Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Snow Girl

Can a sexual guy be in love with a girl without having sex?

Recommended Posts

Snow Girl

As an asexual female, I was just curious how people who are sexual fall in love. Is it possible to fall in love with someone who you have never had sex or lesser sexual acts with? I'm still heartbroken over my ex, who I think left me because he got fed up with not having sex for a year. I feel like I should forget about him, because if he was in love with me, he would not have left me. But is a man's sex drive really that overwhelming, that having sex is more important than being with a girl that you love? Or is it that a man cannot love a woman until he attains that connection with her through sex?

Pretty much, I say this because I regret the fact that if I would have just given him sexual favors, he would still be with me (granted, he never asked me for them when we were together, so I never knew he needed them until he dumped me). But is that how its supposed to be, that I need to earn a sexual man's love through sexual favors? It doesn't seem right to me, but enlighten me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not-You

Can sexual people fall in love w/o having sex first? Of course. It's silly to think otherwise.

Can sexual people remain in love w/o having sex at all? Not all of them.

Love =/= satisfaction. Sometimes, love isn't enough.

However, no, you don't "earn" love with sexual favors. People leave relationships when they're still in love for millions of reasons. A lack of sex is one of them.

Edit: also, even though your experience is with a man, there are many women who leave men for lack of sex, too. Just pointing that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Olivier

Sure, you can love without having had sex. That's the way it's been every time I've fallen in love, and the one person I had sex with who I didn't love first, I never fell in love with.

But for many sexuals, sex is a way of expressing particularly deep or committed love (which is not to say sex can't also be purely recreational in other contexts for those same people).

Imagine getting into a long-distance relationship that bloomed into something deep and meaningful, something you wanted to build into a life together, something you'd drop everything and move to their city for. Now imagine that your partner, even after a year, refused to meet in person. Claimed the idea of meeting in real life never even crossed their mind. Heard your desire to meet in person and shrugged it off as something that just didn't interest them. At all.

It's not entirely unlike that. You'd feel frustrated by their indifference, and maybe you'd doubt their love. As much as you might respect their right to their preferences, and as much you might value everything that you had had together long-distance, it just might not be right for you to keep it at that and not move on to meeting up. So it goes with sex, and just like falling in love long-distance leading to real-life meetings, he may have thought that was so obviously the direction to go that he didn't think it needed discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faelights

Short answer to your question: I'm pretty sure there are sexual males out there who can be in love with a girl without having sex (although I suspect they might need sexual release in other ways, but being neither sexual nor male...).

Pretty much, I say this because I regret the fact that if I would have just given him sexual favors, he would still be with me (granted, he never asked me for them when we were together, so I never knew he needed them until he dumped me). But is that how its supposed to be, that I need to earn a sexual man's love through sexual favors? It doesn't seem right to me, but enlighten me!

Though I'm not sexual, I know many sexuals intertwine emotional connection with their partner through sexual activity. The fact that he never asked for them while you were together makes me wonder if perhaps your boyfriend expected you to establish emotional connection with him through initiating sexual activity, but having observed that you never did, came to the conclusion that you did not feel the same emotional connection? i.e. some sexuals feel that sexual activity is a display of emotional connection, and if sexual activity does not exist, neither does the emotional connection. However, this is merely speculation on my part.

I agree with Not-trapped's assessment of how there are many things that can create incompatibility between two individuals in a relationship, apart from sex. Did your ex-boyfriend actually say something explicit to you that indicates the reason for the break-up was the lack of sexual activity?

Imagine getting into a long-distance relationship that bloomed into something deep and meaningful, something you wanted to build into a life together, something you'd drop everything and move to their city for. Now imagine that your partner, even after a year, refused to meet in person. Claimed the idea of meeting in real life never even crossed their mind. Heard your desire to meet in person and shrugged it off as something that just didn't interest them. At all.

It's not entirely unlike that. You'd feel frustrated by their indifference, and maybe you'd doubt their love. As much as you might respect their right to their preferences, and as much you might value everything that you had had together long-distance, it just might not be right for you to keep it at that and not move on to meeting up. So it goes with sex, and just like falling in love long-distance leading to real-life meetings, he may have thought that was so obviously the direction to go that he didn't think it needed discussing.

I also quite enjoy your analogy, Olivier! I hope you don't mind if I adopt it. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tomfish

Sure, you can love without having had sex. That's the way it's been every time I've fallen in love, and the one person I had sex with who I didn't love first, I never fell in love with.

But for many sexuals, sex is a way of expressing particularly deep or committed love (which is not to say sex can't also be purely recreational in other contexts for those same people).

Imagine getting into a long-distance relationship that bloomed into something deep and meaningful, something you wanted to build into a life together, something you'd drop everything and move to their city for. Now imagine that your partner, even after a year, refused to meet in person. Claimed the idea of meeting in real life never even crossed their mind. Heard your desire to meet in person and shrugged it off as something that just didn't interest them. At all.

It's not entirely unlike that. You'd feel frustrated by their indifference, and maybe you'd doubt their love. As much as you might respect their right to their preferences, and as much you might value everything that you had had together long-distance, it just might not be right for you to keep it at that and not move on to meeting up. So it goes with sex, and just like falling in love long-distance leading to real-life meetings, he may have thought that was so obviously the direction to go that he didn't think it needed discussing.

You, my friend, are a genius. Perfect analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snow Girl

but having observed that you never did, came to the conclusion that you did not feel the same emotional connection? i.e. some sexuals feel that sexual activity is a display of emotional connection, and if sexual activity does not exist, neither does the emotional connection. However, this is merely speculation on my part.

I agree with Not-trapped's assessment of how there are many things that can create incompatibility between two individuals in a relationship, apart from sex. Did your ex-boyfriend actually say something explicit to you that indicates the reason for the break-up was the lack of sexual activity?

I certainly had (and still have) an emotional connection with him despite not having sex with him. Which is why I was perfectly happy with what we were doing, and I just assumed if he wanted something, he would ask me directly. I'm on the inexperienced and unknowing side when it comes to sexual activity, so he needed to just tell me straight out and/or show me what he wanted.

He claims that sex wasn't the main reason why we broke up, but it was definitely one thing. But when I think about it, even though I didn't satisfy him sexually, he didn't satisfy me emotionally. Like he would never show signs of appreciation to me, and for just one example, he just could not buy or make me a birthday card for the life of him. I told him it was important to me that he make it up to me for my birthday (since we had a first break-up right on my birthday, and then got back together two months later). Yet he couldn't do things to make me happy emotionally. So is it that he wouldn't put in emotional effort for me UNTIL I pleased him sexually? or BECAUSE I didn't please him sexually? I could say the same thing though, that why should I please him sexually if he can't appreciate me emotionally first? Who has to please who first? It's very confusing to me.

Also, (TMI) when I think about it, I would probably have been fine to get him off manually (handjob), if he would have just showed me how to do it properly. But I know that I would never give in to getting him off orally. So even if I gave him handjobs that gave him sexual release, do you think after a few more months he would get bored and dump me again, saying that now that's not enough and now he needs blowjobs and/or all out sex? To complicate it further, he told when he dumped me that he doesn't like to receive until I receive first. But I don't want him to go down on me. I told him I would be happy if he drew me a picture of a heart, and that would be equivalent to me going down on him. I don't think he understood really.

As for Olivier's analogy, that does make sense to me. It helps me to see it from his point of view. But at the same time, I think communication is important when we have such different requirements (if that's the right word). I don't think we had great communication at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Having sex is not more important than someone you love, but for a sexual, it would affect their feeling about someone if they knew that mutually-desired sex was never going to happen. They just don't want to make that tradeoff. If he had decided to stay in the relationship and feel that he was missing something, his feeling would have been detrimental to the relationship. Sometimes people can come to the sort of compromise that Olivier and his wife have done, but it's not always possible.

Don't feel he didn't love you "enough". He just couldn't shut the door on that part of himself (sexuality) for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRose

Having sex is not more important than someone you love, but for a sexual, it would affect their feeling about someone if they knew that mutually-desired sex was never going to happen. They just don't want to make that tradeoff. If he had decided to stay in the relationship and feel that he was missing something, his feeling would have been detrimental to the relationship. Sometimes people can come to the sort of compromise that Olivier and his wife have done, but it's not always possible.

Don't feel he didn't love you "enough". He just couldn't shut the door on that part of himself (sexuality) for anyone.

Really well said.

Also, it's possible that he loved you so much it was too painful to stay with you without sex. As an analogy, sometimes people stop being friends with someone they love, because the person they love doesn't love them back, and it's too painful to keep the friendship. It's not that they don't love the person; it's that they love them so much that the friendship hurts because they want something more. It's the same kind of thing when the love that the two of you had hurts because he wanted something more for the relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deremna

Due to my current mood, I probably won't be yammering on as much as I normally do. This is probably a good thing.

My boyfriend has told me he's been in love with me since he was 15 (he'll be 25 next month). We've only been together for 5 and a half of those years and spent the other years after I graduated apart but he still told his girlfriends that if I came back into his life and asked him to be my boyfriend, he would leave them for me. It sounds harsh but for the most part his exes are all crazy bitches so.. Eff them. We never had sex till we started dating and since we never saw each other before then, it was almost the same as a long distance relationship type love for him.

I think he would stay with me if I told him no more sex but I do think it would be very hard for him. In all honesty, I would probably be the one to break up with him out of guilt before he would break up with me out of frustration. But who knows? Everyone has a breaking point in relationships even if you do still really love each other, as Not-Trapped pointed out. And as stated by others, you should NEVER have to perform sexual favors to gain someone's love. If that's what it takes to make someone fall in love with you, I would say it's not real love and they're not worth your time. I know that for some sexuals sex and love go hand in hand but love should bloom based on emotional and mental factors, not coitus. (sorry, too much Big Bang Theory)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walrusman

I was in a relationship with a girl for a year and a half who, though sexual, did not believe in premarital sex. I didn't care at first. In fact, I had a hard time feeling comfortable being sexually attracted to her for a while; I didn't feel like it was respectful to her until I got more comfortable with our relationship. However, I did grow to have a very strong physical attraction to her. It could be frustrating not being able to act on this, but I never tried to pressure into it. I stayed with her because I loved her, even if I could not express that love in the way I would have most liked. We eventually broke up, it was because of a completely different issue.

However, my situation was very different from a relationship between a sexual and an asexual. Although we never did anything more than kissing and cuddling, there was still very strong mutual attraction, and it was understood that, if we ever were to get married, there would be sex. Being in a relationship with an asexual would be much more stressful for me because she would not share my attraction or be able to relate to it. Celibacy would also be a permanent state, not a temporary one like it is with someone who saves it for marriage. Even if we did have sex, I would feel guilty for making her do something she would be uncomfortable with.

I guess to sum it up, a man can most defiantly love a woman without having sex with her, but lack of sex can seriously complicate the relationship.

Also, I really like the long distance relationship analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Queenbea63

It tough, I have struggled for months with my boyfriend who does not want sex. Barely handles touching and doesn't like to kiss. I have thought hard for many months if I should break up or accept him for who/what he is. Not an easy road for a sexual person, but I am working through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRose

It tough, I have struggled for months with my boyfriend who does not want sex. Barely handles touching and doesn't like to kiss. I have thought hard for many months if I should break up or accept him for who/what he is. Not an easy road for a sexual person, but I am working through it.

I don't know if this helps at all, but you don't have to choose between "break up" and "accept him for who he is." If you do decide that the relationship isn't working for you, and end up dating someone sexual instead of (or in addition to) him... you can still accept him as a person. I know it's painful, but don't make it any more painful by thinking that you're rejecting him just because the relationship isn't working out for you. Just like he's not rejecting you as a person if he's asexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goldberry

The long distance relationship analogy is great, but I guess it just hits me in a soft spot because I've been one for the past two years, I'm 20 and he's 25, and I have this looming fear now that I'm almost done with my two years at community college because of now knowing to do with myself next--and my family hates the guy. But long story short, we haven't had sex in August because well...that's the last time we've been with each other. Sometimes I do wonder about how our relationship would work in person because of that very issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faelights

but having observed that you never did, came to the conclusion that you did not feel the same emotional connection? i.e. some sexuals feel that sexual activity is a display of emotional connection, and if sexual activity does not exist, neither does the emotional connection. However, this is merely speculation on my part.

I certainly had (and still have) an emotional connection with him despite not having sex with him. Which is why I was perfectly happy with what we were doing, and I just assumed if he wanted something, he would ask me directly. I'm on the inexperienced and unknowing side when it comes to sexual activity, so he needed to just tell me straight out and/or show me what he wanted.

Well, I'm glad that my assumption that you do have a strong emotional connection to your ex was correct. I merely wanted to postulate that maybe your ex-boyfriend did not understand that you still had a strong emotional connection to him even if you didn't initiate sexual activity. To be honest, my experience with my ex was the same; he was always the one initiating the sexual activity, and he expressed frustration with that after a while, saying that it made him feel needy.

He claims that sex wasn't the main reason why we broke up, but it was definitely one thing. But when I think about it, even though I didn't satisfy him sexually, he didn't satisfy me emotionally. Like he would never show signs of appreciation to me, and for just one example, he just could not buy or make me a birthday card for the life of him. I told him it was important to me that he make it up to me for my birthday (since we had a first break-up right on my birthday, and then got back together two months later). Yet he couldn't do things to make me happy emotionally. So is it that he wouldn't put in emotional effort for me UNTIL I pleased him sexually? or BECAUSE I didn't please him sexually? I could say the same thing though, that why should I please him sexually if he can't appreciate me emotionally first? Who has to please who first? It's very confusing to me.

Also, (TMI) when I think about it, I would probably have been fine to get him off manually (handjob), if he would have just showed me how to do it properly. But I know that I would never give in to getting him off orally. So even if I gave him handjobs that gave him sexual release, do you think after a few more months he would get bored and dump me again, saying that now that's not enough and now he needs blowjobs and/or all out sex? To complicate it further, he told when he dumped me that he doesn't like to receive until I receive first. But I don't want him to go down on me. I told him I would be happy if he drew me a picture of a heart, and that would be equivalent to me going down on him. I don't think he understood really.

As for Olivier's analogy, that does make sense to me. It helps me to see it from his point of view. But at the same time, I think communication is important when we have such different requirements (if that's the right word). I don't think we had great communication at all.

Yeah, so... that addresses the uncertainty I had in my first post. There seems to have been a lot more going on than just the lack of sexual activity. =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pamcakes

I've never [consensually] slept with anyone I didn't have strong feelings for, so yeah, for plenty of people, the emotion needs to come first before they're willing to begin a sexual relationship.

But once those feelings are there, there are practical considerations towards sustaining the romantic connection, and for many Sexual people, sexual intimacy is an irreplacable, indispensable one of them.

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
`Silver

It really depends on the person. I, as an asexual, would never make love with anyone just to satisfy them, so I can well understand sexuals who are not willing to give up the physical part of their relationship for anyone. Some could though.

By the way, I'm in a (difficult but wonderful) relationship with a sexual boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mesha

The forum has been a great aid to my own personal worry about the possobility of having a relationship.

Companionship makes life so much more alive in a sense yet for sexuals the sex part may be just as essential to feel 'alive'.

There was a time I was happily in a long term distant relationship yet when it came time to meet I had to back away quickly. I knew the sex part would be a major priority and although I still have contact with the person, he may not understand I never can be physical. I never have been. Sadly, I would love to be in a partnership yet sex seems to always be the goal, in the end I might as well avoid relationships until someone who can be at peace with my ways comes along.

I told one guy and he seems ok with it but sex does seem to keep males 'hooked' sometimes. It is all a matter of the individual and each situation and relationship is varied and depends on many factors. The words we all share on the forum at least provide a bit of peace. To relate to another makes us feel connected perhaps. Since we all are connected we may need to accept some need sex to express and a minor portion of us do not.

I do know that to be someone else for another is not worth it. Be yourself and you will be healthier, have more vitality. Live your own life and if someone comes along and wants to share part of the journey then it is time for that. However if we walk alone we may just focus more on other things and learn in a different way in this life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...