Non-sexual partners

I have been pondering this for a while. People here sometimes talk about having non-sexual partners, boyfriends and girlfriends.

I have to confess that I don't understand what is meant.

I suppose that what I'm asking is - what's different between a close friend and a non-sexual partner?

Thanks :)

IP
 
The spelling? :D

I've basically reached a point where I think partnership/relationship is pretty much an empty label, to be filled with whatever the partners in question decide for their unique situation. That may or may not include sex, may or may not include romance... may or may not include a thousand other things.

Partnership == that thing two (or more) people have who call each other "partners". That's the best objective definition I can give.

I wouldn't mind overly much if peeps called what I have with R. a friendship - because, at its core, that's what we are first and foremost, each other's best friend. There's some kind of very hard to define "extra" energy between us, a special place in each other's lives, that made us arrive at calling it a partnership (and, in fact, joke about how if we were more "conventional" folks, we'd be pretty likely to end up married to each other :p)... even when that "extra" isn't sexual, and doesn't fit all too neatly into stereotypically romantic categories, either.
 
I have what I think could be described as a non-sexual boyfriend. I call him Knight and I wrote about him on my blog here

It didn't really start out non-sexual (we used to kiss and make out a little and he turned me on, a lot) He has a lot of issues regarding sex and it became pretty clear pretty fast that we would not have a 'normal' sexual relationship. We slept in the same bed a number of times, the first couple of times it was enormously frustrating because I was so turned on by him and he would never do more than cuddle me and hold me and kiss me (if I was lucky).

We are still what I would call 'dating', although we no lnger spend the night together we talk about this sometimes as a possbility for the future. We meet about once every 2 months for drinks. Very, very occasionally we kiss. We often touch, he holds my hand, I ruffle his hair. I think if someone who doesn't know us saw us in a bar, they would think we are very much in love, the way we talk so intensely and stare in each others eyes, and that we are probably going home and have amazing sex :p

So I guess that answers the 'what's different between this and a regular friendship' part ?It feels very diffferent to me - I love him with a different kind of love, he's not my friend, he doesn't mix in my social life, we don't meet or connect in between dates. When we meet it's very intense and emotional. It hasn't always felt like a healthy relationship to me and I did break it off a couple of times, but now that I have learned to accept the boundaries, I can anjoy the possibilities.
 
I think it's a good point, that partnership means different things to different people. To me, a "partner" is someone with whom I am consciously cultivating a relationship with the intention of continuing to know each other more and more deeply, supporting each other's goals and development, and finding meaningful ways to include one another in our lives. Very similar to friendship, and yet more charged, more deliberate. It comes down to a combination of intimacy and commitment that's mutual and acknowledged.

Intimacy means a lot of things, and it often means sex. Yet, I've had friends with benefits with whom I have definitely not been in a relationship. Sex, therefore, cannot be enough to define something as a relationship rather than a friendship. Nor, I've found, can its absence be enough to "downgrade" a relationship to a "mere" friendship.

If a marriage becomes non-sexual, are the spouses still in a relationship? Would they be so even in the absence of the legal contact that binds them? I think that, in most cases, people would agree that they are. If we accept the idea of a non-sexual life partnership, then, to use the poly parlance, is it only primary relationships that can be non-sexual and still be relationships? No, I don't think so. A secondary partner is, in most cases, a good deal more than a friend, and it's not just the sex that makes it so.

Those are some initial thoughts, on a subject I'm still working out for myself.
 
Another way to think about it. Imagine a relationship, whatever that means to you... let's say two people who go on dates, do special things just for the two of them, rely on each other, etc. Very close and loving. Let's say they have sex twice a week. That's definitely a relationship, right?

What if they have sex once a week? Still a relationship? Of course.

What about twice a month? Once a month? Every couple of months? Once a year? Never?

At what point does the sex reach a threshold that's low enough that it's no longer recognizable as more than a friendship? Is there such a point?

And what about people who are asexual but not aromantic -- are they incapable of relationships?
 
There are a lot of things I don't get. Non-sexual romantic relationships is one of them. But I don't have to get them to know they exist and work for some people for a whole slew of reasons.

My marriage ended in part because it had become a non-sexual relationship.

I do know it is not for me. One never knows but I cannot see myself being happy in one for long.
 
@ Cleo... does Knight identify as asexual? You definitely made me wonder there, because there a number of parallels between your story and my 'ship with R..



As for the frustration of sexless 'ships... well, I obviously can't relate to that, seeing as sex isn't on my wish list at all. Just saying that one of the advantages about polyamory is that I can fully "outsource" the sex, so to speak - her sexuality being an area of a partner's life that she's free to share with others, so I don't have to feel guilty about "never putting out". ;)

I think that "mixed" 'ships between asexuals and sexuals are infinitely easier to make work on a poly basis than if you'd struggle with a monogamous model, which is all too often going to end up as the rock-and-a-hard-place decision between either "charity sex", or involuntary celibacy for the sexual.
 
@ Cleo... does Knight identify as asexual? You definitely made me wonder there, because there a number of parallels between your story and my 'ship with R..




Not really. He likes to talk about sex an awful lot, although I realize that doesn't mean anything when it comes to putting your words into action.
It's just that he has VERY specific kinks and preferences and fetishes. He's told me about some, but not all. And even with the few things he told me it seemed to me that the circumstances would never ever line up to the point where he could have sex with me. Another thing is that he definitely feels guilty towards his GF (who knows about me, but doesn't like that he sees me, even if we only meet for drinks - I guess she realizes, too, that we're not just friends even though it's not clear what we actually are).

nycindie, opalescent - if he were a partner I saw regularly, who was more a part of my life, I dont think I could handle it, because I still am very attracted to him and the fact that he doesn't want to have sex with me does, every time, feel like rejection. But once every 2 months I can handle that, and I enjoy the things that are good between us.
 
AnnabelMore wrote:

What about twice a month? Once a month? Every couple of months? Once a year? Never?

At what point does the sex reach a threshold that's low enough that it's no longer recognizable as more than a friendship? Is there such a point?

InsaneMystic wrote:

I think that "mixed" 'ships between asexuals and sexuals are infinitely easier to make work on a poly basis than if you'd struggle with a monogamous model, which is all too often going to end up as the rock-and-a-hard-place decision between either "charity sex", or involuntary celibacy for the sexual.

My experience has been that relationship can be defined differently, even between the two people theoretically having it. With my last relationship before Pidge, after 5 years of involuntary celibacy on my part, I thought of myself as his former girlfriend/current health aide. He was still thinking of, and describing us to others as a romantic couple. If he had been the type of man for whom a poly relationship might have worked, perhaps things would be different. But in my book, one person calling it a relationship doesn't make it so, if the other person defines it differently.

This is a fascinating conversation. I hope you all keep going, it's thought-provoking.
 
If a marriage becomes non-sexual, are the spouses still in a relationship? Would they be so even in the absence of the legal contact that binds them? I think that, in most cases, people would agree that they are.

I appreciated this point.

I don't have a clear cut response-I don't think there one.
 
My husband has a lady friend, who I have labeled his "non-sexual partner". The two of them have labeled her his "sister". It's not romantic in any sense (probably more by her choice than my husbands), but there is a relationship there and an emotional attachment. Many people mistake them for husband and wife (until I show up :p).

She takes my kids to the doctor, school activities, etc and when I can't make it to one of the kid's sporting events, she shows up with my husband (has the baseball and football mom's scratching their heads, especially when I look confused when they call her my sister in-law). She and her family are basically part of our family now. It took me a while to be comfortable around her, but I can now call her a friend.

I would say that a "non-sexual" partner goes beyond even close friendship.
 
I have been pondering this for a while. People here sometimes talk about having non-sexual partners, boyfriends and girlfriends.

I have to confess that I don't understand what is meant.

I suppose that what I'm asking is - what's different between a close friend and a non-sexual partner?

Short answer: Roughly the opposite of the difference between a partner and a friend with benefits...

Sex does not a romance make. I love my best friend. I love my husband. I don't love them in the same way, and the critical difference is not that I have sex with my husband. Poets have been trying to pen it down for centuries. There's just that magical "something" in romantic love that you do not feel in platonic love, and it's not just that your genitals get engorged with blood when you think about them.

I understand how it can be confusing. Just like an orgasm, you can't imagine it until you experience it.

Actually, from a scientific point of view, there's probably a very specific set of biochemicals responsible for that lovey feeling. I know oxytocin is one of them, but that's involved in any human bonding (including parent-child) so that can't be the only one... *roots around Google for a minute* *there* But I doubt that list is complete. Biochemistry is incredibly complex and humans understand a minuscule part of it.
 
Yeah it makes sense to me. I don't have any non sexual partners & I don't know if it would be right for me...I picture it as either being lustless romantic love (nice) or a real frustrating situation where one of us wants sex and the other doesn't or maybe there's romance and low level lust but it doesn't go beyond that. I don't consider two adults who have romantic feelings AND want to have sex but cant, to be non sexual partners

There are close friends I used to have both sexual and romantic feelings for, now I don't, it is a clear difference for me, I did not hang on to romantic love, so they are close friends, period. I can see it possible that if things had gone differently I would've kept feeling romantic love but not be sexual with them, and then I would classify them as non sexual partners.
 
Of course, when talking about Gia and I having a sexual versus a non-sexual relationship, it helps to understand what those terms mean! And when you're kinky, that can be a lot fuzzier, as this blogger points out -- http://theladygarden.org/2011/10/18/everything-is-sex/. While she and I haven't had conventional sex (not that there's much "conventional" about the sex we have, but you know what I mean) in a month a half, we HAVE had a number of erotically charged moments and encounters, some subtle and fleeting, some blatant and lingering, having to do with, say, me kneeling to rub her feet or her asking me to fetch her something and then ruffling my hair. Food for thought.

Something I just posted on my blog related to this topic.
 
Thanks for the discussion. :) Very thought provoking. Really interesting to read everybody's responses and takes on the subject.

I think it's a good point, that partnership means different things to different people. To me, a "partner" is someone with whom I am consciously cultivating a relationship with the intention of continuing to know each other more and more deeply, supporting each other's goals and development, and finding meaningful ways to include one another in our lives. Very similar to friendship, and yet more charged, more deliberate. It comes down to a combination of intimacy and commitment that's mutual and acknowledged.

AnnabelMore - thank you. That's a fabulous way of describing why partnership is different from friendship (it's a distinction I struggle with). Plus good cartoon. :D

SchrodingersCat - thanks for the link. I have to share that with some of my friends. I think a ton of them would appreciate it.

I suppose that my own take is that to consider something a partnership, I'd need there to be the things that AnnabelMore describes above and a sexual element to the relationship. If the sex has stopped for good, I would stop thinking of it as a partnership.

If it stopped due to a permanent illness I'd consider myself to be my former partner's carer. I wouldn't necessarily leave them to fend for themselves but I would not consider such a relationship to be a partnership any more. I might even marry a former partner suffering from a long term illness (especially if it was degenerative) - just so as to be their next of kin and be more easily able to deal with medical professionals.

If it stopped due to an emotional problem which isn't being addressed, I'd be sad but would end the partnership and seek to remain friends.

I know it's different for everybody but I think that for me, that's how I see it.

I'm not fixed on the notion of there needing to be a partner in my life. There wasn't for years and years. During that time, I built a life that revolves around around non sexual friendships of varying degrees of closeness. C, living companion and I intend to stay together, his needs are considered in all of my decisions, both he and I regularly adjust our wants so that we can help each other achieve what we want. We regularly hug each other and often spend long periods gazing into each others eyes. We do things just the two of us that nobody else is invited to. As C is not a human being (he's a dog) we will never have a sexual relationship and I would never call him a partner - even though my relationship with him is hugely important to both of us.

I have a close friend, though, who when I first met her, introduced her very beautiful dog as her partner. Over the years, I've known her have a few FWBs but I've never heard her refer to a human being as a partner.

I have some human friends who I will hold hands with, hug, ruffle hair, go on dates with etc - I suspect that anybody seeing us would think that we were sexual with each other. I describe those people as friends. If the physical affection goes along with a lot of emotional intimacy too, I'd call them close friends.

I've experienced the stages of falling in love with friends before. One in particular it was very intense with. We used to meet several times a week and talk for hours. Quickly progressed our relationship until we were spending 4 nights a week together. Nothing sexual has ever happened between us - I'd describe us as being like sisters. Things are more settled now. We're older, have jobs. My friend is married. I have my friends, lots of interests, C, my SO in my life. We don't spend so much time together and the intensity isn't as strong but we are close and share our emotions, hopes and needs with each other. We are very committed to staying close to each other and we both work at it.

Starting a friendship with a new dog can be as emotionally intense as well.

I reckon I can go through all the stages of falling in love with individuals that I'd never call a partner.

Maybe that's just my own issues with the word, maybe other people would describe these relationships as non-sexual partnerships?

IP
 
If a marriage becomes non-sexual, are the spouses still in a relationship?
My ex and I did not have sex for the last three years of our marriage and it totally sucked. I won't go into anymore details about it, but suffice it to say that I was very unhappy about it. It was a major issue between us and one of the reasons why the marriage ended. There is no way I could live with that kind of frustration again, not even if I am in poly situations. I want to express myself physically with people I am romantically involved with. I know I definitely could not get involved with an asexual person, nor someone whose life situation or other relationships would prevent me from getting laid.
 
My experience has been that relationship can be defined differently, even between the two people theoretically having it. With my last relationship before Pidge, after 5 years of involuntary celibacy on my part, I thought of myself as his former girlfriend/current health aide. He was still thinking of, and describing us to others as a romantic couple. If he had been the type of man for whom a poly relationship might have worked, perhaps things would be different. But in my book, one person calling it a relationship doesn't make it so, if the other person defines it differently.
Oh, definitely! Remember my definition of partnership above? Everyone involved calling "the thing they have" by that name pretty much is the one and only criterion for something being a partnership, IMO. If only one calls it such, you don't have a partner, you have a problem... possibly even a stalker.

(as an aside to @InfinitePossibility: that's why I would not refer to a human and a dog as partners - the dog, obviously, has not agreed to the use of that word. ;))

That's not what I meant when I mentioned "charity sex" and involuntary celibacy, though. I was talking about a partnership (agreed upon to be one, by both peeps involved) between an asexual and a sexual person. By definition, the asexual will never feel "the hots" for their partner - so if they plan to keep it closed/monogamous, some form of compromise is needed: either the ace offering sex as a favor of love without being into it much (which I've heard many sexual partners of aces refer to as "charity sex", with a definite undertone of frustration; however, there also are a bunch of cases where compromise like this can work fine for everyone involved!), or the sexual saying goodbye to their sex life completely for the time of their partnership.

I'm really glad that there's a third option once you let go of the monogamy model... the sexual's sex life being a part of them they can share with someone else. Works for R. and me in a way that keeps both of us happy without any feelings of sacrifice or guilt trips. Neither of the two previous options would work for me - I couldn't stomach the thought of having sex with anyone, including her; neither could I live with the guilt of having sentenced her to an end of her sex life as the price of being my partner.


ETA:
I want to express myself physically with people I am romantically involved with. I know I definitely could not get involved with an asexual person, nor someone whose life situation or other relationships would prevent me from getting laid.
Just to keep any possible misunderstandings nipped in the bud: There's nothing at all wrong with that decision of yours that "no sex" will be a dealbreaker for you; if anything, I applaud you for having that clarity. :)

If you know what does and what does not work for you, a definite hard limit right from the start is, IMO, much preferrable to trying messing around with an unworkable compromise that's going to end up hurting everyone involved.
 
Last edited:
I want to express myself physically with people I am romantically involved with. I know I definitely could not get involved with an asexual person, nor someone whose life situation or other relationships would prevent me from getting laid.
Just to keep any possible misunderstandings nipped in the bud: There's nothing at all wrong with that decision of yours that "no sex" will be a dealbreaker for you . . .
Of course not. Why would there be anything wrong with it? :confused: What misunderstandings could come out of my saying I want sex? I would never have thought there is something wrong with that.

However, I must correct you - I didn't make a decision. I just know that's what I've always wanted. I view sex as a form of communication and I want to be able to express myself sexually. I didn't sit around and think about it, and decide that "no sex is a deal-breaker." No sex doesn't work for me in a love relationship, not only because I have a high libido, but because I honor my need for that kind of connection. I can have casual sex with people I am not in love with but I can't be happy without sex in a relationship with people I do love as more than friends. It would just make me too sad not to be able to completely express who I am with them. My ex and I drifted apart because we were no longer having sex and I became extremely depressed to be laying next to him at night and without being physically intimate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top