Would you date a man who was physically unable to have sex?

Post Reply New Topic

Greater population means that there are likely to be more people who meet your favoured profile within easily reachable distance.

Of course you need to know how to find those people.

Sure there maybe someone who fits the profile in your small town but if you don't hit it off for other reasons there might not be much more choice.

A lot of people who are a bit 'different' do head to cities as there is less pressure to conform to a particular society's 'norms'

hmm. theres a difference between not being able to and just not wanting to. i chose maybe

Cuddling is good. Just hanging out. Whatever we come up with. I really like to just hold her. I don't like kissing on the lips, but kissing other things is OK. Not only that, but lip kissing (especially frenching) has a way of degenerating into sex.

Well french kissing is something that I fear I wont like because of its blatant sexuality. But being naked together is something I know would be important to me. Not knowing what kinds of sexuality that I like and what I don't like because of lack of experience is really bothering me.

That would be awesome.

Because I HATE sex....that's pretty much it.

Everything else.

I would, but if he loved me (as I'd only date a man who loved me) he will have to use his finger on me and rub himself against my body to make up for it.

As it stands I'm dating and living with a man who's hoping to have kids by me someday, I'd quite like to have kids as well, but we are waiting until we feel ready.

Ta Now

I actually wouldn't. I know there's more to a relationship and all that stuff, but what if I stayed with him long enough and we lasted years, and then I wanted kids from him, his inability to do the deed would make that kind of difficult.

IVF?

Meh, I would rather do it the old fashioned way, at least it would be more enjoyable.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but I truly don't understand. Why would you date if you couldn't/wouldn't ultimately have sex? What would be the purpose? Is it the companionship? How would the quality of the companionship differ from that with your friends (who you presumably don't have sex with)? Can you clarify your question/assumptions at all?

How is a romantic relationship any less of a romantic relationship without sex?

You're basically saying that love is a "friends with benefits" situation.

I am not interested in having sex for the rest of my life. I don't need it to be happy. I think there are better things than having it and I think it's over rated. I think sex is for having kids and that's it. But no people do it to make love and just because they feel like it and one time is never enough. For me it is unless I am trying to get pregnant.
I don't think people need it to make the relationship good. That is just BS. They can spend time together like go to the movies, watch a movie together, go out and have fun, cook together, spend time with their kids, take their kids out. But lot of people refuse to see it that way. I don't even get hugging and cuddling and kissing. I can't stand to be touched and I sure don't need to give it to be happy.

See, for me, the sex is the reward for the difficulty I have in general socializing/spending general "time" with people. If I can make it through everything else, I get sex, which I enjoy immensely (on my terms). The rest of companionship is too much of a challenge for me without it.

I'm not knocking anyone's opinion here, but I feel that romance is a construct, an artificial prelude to the final act. It has always seemed false to me. I cannot conceive of a "romantic" relationship where you're not leading somewhere extremely physically intimate. Yes, it's difficult for me to take that step, but spending time in people's company without that reward is less-than-fully-satisfactory, to me.

I love my friends, but I don't have sex with them. We don't have that particular intimacy. We don't have "romantic" relationships.

I literally could not be in a relationship where I held hands or cuddled and it didn't involve sex, eventually. Sex is one of the few ways I feel I can connect to people. Holding hands and cuddling are extremely intimate acts to me, ones that signify that a relationship is at a different level than I share with my friends.

I probably should have considered the ages of people posting in this forum, I think age can be a divider in this. I didn't mean to imply that 17-year olds shouldn't date because it won't lead to sex. I meant to discuss grownups, in their 40's. My bad, I forget how many of you are so very, very young. I was once you; I think my experiences are specific and have led me to particular conclusions.

Oh, and for me, sex is just one of the best things, *ever*. I'm jealous of true asexuals (though I'm not minimizing your suffering of living in this modern hypersexualized society, don't get me wrong); you never have to consider where your next "meal" may be coming from. Said from someone who's been starving a long, long, long time.

I'm 25.

Do you think that sex would be as important to you if you enjoyed the other aspects of a relationship more?