What if your gf/bf didn't want to be intimate?

[TenorSounds 832]

I think that it depends on everyone's personal situation/preferences. For me, physical intimacy is half of a healthy relationship. If my partner decided that they did not want that intimacy, well...it would definitely put a strain on the relationship. It might even lead to ending it.

 

What it boils down to is you need someone who can fulfill your needs, and whose needs you can fulfill. If one party wants intimacy and one doesn't, that is just a recipe for disaster. If you don't want to be intimate with someone find a partner who feels the same way, same as if you do want to be intimate. Really, communication is key. When a couple doesn't talk about this sort of thing until WAY down the road and then they already feel committed to the relationship, that's when the problems start.

 

What I will say, though, is that to call someone "shallow" for ending a relationship due to lack of intimacy is a bit shallow in-and-of itself. Wanting that intimacy and being rebuffed, especially if it's someone you love, can be extremely depressing and (like I mentioned earlier) a strain on the relationship and if someone decides they don't want to have to live with that everyday and respectfully end the relationship, who are we to judge? It's their life. One thing I will never support is staying in a relationship that makes you unhappy. Not to "save a marriage", not "for the kids", not "so I seem like a nice guy", etc. No one deserves to live like that every day.

 

Edit: Just wanted to point out that these are my general beliefs, and of course I would look at each situation individually. Relationships are about learning and compromise, after all.

Edited September 9, 2014 by TenorSounds

[Flutter's lover <3 8,206]

My very first boyfriend didn't want to have sex...which I was totally fine with.So, we just snuggled and kissed instead. And when we walked down the street we held hands. Though, the relationship didn't last that long. He broke up with me months later.

 

My boyfriend after him, a year or so later,...we were intimate a few times...but it was largely disappointing, I liked it but it was just meh. To be honest, I was happier in a loving relationship without the sex vs with the sex. I much prefer cuddling/kissing over sex. That's not saying I don't like sex...(who doesn't?) but  when I was single between my two boyfriends, I had a few friends with benefits...and it was rather satisfying.

 

 

TL:DR: Being sexually intimate shouldn't make or break a relationship. 

[ThatOneComrade 1,091]

Continue the relationship of course! Sex is hardly a good reason to end a relationship and forcing them to have it with you might as well end one. Wait until both of you are comfortable and ready to take that step.

[Shadowking58 1,137]

While I'm all for loving the person for her and not for her body, I have sexual needs and desires, and if she can't fulfill that, then temptation is going to kick in until I just can't take it anymore. I'm going to need SOME release.

[LightningMana 146]

Not a problem~ a mental bond is most important, focus on that. 

[Fluttershyfan94 5,742]

It wouldn't be a problem really, but I do feel like the intimacy is an important part of the relationship. Which might come later on as it grows, so for someone to not want to get intimate would be fine. Though one day it would have to lead to it or it would possible end.

 

So I would continue the relationship, if they wanted to wait until marriage that would be fine as well. I prefer the emotional bond, strong relationship should be able to stand strong without physical intimacy.

[CosmicHooves 2,705]

Sex and intimacy are two completely different things.

 

A girlfriend without intimacy isn't a girlfriend. So, with that in mind, I would end the relationship immediately. That's pointless. I want someone I can be intimate with, and if I can't have that, then you're not going to be my girlfriend.

 

Sex, however, is different. I wouldn't want to wait, but I would if there's some reason and we have plans for the future. If that isn't the case, I will be expecting sex in a relationship. If that makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps we should split up before things get too awkward and fall apart.

 

There's plenty of fish in the sea. If one of them won't have sex with me, then I'm going to go after another one. Call me shallow, but remember that I am a sexual being and that isn't going to change.

Hmm...

What is intimacy then?

 

On a side note.

I'm going to go back on what I have said earlier.

Honestly, even I'll admit.

I wouldn't be able to have a relationship without sex.

Sure I can wait till marriage, but no sex ever?

Nope.

Sorry honey.

Sex is an important part of relationship.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Hmm...

What is intimacy then?

 

On a side note.

I'm going to go back on what I have said earlier.

Honestly, even I'll admit.

I wouldn't be able to have a relationship without sex.

Sure I can wait till marriage, but no sex ever?

Nope.

Sorry honey.

Sex is an important part of relationship.

 

If we're being technical:

 

https://i.imgur.com/kwZPDtV.png

 

Only one definition of intimacy involves sex. In a more broad sense, it can also be used to describe feelings of closeness or companionship. In other instances, it's used more generally to describe anything that's warm or comforting.

 

So, for example...

 

I would consider the end of S1 E2 Friendship is Magic to be an intimate moment. It's cheesy, but it's intimate in the way that Twilight realizes she has friends and she cares for them. There's nothing inherently sexual about it--not even in the slightest.

 

I would also say the same about the end of S1 E24, Owl's Well that Ends Well. The way Spike and Twilight reconnect after having been separated... yeah, that's a very intimate moment for Spike. I know a lot of people hated that episode, but it had one of the best endings of any, in my opinion. Having heavily sympathized with Spike, I nearly cried at this part.

 

In Sleepless in Ponyville, the RD and Scoots scenes at the end are rather intimate, especially for a character like Dash. We never really get to see her soft side, so when she admits that she was scared too, that's big. That's one of the few instances in which we see her being intimate. She's allowing herself to put down her guard of "coolness," because she's ultimately comfortable enough in such an intimate environment to do so.

 

Sisterhooves social, May the Best Pet Win, and The Cutie Mark Chronicles all have intimate scenes, in my opinion. Intimacy isn't just sex, and it isn't even constrained to romance. It's an emotion and it's much more broad than that.

 

Intimacy is the emotion that you feel when you think, "well... normally I wouldn't tell anyone about this, but I guess I can trust you." It's a feeling of connectedness, and that's why sex is usually intimate. Because... y'know, sex is like a... physical connection... between two people...  I'm going too far...

 

Not all sex is intimate, and not all intimate acts are sexual. Sex can be intimate, and intimacy can be sexy, but the two are completely different. Intimacy is more closely related to love than sex--and when I say that, I'm referring to all types of love. Brothers, sisters, family, and friends can all be intimate without being perverts.

 

So... to me, you may as well have asked, "what if your BF/GF didn't want to love you?" Yeah... I know you really mean sex, but a lack of intimacy as a whole is a huge no-go for me. A lack of intimacy would mean no hugs, cuddles, romantic evenings, sharing secrets, appreciating one's company, or whatever else that couples do. A relationship without intimacy isn't even a friendship.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Regulus

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

If she didn't want to be intimate until marriage? That would be a good sign for me. I wouldn't, either.

 

If she didn't want to be intimate ever, even after marriage? Yeah, I don't think I'd be alright with that.

[iceestarz 5,765]

1. Well I'm a virgin but damn some day I wanna have kids. My own kids, I have nothing against adoption, my mom was adopted, but I wanna have my own biological kids. And if I had a boyfriend who NEVER wanted to be Intimate I don't think it would ever work. I'm not like trying to be shallow but being intimate is the most personal thing you could do with someone. And if they didn't want to then that sucks good bye. I'm all about waiting if the person isn't ready but no. I don't wanna be that 40 year old virgin with 20 cats

 

2. Yeah. Some people hold out until marriage and don't regret it. I myself am unsure if I will wait until marriage but I'm certainly not gonna sleep with a guy just for giggles. It's not that big of a deal. I could wait.

[NotoriousSMALL 1,984]

If we were dating and she didn't want to have sex, thats fine. But if I marry someone I want to have sex. For fun and for making children, I want to carry on my bloodline. I wouldn't end the relationship on the spot though, I might try to convince them otherwise.

[deadprofile 1,122]

No offense meant, but the way you describe it, it almost sounds as though you're implying that everyone who lacks desire for sexual content does so out due to emotional trauma or some other sort of condition. This isn't quite the case, though... while that may be the case for some, just as there are plenty of folks that exist on every step of the heterosexual/homosexual spectrum, there to exist plenty of folks that just aren't sexual at all, or are so in only limited ways. The whole concept of general asexuality isn't all that well known or 'out there', but it is a thing.

 

Having said that though, considering how important sex is to most folks, it is something that would be best off being discussed openly and early on, to prevent any explosions later on down the line. As for myself, I am (and have been for quite some time) in a sex free relationship, and have been quite happy with it. 

 

Being sex free by choice isn't a problem. But I would say, yes, everyone who lacks desire thorughout their lives (not through choice or during portions of their lives) has a condition that has caused it. The obvious one would be trauma, but there are also other enviornmental factors, and genetics. Child development is the more decisive factor in terms of enviornmental causes. Every childhood is different and although there are consistant statistics out there, they are not a "one size fits all" motif. All I was explaining is that there is no "just because" without choice in terms of lifelong lack of intamacy within relationships. It is more likely that people who cannot keep relationships or, who never get into one at all for various reasons will most likely turn out asexual. A lot of it is choice, but then again there are reasonings for all our choices. Everything builds upon one another as we grow up and experience the world through our own eyes. There are 7+ billion people out there, how in the world could everyone fall into a few labelled groups that try to explain why they are the way they are when their life experiances are not exactly like the person next to them.

 

I will say I am coming at this topic from the most pragmatic, ground level way. The OP I believe stated something about our thoughts on if our partner NEVER wanted intamacy. That is where I took my response from, since as far as choice before marriage does not apply to me. I am also taking into account the people that I know, my peers that around my age. And sadly, many of my female friends stop wanting intamacy all together after marriage, or once they have kids they pretty much want nothing to do with her husband (I have 3 friends who are like this, they have children now, which is all they wanted, and now no longer have a use for their husbands). I also stated the relationship between my parents-in-law. In every situation where I have seen intamacy absolutely thrown out the window, I have their marriages falter, and 4 already have ended in divorce (not even three years in, and one couple already have 2 kids {at her bidding}). I don't try to look for these problems in relationships, I am just the mediating friend among the females friends I have. I listen to them, and try to offer the best advise I can as a third party. I cannot relate to them with the lack of intamacy, because I feel like I have my priorities straight within the relationship I have with my husband. And this is where I blame selfishness. But that's a whole different topic.

 

 

I guess I am in an uncanny valley here on the forums. I am of college age (23), but I probably one of the few here who married very early (we are over 3 years married). Mind you, it has NOT been easy. I have a lot of baggage and there is still many things we are learning about eachother and how to live together in the most prosperous manner. But for anyone wanting to be in, or are in a bf/gf relationship, I will advise to save the sex for marriage. I am an unlucky one to have my innocence taken from me before I was in kindergarten, and it's something that I really feel like I have given my beloved husband the short end of the stick even if it wasn't my fault...It's hard to explain the feeling knowing that my husband was a virgin, but it does make me feel closer and more special to him. And the best advise I can give is "stay friends first." believe me, life together will be lot better if you stay friends first and foremost. Trust me . 

 

[Kay Dreamer 884]

I doubt I'd even let things progress to the status of 'relationship' at all. I tend to canvas those kinds of opinions preeeeeetty early on. Patience is not a virtue I possess in abundance.

 

But hypothetically, if I were in an early-stage relationship and I discovered my parter had an aversion for physical intimacy then yes, I would break things off. Because that aspect of a relationship is absolutely essential for me. It's important that it's there, and it's important we're compatible in that regard. (That's in the rare instance I find myself in a relationship anyway - I don't actually enjoy being in them that much. Call me crazy, I like being single.)

 

That said, this was obviously quite a bit different when I was younger. I feel this way at 25; I did not feel this way as a teenager! These things often change as you mature.

[Snow Frostflame 3,568]

its simple you continue to date them you fell for them because of there personality not there body if that't not the case then that's not love at all

 

but I'm not attracted to either sex so I can't say much

[Not_active 732]

you fell for them because of there personality not there body if that't not the case then that's not love at all

That doesn't sound very nice, to be honest.

[TenorSounds 832]

its simple you continue to date them you fell for them because of there personality not there body if that't not the case then that's not love at all

 

but I'm not attracted to either sex so I can't say much

 

That's not how it works for everyone. For a lot of people, love is equal parts physical and emotional. Take one of those away, and it can be rough to maintain a healthy relationship.

[Snow Frostflame 3,568]

That's not how it works for everyone. For a lot of people, love is equal parts physical and emotional. Take one of those away, and it can be rough to maintain a healthy relationship.

sure sure what ever you say

[Nulln 755]

i've been with a guy who never wanted to do anything like that.  i stayed with him almost a year (we ended because he was unfaithful).  it was very hard and it's very uncomfortable to have those urges constantly and no one to help you out with that, but there was more to us that just that.

its simple you continue to date them you fell for them because of there personality not there body if that't not the case then that's not love at all

 

but I'm not attracted to either sex so I can't say much

you fall in love with more than just a personality.  

but biologically, all partners are really for is breeding.  we have urges, some people call them 'needs', and personality isn't always enough.

you can still love someone and want to be intimate.  if they can't be intimate with you, then you may have to find someone else and just keep them as a friend.

[Shift 4,272]

I'm asexual so I would prefer to not have sex at all, ever. But I would to it once or twice to see how it affects people and for the sale of experimenting.

[TenorSounds 832]

sure sure what ever you say

 

Just because you can't handle the truth doesn't mean you need to be rude about it 

[Nine 707]

I'm asexual so I would prefer to not have sex at all, ever. But I would to it once or twice to see how it affects people and for the sale of experimenting.

I did this. In retrospect I have very mixed feelings about it

 

 

 

I would say, yes, everyone who lacks desire thorughout their lives (not through choice or during portions of their lives) has a condition that has caused it. The obvious one would be trauma, but there are also other enviornmental factors, and genetics. Child development is the more decisive factor in terms of enviornmental causes. Every childhood is different and although there are consistant statistics out there, they are not a "one size fits all" motif. All I was explaining is that there is no "just because" without choice in terms of lifelong lack of intamacy within relationships. It is more likely that people who cannot keep relationships or, who never get into one at all for various reasons will most likely turn out asexual.

 

 

That doesn't seem very fair to me. I don't see anything about this explanation that couldn't just as well describe any sexual identity. Why should asexuality be singled out as a condition or caused by trauma?

Edited September 11, 2014 by Nine

[Koukatsu 5,899]

I'd have some minor issues we'd need to work out together before I'd make the final decision about the relationship. (And I agree with Banul, poll needs some N/A or Other options. )

 

I'm not so shallow as to say "NO DIRTY TIMER?! HERMERGERD, I'M OUT BABEH!", but I've got a pretty... "youthful" libido. If she or he were open to some form of release that wasn't direct "sex", I could easily cope until marriage. If they are just the sort of person who had some sort of trauma or something, or just plain didn't like sex, and it was never going to be an option, well, I'm not the sort of man to cheat, so we'd have to discuss something along the lines of an "open" relationship. If those talks fell through, then I'd probably have to end it, because it would be a very one-sided relationship. All take and no give is not a relationship based in mutual affections.

[IcyHaze 595]

I think after a certain amount of time it woujld be necessary for a healthy relationship.

[Shift 4,272]

@@Nine,

 

I haven't tried it, but I do plan to. The idea of sex just never appealed to me, but perhaps one day i'll try it to see if it lives up to the hype. 

[Justin_Case001 4,903]

Sorry if it sounds shallow, but I would end the relationship.  I'm a very sexual and affectionate person by nature, so it's an important part of a relationship for me.  Doesn't mean it's the most important, but it's still important.  Without the physical aspect of a relationship, I think I would only feel like were are just "good friends," but never anything more.  I need more than that.  But I am the kind of person that needs a very long time to get to know each other, so I would be fine with waiting a long time.  That's what I would want anyway.  But to me, marraige is just an arbitary legal document and doesn't actually affect our comitment to each other.  So, if my partner was vehemently opposed to sex out of wedlock, that would probably be a tipoff that she's not really right for me to begin with.