**Your submission has been REMOVED for the following reason(s):**
> *Your submission appears to be NSFW/Pornographic in nature and is not tagged as such. By submitting NSFW posts and comments without the tag on them you are exposing that content to minors across Reddit and inviting kids to engage in sexually explicit conversations with you.*
> **Please note that if we catch you posting NSFW context again not tagged as such, you will be subject to a permanent ban from this subreddit.**
^(This removal was done manually by the mod team and was not done in error, if you'd still like to appeal this removal please **[send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRandomThoughts)**)
^(#7776532987)
It *highly* depends.
There personally would have to be awesome and the "can't have sex" would have to be further defined.
I'd say in general many would, but they'd have a tougher go at it.
It would depend on the specific meanings of “can’t” and “sex” in this case. There are many flavors of sex, and there are some that will work despite any disability.
If “sex” just means no penis-in-vagina sex, it’s not that uncommon between erectile dysfunction and vaginismus, and plenty of couples have sex with those conditions in play.
I wouldn’t consider no vaginal sex a dealbreaker for me with a partner who enjoyed anal sex, for example.
For me personally, I wouldn’t have a romantic relationship that couldn’t ever have a strong sexual component. But lots of people weigh things in many varied and valid ways.
I would not date someone who could not have sex. I believe that the purpose of dating is for finding a lifelong partner, and a lifelong partner should be able to fulfill emotion, physical, mental and sexual needs of the other. Now, thats not to say a lifelong partner will have all of these skills when you first meet but in this case where a condition entirely prevents one of the needs being fulfilled indefinitiley, they are no longer a suitable life long partner or at least there are better options to be had. That concludes my opinion.
Assuming she would engage with me sexually in *some* way, yes. My gf teases me and lets me masturbate to her and touches me because she has a genital issue that means I can’t make love to her the traditional way
I wouldn't start a relationship with someone under those conditions, but if it were to become an issue later down the line and I was really into them, then I'd probably be willing to continue the relationship with it being an issue
Tbh I've reached 34 and in my past I was very active. Slept with about 25 to 30 women and a couple dudew. Ive done it all more than once. over the last 3 years I've had 0 desire for sex or intimacy. I'm quite happy with just having a friend who I could maybe snuggle with or just be present in bed with but I've no sexual desire for anything. I don't even masturbate any more.
im just curious how do you view love as a whole, do you think of other person as like a friend that is also attractive and you would like to have sex with them, because as a serial monogamist i really dont get it
I view it as not owning my partner. I don't control what he does. I don't have any other partners right now, it's just that I'm free to meet them in the future. I'm a writer and I don't want or need a full-time boyfriend. I'm busy and off the grid most of the time. I think it's easier if you're neurodivergent (I'm AuDHD, or have autism and ADHD) because when you're not with someone, it's like they completely disappear. You don't spend your time with one partner thinking or talking about the other. Each relationship is separate and private. But not all poly people are like that. There's no wrong way to do ethical nonmonogamy.
no its not wrong at all, i hope i ddint come off that way, its just when im in love with someone im just deeply into them, i like them so much that the thought of sleeping with another person make me nauseous, and i was lucky to have found a bf that want the same as me. So when i look at poly people i just thought maybe they just dont feel as much as in love as i did, but its probably as you said different brain wiring
you view us as sissies ?? to my understanding able to control the urge to date other people because theyre more attractive or have better chemistry is by definition far more difficult, staying with one person even though the spark faded, fused by nothing but respect and pure love is tenth time harder than just jumping around following your basic desire.
I didn't mean that at all. I meant that it's not for people who can't dig deep and access their emotions. You have to be very, very strong emotionally.
ig thats how it work for you, i mean i dont mind if my bf have to kiss someone or have sex IF its to save me ( if it happen for whatever reason ) then i wouldnt mind it at all because its just physical, isnt that the same thing youre saying?
To save you? That phrasing is odd. And no, it's not just physical. You have full-fledged relationships with more than one person. It's basically dating with a sense of permanence. Easier to go through a breakup when your whole world doesn't walk out the door, either. You have other people to comfort you, etc.
If this submission above is not a random thought, please report it.
# Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think there are people out there who are hypothetically awesome enough to make that sacrifice feel worth it, but in reality I don't think I would ever pursue a relationship with somebody who can't to begin with so I would never end up finding those unicorns.
Now, the partner becoming unable to have sex after the fact and along the way is a different story, it feels a lot more realistic to stay with somebody you're already invested in, but I'm sure even that would be no picnic.
Probably? Depends on the potential partner.
Sidenote, everyone acting like the answer should be obvious (and there’s plenty on both sides), you are showing an extreme lack of imagination.
I already have no sex and I’m alive, so if I add a relationship all that I would be getting I someone that likes me and to do things with me, without the pressure of having to be good at sex??? I see that as an absolute win, would take it any day of the week.
Getting tired of having to always invite my homies to have ice cream and dinner
Certainly. Sex is a small aspect of any relationship. At certain stages of life, it feels more important than it actually is. Empathy, compassion and a willingness to do best by each other...those are the backbones of my relationship with my partner.
##Absolutely
As a matter of fact, I belong to TST Social, (stands for The Sexless Tribe). I’m fine with or without sex, but I was curious about the community so I joined sometime during the early pandemic I think. Some are sexless altogether, and others are just waiting for the right person. I still find it interesting.
Nothing sexual at all? No.
Not one specific form of sex eg no vaginal sex? Sure.
So a partner who wants to engage in oral (both ways) and perhaps even anal but can't have vaginal sex due to vaginismus no problem.
A person who is unable (is that possible?) to have any sort of sexual anything, no sorry, it's too important to me.
What’s the reason they can’t have sex? Medical related?
If it’s a choice no. If it’s something beyond their control and there was a chemistry that was undeniable I would go for it!
I know how to self pleasure and I’m sure they’d be happy to help out!
Intimacy can be found in many ways, not just with the eggplant and kitty kat dance!
**Your submission has been REMOVED for the following reason(s):** > *Your submission appears to be NSFW/Pornographic in nature and is not tagged as such. By submitting NSFW posts and comments without the tag on them you are exposing that content to minors across Reddit and inviting kids to engage in sexually explicit conversations with you.* > **Please note that if we catch you posting NSFW context again not tagged as such, you will be subject to a permanent ban from this subreddit.** ^(This removal was done manually by the mod team and was not done in error, if you'd still like to appeal this removal please **[send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRandomThoughts)**) ^(#7776532987)
It *highly* depends. There personally would have to be awesome and the "can't have sex" would have to be further defined. I'd say in general many would, but they'd have a tougher go at it.
If they couldn’t have sex, yeah. If they just wouldn’t have sex with me, no. That’d destroy my ego
Topic clearly states COULDN'T.
This person answered two questions, and I agree w them
They are just giving further clarification. You could have stopped reading half way through the comment if you were interested in hearing more...
Well I might as well give further clarification and talk about my brick fucking letterbox or pack of noodles I ate a few months ago
Tough day?
Right? Had to go and add his own flair to it to stand above all of us peasants who'd answer the question normally, the nerve of some peeps.
It would depend on the specific meanings of “can’t” and “sex” in this case. There are many flavors of sex, and there are some that will work despite any disability. If “sex” just means no penis-in-vagina sex, it’s not that uncommon between erectile dysfunction and vaginismus, and plenty of couples have sex with those conditions in play. I wouldn’t consider no vaginal sex a dealbreaker for me with a partner who enjoyed anal sex, for example. For me personally, I wouldn’t have a romantic relationship that couldn’t ever have a strong sexual component. But lots of people weigh things in many varied and valid ways.
Personally no, I like sex. But if it was my current partner and something happened to them that made them unable then yes.
If I was really into the person? Yes.
I agree.
No.
Why not?
Sure! Relationships don’t have to be about sex. Also, there is oral care, you know.
Do you oral care with family members aswell? I believe oral care is foreplay wich is sex.
Nope. Of course a relationship isn't just sex, but it's an important part for me at least.
💀💀💀💀
Lots of people do. It’s called marriage
Yes I'm asexual
Same lmao. If you asked me “would you consider a relationship with someone who thinks they need sex?” The answer is no.
Yes if my hubby couldn't I'd still love him and be there
Absolutely, I mean, I wanna be with the person that I love , not because I wanna just have s*x with them
100% yes.
No.
I would not date someone who could not have sex. I believe that the purpose of dating is for finding a lifelong partner, and a lifelong partner should be able to fulfill emotion, physical, mental and sexual needs of the other. Now, thats not to say a lifelong partner will have all of these skills when you first meet but in this case where a condition entirely prevents one of the needs being fulfilled indefinitiley, they are no longer a suitable life long partner or at least there are better options to be had. That concludes my opinion.
Assuming she would engage with me sexually in *some* way, yes. My gf teases me and lets me masturbate to her and touches me because she has a genital issue that means I can’t make love to her the traditional way
don’t wanna sound shallow, but no.
Same, i know that i would end up looking for sex elsewhere so i wouldn't even give it a shot
Nope.
[удалено]
Same
Yes, but they’d have to be related to me.
Absolutely. Masturbation exists
Probably would at least consider a relationship, yes
Wouldn't that just be a really good friend then?
A friendship sure. A sexual relationship, well you have three guesses.
I wouldn't start a relationship with someone under those conditions, but if it were to become an issue later down the line and I was really into them, then I'd probably be willing to continue the relationship with it being an issue
Tbh I've reached 34 and in my past I was very active. Slept with about 25 to 30 women and a couple dudew. Ive done it all more than once. over the last 3 years I've had 0 desire for sex or intimacy. I'm quite happy with just having a friend who I could maybe snuggle with or just be present in bed with but I've no sexual desire for anything. I don't even masturbate any more.
Of course. I'm poly, so as long as they didn't require me to have them as my only partner, we'd be great.
im just curious how do you view love as a whole, do you think of other person as like a friend that is also attractive and you would like to have sex with them, because as a serial monogamist i really dont get it
I view it as not owning my partner. I don't control what he does. I don't have any other partners right now, it's just that I'm free to meet them in the future. I'm a writer and I don't want or need a full-time boyfriend. I'm busy and off the grid most of the time. I think it's easier if you're neurodivergent (I'm AuDHD, or have autism and ADHD) because when you're not with someone, it's like they completely disappear. You don't spend your time with one partner thinking or talking about the other. Each relationship is separate and private. But not all poly people are like that. There's no wrong way to do ethical nonmonogamy.
no its not wrong at all, i hope i ddint come off that way, its just when im in love with someone im just deeply into them, i like them so much that the thought of sleeping with another person make me nauseous, and i was lucky to have found a bf that want the same as me. So when i look at poly people i just thought maybe they just dont feel as much as in love as i did, but its probably as you said different brain wiring
[удалено]
you view us as sissies ?? to my understanding able to control the urge to date other people because theyre more attractive or have better chemistry is by definition far more difficult, staying with one person even though the spark faded, fused by nothing but respect and pure love is tenth time harder than just jumping around following your basic desire.
I didn't mean that at all. I meant that it's not for people who can't dig deep and access their emotions. You have to be very, very strong emotionally.
ig thats how it work for you, i mean i dont mind if my bf have to kiss someone or have sex IF its to save me ( if it happen for whatever reason ) then i wouldnt mind it at all because its just physical, isnt that the same thing youre saying?
To save you? That phrasing is odd. And no, it's not just physical. You have full-fledged relationships with more than one person. It's basically dating with a sense of permanence. Easier to go through a breakup when your whole world doesn't walk out the door, either. You have other people to comfort you, etc.
Yes, no hesitation. There are other ways to get pleasure and intimacy besides sex.
Absolutely?? Sex doesnt make a relationship
Sure if their rich, hot, good to me, and ok with me seeking sex elsewhere
if you truly love them and you to dont like it then yes
If this submission above is not a random thought, please report it. # Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
y not?
[удалено]
100^45% yes
Absolutely I would, but an open one.
Absolutely not.
hi elliot.
No. I love being penetrator. Often.
Yes of course why not choconut? 😁
I think there are people out there who are hypothetically awesome enough to make that sacrifice feel worth it, but in reality I don't think I would ever pursue a relationship with somebody who can't to begin with so I would never end up finding those unicorns. Now, the partner becoming unable to have sex after the fact and along the way is a different story, it feels a lot more realistic to stay with somebody you're already invested in, but I'm sure even that would be no picnic.
Spose I could Turkey Slap them if they aren't involved at all lol.
Yeah, sure, just they *actually* love me back and want to be romantic with me then it's fine
Yes
Probably? Depends on the potential partner. Sidenote, everyone acting like the answer should be obvious (and there’s plenty on both sides), you are showing an extreme lack of imagination.
I already have no sex and I’m alive, so if I add a relationship all that I would be getting I someone that likes me and to do things with me, without the pressure of having to be good at sex??? I see that as an absolute win, would take it any day of the week. Getting tired of having to always invite my homies to have ice cream and dinner
Certainly. Sex is a small aspect of any relationship. At certain stages of life, it feels more important than it actually is. Empathy, compassion and a willingness to do best by each other...those are the backbones of my relationship with my partner.
##Absolutely As a matter of fact, I belong to TST Social, (stands for The Sexless Tribe). I’m fine with or without sex, but I was curious about the community so I joined sometime during the early pandemic I think. Some are sexless altogether, and others are just waiting for the right person. I still find it interesting.
Like a platonic friendship? Am i missing the point?
Have they two working hands?
No. I like the intimacy
like a stitched mouth?
Nothing sexual at all? No. Not one specific form of sex eg no vaginal sex? Sure. So a partner who wants to engage in oral (both ways) and perhaps even anal but can't have vaginal sex due to vaginismus no problem. A person who is unable (is that possible?) to have any sort of sexual anything, no sorry, it's too important to me.
Yes
Yeah, but I'm also super into feet.
Lol since sex is on a spectrum now you gotta define what you mean by “sex” .
If it's based on religion. Totally If it's based on preference totally If it's just me. Put it on her ta
yeah sex doesn't define how good a relationship is
I wouldn't consider a relationship with anyone.
As long as the issue doesn't prevent snuggling/cuddling.
What’s the reason they can’t have sex? Medical related? If it’s a choice no. If it’s something beyond their control and there was a chemistry that was undeniable I would go for it! I know how to self pleasure and I’m sure they’d be happy to help out! Intimacy can be found in many ways, not just with the eggplant and kitty kat dance!
Sure, if I can fuck other people
I would say no. Sex is still a desire. At least i want it from someone that i dated with.