Can you Date Without Sex?
My friend Sandra started dating Greg about four months ago. She had just come out of a pretty serious relationship that ended woefully, which led to her making new rules for all her subsequent relationships. The major rule was that she wasn’t going to rush into having sex and she would prefer to take her time to know this person more. She believed that sex had a way of beclouding true emotions. She told Greg about this right from the word go and he said he didn't mind. That he wanted to have something deeper with her than sex. But he started to get cranky about a month ago and even threatening to walk away if they don’t get intimate. He said the fact that she hadn't made up her mind about going all the way with him is because she doesn’t trust him. And that there is no point to it all if there was no trust.
Now Sandra feels like Greg never really loved her. That he probably only for into this in order to eat the cookie at the end of the day. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding going on between these two and I really hope that they can work it out because they have had some nice times.
Sex is a topic that manages to creep into a any conversation when guys gather together over a table of drinks. From these conversations I was able to learn that for an average guy, sex is an integral part of the relationship. No sex, no relationship. Like my friend Mike will say,
“Behind all the buying of flowers and the expensive dinners is the need to get some good sex. That's just the truth.” 
Then he added this for good measure:
“Why would anyone want to go a whole day without some good roll in the hay? Sex is so awesome! Sex is bae!!”
I can hardly even picture a successful relationship in this age and time without sex. Especially now that sex is so easy to obtain. Friends have sex with each other. Even colleagues in the office. 
I guess there are people out there who don’t ascribe to the fact that withholding sex or being so particular about it is making “too much ado about nothing.” They feel like sex should be a very intimate act between two people who really care about each other and are completely faithful to one another. This is more attainable for them in a matrimonial home.
Thus there are all sorts of conflicting views on sex and dating.
So this brings us to the topic of the day:
Can you date without sex? Why?
-----------------------------------------
(images courtesy of pixabay)
Im 99% sure the next post will be
"Learn about rebooting and how No-Fap can help you"
Looking forward to it :)
/s
Come on! Good post!
And very actual today - in the age of love over distance.
I met a guy from out of town for the past 2 years.
During all this time we've met a couple of times.
And they were faithful to each other.
What fluff... talking about "love" after a month with "your friend" Sandra?! God example indeed:/
Whoever reads this and thinks wow, that's a honest and interesting article on sex and power dynamics...my god.
Litmus Test: Would you want to be with this person for the rest of your life even if you didn't have sex with them?
If the answer is no, walk away. You are not with the right person.
PS: Pleasure seeking rabbits may be shock by this statement.
Greatly said! Very simple and very true. I am lucky to have a right person by my side.
All personal choice, for me personally sex is huge. I find the very fact that someone will commit to a life with someone without knowing if the two are compatible in bed, is absolutely insane to me. But like I said that's just to myself.
I couldn't agree more, compatibility in every way is paramount to a good relationship.
I think compatibility can be achieved during the relationship if both partners want it, perhaps except some really extreme cases. I'm not advocating delaying sex until married, but I do think that in pretty much every case sexual compatibility is a goal partners can work towards together and achieve it.
I think sex is not the right way to start a serious relationship but does need to come into the fold at some point prior to a marriage commitment.
This I think is best left to the partners themselves.
@misgivings
Yes you can date without sex but in reality...
...both parties want sex. The only difference is when.
Due to the nature of human physiology women have to withold sex in order to test if the male is emotionally invested. This mechanism worked with our ancestors since mothers needed emotionally bonded fathers to stick around and take care of them and the baby.
This form of biological safenet has shaped culture itself. Until today we use much the same mechanisms with our relationships. This is also why guys who date a lot are considered desirable and sexy but the when women do it are considered sluts.
Men spread their seed. They don't care where it lands. Women have to choose wisely since they will be stuck with the offspring.
Funny how you don't see that these paragraphs contradict themselves. After all, if women have to choose wisely an emotionally bonded father then promiscuous men should be considered the worst ones, shouldn't they? And if men don't care where their seed lands they should consider promiscuous women more desirable than chaste ones? Granted, they might not be the ones to impregnate a promiscuous woman, but they stand a chance, and a chaste woman is for pretty much everyone off limits. So it's certainly not that simple.
It also appears that cultural prejudices against female promiscuity are being deconstructed in the West for several decades now. So it doesn't look genetic at all.
Yes, it is possible to date without sex, but it is not so easy for young people. In addition I believe worth the wait the better moment to get a good and unforgettable sexual relationship.
If there's no sex, then there's no romantic relationship. It's platonic.
It's perfectly okay for two people to have a platonic, sexless series of dates where they get to know each other and see if something romantic can develop. But if there's no sex, there's no romantic relationship. Sex is what makes the relationship more than just a friendship.
Not having sex right away is a good and wise thing, but not having sex for some kind of arbitrary, extremely long stretch of time, is essentially telling the guy exactly what he's assumed: "Even though we've been dating X months, I still don't trust you enough. You still haven't earned it yet."
It's a funny situation. A woman can jump right into bed with a guy, then a year later, get out of a bad relationship with him. Then fast-forward to today, and she wants to move slower with a new guy. Develop a deeper connection.
So this new guy waits months and months, jumps through hoops, makes her feel special, and puts in all of this effort to demonstrate how emotionally invested he is. How committed he is. When she jumped right into bed with the last guy.
She allegedly loves this new guy more and has a deeper more important connection with him -- but has sex with him less. What sense does that make? She loves him more so she has sex less and makes him do more to "earn" it? That's backward.
It's not a trade relationship, one doesn't earn sex. It isn't some kind of reward either. Either they want it both or not. In this case it appears not. Her previous relationship has certainly influenced her attitude to sex now, and precisely for this reason he should respect it. He wants to be a better guy than the other one, doesn't he?
And that's fine. They're platonically dating then, as friends, to see if anything romantic develops. There's no rule against that.
But without sex, there's not a romantic relationship. Withholding intimacy is the exact opposite of love.
Having sex less with someone you love more is ass-backward. Imposing a bunch of arbitrary rules and barriers to intimacy with somebody you love more, essentially to make them prove themselves by enduring your barriers, is downright sadistic. It's a power play. It doesn't matter what the reason is for her power play -- it's still a power play.
Some dude broke her heart in the past, she didn't have the power to stop it, so now she wants to have the power in her relationships. So sex happens if and when she wants, per her rules, her barriers, her standards. Well, this guy she's dating now has power, too -- he has the power to impose his own standards, and leave if they're not met.
If two people agree to be in a committed "relationship" (I would argue that this isn't a romantic relationship), then sex should be the default. Not lack of sex (unless mutually agreed upon). Because if they're exclusive with one another, then when one person decides not to have sex, she's making the decision for both of them to be celibate. What if the guy doesn't want to be celibate? Why does she have the power to control his sex life? If they're equal partners in a "relationship", why would her desire not to have sex be more important or more controlling than his desire to have sex? What right does she have to make unilateral decisions about his sex life?
Perhaps you failed to notice that she makes decisions about her sex life. He is free to walk away at any moment, jerk off, visit a whore and so on. If he wants sex with her, then it's not just his sex life. Both have to consent to have sex, not just him.
When entering the relationship he has agreed to abstain for an indeterminate time, until she's ready. Now he's trying to coerce her, so its not she making a decision, but he trying to force her to change what he'd accepted before.
No. The default is always no sex unless and until all the partners (not necessarily two) consent. Sex is not a right.
All of this is fine and good if and only if two people are platonically dating, maybe to see if something romantic develops.
Once a man and woman become exclusive, they've agreed not to have sex with other people. That one particular woman is the only woman the man can have sex with, and he's the only man she can have sex with. Unless one of them violates their relationship by cheating.
That means that if one party chooses not to have sex, he or she has forced the other party to also not have sex. (Unless the other party cheats or leaves the relationship.)
Outside of a committed relationship, fine, sure, the default can be no-sex. Because both the guy and the girl are free to be dating a hundred other people. The party denied sex can just go have sex with someone else. The person denying sex has not unilaterally decided that the other party is celibate.
But in a committed relationship, a sexual rejection becomes a much weightier choice, because the person choosing not to have sex is making that choice for her partner as well, possibly against his will.
And that happens sometimes. People sometimes aren't sexually compatible. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to walk, and as you've noted, this guy is free to walk away at any moment.
But because he's a good guy, he wants to give her a chance to save the relationship first instead of just leaving. So he told her enough is enough. He agreed not to have sex right away. He's worked with her for four months, without sex. This sexless dating period has gone on longer than he initially expected, and at this point, he thinks the girl has some serious trust issues. So he has, very fairly and very honestly, expressed his standards and his expectations, so that she has the option to save the relationship if she wants.
His wants, his expectations, and his standards are every bit as valuable and every bit as important as hers. He's an equal part of the relationship. If his wants, expectations, and standards aren't being met, he has every right to express that, and to tell her he's leaving if things don't change.
He is just as important as she is.
There is, absolutely, hands-down, a universal right to sex.
Try telling homosexuals that it should be illegal for them to have sex. It used to be in many states. See how it goes when a liberal-minded guy like you tries to tell them that they don't have the right to have sex.
Everybody has the individual right to make choices regarding his or her own sex life. That's why this woman isn't required to have sex with this guy, even though they're dating. And that's why this guy isn't required to stay with her, and why lack of sex is a completely valid and legitimate reason to not date somebody.
These people have a right to make their own sexual decisions. He doesn't have a right to force her to have sex with him, and she doesn't have a right to force him to be celibate.
It's quite simple. There's no universal right to sex, in a committed relationship or not. There's also nothing forcing him to remain. If he'd agreed from the beginning to wait until she's ready, and he did, then he should simply wait. He's the one breaking what they both agreed to, not she. She isn't forcing him to anything, just asking to keep his word, which she trusted him to do in the first place. If his dick is too itchy for him to do exactly that, then, well, she was right to abstain and perhaps should look for a better party.
Also, three months is not long. There are people who take years. Again, if he cannot keep his word, then perhaps he should go to a brothel or fap off, and not be looking for, like, any relationship.
It's in fact more about trust than sex.
Yes, there is a right to the hands down sex, certainly.
There's no right to sex unless every concerned party consents. And no right to demand consent under any circumstances, this must always be freely given.
(Which for this guy probably means hands down sex precisely)
Exactly. And since he promised to wait until she's ready, your attempts to make her the guilty party are, frankly, laughable.
She doesn't try to. He was the one who agreed to wait, and if he wants sex from her, he will have to.
Generally, in the beginning, guys get into a relationship to have sex whereas gals have sex to get into a relationship.
In my opinion, if I were to ask can I have a date , without a Sex? Yes, truly , I can date without a sex, because if you really love the person, you are willing to wait if both of you are ready to go with sex, and most importantly in a relationship Respect really matters, respect of oneself decision and perceptions in relationship, you cannot blame the person if she/he wouldn't mind of having sex, as long as you stay together and as long you commit unconditional love with each other, then why not you get into marriage then you can do both the formal and usual scenario of being couple is having sex.
TL;DR: She gave it up for the bad boy, and made the nice guy wait. The nice guy knew what he wanted, but hid his desires and pretended to be OK with not getting any until he could do so no longer. The end.