or "serious" relationship. Just because you're sexually compatible now doesn't mean you will be in 10 or even 5 years. My sex drive's already gotten much lower in the past couple of years alone, these kind of things fluctuate with time and depends on how you feel about who you're with. It's no guarantee; all you can do is build on the emotions and bond you have with someone and that will transfer over to the bedroom (or wherever else, lol). Now, in my opinion, you need some kind of sexual interaction, just because I can't imagine someone saving EVERYTHING for their wedding night; that would be too stressful for me. Plus you can judge a person's character to some extent by how they treat you in the heat of the moment. If all he's thinking about sexually is himself, that's usually all he'll be thinking about in every other situation too. But it's all personal and you aren't wrong for doing what you think is best.

 

The point is, there are people out there who'd wait for you, so don't compromise.

[Batya33]

I agree with Bataya, Rouge and others. Personally I find it baffling that many people believe that sex is the only way to have a serious loving relationship. I have more to say but Rouge and TOV covered my opinions. I personally would not have sex with a man I've only dated for 3 months, just not my cup of tea. To me it has little to do with sex drive and more to do with ones values and morals. Sex is sacred to me and an act that comes after you fell in love not before.

 

Same here and I cannot understand the presumption of waiting = low sex drive. Does that mean people who delay eating chocolate cake again until they've lost weight must really not love chocolate that much? If someone wanted to wait because he didn't really enjoy sex I'd be concerned because it wouldn't have been consistent with my sex drive.

[Firiel]

I don't think that a relationship without sex is just platonic. My husband and I waited until we were married, but we were far from just platonic friends. Everyone could tell just by the way we acted around each other that we were in love. There is a lot more to romance and love than just sex. Of course, sex is important, but when sex enters into the equation of a relationship doesn't really mean that much. And yes, sex can help bring you closer to the other person, but only if it happens when both people are ready. If it happens before that, all it does is create an illusion of closeness. I mean, people who have sex on the first date aren't automatically closer to each other emotionally just because they did it. And people who wait for a long time aren't automatically not truly in love or not in a serious relationship just because they haven't.

[iBroken]

Sex to me is a very important element of my relationships. I have been in a relationship where the sex was mediocre (if we ever had it).

 

For me, its important to have that sexual chemistry off the hop. The rest will fall into place as it will and as the relationship progresses, I find, the sexual chemistry intensifies.

 

I slept with my girlfriend very early in the game. I knew I wanted to be in a relationship with her the day I met her however, if she was a bad lover, I wasnt going to continue.

 

We can be soulmates, but if you are horrible in the sack, or selfish in bed, you are not for me. Thankfully she is neither. As such, we have great chemistry and a great relationship.

[Batya33]

I don't think evaluating sexual chemistry requires intercourse. I think people who are very focused on positions and techniques and verypicky about those features of intercourse should try out sex early on as a test drive but that doesn't have to do with the extent of chemistry. I wouldn't have wanted to date someone who defined sexual compatibility that way and was so focused on technique and positions that he needed an early test drive or audition.

[OptomisticGirl]

I don't think evaluating sexual chemistry requires intercourse. I think people who are very focused on positions and techniques and verypicky about those features of intercourse should try out sex early on as a test drive but that doesn't have to do with the extent of chemistry. I wouldn't have wanted to date someone who defined sexual compatibility that way and was so focused on technique and positions that he needed an early test drive or audition.

 

It doesn't really have anything to do with evaluating sexual chemistry on positions and technique. You can know all the positions and technique and still be a lowsy lover. I'm with Ibroken... I could never go into a serious relationship not knowing if we were sexual compatable. It doesn't mean I"m overly picky about how their technique is but for me, sexual compatability is a huge part of a relationship.

[Batya33]

It doesn't really have anything to do with evaluating sexual chemistry on positions and technique. You can know all the positions and technique and still be a lowsy lover. I'm with Ibroken... I could never go into a serious relationship not knowing if we were sexual compatable. It doesn't mean I"m overly picky about how their technique is but for me, sexual compatability is a huge part of a relationship.

 

I don't thnk being a bad lover has to do with sexual chemistry. I think it does mean that the couple has to work on that aspect assuming there is passion and chemistry. I think many couples who have sex early on aren't willing to put in the effort to do the work and communicate because the emotional bond isn't there yet. Yes some couples might not be able to resolve issues of technique and position but if you have chemistry and have touched each other physically and sexually then unless you are a person who is very focused on technique and position and very picky about that I don't thnk intercourse can be bad despite that it might not be good the first number of times.

 

No judgment for couples who believe they need to test sexual compatibility by having intercourse early on. I just wouldn't date someone who wanted to have intercourse early on to test whether we were sexually compatible and didn't wish to wait because of that reason. If that were his priority we wouldn't be compatible even though I believe sex is a very important part of a relationship.

[capuccino83]

I think it's pretty unreasonable to ask a guy to wait until engagement or longer. Especially depending on your age and how long it takes for you to get engaged. For example, for a mid-20's New Yorker I would have to date someone for at least one+ years before even thinking engagement. Telling a guy that he's not going to have sex for a a year-three years is pretty ridiculous, especially if this is someone without the same values or has had sex before on a regular basis. You are going to lose a lot of great guys just because they have normal and healthy sex drives, which is fine if that is the choice that you want to make, just know that a head of time. Waiting two-four months until you get to know the guy fairly well is respectable, giving him no time-frame until you are ready, to me sounds a little unreasonable.

 

I personally can't imagine waiting longer than two months someone I'm dating. If I really like someone and get to see them three times a week (as I have with my current boyfriend), each date lasting around a minimum of three hours, that's already 336 hours I've spent with someone, in one month alone, not including texts, phone calls, emails, etc. After that much time, I think it's pretty clear whether we want to try to develop a relationship or not and if he's relationship material. From here now, all is fair game. It might still fail 5-6 months down the line, but I think thats the process of dating, not necessarily for sex related. Sometimes, the sex is what gets you through the difficult times because of the bonding. Maybe some people think this is bad, but relationships are difficult and go through phases, sometimes you need emotional support, sometimes sexual. I'll personally take whatever I can get to make it work!

 

The trick is I think becoming a better judge of character and finding great men, not making them wait tons of time.

[Batya33]

I needed to get to know someone over a period of time because I believe you learn a lot more over a period of time than in a condensed period of time where life situations like promotions, holidays, family gatherings, meeting friends, illness, birthdays, vacations, bad days/good days are unlikely to happen in just a few months. For me what seemed reasonable was 3-5 months of exclusive dating where we were in love and saw strong potential for marriage.

 

I think it's wrong to make someone wait as a test of their devotion/loyalty. I didn't do that or wait for that reason.

 

I wouldn't have found sex enjoyable (and didn't on the rare occasions I was with a partner where we/he was not that serious) unless we were both seeing strong potential for marriage.

[RougeKali823]

Exactly. I wish people would be more honest about the fact that they are just a little selfish and want sex early on because they just want sex. I mean we're all adults here. People who place a large emphasis on sex typically have issues with acceptance and/or the opposite sex. I could have great sexual chemistry with a ton of people. It's not this rare entity that once found will solidify a bond or catalyze a great romance. People in this culture want everything quick and they expect quality when they get it. This is why over 50% of marriages end in divorce. The sex starts off great and then life happens and those same hyper-sexed people can't swim. To stake your relationship on sex is like buying a house after only having seen the master bedroom. People who go in on deals this way are making something that is guaranteed to wane the foundation of their union and therefore setting themselves up to fail. As I stated before, when ED sets in for their hubbies, or the wives' libido starts sitting on low, will the love disappear since sex is such a huge part of their relationship?

[OptomisticGirl]

^that's were the other aspect, emotion, comes in and substitues the lost sex drive. I'm sorry but if someone thinks just because you wait until marriage that means you can handle the bumps better or you aren't at thyroid same risk of ending, they are sticking their heads in the sand.

 

I love sex, I could never he with someone who wanted to wait. Therefore I didn't date men who wanted to wait. If you want to wait more power to you, really, but then dont dwte men who don't want to wait and think they are sexed crazed monsters bc You Chose to date thrm knowing how they are. There is nothing wrong with waiting and nothing wrong with doing it - just find someone with the same priorities.