I Agree. I much better to be single so you have options than to be trapped in a relationship that prevents you from having sex. I don't see the point of getting in a relationship like that. It can be awfully hard to get out of a marriage with out some consequences and it is much worse if you have children to think of. Most people know if sex will be a part of marriage before they enter it. Anyone who treats sex as chore that they don't like to do will stop once marriage has started. If your headed for a marriage like that, its better to stay single. My rule is to participate in a relationship as much as you feel comfortable and no more. If the relationship is not complete enough to say no to all other women, then stay single and have fun because life is short. Most people who do not want sex will not pressure you to get married unless they have other reasons such as finances. So don't pressure them. And not spending more than is in your budget will make sure there are no relationships in you life with people who are with you for finacial reasons. Follow these rules and have a good life!

Dear Barnine--

Wonderful post. Thank you. I have a question: what was "sexless" for you? What did that mean? Different people define this differently. Thanks!!

Thank you for your comment and questions, Bill. And you are correct in stating different people define "sexless" differently.

Knowing the intimate details of my definition is not the point in my mind, and out of respect to my former love, I shall keep the details private.

However, my sexual experience and my expectations in this particular marriage were in conflict with what I deserved and desired. There were so many aspects of our relationship that sustained me in the early years of the marriage that vanished over time. I wanted to give honor and respect to myself, my partner, and the relationship by not staying in a place where eventually I would tire of living a lie.

So, your definition may be different than mine (or not), but each person must decide if he/she can sacrifice this aspect of the relationship whatever that personal definition is for a sexually satisfying union.

Thanks, again, Bill.

Warm regards,

Barnine

Barnine-- Now I am left with ever more questions!!! I know you will not answer them. Um, frustrating. The ones I know you won't answer but I will leave here perhaps for other to answer are these:

1) Is no sex at all "sexless?"

2) Is sex "sexless" if it does not satisfy you? Let's say you have intercourse even weekly perhaps but your partner is never "into" it in spirit. Or perhaps he is into it but physically you are not stimulated?

3) (Like # 2) If your partner pretty much has sexual contact with you, FOR YOU, like, "Okay, this is for you, here is a 'quickie'", is THIS "sexless?"

What do you or someone else think?

Hello Bill.

A union where there is no sex is a sexless relationship in my mind.

The other two examples feel more like a lack of chemistry between the individuals for whatever reason(s).

Take care.

Barnine

Bill, what you are describing is sexually unsatisfying relationship. There are many varieties of those. A sexless union usually means no sexual interchanges at all, or a minimal amount, like once a year.

Actually, for research purposes there is an agreed upon minimum that qualifies which is actually more than annual, but I don't remember what. Google users?

I think it's once a month or less, Isadora.

Once a month.... Hah! I'd think I went to Heaven...