Is it possible to have fulfilling romantic relationship with a guy without having sex

I think it's possible, but not common. Sex isn't the be all end all in a relationship but both my gf and I feel a loss of intimacy and connection if a while goes by and we don't have sex. And I feel there's a threshold of comfortablitybetween lovers thats crossed with sex that isn't otherwise. It's a matter of mutual commitment and faith and you both have to be solidly on the same page

bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>no
its how guys connect to their partner. and its how yours and his get closer.

>>you have to be 18 to post here

>The idea that sex leads to commitment leads to women having lots of commitment free sex
Wow you are stupid

Ive seen you post a lot over the last couple of years and I can never take anything you say seriously because the comprehensive picture you've painted of yourself out of your opinions leads me to believe with acute certainty that you are Dwight Schrute

Let me spell it out for you, dipshit:
>woman thinks sex makes a man commit
>woman has sex without commitment of marriage
>man doesn't commit
>they break up
>repeat

>last couple of years
I've been here for a little under one year.

Sure, women go to bars to find a husband

>Is it possible to have fulfilling romantic relationship with a guy without having sex
For a time, yes, but physical bonding will eventually become an issue unless you both have discussed it and have formulated a kind of plan. If you have some moral or religious obligation to sex before marriage thats fine and you're entitled to live your life the way you want but, admittedly, it will be harder than relationships in which people have sex. You'll have to find different ways to give each other that physical validation. Its harder, but its very possible and very common.

This doesn't only cover hookups, not even close. It's the idea that sex somehow equals a relationship.

Nope, he'll feel unloved and unwanted.

>Absolute fucking bullshit
A virgin who recently just got old enough to drink wouldn't understand.

asexuality is a meme

Please, enlighten us as to how the statistics collected are dead wrong.

Date a eunuch

I'm 28 years old. I am a Naval Officer. I am proud of what I am
I'm afraid of sex.

So yes, it's possible.
Only with fucked up freaks like me

I don’t think you understand the point of statistics...

>Scientists do not use statistical proof as a means to attain certainty, but to falsify claims and explain theory
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_proof

Nobody cares about your dead horse Jow Forums statistics.

That explains a lot.

Thanks for admitting this.

In the upper right hand corner you can click on settings and enter his trip into a post filter so that way none of his posts show up and he gets to argue with himself. I was unaware of this setting for a long time so just thought I'd pass the information on if you weren't aware. It really makes browsing this board a hundred times more pleasant.

I enjoy making fun of him though.

Oh my god thank you so much for this

So tired of hearing this dumbass tripfag. Probably one of the most obnoxious assholes on this whole siriously thank you.

Well, that's your prerogative. I just thought I'd pass on the information to people who were't aware. There is a shocking amount of people who didn't know you could filter him and essentially erase his presence from this board. Its a really handy tool on the rare occasion you actually want to have a productive dialogue with someone.

Yes, it is, but not with every guy and not with just any guy.

/thread

Yes, yes, dismiss everything you don't like.
Nonetheless, the statistics are there, and statistics to the opposite effect simply don't exist. Pretending like I'm pulling my beliefs out of my ass is stupid and disingenuous on your part.
>Jow Forums is literally tumblr

They probably do exist, but people who have sex regularely usually aren't autistic enough to look for them when common sense exists.

>common sense
What, you mean the aberrant behavior of the past 50 years? What about the centuries upon centuries prior to that?
And you'd also think that if my presence generates such copious amounts of asshurt, SOMEBODY would take it upon themselves to shut me up by providing some solid evidence rather than the same rehashed non-arguments that either attack me or the sources I post.
I dare you. Post reliable data which shits all over what I say, which clearly demonstrates I'm wrong, and I will leave. Only one user ever bothered posting anything, let alone something which actually goes against all available data. And that's in 10 months of ceaseless whinging from degenerate legions on this garbage board.

Go to bed, don't you have class tomorrow you fucking autist?

I don't require sleep or nutrients. The only energy I need comes from my (You)s.
Be warned, I am growing stronger.

>getting married

> when you're agreeing with Hitler

Attached: 1519053624316.png (374x220, 147K)

Don't worry, Hitler, one day you will have sex with a woman you love and you will understand how important it is

>tripfags
>ever shutting up
There's no documented case of that and pretty pointless since you guys are attentionwhores.
If you want a tripfag to shut up you filter him.

No. That's called being friends.

>confusing courting with a relationship
For someone larping as a traditionalist you sure don't know shit.

Probably

>traditionalists
>knowing shit

Incels aren't traditionalists. When they say they want a "traditional" gf they mean they want a gf who is a virgin and will be their submissive loving housewife. Because they are so retarded they believe Jow Forums memes about muh pure waifus in the good old days.

>there are people who think it is impossible to have a romantic relationship without sex and anyone who isn't interested in sex is some r9k incel freak

Yeah My favorite kind of relationship lol

Uh, it is impossible to have a romantic relationship without sex. Unless you are a delusional r9k incel.

what exactly do you mean in romantic when it doesn't have sex-related stuff? Can you list the activities that fall into this category? What drives this relationship when physical intimacy is off-limits.

It would be very difficult because romantic also implies sexual attraction to some level. I think it could work if kissing and touching is involved. When you love someone there is need for physical, intimate contact from that person and without that it can cause that person to feel unwanted and undesired.

Maybe in marriage, but I'm also an abrasive sperg, so the odds of finding someone who not only shares my views but puts up with my personality are rather slim.
I give you my word. Nobody has anything to lose by trying.
I'm not a "traditionalist", strictly speaking. I have traditional sensibilities in many ways but I'm not a blanket reactionary--after all, the flaws of past systems were what led to modernity and all its own problems. As an example, take Roy Moore. I will say unequivocally that he's a piece of shit for what he did.
My issue with courting as a whole stems from its weakness to superficiality, since it relies more on perceptions than reality. In the South and Midwest US, where conservative Christian morals still hang on in at least vestigial form, divorce rates are actually highest in evangelical communities. Why? Because they have shotgun marriages too soon so they can have sex without feeling bad, and then it falls apart just like elsewhere. This isn't a new problem, either. The same issue was observed in Calvinist Switzerland centuries ago, so much so that they instituted a mandatory waiting period before couples could marry.
I'm not an incel, and "submissive" is only in respects to certain things. I definitely want someone intelligent who speaks her mind.
>memes about muh pure waifus in the good old days.
Except it's literally true, people did have better moral standards back in the day when it comes to this. With incels, not only do they pursue sex but not get it, they also want a virgin simply because of the greater attachment they perceive they'll get. They don't care about waiting at all, they just want to get their dicks wet. However, this is no different from normies' behavior--fucking first and asking questions later, virgin or not.

People are more moral now on average than ever before. You can easily see this by how much more degenerate and dangerous and dishonest societies were before today.

>People are more moral now on average than ever before.
It depends on the timeframe (obviously Ugg didn't give a shit if his weekly crush gave consent), but in general this is not true at all.
Also, there is a difference between something being widespread but socially unacceptable or less common but accepted and encouraged. Pic related.

Attached: quote-prostitution-in-the-towns-is-like-the-cesspool-in-the-palace-take-away-the-cesspool-thomas-aqu (850x400, 59K)

Ok but why?

Sex is an important part of a relationship. Without intimacy it's just being friends.

SeeThey are separate things.

Funny how you base all this on incel memes and not facts. Or have you actually studied history and sociology? How do you know how the sexual behavior of society was a long time ago?

That study says nothing of the sort. I can't imagine what it must be like to be you, never going to experience love or happiness, only preaching hate and anger. I'd feel pity for you if you weren't such an evil corrupt immoral being.

>How do you know how the sexual behavior of society was a long time ago?
The fact that Christianity dominated in Europe for almost 2000 years, you disingenuous prick.
Even 50 years ago it was far less common to have sex before marriage.
>The study says nothing of the sort
Please feel free to call its authors "bitter incels".
>evil corrupt immoral being.
You still don't understand what morality is, as you don't have morals. Go ahead and define what they are and why you have them, I bet you can't.
Or describe why I'm "evil" for promoting moral standards.

>2000 years
Christianity started to spread in Europe a few hundred years after its inception. It was a slow spread and some regions have only had Christianity for a few hundred years.
>Even 50 years ago it was far less common to have sex before marriage.
Got a source on this?

You openly wish that people who disagree with you would die or get hurt. How is that not evil?

>Christianity started to spread in Europe a few hundred years after its inception
Hence why I said "almost". Is this really what you have to resort to? Nitpicking words irrelevant to the main point just so you can "beat" the tripfag?
>Got a source on this?
Right chart on pic related, from
cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/index.htm
And I just know you'll say
>"but this only goes back 45 years, user"
Don't bother. Are you really going to suggest that in the years just BEFORE the (((sexual revolution))), people were more promiscuous?

Attached: 1490346388820.jpg (4920x4161, 2.69M)

You're utterly incapable of higher thought, it seems. Try to go a bit deeper than "you are bad because you are bad". Say WHY it is bad.

>It's not a bad thing to want to torture and murder innocent people
Jesus fucking christ.

That's a strawman, first of all, and you're still resorting to tautologies. I know it's tempting to insert as much emotion as possible to cover up for your deficient rational processing, but do try to stay focused.

You do know that rightmost collage is completely made up, right? The cdc data does not go back to 70s, not even close. And more importantly it does not contain information of "virgin at marriage", only the number of sexual partners.

> The cdc data does not go back to 70s, not even close.
cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/about_nsfg.htm
>The first NSFG surveys were conducted as periodic Cycles by NCHS in 1973, 1976, 1982, 1988, and 1995.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you prematurely attacked a source you perceive as threatening.
>And more importantly it does not contain information of "virgin at marriage", only the number of sexual partners.
The virgin at marriage was probably a separate question.

What is the source of % of virgins at marriage? Certainly not cdc.

As I said, it's probably another question in the survey. I'll dig through it and find the thing--but in the meantime it should be emphasized that it's highly, highly unlikely that the numbers were just made up.

Found it. This is a more recent one, but the questions are kept consistent to maximize the utility of collected responses.
cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf
On page 105, it has categories of women sorted by their relationship status when they first had sex. (And for 2002, it is slightly over 10%, consistent with the chart)

How well do you know this guy?
How often do you meet
How intressted is he in sex
And how come you dont want to have sex

Join this Discord:
discord.gg/uvvEbau

Myself and many other people are tired of you shitting up Jow Forums with bullshit and want to see you reduced to a crying mess on the floor by people that are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. Might not look like much but just go into the Discord and say you want Trini, Wade, and Dio to debate you in voice call about race mixing and sex marriage and then prepare for the storm. It's time to stop shitting up Jow Forums and put your money where your mouth is, faggot.

We're out there OP. I just want a chick who wants to vidya, media, go hiking, snuggle and have a good time with. Sex doesnt interest me as it can be had easily but someone truly fulfilling cannot.

lol

Please doxx him while you're at it. He is a danger to society. It's only a matter of time before he pulls an Elliot. He needs to be taken into custody before that happens.

race mixing is disgusting and will take away the various cultures and people's of the world, who in the world would be for that.

It's called being asexual.

>Is it possible to have fulfilling romantic relationship with a guy without having sex
If you were both asexual, probably
If not there'll always be that desire that isn't talked about. He'll either keep up the pressure or eventually fulfill his sexual needs elsewhere.

really I actually agree with him alot, it just seems that so many people are all about the instant gratification that sex provides and when he shows evidence of how that is bad in the long run, they all get defensive cause there's no taking it back. basically none of adv wants to take responsibility for their mistakes and just says he's wrong. but no one else links as many studies and stuff like he does.

Are you aware that you can make any search qeuery favor the answer you're seeking particularly on subjects particularly predisposed to ethics? It's fine to hold your idpol beliefs as I have my own and find myself agreeing with your advice often on some level but wish you would recognize coming across as talking down to people from an ethical high horse. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you bare your powerlevel and are revealed to be the worst kind of polnigger and one of the individuals that must exist as a balancing force to the wrong kind of lefty that should not be given attention nor have beliefs formed in response to as a radical answer to a radical otherwise left ignored by the reasonable.

me because i like exotic stuff

I dont think so. Its not that I cant find someone physically attractive/arousing and dont find sex enjoyable, its just that I view it like a recreational drug and I dont really care if I never have it again whereas someone romantically interesting is appealing to me and never having sex was never an issue to begin with if that's how they roll. If I want it, I can get a chick who looks like a model and doesn't know the word 'no' for an hour. It's like a handshake or a service and again, while I enjoy it it's not worth the time nor money.

Nice samefagging. Absolutely nobody buys his unsourced, debunked meme graphs. He never shows any actual evidence. He repeats the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times you prove him wrong.

You just described being asexual.

then go fuck some abo, doesn't mean you have to impregnate them.

I am not hitler, despite what you assume not every disagrees with what he says. some people just are not so vocal in defending him, because if they do, people just sat same fag (like you just did)

Well shit, now I know.

>without intimacy it is just being friends
But isn't it possible to have intimacy without sex?

I've practically lost all libido due to medication and depression and I would very much like to have a new relationship

You should ask my fiancée, but she doesn't browse Jow Forums. She'd tell you "Yes" though. We've been together for almost 8 years now, and we haven't had sex even once, since she's asexual. I love her more than anything regardless of that, even though I'd prefer a more intimate relationship. I'd still never change my love and happiness for a smash. Love is more than just sex. It is the everyday life, how you treat each other, how you get along and the things you share. Ability to compromise and having mutual respect are keys to a healthy relationship.
Some asexual people still crave for platonic love. Aromantic people on the other hand don't want even that.

This

>But isn't it possible to have intimacy without sex?
Yes but sex is the intimacy that separates people who are together from people who aren't, right? We experience intimacy every day but intimacy is very contextual and depending on who you are or who the person you are with is hugging and holding hands may not give them the physical connection they need. A committed relationship without sex is possible but the hard truth is, eventually, it is going to be difficult. You're going to have to find some kind of intimacy or physical affection that makes up for that lack of connection and for some people it may not be enough.

Can i ask you silly question? How do you plan to make babies?

Attached: post sponsored by Janine.jpg (451x387, 14K)

Your issue lies in defining what sex is. If you have a fulfilling romantic relationship then at some point the couple will go through some form of sex. (Sexual cuddling, touching, mutual masturbation whatever. At some point even asexuals will get horny. Albeit for a minute at 2am on some obscure day) Assuming you mean some cliche, dick in vagina repeat until guy gets off then finish kind of sex, then yeah, you can definitely have a fulfilling romantic relationship without going through with shitty sex just to show the other person you like them or because "every other normal couple does it". If your SO wants you to fit a perfect mold of what "other couples do" your SO prob just wants a fucktoy with social value bragging rights "Yeah I have a gf" to fit in with their shallow cliche social circles at work.

Marriage is religious BS emotional guilt tripping manipulation. Relationships are all about communication. If you cant communicate you cant relate and if you cant relate you cant keep a relationship.

That sounds like heaven

Wanna hear a secret? Neither of us wants to have kids, especially her. That's how.
>trips of truth
We're both very happy indeed, and are hoping to make our relationship last a lifetime.

Maybe, but in my opinion, I view sex as a beautiful thing, but only when done for its purpose (which is kind of autistic but that's how I think.) As for the "what separates friendly intimacy and love intimacy" well I'd definitely want to show some kind of affection that I wouldn't give to a friend (thankfully I don't live a culture where friends will kiss each other or something)

>wish you would recognize coming across as talking down to people from an ethical high horse.
I do, and that's the point. The right in general has lost so much ground because it unconditionally accepts every single "moral" premise the left throws at it--they only wring their hands and try to sheepishly say "well, our way of doing things isn't against your morals". This lets the left dictate terms of engagement in every single issue, and as a result the right is repeatedly eviscerated on a societal level. I come off as "taking an ethical high ground" because I dare to give vocal support to systems of morality which contradict the self-centered and delusional worldviews of leftists.
They have no issue denouncing me as a raving lunatic (however untrue the accusation), saying my morals are "evil" and should be stamped out. I respond in kind, but the difference is I have objective cause for what I do. I will always provide sources, they never do.
>unsourced meme graphs
Except I have the sources right in this thread...
>never shows any actual evidence
That would be the hedonists. I always have sources, and even when my sources are inevitably argued with, I point people to the right spot within them.
>repeats the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times you prove him wrong.
If you prove me wrong once, I'll go away. Unfortunately for you, calling me an incel isn't an argument.
Thank you fren

No.

That was easy. I’m like a genius at easy shit. Got any more easy shit?