I would stay with her. I mean, if she's that great otherwise, I don't think sex is that important.
Marriage without sex?
- Thread starter Oneirius
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can see where the prevailing 'No' response is coming from. The idea is centered around someone trying to shoehorn himself into the trappings of an institution designed around sexual relationships, and there is no real reason for it if no such relationship exists. In that case our theoretical mate is just being silly.
The purely asexual relationship might be better described as a sort of really close adopted family. You love each other and are basically inseparable, and the proposal described mainly means that your bro/sis is sick of you bringing home your latest conquests all of the time and wants you to either cut it out or move out. Fair enough. If you do not agree to the weird pact, your relationship can still be pretty healthy.
However, save for some physical and neurological barriers, the theoretical mate still seems to be as much a sexual being as anyone else, making this scenario more ambiguous. Suppose that she displays every emotional symptom of physical attraction, and despite knowing that she will not get anything out of actual sex, she still wants you. A little creepy! But let's say for the sake of argument that it is not creepy.
I would probably stay with her! I believe that sexual attraction flows from a deeper psycho-emotional attraction, not the other way around.
The purely asexual relationship might be better described as a sort of really close adopted family. You love each other and are basically inseparable, and the proposal described mainly means that your bro/sis is sick of you bringing home your latest conquests all of the time and wants you to either cut it out or move out. Fair enough. If you do not agree to the weird pact, your relationship can still be pretty healthy.
However, save for some physical and neurological barriers, the theoretical mate still seems to be as much a sexual being as anyone else, making this scenario more ambiguous. Suppose that she displays every emotional symptom of physical attraction, and despite knowing that she will not get anything out of actual sex, she still wants you. A little creepy! But let's say for the sake of argument that it is not creepy.
I would probably stay with her! I believe that sexual attraction flows from a deeper psycho-emotional attraction, not the other way around.
First off, yes, we don't RP all the time. Just like I don't tie my spouse up and get out the whips every night. Variety is the spice of life, after all. ^^John Marcone said:
Secondly, I will be going back to Maytag soon. I put up the Tali avatar to support Bioware in March Mayhem.
However, considering that my spouse and I are currently involved in a Mass Effect game, and recalling what we were roleplaying last night, I think my avatar is quite appropriate for this thread.
I've actually gotten quite good at the accent. ^^
Edit: Ha. Ha ha. Wrong thread. You were talking about affairs, not roleplaying. ^^;;
Wow, that was probably not the reply you were expecting, huh?
Could you be a bit clearer? Is it some sort of physical barrier (i.e. my lover in question lost the bottom half of her/his torso) or an emotional one (i.e. Phallophobia).
While I'm sure in an idealized world where true, platonic love exists then the subject of non sexual marriage may be a trivial one, in the real world it simply wouldn't last. Never mind all the biological urges you'd have to surmount, there's also the issue of selfishness. Among other factors, a good marriage requires open communication and cooperation. If you have needs that your partner is unable (or unwilling) to meet, it's kind of a slap in the face that they might also expect you to be just as happy with the arrangement as they are (and are unable to even field a guess at your side of the situation).
Short of chemical/surgical mind altering therapy to nip in the bud any desire or inclination you might have for sexual intimacy, the only other way I can think of to make the marriage work is ferocious "personal" intimacy or an open marriage. I mean, as long as you two still share your love and feelings for each other on an emotional level, it shouldn't matter how they proceed on a physical level given the restriction at hand, should it? I can't really imagine a marriage where a spouse is happy with their spouse's unhappiness working in the long run, something will give.
While I'm sure in an idealized world where true, platonic love exists then the subject of non sexual marriage may be a trivial one, in the real world it simply wouldn't last. Never mind all the biological urges you'd have to surmount, there's also the issue of selfishness. Among other factors, a good marriage requires open communication and cooperation. If you have needs that your partner is unable (or unwilling) to meet, it's kind of a slap in the face that they might also expect you to be just as happy with the arrangement as they are (and are unable to even field a guess at your side of the situation).
Short of chemical/surgical mind altering therapy to nip in the bud any desire or inclination you might have for sexual intimacy, the only other way I can think of to make the marriage work is ferocious "personal" intimacy or an open marriage. I mean, as long as you two still share your love and feelings for each other on an emotional level, it shouldn't matter how they proceed on a physical level given the restriction at hand, should it? I can't really imagine a marriage where a spouse is happy with their spouse's unhappiness working in the long run, something will give.
This strikes me as judgmental. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems you are suggesting that asexual people simply *think* they don't want sex because they've never had it?HerbertTheHamster said:
...
..
.
I don't know about you, but I can still remember when I was a virgin. I was probably even more sexually driven than I am now.
If a person claims to be asexual, it's probably because they don't want to have sex. Pretty simple.
So I can't just friend love this person who is awesome in every way? Surely what separates a great friend and a life partner is that you sleep with your life partner.
There are people perfect for me, who I would never go out with, because they're not people I want to have sex with.
There are people perfect for me, who I would never go out with, because they're not people I want to have sex with.
Good question OP! Simple answer, too. No. She is clearly a bad match for me and I would definitely never want to marry her. We could totally hang out though, go to dance clubs, maybe she could set me up with her friends. But if she swore to leave forever if I did not marry her and turn in my genitals I would have to turn her down. Also I plan on never getting married.
In life, the non-asexual among us need both: good friends and good sex. No matter how good one of those aspects of life gets, if the other is entirely missing then you will soon start to feel its absence (and I don't mean only hanging out with a girlfriend or boyfriend you have a lot in common with, but just having sex with people who you have no emotional ties to; or just seeing friends and not having sex with anyone). This is why people in new relationships should keep up with their friends, and why those who spend too much time with their friends without getting any action sometimes need to go meet new people or sleep with their friends.
In life, the non-asexual among us need both: good friends and good sex. No matter how good one of those aspects of life gets, if the other is entirely missing then you will soon start to feel its absence (and I don't mean only hanging out with a girlfriend or boyfriend you have a lot in common with, but just having sex with people who you have no emotional ties to; or just seeing friends and not having sex with anyone). This is why people in new relationships should keep up with their friends, and why those who spend too much time with their friends without getting any action sometimes need to go meet new people or sleep with their friends.
Stuck in a sexless marriage while remaining an ultravirgin? I'd rather live the rest of my days alone.
Wait, so you're defining "sex" solely by intercourse? Very short-sighted of you.
This arrangement would be fine by me. I have little interest in intercourse.
This arrangement would be fine by me. I have little interest in intercourse.
How would that be any different from a normal marriage? As far as I can tell, no marriages contain sex unless the wife wants to have a baby.
Look what you've made me do. I've had to copy/paste this comment from earlier this same thread.ReservoirAngel said:
Once again (sigh, really, I only posted this a page ago) I'm seven years married. My spouse and I have a great sex life - we generally have sex every day. And we're not talking 'wam-bam-thank-you-maam' quickies either. Last night we were having sex for an hour and half, and that's if you don't count the foreplay beforehand. That's a little longer than normal for us, but our typical evening is one hour long.
A gentleman above mentioned that he and his spouse are equally active after ten years of marriage.
So please, please, stop with the "oh ho married people never have sex" stuff. It is a silly, outdated TV trope that is exceptionally rare in real life, and if it does occur generally ends in a rapid divorce.
Hell, my parents still have sex! I can't go into details because, frankly, I didn't want to know, but my point stands.
No. Any healthy relationship has elements of emotional connection, passion, intimacy, friendship, trust, and respect.
No relationship is perfect, and some elements will be more visible than others, but if a relationship is completely devoid of any one of those things then it will eventually fail. If it is completely devoid of two or more, then it's not worth it at all.
I was recently in a relationship that was devoid of two of those things. There certainly was an emotional connection, there were deep talks (intimacy), lots of joking around (friendship), and we both knew that the other would never lie or cheat (trust).
However, there was no passion at all. Even so much as an attempted kiss resulted in being pushed away. If that was the only problem, then it is very likely that I would still be with her, although to say that things would be perfect would be a lie.
As that one vital element didn't exist in any form in that relationship, there was always a "countdown", if you will. My physical need for even just a little passion (A good kiss here and there, bare minimum) was relatively unimportant, and like I said, would matter little if everything else was perfect. But it would still throw just a little doubt into the mix, which would build as time goes on. Eventually, there would have been an "enough!" point, and things would have descended to the point where there was no way to continue on. Depending on the person, this could happen in a few months, or years down the line.(My situation was vastly accelerated by another factor, of course, but the same principle applies.)
Simply put, if your relationship completely lacks something you consider at least marginally important to a relationship, it will fail eventually. You can't suppress a physical need forever.
In that sense, I would not marry under those conditions. That being said, I have no intention of getting married anyway, so... no big deal.
No relationship is perfect, and some elements will be more visible than others, but if a relationship is completely devoid of any one of those things then it will eventually fail. If it is completely devoid of two or more, then it's not worth it at all.
I was recently in a relationship that was devoid of two of those things. There certainly was an emotional connection, there were deep talks (intimacy), lots of joking around (friendship), and we both knew that the other would never lie or cheat (trust).
However, there was no passion at all. Even so much as an attempted kiss resulted in being pushed away. If that was the only problem, then it is very likely that I would still be with her, although to say that things would be perfect would be a lie.
As that one vital element didn't exist in any form in that relationship, there was always a "countdown", if you will. My physical need for even just a little passion (A good kiss here and there, bare minimum) was relatively unimportant, and like I said, would matter little if everything else was perfect. But it would still throw just a little doubt into the mix, which would build as time goes on. Eventually, there would have been an "enough!" point, and things would have descended to the point where there was no way to continue on. Depending on the person, this could happen in a few months, or years down the line.(My situation was vastly accelerated by another factor, of course, but the same principle applies.)
Simply put, if your relationship completely lacks something you consider at least marginally important to a relationship, it will fail eventually. You can't suppress a physical need forever.
In that sense, I would not marry under those conditions. That being said, I have no intention of getting married anyway, so... no big deal.
Well I think I'd say no, because apparently getting married means that they are going to chop her hands off (ouch, guess she's a stay at home and not do much wife) and somehow close her lower holes off (which means no going to the bathroom at all, and all that building up in your body because you can't expel it is bad for you). So no, I wouldn't marry her because apparently it's going to kill her, and if she means that much to me I don't want her dead.Oneirius said:
Yes I know that's not what you meant, but when you said I can only get oral, I had to wonder what was going to happen to other possible avenues of stimulation. You probably just should have said no standard vaginal intercourse, or just said that we can't have any kind of sex with each other because of a wizard or something.
Anyway, I don't want to get married anyway. It means nothing to me, so my initial thought is no, regardless of sex or no sex. Of course, put in that position for real, I can't fairly say what I'd do. But me now says "no marriage anyway, DO NOT WANT".
Studies have been done that show married people actually have far more sex than unmarried people do.Bara_no_Hime said:
http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/brwaitgalligher.html
My wife and I have been married for over 10 years now; and we have sex generally every day (barring, say, one of us having the flu) - not too many single people I know can claim the same.
Let's put the tired "married people don't have any fun" arguments to rest. If you're married and not having fun chances are you married poorly.
If she really is as perfect as you claim... then porn it is...
But no really sex is part of love and a relationship... Marriage would be hella hard without it... oral would make things a lot easier tho :3
But no really sex is part of love and a relationship... Marriage would be hella hard without it... oral would make things a lot easier tho :3