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.
I think Greg isn't the right choice for her. All the rational would go down the drain if it is...., no?
A good question to ask Sandra why does she need to date Greg in the first place? Or in general terms, what can you do with your boyfriend or girlfriend that you can't do with your friends? Should the guy keep on paying for dinners and expect some roll in the hay at the end of it? Or perhaps they should go dutch and not expect anything?
Or perhaps if he agreed to wait until she's ready then he should try to keep his word?
Yes, of course, you can go about it this way. But she didn't set any time limits, and I can imagine, he didn't expect to wait more than 3 months. So when he is communicating his frustration to her, he is being honest, which is a good thing. One person can't set all the rules in a relationship for it to be succesful ( whether they are having sex or not, after 3 - 4 months this is already a relationship). She should be more honest with herself first, and think about if she can ever trust him in the future or not. The fact that Sandra feels he doesn't love her is very selfish. Does she love him even a little bit herself? Is she warming up to him to actually trust him, to be honest about her feelings and communcate with him?
Sex does cloud emotions, if it is good, women get a head full of oxitocin, making them fall in love after sex easier. Men on the other hand get a dopamine rush.
Well tales about asking for proof of love were in vogue when I was 15 I think, and these were cautionary tales.
I'm not in her head, yet from what we know, she was pretty clear with him from the beginning: wait until she's ready and that's that. So either the guy can barely control his urges (very bad: many women will need much longer periods of abstinence e.g. around childbirth, and he is now doing pretty much all he can to coerce her short of actual rape), or he was immature enough to expect time limits where there were clearly none. Either way, Sandra has every reason to think that he cares more about his itchy dick than about her feelings.
It is also clearly stated that she thinks he might have never loved her. It is also only said he told her about his frustration (nothing about the degree of how he tries to coerce her). Men, at least the ones I've met, tend to get frustrated, when you keep postponing something (work, trips, whatever, sex in this case) without being clear. Basically he just wants a confirmation if it's going to happen or not. If he should keep on waiting.
Except that he is threatening to walk away.
Given his behavior, she is right to doubt it.
Perhaps the guy would be better off with a rubber doll, it wouldn't postpone.
Yeah, you can date without sex (at least at the begining).
I have been dating without sex, but for me as a man it does not work. I cannot connect with a person without sex truthfully. Without sex it's just a business relationship.
The one relationship I had, where a waited a few months resulted in me never trusting that woman and never enjoying sex with her. I felt anytime I had sex was a result of something I did. It was like prostitution only worse. If you wait 4 months we will have sex. If you plan a date we will have sex.
As a man I want her to want to have sex with me and enjoy the experience. If that is not the case, we can be friends but we cannot have an intimate relationship.
Why not? I know people that are asexual.
True it would be easy for an asexual lol
surprise, surprise. i agree with you, for the 1st time lol
I think if the love is there and is real, you can definitely wait to have sex. A man who genuinely loves his partner will be willing to respect her desire to wait, as long as she explains her reasons. If the relationship is meant to be, and a good match for both of them, it will move forward, and sex will be part of it at some point. I dated my first serious boyfriend for two years before we had sex (granted, I was 17 and a virgin when we first started dating). But, even as adults, that respect for a partner who wants to wait should be there from someone who truly loves them.
Then again, I also hear men saying they would never marry someone before they had sex with them. I had sex with my husband on our second date, and we've been married a long time. But, I don't think the fact I jumped into bed with him so quickly had anything to do with it.
Yes, most church communities have platonic dating which often takes the form of group dating. You meet many more people in this culture... and a broader spectrum of people. It's not for everyone.
I can date without sex. I have dated different women some with sex and some without. Find I am open to both sides of this sex relationship idea. However I also understand that many are either for the sex or not as opposed to changing like myself. We're all different as ourselves and also the ones we date.
It wasn't about dating without sex altogether, it was about not making love for some time. Which is pretty normal to me, the partners shouldn't go into bed until they both are sure they are ready for it and want it. Which may be five minutes or five years (or more). In no case should one partner try to coerce the other one into sex (and this is what this Greg guy is doing).
My husband and I met for more than 6 months without sex. Don't see any problem in it.
Of course there are relationships without sex! Have you heard of Aces?
Asexuals? It's an orientation like all the others...
You can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual :)
Hm, interesting, "To sex or not to sex..."
Noope gots to haves me sum SEX!!! Lol
Problem is, I dated a few girls like this, then the sex was awful, and of course you can't stay with a girl that is not sexually compatible with you. So it was all a waste of time. What is the point in loving a girl who's not going to satisfy you in the bed ? You will cheat on her everyday.
No, YOU will cheat on her everyday. Don't extrapolate unto everyone else. At least you've warned your future brides what'll happen should they go out of town to visit family, become incapacitated, or disfigured. Sounds like you aren't loving anyone, you're just having sex with people and the only person you love is yourself.
Thanks captain obvious, what could we do without you.
for me yes i can date without sex in some days months then this person will be my wife for life
I believe it is possible if both people are religious. But in most cases men want to test demo-version.
Date without Sex is ridiculous. Maybe not on the first day but the next will do. I personally prefer sex right away then get serious later. Like my old friend told me.. "The more you have sex the more you love the person." - Just a thought.
We are fairly new to Steemit and as I am acquainting myself with how this all works and reading some of the posts, I was happy to see this topic addressed. We at pineconeutopia have been making podcasts and mini documentaries as well as interviewing people who have information to share. Just this week we interviewed Jeanice Barcelo from Birth of a New Earth on "The Control of Society Through Sex" in which she addresses how manipulated our culture has been through sexuality and in particular pornography. I think you may gain some incredible insights by listening. Here's the link for anyone who cares to go deeper
Sex is overrated, this is why many people is afraid of it, to much presure. We need to take it as something natural like to eat, to drink or to breath. Sex is covered with many fears, damnations and legends.
I don't understand the premise...
If you both like each other you will end up in bed together. Love is not magical, it's chemistry in our brains. Sex is the logical conclusion of that chemistry imho. That's why sex is 100x better when you actually love the person you're having sex with.
This is a terrible article with no value in it whatsoever
All interesting comments...Sandra told Greg of this one 'condition' and he agreed. Greg should stand by his word and Sandra should honour the commitment she made to herself until she feels ready. Greg seems as if he's trying to manipulate her.Sex doesn't mean trust. At the end of it alll if she gives in and Greg leaves, who will be damaged?Trust yourself,Sandra.True love will understand the turmoil you went through in your prior relationships and wait until you're ready.
My opinion - love is sparkling machine hide somewhere very deep in you.
And these sparks causes fire.
And the only way to extinguish it - good long passionate sex.
Otherwise, the flame will destroy love. Love will burned by fire.
She will spend time (a year) to get to know him better. Then they will have sex. Then they will break up. Why spend this year? Need to live life to the fullest, to take everything possible and nothing to regret. We all could die in a minute.
Great piece. I think @razvanelulmarin missed the point that you simply wanted to tell a story about something that got you thinking, then share the question and leave it open to discussion. I guess not everyone understands that Facebook cut and pastes aren't the only type of article out there.
The answer is yes you can. It might be hard to do, But it can be done. Sex will be much better and a relationship much stronger when and if you get married.
My next Sr. Suess ... Hop on Top, Hop on slop? Do you like to get laid, write about it and you'll get paid.
When you ask a question in the title, the unspoken promise is that there will be an answer to it.
This is light on content, and lame.
Is there a way to downvote a post without flagging it?
Im an Indian. In our culture sex before marriage is considered as sin. I would say yes, I would date a man without having sex before marriage.
I was married for twenty years. Dating when I was younger was very different, probably because of STDs (HIV and Herpes).
When I divorced and started dating again, I acted as I did when I was 18 years old. Took my time and did not push. I was in no hurry for sex because, as the article mentions, it clouds emotions and judgement.
But I found that women today are so different. My last two girlfriends initiated sex very early in the relationship. Casual sex and "friends with benefits" was unheard of when I was younger not to mention I won't even talk about what is on my phone.
I have been single for 4 years and I am still getting used to it. I'm not sure I am ever going to find a serious relationship. I am not sure I want to.
Though I'm not asexual, I find that sex is overrated in general, and i see nothing romantic in it. Physiology that sells pretty well.
Some wise man said "Sex is the one thing that is actually free."
But it doesn't have to be so important, or doesn't have to be so weighty.
For the Bonobo's it's something casual.
If people don't want to rush into sex, that's cool.
Off-topic i think we should have a 60's/70's revival, to much love out there that's commercialised, too much an end to a needs. And seemingly we are moving into more puritan times?