Is it possible to have a meaningful, long-term relationship without being physical?

[sonick]

Interesting question that my girlfriend asked me last night, thought I'd pose it to you intelligent folk here.

I told her I felt the physical component was just as crucial as the emotional component, and that without both, it'd be hard-pressed to have a complete, meaningful relationship.

But then she told me about some people she's posed this question to, who felt that it is entirely possible to have one without the other.

Your thoughts?

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by sonick

Interesting question that my girlfriend asked me last night, thought I'd pose it to you intelligent folk here.

I told her I felt the physical component was just as crucial as the emotional component, and that without both, it'd be hard-pressed to have a complete, meaningful relationship.

But then she told me about some people she's posed this question to, who were christians, and felt that it is entirely possible to have one without the other, and that the two were mutually exclusive.

Your thoughts?

Obviously it depends on what type of meaningful relationship you are talking about. Two men, be it brothers or just freinds, can have a very meaningful relationship with no physical attachment (the opposite of Connie and GQGeek's relationship). Same thing with women obviously. If you mean can a man and woman be physically attracted to each other yet never explore that aspect and only explore the emotional side, I'd say that it is rather marsupialed to do that, unless circumstances (marriage to someone else) dictate it.

 

[sonick]

By relationship I mean as in a couple, man and a woman (or man and a man or woman and a woman) in a romantic relationship.

 

[Augusto86]

Originally Posted by sonick

Interesting question that my girlfriend asked me last night, thought I'd pose it to you intelligent folk here.

I told her I felt the physical component was just as crucial as the emotional component, and that without both, it'd be hard-pressed to have a complete, meaningful relationship.

But then she told me about some people she's posed this question to, who were christians, and felt that it is entirely possible to have one without the other, and that the two were mutually exclusive.

Your thoughts?

No.

It defeats the whole point, unless both parties are committed to it and don't want a physical relationship. If you look at any group committed to celibacy, be it priests or soldiers or whatever, there is a huge rate of illicit sexual activity on the side.

 

[matadorpoeta]

only if both people are asexual.

 

[Connemara]

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

only if both people are asexual.

+1

 

[rnoldh]

Originally Posted by sonick

By relationship I mean as in a couple, man and a woman (or man and a man or woman and a woman) in a romantic relationship.


To me a romantic relationship, between a man and a woman, by definition has a physical component.

 

[globetrotter]

not to use rough language, but if you can have a relationship like that, you have some type of problem - physical or mental.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

not to use rough language, but if you can have a relationship like that, you have some type of problem - physical or mental.

Succinctly put, despite what Ed says.

 

[tiecollector]

I think it would take quite a bit of zen achievement to get to that point. I don't think I am that strong, nor anybody I have ever met, but I guess it is technically possible. I could get by for a long while (years) just kissing (still physical though), but I'd need to get relief in some more animalistic ways eventually I think.

 

[gdl203]

Don't most relationships end up in asexual (or nearly so) territory after a number of years? That number varies wildly from 5 to 50 years, though

 

[Joffrey]

I think it's possible. Whether it's enjoyable or desirable is a different question.

 

[JetBlast]

I would think it is possible, but not enjoyable. And even that is doubtful.

Disclaimer- I'm 15 years old and I have no experience with this, but these are my opinions.

I would certainly think that if both partners really were devoted for some odd reason to not have any physical contact that sure, its possible. There would probably be a lot of tension for both of them, though, and unless they were complete hermits who never talked to anyone else, I'm sure that each person's hormones would get the best of them and they would have an affair, and boom, the emotional relationship is gone as well.

Not to mention unless they adopted children there would be no offspring.

Just my 2 pence.

JB

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

You answered your question in the original post -- the fact that it happens means that it is possible. And isn't the absence of a physical component the defining aspect of a long-distance relationship?

Perhaps you were looking to ask whether such a relationship is desirable, or whether it is possible to maximize a relationship's potential without a physical component. To those questions, I would answer: It depends. On the two individuals involved and what you consider to be "physical."

 

[Dakota rube]

I don't see a meaningful relationship standing up for long without a physical aspect. At my age, I am averse to casual sex; physical intimacy is an outgrowth of, and an expression of a deep affection. Maybe love, but not necessarily.

And that initmacy, in my mind at least, is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow which is the getting to know and respect the other party (no pun intended, although now that I re-read this I've made a very lame pun).

I just don't understand how a relationship becomes meaningful without the path at least pointing toward intimacy, and ultimately arriving there.

to gdl203: I disagree that all relationships become asexual. I know couples who've been married for over 50 years who still engage in regular love-making. Even my own, now failed, marriage was intimate to some extent until quite near the end.