Would you ever be with someone even if you two are unable to have ***?

[Azariah]

would you?

 

[TheSkaFish]

I don't know. I think that would make things pretty difficult. Also it would make the whole arrangement not that much different from a regular friendship. It might be more possible if I'd already experienced a regular romantic/sexual relationship first.

Unless you're talking about a long-distance thing, where you could still have *** eventually, just not all the time. That would be easier to live with. I'd be open to meeting someone long distance, because I just haven't found anyone around here that's really blown me away. Everyone I've found interesting, that I'd like to get to know as a potential romantic partner, has always lived somewhere else.

 

[solonely20]

Well I'm close to 30 and I've never had it. I doubt I couldn't live without it if I was with someone.

 

[Sarah G]

Yes, maybe because I'm pushing 50. *** is no longer a priority for me. When I was younger it was more important partly due to the need to feel wanted, which is important to women.

 

[ardour]

If we were already together and some health issue cropped up I'd stick by them, however I wouldn't start anything with someone if that was going to be the situation.

 

[user 135671]

" And if I could move, I'd get my gun and put her in the ground " seems a wee bit extreme to me.

 

[Minus]

Sure.

 

[4No1]

Yes, why not?
It's better to have something than nothing at all.

 

[Nutfewass]

I used to think it was a big deal. I realize that I am probably messed up in some type of way and the girl would be dealing with that, so I would have to deal with her issues too. As long as she wasn’t being unfaithful and it wasn’t a personal thing then I don’t see the problem. When you go so long without humans around u learn to appreciate little things like laughs and movies and stuff

 

[roses4all]

*** is made up of many, many things
why would ALL the things that comprise ''***'' stop
if one tiny part stopped?

 

[theablekingathelstan]

relationships aren't just based on ***.

 

[user 130057]

I actually thought I was with someone at one point for whom physical intimacy was unnecessary. I would have been happy to accept her with or without sexual contact, even though it would have been difficult. Feeling wanted is important to most people and I'm not sure how 'special' I would've felt - luckily, it didn't end up being that way.

I was also once with someone who developed physical issues that made penetrative *** impossible and although things were difficult, I didn't love her any less and never considered leaving her because of it.

 

[user15010]

*** is made up of many, many things
why would ALL the things that comprise ''***'' stop
if one tiny part stopped?

That resonates with me. Anyway, answering the original question, yes, I can.

 

[idaniel]

Yes, if you are truly connected with someone, then that does not matter. As said above, relationships are far more than that.

 

[Colster]

Reasons to appear like a 1970's Pervert
​

I am conflicted about this quandary. Initially, my thoughts were no, I could not. Even more cheesey, I am a Scorpio, we are known for being sexual creatures. Imagining being with someone that I love, and not being able to express that love physically, is unthinkable.

Then in complete contrast, and like other previous comments by other's, I find myself approaching 50. Companionship is ultimately more important. I miss the notion of somebody else simply being around.

Although to end my days without the many joys of a passionate relationship, I really do not think that I could. The myriad of sensations; touch, smell, excitement, even occasional danger.

Yet, it has been 2-3 years since my last dalliance, and abstinence seems to growing increasingly comfortable.

 

[Abstamyous]

As long as at least one of us is capable of turning on a toy.

 

[Colster]

As long as at least one of us is capable of turning on a toy.

are we talking the Major Morgan or Simon Says?

 

[Abstamyous]

are we talking the Major Morgan or Simon Says?

These were the husbands to my Barbies back in the day. I am inclined to stick with them. Especially the dude with the boxing gloves
1

 

[ringwood]

Well, if we're talking the complete absence of *** (like a platonic relationship) - no touching, no caressing, no petting, kissing, etc, etc, then probably no. If we're talking penetrative ***, then yes - as there's always toys that one can use. Like some of the other comments above, I'm pushing 50 - while *** is important to me, it's not the end-all-be-all of my existence and I'd be happy to compromise my *** life to a point if it meant being with someone I love. But I'm also a very affectionate person, so I couldn't not express that side of myself.

 

[TheSkaFish]

I'm actually not that sexual of a person. I'm kind of prudish actually, which kind of makes me wonder if women see me as lacking in masculinity. I don't really feel comfortable about talking about it, it feels kind of weird. Though I do sometimes talk about it, to understand it more. Dirty talk in particular is something I'm not very comfortable with, and isn't natural to me.

On second thought, I think I'm kind of prudish about it only in a general way. I think I could open up with the right person, with a person that's on my wavelength. Someone understanding.

It's just that I want to experience it before I kick the bucket. I want to see what all the fuss is about, I want to tick it off my bucket list. I don't want to miss out. Part of me doesn't want to do risky things in life until I've been with someone first, for this reason. To me, being in a relationship is "normal" and it's important to me to at least achieve "normal" in life, to not feel like I'm limited and relegated to being a loser. I feel like most people take *** and relationships for granted as something that just happens in life, like learning to tie your shoes, riding a bike, and things like that. Basic life stuff that anyone should be able to do. I also want to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am good enough to attract someone. I want to be good enough for someone to choose me.

I actually feel like I don't need that much of it though. Certainly not every day, just not "never" either. Here and there is fine. It would be nice to have the option, though. Life's all about options to me, having the power of choice. I hate being limited and relegated.

But the emotional/affectionate part is important to me too, because I want it as part of a relationship, I want to experience the whole packaged deal. The emotional closeness and warmth, in a way that others are not. A deep connection. Someone that really understands you. A life partner. Someone to talk to and explore and share life with, feel like you're really going somewhere with. Having a special person that you can talk to about all kinds of things. I'm not acutely lonely because I don't live alone. But I imagine if I did, I would be. The closeness of family or friendship is nice, but it's different. It's not the same.

Then again, not everyone is interested or even able to have *** so I don't know. Someone like that could be an interesting person too, and they are certainly not "lesser". This is a tough question.