How big a deal is sex in a relationship?

[MacPopcorn]

I'm sorry if a similar thread has been set up elsewhere but just too satisfy my own ignorance but for sexual/non-asexual people; just how big a deal is sex in a relationship?

For me, I would of thought that the most important thing is the actual relationship itself, as in you help, support and care for each other as best you can and you get on well and enjoy each others company and you threat each other with respect and have a very strong bond and connection. So, after developing all of that, would you really break up with someone because of a lack of or unsatisfying sex?

Like, you wouldn't break up with a best friend because of a lack of sex despite having a great friendship so why break up with a partner because of sex when you such a great relationship that's fulfilling in almost every other aspect? Do you not see a double standard? Or am I not comparing like with like?

I'm just surprised by how big a deal sex seems to be for some people I want to try to understand.

[Frigid Pink]

I'm sorry if a similar thread has been set up elsewhere but just too satisfy my own ignorance but for sexual/non-asexual people; just how big a deal is sex in a relationship?

For me, I would of thought that the most important thing is the actual relationship itself, as in you help, support and care for each other as best you can and you get on well and enjoy each others company and you threat each other with respect and have a very strong bond and connection. So, after developing all of that, would you really break up with someone because of a lack of or unsatisfying sex?

Like, you wouldn't break up with a best friend because of a lack of sex despite having a great friendship so why break up with a partner because of sex when you such a great relationship that's fulfilling in almost every other aspect? Do you not see a double standard? Or am I not comparing like with like?

I'm just surprised by how big a deal sex seems to be for some people I want to try to understand.

Well, cuddles are a big deal to me, so, I usually think of it like that. It'd be really difficult for me to be in a romantic relationship with someone without any physical affection, such as cuddles. I really think it's a difference in needs and preferences. I don't think anyone is "wrong" because of those differences.

[Sally]

For sexuals, sex can be and usually is a big deal in a relationship, because to them, it is an integral part of showing each other love. Asexuals who don't recognize and respect that often don't understand their sexual partners, and the relationship does not work well.

[Taiji]

Well the difference between friendships and relationships is the added intimacy that you normally wouldn't have with your best friend. You don't kiss your best friend, presumably, but you would with your significant other. In a relationship, you're choosing to be close with them in a special and unique way (this is important). Any relationship, platonic or romantic or familial, is often reliant on trust and support and enjoying company, don't get me wrong.

Of course, sex being "a deal" or not is dependent on the people in the relationship. As Sally said, for sexuals, sex is important in showing love because it's seen as the closest, most intimate way to be with a person. People who break up due to a lack of sex may not feel sexually desirable by their non-sexual partner, or feel there's something lacking emotionally.

Similarly, comparing the best friend and partner thing, a partner may feel unsatisfied that they're not seen as more than a friend. If the sex is lacking, but everything else is great, then how are they really different from being the non-sexual's best friend? Maybe they don't feel special or loved in a particularly different way.

[Lady Girl]

Like, you wouldn't break up with a best friend because of a lack of sex despite having a great friendship so why break up with a partner because of sex when you such a great relationship that's fulfilling in almost every other aspect? Do you not see a double standard? Or am I not comparing like with like?

I'm just surprised by how big a deal sex seems to be for some people I want to try to understand.

Most sexual people consider romantic relationships to be different from friendships. There can be overlapping components (and certainly a romantic partner may be one's best friend), but generally speaking they think of them differently. They wouldn't break up with a friend over lack of sex because they never anticipate or expect it in the first place.

Many sexual people anticipate and look forward to sex and hope for it to be part of their relationship with a partner...whereas they usually don't have that hope or expectation from a friend.

Most sexual people would never see it as a double standard.

[Philip027]

Whatever the two people make it. Same as with anything else.

For me, I would of thought that the most important thing is the actual relationship itself, as in you help, support and care for each other as best you can and you get on well and enjoy each others company and you threat each other with respect and have a very strong bond and connection. So, after developing all of that, would you really break up with someone because of a lack of or unsatisfying sex?

Like, you wouldn't break up with a best friend because of a lack of sex despite having a great friendship so why break up with a partner because of sex when you such a great relationship that's fulfilling in almost every other aspect? Do you not see a double standard? Or am I not comparing like with like?

You're not, no.

For most people, it is expected for their friendly relationships to not include sex, and for their romantic relationships to include it. They're two totally separate entities for most sexual people.

What I've found to be relatively common is that the line between the two is muddier for most asexual people. However, if you're going to carry on a relationship with a typical sexual person, you kinda have to be aware that that line exists.

I'm just surprised by how big a deal sex seems to be for some people I want to try to understand.

In the past year, I was able to discover a little bit of sexuality and what it's like to experience a sexual response. I understand some of the appeal of sex, to put it simply.

But I still don't understand what makes it a relationship breaker, and I don't think I ever will.

Sometimes a full understanding of things will always be out of reach.

[Visenya]

If the sex is lacking, but everything else is great, then how are they really different from being the non-sexual's best friend? Maybe they don't feel special or loved in a particularly different way.

It's funny that you said that, because in my case, I'd have a hard time dating a sexual person for a similar reason. Most sexuals believe that a relationship without sex is just a friendship. So, if I had a partner who felt that way, it would make me feel like they only see me as their "favorite fuck buddy" or something like that... I wouldn't feel special or loved in a romantic way, and I'd probably end the relationship (or maybe change it to some kind of QPR, idk).

But anyway...

The reason why people don't break up with friends over a lack of sex is because relationships have a different dynamic and people expect certain things from their partner(s) that they wouldn't expect from their friends, like monogamy, sex, etc. Even if you don't care about some (or any) of these things kn a personal level, they're still considered part of a "normal" relationship for most people, and, without them, they wouldn't feel loved. I sometimes don't get some of these requirements and expectations, so I just accept that everyone needs different things in different types of relationships.

[Sally]

fulfilling in almost every other aspect? Do you not see a double standard? Or am I not comparing like with like?

There are many different kinds of relationships. Parent/child, work colleague/work colleague, student/teacher, friend/friend. Then there's significant other/marriage partner with same. In the latter relationship with one partner being sexual, that partner usually feels that sex is necessary for the partnership to be fulfilling. You needn't understand that, but you must respect it as a fact. It's just as much a fact as that most asexuals don't want sex as part of a relationship.

[Telecaster68]

For me, I would of thought that the most important thing is the actual relationship itself, as in you help, support and care for each other as best you can and you get on well and enjoy each others company and you threat each other with respect and have a very strong bond and connection. So, after developing all of that, would you really break up with someone because of a lack of or unsatisfying sex?

Sometimes, no, you wouldn't. Sometimes those things do outweigh the never-ending emptiness and rejection of not being desired - but that pain is still there. In the same way some asexuals will tolerate sex as the price of being with someone, some sexuals will tolerate no sex, or unsatisfying sex, as the price of being with someone. In both cases, this can eventually get intolerable and ultimately the relationship breaks down.

I'd also differentiate expectation of sex from entitlement. The most commonly quoted figure is 1% - which means just under 99% of relationships are between sexuals, hence the expectation. It doesn't mean we sexuals feel entitled, just that we have to deal with an expectation that's immensely important to us not being met, ever.

And finally - the absence of sex isn't just the physical act. Often it's not even the physical act. It's feeling sexually desired, because for 99% of people, that's the most urgent, intense, visceral, overwhelming expression of love in a relationship. A relationship without that feels like decaffeinated coffee, alcohol-free beer, sugar-free coke. It lacks an energy at its heart.

[Aching]

It's a pretty big deal to me. I am frequently desirous of physical affection, and can get lost simply in the thought of kissing someone. I can't wait to share that feeling with someone, and to have that feeling brushed aside with a little peck or a brief hug feels like rejection. And it's not pleasant to feel frequently rejected by someone you know to love you. But it doesn't stop the feeling. Every kiss, every touch that is brushed aside or not returned feels just a little like a slap in the face.

[Tarfeather]

I'm sexual and don't understand a difference between "romantic" and "non-romantic". I've also never understood why I'm supposed to not desire physical intimacy in a friendship, for that matter. So to me, my partner is actually a very good friend, who I am very close emotionally with, and who happens to also enjoy physical intimacy with me. The fact that she compromises with me on (somewhat) sexual intimacy is something I see as part of our deep friendship, not of romance and associated expectations.

In other words, I don't see my partner as "romantic partner". I see her as friend who cares about me so much that she even is willing to sacrifice a little to satisfy my sexual desires. Which totally qualifies her as "primary partner" in my opinion, just not of romantic/sexual nature. So where many other sexuals see their mixed relationship as "incomplete romance", I see it as a friendship where the other cares so much about me that it's actually kind of hard to believe. It's a very different perspective.

But yeah, to me sex is still a big deal. I couldn't be in a monogamous relationship with an asexual, because I don't feel like I'm at the point in my life where I'm fine with never having sex (still being a virgin and all).

[closetPonyfan]

I think a couple of explanations that made my feelings more understandable for my Ace wife are these.

For most sexual (or at least, for myself, and the kind of sexual who reserves sex for monogamous, loving relationshis) there isn't a difference between love and sex, or a difference between romantic attraction and sexual attraction. Each of these things are an extension of the other. Sex is, to me, just extreme cuddling. So when you on the couch kissing and being snuggling, it is supposed to naturally build out of that until parts start rubbing together naturally. So when the asexual person wants to pull the plug half way through its seen as a rejection of cuddling. And most sexual people in a mixed relationship learn that it isn't actually rejection, but it doesn't matter, it still feels like it. Learning how to not feel rejection from that scenario is the Holy grail that sexual are looking for In these forums.

As for how important it is, consider what it is, as an Ace, what brought you to seek a relationship with your partner. Before you really knew them, you just saw them and thought you wanted to meet them, get to know them and be friends. That Initial feeling of attraction to the person.

Then fast forward, months into the relationship, the sexual person naturally wants to escalate things to be as physically close and open with you. They want to show you how much they want and desire for you, and they want you to be pleasured by them. But then you tell them to stop, because you aren't actually into them in that way. Now they're questioning why your with them at all, if you aren't attracted to them, how are they different than a non-romantic friend? The sex part of the relationship is so natural it happens practically by accident, but in a relationship with an ace it obviously gets cut out.

[Guest]

For most sexual (or at least, for myself, and the kind of sexual who reserves sex for monogamous, loving relationshis) there isn't a difference between love and sex, or a difference between romantic attraction and sexual attraction. Each of these things are an extension of the other. Sex is, to me, just extreme cuddling. So when you on the couch kissing and being snuggling, it is supposed to naturally build out of that until parts start rubbing together naturally. So when the asexual person wants to pull the plug half way through its seen as a rejection of cuddling

That's actually how I feel about cuddling turning into sex... once it turns sexual, it feels like a rejection of cuddling.

[Tarfeather]

Cuddling and sex are honestly two very separate things to me.. Not that they can't go nicely together, but I by far do not desire to have sex with everyone I desire the cuddles with.

[tkadlubo]

[...] And most sexual people in a mixed relationship learn that it isn't actually rejection, but it doesn't matter, it still feels like it. Learning how to not feel rejection from that scenario is the Holy grail that sexual are looking for In these forums.

I don't think this is a viable goal or a "Holy Grail" that participants in this forum seek. Feeling rejected is unpleasant, no question about that. There's a part of me that wants to have sex with my (asexual) wife and it often feels rejected and disappointed. Telling this part of my mind to just shut up and not feel rejected would just add insult to injury. This part of me is hurting and needs to be nurtured and protected.

The goal (if any) is to make sure that all your needs - including those that are sexuality-related - are met in a robust way. How to do that? Well, so far I know that the scenario my culture treats as default: "find a girl you like a lot and marry her" didn't work out w/r/t my sexual needs because reasons. I keep in mind all the other ways I benefit from being married to her and all in all I don't regret that decision. The cultural default behavior is just that - a good starting point, but by no means it's guaranteed to give optimal results and when I see it doesn't work I go out and explore different nooks and crannies of the space of possible way I can meet my sexual needs.

The feelings are there for a reason, including unpleasant feelings like feeling rejected. There's a part of my mind that's trying to tell me something and it is not very good at direct communication, but I can listen to it and pay attention and take its voice into account. It is an important piece of input about the state of my well-being and I don't want it to stop, I don't want to silence it or ignore it or drown this voice in all kinds of louder noises.

The goal is not to stop feeling rejected, the goal is to figuring out what needs are unmet and what to do about meeting those needs.

[cupid69]

Sex for sexuals is actually a pretty big thing I believe.

Lets start with the differences between sexuals and asexuals and what they want, desire and believe is part of a relationship.

The definition of sexuals is as follows:

'relating to the instincts, physiological processes and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals'.

The definition of asexuals is as follows:

'a person who is not interested in or does not desire sexual activity, either within or outside of a relationship. asexuality is not the same as celibacy, which is the willful decision to not act on sexual feelings. asexuals, while not physically sexual-type folks, are none the less quite capable of loving, affectionate, romantic ties to others'.

When sexuals have a physical desire to get closer, a cocktail of hormones, dopamine, adreneline and serotonin kick in, flooding the brain. This does not generally happen as strongly or if at all with asexuals. The chemical components are missing or are limited. This does not necessarily mean that the need or want is missing, just the lack of necessary chemicals to create that desire to please, love and physically touch someone.

Of course, in any relationship, there are always compromises to be made but for sexuals, I think this is a pretty big one. Sexual attraction is very difficult to pigeon hole as there are so many variations between partners in what each sees as a successful relationship.

Spotting at an early time what is not healthy for the individual in any relationship is quite crucial otherwise years of misunderstanding, regret, anger and many other emotions will follow you around. Luckily, forums like these can at least give some guidance into other minds, sexual or asexual and I think this is a good thing. When I was first married, no forums like this existed so there was nobody to talk to and discuss.

[Lord Jade Cross]

While I have tried to understand this, I never really got the whole point of the sex being a necessity if other aspects of the relationship are at top shape.

I also have to agree and cant understand the difference between close friend and partner as a partner would be the closests friend one has. And sex (if it were absolutely necessary) could be achieved with a friend just like a partner. The difference would be what emotions would be attributed and that makes it sounds like its more of a matter of ideology than anything else. Or at least that's how I understand it.

[Telecaster68]

How are emotions ideological?

[Tarfeather]

I wonder who started this trend of trying to reduce complex brain mechanisms to hormones. It's kind of like trying to describe a computer program by talking about the amount of electrons traveling through its CPU. If anything, it will tell you very little. It certainly doesn't begin to describe the things we experience when desiring someone sexually.

While I have tried to understand this, I never really got the whole point of the sex being a necessity if other aspects of the relationship are at top shape.

It's a necessity for a human, not for a relationship. My relationship can do just fine without sex; I can not. Which also kind of means that as long as this is my only relationship, sex is transitively necessary for the relationship, as without me the relationship can not exist. ;)

I also have to agree and cant understand the difference between close friend and partner as a partner would be the closests friend one has.

That is actually false for the vast majority of relationships. From my "quoiromantic" (how awesome is it that we have labels for everything) perspective, it's almost as if people in general enter relationships specifically because they don't desire friendship. You know, all those "exciting" elements that are only possible because you don't really know the other. This also explains why, without some moral enforcement, relationships don't tend to last longer than a few years in general.

And sex (if it were absolutely necessary) could be achieved with a friend just like a partner.

I feel the same way, but apparently I'm unusual in this. Again, if you don't get this, you seem to be in the minority and the word for this seems to be "quoiromantic", whatever that means.

The difference would be what emotions would be attributed and that makes it sounds like its more of a matter of ideology than anything else. Or at least that's how I understand it.

I suspect you're right. Most people won't get that because they see ideology only as something they openly identify with. But ideology can also be a kind of moral ideal that you subconsciously replicated from your surroundings / social context. For instance, even though I'm supposedly sexual by orientation, there is no denying that sex plays a big role for me in terms of how I see myself, even though I consciously am not interested at all in our sex-centered culture. Still, I grew up in this culture, my sexuality developed in the context of this culture, so I simply can't help it that my sexual identity is to some extent influenced by it.

I suspect the same is true for the monogamy/polyamory "identity" and for the way we view "romance". When I was 14, I had the same views as everyone else does on romance and monogamy. It took 10 years of questioning myself and redefining myself to realize that both romance and monogamy are not things I really care about. Could there be people who just work this way and for whom no amount of questioning could change it? Sure. But I suspect for the vast majority, this stuff is actually defined by ideology and (softcoded) mind rather than by genetic hardcoding.

[Lord Jade Cross]

How are emotions ideological?

how else would you describe that a friend is not sexually desirable but a partner is. Subsequently why is a friend not emotionally deeply satisfying as a partner?

[Lord Jade Cross]

While I have tried to understand this, I never really got the whole point of the sex being a necessity if other aspects of the relationship are at top shape.

It's a necessity for a human, not for a relationship. My relationship can do just fine without sex; I can not. Which also kind of means that as long as this is my only relationship, sex is transitively necessary for the relationship, as without me the relationship can not exist. ;)

I also have to agree and cant understand the difference between close friend and partner as a partner would be the closests friend one has.

That is actually false for the vast majority of relationships. From my "quoiromantic" (how awesome is it that we have labels for everything) perspective, it's almost as if people in general enter relationships specifically because they don't desire friendship. You know, all those "exciting" elements that are only possible because you don't really know the other. This also explains why, without some moral enforcement, relationships don't tend to last longer than a few years in general.

And sex (if it were absolutely necessary) could be achieved with a friend just like a partner.

I feel the same way, but apparently I'm unusual in this. Again, if you don't get this, you seem to be in the minority and the word for this seems to be "quoiromantic", whatever that means.

The difference would be what emotions would be attributed and that makes it sounds like its more of a matter of ideology than anything else. Or at least that's how I understand it.

I suspect you're right. Most people won't get that because they see ideology only as something they openly identify with. But ideology can also be a kind of moral ideal that you subconsciously replicated from your surroundings / social context. For instance, even though I'm supposedly sexual by orientation, there is no denying that sex plays a big role for me in terms of how I see myself, even though I consciously am not interested at all in our sex-centered culture. Still, I grew up in this culture, my sexuality developed in the context of this culture, so I simply can't help it that my sexual identity is to some extent influenced by it.I suspect the same is true for the monogamy/polyamory "identity" and for the way we view "romance". When I was 14, I had the same views as everyone else does on romance and monogamy. It took 10 years of questioning myself and redefining myself to realize that both romance and monogamy are not things I really care about. Could there be people who just work this way and for whom no amount of questioning could change it? Sure. But I suspect for the vast majority, this stuff is actually defined by ideology and (softcoded) mind rather than by genetic hardcoding.

Makes sense. Though personally I believe that at least for me, only a close friend could ever be considered a partner. The whole meeting a stranger to see if something develops seems illogical to me.

[Snao Cone]

Keep in mind as well that there is a wide range of variation in how important sex is to sexuals, both from person to person and within the same person at different stages of life. They're far from uniform in needs and desires. How could 99% of people not be diverse?

[Lady Girl]

How are emotions ideological?

how else would you describe that a friend is not sexually desirable but a partner is. Subsequently why is a friend not emotionally deeply satisfying as a partner?

The same way a child or parent is not sexually desirable. There are all kinds of love relationships (friendship is often one too), that don't involve sexual feelings. It doesn't mean those relationships aren't emotionally deeply satisfying...it just means they don't have some of the emotions that are felt with a sexual relationship/partner.

This is not to say that a sexual person cannot feel emotionally satisfied with a partner if they don't have a sexual relationship; sometimes they can.

[Lord Jade Cross]

Keep in mind as well that there is a wide range of variation in how important sex is to sexuals, both from person to person and within the same person at different stages of life. They're far from uniform in needs and desires. How could 99% of people not be diverse?

Its because sometimes, people themselves make it sound like they arent diverse. Saying that sex is mandatory and necessary for 99% of the population gives it less a diverse feeling to it more like a type of law feeling to it.

[Tarfeather]

Keep in mind as well that there is a wide range of variation in how important sex is to sexuals, both from person to person and within the same person at different stages of life. They're far from uniform in needs and desires. How could 99% of people not be diverse?

Its because sometimes, people themselves make it sound like they arent diverse. Saying that sex is mandatory and necessary for 99% of the population gives it less a diverse feeling to it more like a type of law feeling to it.

Well, 100% of people need to eat. What does this have to do with diversity?

[Telecaster68]

How are emotions ideological?

how else would you describe that a friend is not sexually desirable but a partner is. Subsequently why is a friend not emotionally deeply satisfying as a partner?

Ideologies are a political (with a big or small 'p') set of beliefs about how the world is or should be. I don't see the connection with emotions at all. If anything, emotions are the opposite of ideologies, to me.

But to try to address your point - a lot of it is exclusivity. There are many things that we do with partners that we wouldn't do with friends: share finances, build a home, move to a new location with them. Sex is in that list. It's about a greater level of commitment and attachment, for better or worse.

[Snao Cone]

Keep in mind as well that there is a wide range of variation in how important sex is to sexuals, both from person to person and within the same person at different stages of life. They're far from uniform in needs and desires. How could 99% of people not be diverse?

Its because sometimes, people themselves make it sound like they arent diverse. Saying that sex is mandatory and necessary for 99% of the population gives it less a diverse feeling to it more like a type of law feeling to it.

Sex isn't "mandatory" for sexual people. It's a necessity, perhaps, but "mandatory" makes it sound so institutional and enforced.

And sex isn't a single activity. It's a wide category of things. There's room for type of sexual activity and there's variation in amount. I don't see where acknowledging that 99% of people have (partnered) sexual needs lumps them together as one type. Some sexual people might want to make it sound like they're all the same to pressure an asexual person onto fulfilling their needs, but those sexual people are exceptional assholes.

[Tarfeather]

EDIT: double ~_~ AVEN pls

[Lord Jade Cross]

How are emotions ideological?

how else would you describe that a friend is not sexually desirable but a partner is. Subsequently why is a friend not emotionally deeply satisfying as a partner?

Ideologies are a political (with a big or small 'p') set of beliefs about how the world is or should be.

This is where I say that it seems like a partner being superior in sense of fulfillment over a friend sounds like an ideology

Keep in mind as well that there is a wide range of variation in how important sex is to sexuals, both from person to person and within the same person at different stages of life. They're far from uniform in needs and desires. How could 99% of people not be diverse?

Its because sometimes, people themselves make it sound like they arent diverse. Saying that sex is mandatory and necessary for 99% of the population gives it less a diverse feeling to it more like a type of law feeling to it.

Well, 100% of people need to eat. What does this have to do with diversity?

Not sure I understand where the question is to lead. Can you rephrase it?

[Tarfeather]

This is where I say that it seems like a partner being superior in sense of fulfillment over a friend sounds like an ideology

Hahah, my experience is actually the opposite. People always claiming how important friends are due to ideological reasons, then treating their friends like shit for their partner's sake.

It really isn't about ideology, even though it's something like it. What this is really about are conditioned psychological needs. Ever heard the term "daddy issues"? That kind of thing, basically. If you grow up in a family where you come to expect a certain configuration, it'll be much easier reproducing the same configuration in a relationship than in a friendship, as any sane person will not allow a messed up friendship, but a lot of people stick out pretty terrible relationships.

Keep in mind as well that there is a wide range of variation in how important sex is to sexuals, both from person to person and within the same person at different stages of life. They're far from uniform in needs and desires. How could 99% of people not be diverse?

Its because sometimes, people themselves make it sound like they arent diverse. Saying that sex is mandatory and necessary for 99% of the population gives it less a diverse feeling to it more like a type of law feeling to it.

Well, 100% of people need to eat. What does this have to do with diversity?

Not sure I understand where the question is to lead. Can you rephrase it?

The fact that nearly everyone requires sex doesn't reduce diversity any more than the fact that everyone needs to eat does. What you say is like some alien complaining "Feh, humans. ALL of them eat food! How boring and monotone is that! Can't some of them eat rocks or something?"