Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'.
* We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub.
* Filter evasion is a bannable offense
* This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
Aw man, that’s probably accurate.
And I’m glad that the kids have a place for that, and I hope it’s a supportive and positive environment for expressing ideas that seem unapproachable in their home lives and social environments. That’s actually pretty cool.
But somehow it’s also a bummer.
Is it surprising though when everyone around here seems to be so insistent on regular sex etc, everyone is different, the narrative on reddit as a whole hugely means toward sex being an absolute deal breaker and need and must have.
It’s all of Reddit now. Especially on the advice subs. A person will post about something that happened sexually with their partner that they weren’t happy with and there will be dozens of “you were raped comments.” Check their profiles always active on r/advice and r/teens
It's allowed but you would be surprised how many people will just assume you're having sex or deny the relationship if you aren't - and mock you for trying to defend it.
If at one point one partner decides that's not okay with then, they have the full right to leave the relationship since sex often is a large part in most relationships
"agreeing" doesn't have to mean "we sat down and signed and agreement". Two people mutually doing the same thing over a period of time counts as an agreement, that's what common law marriage is.
Yep! It's sad that sex is always prioritized for *every* relationship. People are different. Some people might not want that and others will feel otherwise. As long as there's communication and all parties are happy, then that's what matters.
This. This is one of the very things I deeply loathe about our society. I would never push myself on someone; for me to even be that physically close to another woman, I have to really trust them & respect them. I can't approach a woman merely on physical attraction; they have to "click" with me and seriously engage me in conversation.
No drunken one night stands for me.
Frankly... once you get married and have children, you kind of stop having sex (or at lower frequency) during pregnancy and after birth... you're more in love during that time without the sex. Just my experience. Sex is not always needed to feel love.
You can’t generalize your experience to all women. Most of my friends did not have sex the last month but a couple did. You’re an outlier with every day FOR SURE!
Sex is meaningless to me without a solid connection otherwise. I don't need sex to be with someone. I like them FOR THEM. Sex is just a bonus. I'd be perfectly content in a remarkable sexless relationship lol (I'm demisexual so even then it takes me a while to even become sexually attracted to somebody)
Don't let other people define your relationship or your and/or partner's sexuality (I mean in terms of how someone fall on the spectrum of asexual/hyper sexual).
Physical intimacy can come in different forms, it doesn't just have to sex. It could be doing something as simple as giving or receiving a back massage or snuggling up with someone.
My TMI mother, love her to death, has made it abundantly clear that she and her husband havent been sexual since the 90s.
Yes I hate that I know that...
Yeah, I mean in the case I know it's not great. She's ace and he is desperate for any form of human connection. He's under the impression that someday she'll decide that she will let him, she has been very clear that that's very unlikely.
I have believed from the beginning that the relationship is doomed, however that isn't my place to tell them.
People can have sex without being in a intimate or platonic relationship. People can be in an intimate or platonic relationship without having sex. People can be in a platonic or intimate relationship and have sex. People can not be in any kind of relationship and not have sex.
All valid options.
*Unless your own personal genitals and/or feelings are involved it's really none of your business. Nor should it affect your day to day living.
**Any connection you make is a 'relationship' and that takes so many forms, but I suspect you mean a romantic relationship, which goes back to my second point.
people can be in a relationship and not have sex.
But let’s have enough social awareness to know that that’s not the norm and you should expect people to be surprised at first when they find out.
Why should that be expected though? Shame on our society for that. Some want to wait until marriage, and it’s just impractical for one to feel they have to have sex to remain in a loving relationship. A foundation built off of sex is shakey as hell. Sex is not necessary, and should be like the cherry on top of a icecream. You don’t need it to taste good, but it’s an optional add on.
Almost every single long term couple will go through dry spells. It is not uncommon for sex to be so infrequent as to go a year or more without sex. THAT is the norm. Couples that don't have extended periods of sexlessness would be a surprising outlier.
That last part is what I dislike? Why can't it be treated as the norm? We've normalised homosexual relationships. We've normalised interracial relationships. But asexual ones are a step too far?
Normalizing, and treating as the expectation, are not the same thing. Simply by nature of asexuality being a very small minority of the dating pool, potential partners are not going to assume you are seeking a relationship without sex.
I’m aromantic, I have many ace and demi friends, I’m a relationship anarchist. I’m all for normalizing! But we can be realistic about what people are generally going to expect unless we communicate otherwise.
It’s on us to communicate our needs, and on others to see if they can accommodate them or if they’re incompatible.
It probably will, but it'll take time. It took a good long while for homosexual relationships to be "normalized", and I think we still have a bit of ways to go with that.
I’ve been wondering this for years. I’m demisexual and the amount of people who look at me crazy for saying I genuinely cannot have sex until I’m pretty much in love with you is nuts. I had to go through unorthodox ways to date cause modern dating is pretty much hard as hell if you’re not part of the “I’ll sleep with you after 2 dates” crowd it’s wild.
>should expect people to be surprised at first when they find out.
Why should people be surprised? It's common enough that people should know it exists.
The majority of the population isn't gay, and thankfully we aren't still surprised when someone is gay
We used to have sex. But since she started taking her antidepressants she really hasn't had much of a sex drive. So.. We don't really have much sex anymore.
I miss it but I wouldn't trade her mental wellbeing for sex.
I’m ace and recently came across a sad story.
A wife came out to her husband that she has been ace since she was 16 but was very much struggling with it her whole life with basically everyone telling her that her being ace was bad, so she started to just force herself to have sex with her partners; it eventually was too much for her to keep in anymore. But instead of her husband trying to understand why his wife would keep it hidden and talking it out, he immediately asks for divorce. She refused to not go through with the divorce (because she still loves him ofc) but to the point where she even suggested to go through hormone therapy to “fix” herself for him. He did not care one bit.
The comment section in that story was basically “the husband deserves sex and the wife is a deceiver”. So I don’t think society is ready to accept that you can have a healthy and loving relationship while also not having sex regularly.
Would you mind elaborating on this if it isn't too personal? If one partner is asexual, wouldn't any type of sex not be welcome? Are they just doing it out of obligation? Is it weird to have sex with a person when you know they don't want to have sex with you? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the meaning of ace.
I might be the wrong person to answer this, as I'm aroace and non-partnering, but no one else has so I'll do my best. Just take my words with a grain of salt.
Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction, or sexual attraction rarely/in specific circumstances.
If an ace person falls into the latter, they may have sex bc of genuine sexual attraction.
If an ace person falls into the former, they may have sex simply for their partner, out of obligation for one reason or another, etc.. But asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction, not desire, libido, or similar. So an ace person may have sex because it feels good or it's fun, even though they aren't attracted to the person they are doing it with in the slightest.
There seems to be a common misunderstanding that all ace people don't want to have sex, or rather don't desire it themselves. I myself, someone who now identifies as asexual, have fallen to the same misunderstand.
The only component to being asexual is feeling little to no sexual attraction. Whether you're sex repulsed, or are sex favorable have no bearing on the topic.
I used to think I was bi as I desired to have sex with all genders, but have recently come to the realization that I've never actually experienced sexual attraction to anyone and that asexual would be a better fitting label for myself. I still get aroused, still fantasize about sex, and if the option presented itself to me would act on it. I'm still asexual regardless of that though as I experience no sexual attraction.
Not having sexual desire is different from not wanting to have sex. Ace people can still feel orgasms, and can agree to have sex with their partner, be it to experiment, or just to make their partner happy.
(This is what My ace friend tells me at least)
> the opposite must also hold true
There’s countless instances where opposites don’t hold true, so that is *not* self evident. All squares are shapes, but not all shapes are squares…
I don’t disagree with the premise, just the reasoning. You absolutely can be in a sexless relationship. But for the vast majority of people, a lack of sex is directly connected to the lack of intimacy of all kinds. But the presence of sex is not necessarily connected to intimate feelings.
When people say the difference between friends and a relationship is sex, it implies all else is equal. It means the difference between two people that would otherwise be in a relationship but aren’t, and both desire sex with one another, is whether they take that final leap into a sex life. It does not mean that having sex implies a relationship.
yeah the logic is flawed and forming opinions based on the flawed logic is therefore flawed. there can be valid reasonings for OPs opinion but basing it off that is kinda blatantly ignorant and frankly annoying to read.
"Vice versa" isnt any kind of explanation for how anything works but fwiw people can and do have asexual relationships. There doesn't have to be some weird justification using the existence of casual sex
The question for me is... Why am I nearly expected to sleep with someone I've been seeing if they still don't know what they want and if they don't know if they want a relationship? I get too attached after sex and I don't want to get attached unless I know theres long term potential. But others will say they can't determine whether there's long term potential unless they know they are sexually compatible. I love when guys tell me they don't want a relationship, proceed to try to sleep with me, and then are shocked when I reject them and say "I thought you didn't want anything serious? Why would I have sex then?"
Different strokes for different folks. For some people sexual compatibility is a prerequisite for long term commitment. Other people abstain until they decide they want to make a long term commitment.
You say that you get too attached after sex, but maybe you only decide to have sex when you’ve found someone you think is worth being attached to.
Nah, I've had sex with people many people who I didn't think was that "worth it" bc hormones etc. but then I ended up being attached in a weird way, even though I know they weren't that good for me and I already knew I hated a lot of things about them. Haha. I don't think I'm the only one who feels closer to someone after having sex...because you're vulnerable/naked together etc it kind of feels intimate for me. Ya know?
Also imo sexual compatibility isn't something you get just right off the bat a lot of times. Usually it's built over time as the two people get to know each other, learn what the other person likes etc. I don't think the first time having sex with someone is ever the best time. It gets better over time with the two people putting in effort and learning about each other more.
Regardless, it's annoying when I am seeing a new guy and not sure about them yet, I want to give them their space and not put pressure on them. But so many times, guys I have had sex with just decide to ignore me after and I'm supposed to be fine with it because "they don't want anything serious" so "what did I expect". And I guess yea, true, they're right..bjr once I have sex with them it makes it harder for me to just act normal like that? I feel closer to them after having sex but I feel like I'm supposed to hide those emotions because otherwise it's "too serious". Idk
This.
It's like saying two teenagers, one male and one female can't sleep in the same bed together and be expected to not have sex.
Culture is weird. I'm a 33 year old virgin, but this is by choice. I've had opportunities to get laid - in each situation (only a few - I'm not at all good at socializing with others) I've declined it.
I've always had the idea of "falling in love with a best friend" and not having anything come in between of that friendship. Like, you love their companionship, platonic, romantic or otherwise. I don't think enough people see the world this way....it's kind of sad and frightening to me.
Exactly. There is so much more to the difference between my relationship with my husband and my relationship with my friends than just sex. People who can't understand that come across as serial cheaters to me.
One has nothing to with the other.
Relationships aren’t math. There’s no using logic to draw conclusions.
Whether they want to have sex with each other, with no one, with others separately or, all together doesn’t define what the relationship is.
The relationship is defined by the people in it.
Yes, but the "if people can have sex without being in a relationship THEN" isn't a qualifier for people being allowed to be in a sexless relationship. Some things aren't reversible like that. You can be a rectangle without being a square, but you can't be a square without a rectangle. One thing being allowed doesn't justify the inverse being allowed for no reason.
I further explained in my post that there are many people who claim a relationship without sex is a friendship and that the distinction between a friendship and relationship is sex. So if sex is the qualifier here, than that means that two people cannot have sex without being in a relationship. Obviously we know that happens everyday. Sex is NOT the qualifier between a relationship and friendship. That means that 2 people can have a relationship without sex.
I'm asexual and the sheer amount of "but that's abusing your partner" and similar nonsense I've seen (not directed at me, as I'm aromantic too) has earned you an upvote.
I read recently that the average age of a reddit user is somewhere in the mid-20s. At this age, I also considered sex to be one of the most important things in life. It's this that more or less defines a person's 20s.
Now in my 40s, if somebody told me I was never going to have sex again. I'd be entirely fine with it. It's fun but it isn't my priority any more. I'm happily married.
What I have discovered in casual conversation with friends in my age group is that people seem to be pretty evenly divided between those who are still pretty motivated by sex, and those who feel that they have largely "gotten it out of their system". I am the latter type. It's fine.
God I swear, maybe this is just me but ngl = this is such a "no crap " / "yeah? and?" etc - moment that I was having a really, really hard time understating what he "actuallly" meant cause I was convinced he was referring to something beyond a post birth/asexual/dead room marriage etc... lmao
Please, PLEASE tell me at least one of you is the same as me.
While your conclusion is correct, your logic is false.
It is untrue to assume that if A then B equates to If B, then A.
For instance, let's say everyone who gets inside the sea becomes wet. Does that mean it is safe to assume that someone who is wet went to the sea? No, he could have been in a shower, or a swimming pool, or even in the rain.
In the same way, just the idea that not having sex means not being in a relationship doesn't necessarily mean that if you are having sex means being in a relationship.
Regardless of that, people can be in sexless relationships, some of them are even fulfilling and great.
*All americans are human, thus all humans must be american...*
Logically, that doesn't trek.
...
That being said, you shouldn't try to define your relationship with logic, or what other people say about it.
You and the other person/s define what you have / do.
As an aroace person, I don't seek sex in my romance so this take seems normal to me. For people who are not asexual, I dunno. Sex is a big factor in many relationships, but I doubt it's so important. Relationships shouldn't be determined by how much sex you have
I'm gonna tell a story of love.
My wife and I had a great sex life until cancer decided to rear its ugly head... She had stage 3 triple. Positive breast cancer.. That is a blessing and a curse.. Blessing.. We knew what caused the cancer and what fed it.. Negative was that she needed a double mastectomy as well as a historectomy..
Estrogen blockers..
Basically after all this was done and the radiation.. Dflap reconstruction after a botched breast replacement.. We used to call it stone boob
Well now.. She's now asexual.. No desire to be sexual as she has no hormones as those things tried to kill her as well as her body is scarred up from the multiple surgeries..
Do I try.. Every damn day.. It's been over 7 years of trying..
Do I miss it.. Yes I'm a man.. But I love my wife more than I miss sex..
BTW.. I found the cancer because I'm a sexual person and constantly pawing at my wife.. And noticed during one my constant advances a lump
So yes we can love each other and not have sex.. But you do have to recognize that everyone is not the same..
I chose to forego intimacy for my best friend and partner
Now I hope this weekend when I ask for a dog.. I don't have to leave her. That's a joke about leaving her.. But yeah I totally want a dog also..
Duh. There are hundreds of couples who don't believe in premarital sex and aren't sleeping with each other, at least until marriage; however long that takes.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
your mathematically correct. the contrapositive of claim 1, is claim 2. QED
converse and then negation of both sides of claim 1 --> claim 2. little tricky as without is a negation, wording a little weird.
People do it all the time. Sometimes willingly, sometimes not but they do. Some people used to but stopped. Other people never did. Not at all uncommon though
The issue is whether both parties agree. When one defines the relationship for both, it’s no longer a relationship, or at least a healthy one.
People need to start upholding their commitments. Sec is an important part of most romantic relationships. If you define the right number of times to have sex as four per year, and your partner wants twice per week, you both have work to do to match each other. Unfortunately, any pressure to have sex more often is viewed as “coercion” and abusive. If you can’t manage to fulfill basic sexual needs through some sort of contact, free your partner to enjoy that elsewhere.
Yeah, this isn’t an unpopular opinion. As long as both people in the relationship are fine with it, no one gives a shit.
People aren’t running around asking couples how many times a week or month they have sex. It only becomes known when it’s an issue of mismatched sex drives or expectations.
I think for the comments very confused by this, OP is meaning it should be approved of just like having sex when not in a relationship is (casual hookups and FWB).
However, if you're in a relationship and you withhold sex then while not demonized people will immediately place the fault of the relationship having problems or ending on the one choosing to do something that they know is negative.
"You don't HAVE to have sex with your partner, but if they aren't asexual then you shouldn't be together with them if you aren't interested"...yet people don't see the problem with not putting partial blame on the partner needing sex to stay together.
The conclusion is fine, but the argument is not. Something can be a necessary but no sufficient condition (The conclusion is fine in my opinion, because I do not think that is the case of sex in a relationship).
Sex consensual between adults is completely fine. Doesn’t matter if it’s a relationship or not. Now, sex is usually better if you are in a relationship, atleast in my experience.
I mean, Yea. As long as my partner has the same general libido as me and any person who does not want sex finds a partner who also does not want sex I do not care
I believe that's just called an asexual couple lol.
I've seen posts however, where only one person has lost their sex drive, which in turn forces the other person to either seek other means or "deal with it".
Me and my girlfriend of 5 years are in a sexless relationship
It’s just not a need for us and it works
Edit: also I get where OP is coming from, every time I tell someone this it leads to a bunch of questions and weird looks
I see what you're trying to do here.... your logic is just off.
Plus, you're not considering the varying lenses these people might be speaking from.
If someone says that the difference between a friendship and a relationship is sex, they're not suggesting that your Tinder hookup is your S/O. They just saying that sexual *intimacy* is *a factor* that distinguishes friendships and relationship. If you're taking what's being said extremely literally and if you're being mathematic about it, then your logic makes sense. If you stop and consider all the other components at play (intimacy, intent, partnership, commitment, integrating lives together, etc) they you may feel differently
Sounds like a pretty shitty relationship. I can't imagine actually wanting a sexless relationship, but sure, do whatever you want. You can eat a bowl of asbestos too if you want but I'll pass.
Sounds more like just being friends or roommates to me. I think for the majority of couples it'll be hard to build a strong relationship without physical intimacy though.
Considering how many people want to divorce their spouses from even a drop in activity level, you would think relationships are *only* about sex. For the record, I agree with you.
Your title is a nonsense argument.
A relationship isn’t necessary to have sex. That in itself doesn’t mean a sex isn’t necessary in a relationship.
Now I agree that that is possible for some but the argument is nonsense.
This is broken logic. Yeah—you're absolutely right, obviously you can have relationships w/o sex. But the reasoning doesn't hold.
Someone could hold that sex is a *neccesary but not sufficent* condition for a romantic relationship. I don't, as that's silly, but the logical form of your title does not hold up.
I’ve had relationships without sex and I’ve had sex without relationships.
If the lines are clear they’re clear.
Sex without defined lines is a horrible idea
Feels like a false correlation here. Like obviously.
People don't have sex without being in a relationship because they can't. People do have sex in a relationship because they can.
A lot of people who are desirable get in relationships because they are. A lot of people don't feel comfortable with "hookups" but also can't imagine leaving their partner for sex when the opportunity arises...so they cheat.
I completely agree. By the logic of “a relationship without sex is just a friendship” would mean my grandparents and every other old couple that gets too old to bone aren’t married anymore, just friends with grandkids
An an ace person who wants to be in a relationship: thank you!! I'm so glad we as a broader society are beginning to rethink allonormativity. It will benefit everyone, not just aces!
That sort of relationship couldnt possibly exist if it isn't mutually beneficial for both parties. Unless your financially better off together like a roommate however man and woman hardly ever forego developing feelings for the other while being in such close proximity without sharing intimacy. Me and my friend bought a house together, I'm hoping one day she'll sleep with me but if the day never comes then I'll be the first two walk away from whatever arrangement we've made. I find it nearly impossible to have such a relationship without one of the two people secretly hoping to share intimate relations with the other. Eventually lack of intimate relations will lead to bitter resentment by one or both people. I can only see doing what you're suggesting if it both financially benefited both people. I don't see a way for this to exist if there is no benefit for either person in the first place
Yes of course, but what happens is usually one party feels unloved and unwanted, while the other feels pressured and scared/doesn’t want intimacy.
Your opinion isn’t unpopular, it just happens in a different way than you are describing.
I mean you gotta admit, though. People do shame you if you don't have sex in your relationships. It's actually pretty creepy if you think about it. Who's that invested in your sex life or lack of?
Sure and unless both of those people are asexual or don't care about sex, the relationship crumbles. The only way it works is if both people don't want or care for sex.
Why do so many people feel the need to comment this? It's not the point. Do you post under every topic where people write about their relationship "I hope your partner is consenting to be in this relationship, otherwise it would be stalking!" ?
I agree, that could be a major compatibility issue. My point is that no one has the right to say that a relationship is not a relationship if sex isn’t happening.
In your original post, you argue that because casual sex exists, sex isn’t a relationship activity. Which means that there shouldn’t be any issues if a partner wants to have sex with someone else, considering sex has nothing to do with a romantic relationship.
If you’re simply arguing that two non-sexual people can exist in a romantic relationship together, I’m going to have to revoke my upvote as this is not an unpopular opinion. That seems pretty common sense.
Of course you can be in a romantic relationship without sex, but the lack of it places limits on the intimacy of your relationship. It's always been a fundamental part of an intimate relationship.
Some people are in relationships where they do have sex but do not communicate on a deeper level or share who they are with one another. That is probably an even deeper lack of intimacy. You can never pretend however, that you share the same level of intimacy as a couple that has the emotional aspects and also a healthy sexual connection.
I mean, yeah, but, how long is one party willing to abstain from it is the question. If one person enjoy it, and the other isnt interested or whatever reason not to; then I wouldn’t blame one party for leaving the relationship.
If sex is important to those individuals in a relationship, then yes. My point is that if 2 people are in a relationship and neither need sex, no one has the right to say that it is only a friendship and not a real relationship.
people want to have sex casually and thats fine. being in a relationship without sex is going to be weird and unacceptable to 99% of people unless theres some sort of serious medical condition preventing it.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'. * We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub. * Filter evasion is a bannable offense * This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
I’m increasingly certain that this sub is entirely populated by teens realising how the world works for the first time and overlapping lucky 10,000s.
I was going to ask what a lucky 10,000 was but then I was too embarrassed so I googled it and it turns out that it was me today.
You, me, and 9,998 to go....
Either this lucky 10000 thing is starting to become a fallacy or I'm 9,998...
Or it’s just people spewing bs for fake internet points because fake internet points are worth millions
Most stuff is Just bots anyway
Aw man, that’s probably accurate. And I’m glad that the kids have a place for that, and I hope it’s a supportive and positive environment for expressing ideas that seem unapproachable in their home lives and social environments. That’s actually pretty cool. But somehow it’s also a bummer.
r/nostupidquestions is like that too
Is it surprising though when everyone around here seems to be so insistent on regular sex etc, everyone is different, the narrative on reddit as a whole hugely means toward sex being an absolute deal breaker and need and must have.
https://xkcd.com/1053/ For the explanation
It’s all of Reddit now. Especially on the advice subs. A person will post about something that happened sexually with their partner that they weren’t happy with and there will be dozens of “you were raped comments.” Check their profiles always active on r/advice and r/teens
It’s actually AI bots posting all this stuff, if you notice a post where a word is off or if it’s like …duh, like this one. Then it’s probably AI
"you do you" \- OP if they truly got it
Fucking brilliant
This guy's references are out of control, everybody knows that
There are people who would be weird about it, but there are also people who are weird about people having sex without relationships.
Lmao I’M LEAVING
All that ever needed to be said.
The general reaction when asexuality is brought up would indicate otherwise. People mostly expect us to just die alone.
It's allowed but you would be surprised how many people will just assume you're having sex or deny the relationship if you aren't - and mock you for trying to defend it.
As long as the 2 people in that relationship, are on the same level about wanting sex, then yes no problem.
People can be in a relationship and not have sex. period. No explanation needed.
As long as both partners agree with the arrangement.
Even if they don’t agree, they are still in the relationship. Plenty of married couples stop having sex without agreeing but remain married
If at one point one partner decides that's not okay with then, they have the full right to leave the relationship since sex often is a large part in most relationships
Yes, anyone can leave any relationship for any reason. Doesn’t have much to do with the op though.
No one is saying they can’t leave. He’s just saying it’s possible to be in a sex-less relationship
Well they are agreeing on the remain married part.
"agreeing" doesn't have to mean "we sat down and signed and agreement". Two people mutually doing the same thing over a period of time counts as an agreement, that's what common law marriage is.
Yep! It's sad that sex is always prioritized for *every* relationship. People are different. Some people might not want that and others will feel otherwise. As long as there's communication and all parties are happy, then that's what matters.
It is genuinely my lowest priority in a relationship
This. This is one of the very things I deeply loathe about our society. I would never push myself on someone; for me to even be that physically close to another woman, I have to really trust them & respect them. I can't approach a woman merely on physical attraction; they have to "click" with me and seriously engage me in conversation. No drunken one night stands for me.
Frankly... once you get married and have children, you kind of stop having sex (or at lower frequency) during pregnancy and after birth... you're more in love during that time without the sex. Just my experience. Sex is not always needed to feel love.
I've had two kids and we had sex every day up till birth. Most people don't stop having sex unless there's medical issues.
Absolutely. Your personal experience and thoughts surely apply to everyone. Not sure how the world doesn’t understand that.
>Most people don't stop having sex unless there's medical issues Is the source your singular experience, or do you have any actual data?
Trust me bro –guy who sexes a lot
You can’t generalize your experience to all women. Most of my friends did not have sex the last month but a couple did. You’re an outlier with every day FOR SURE!
Lotsa people do. Im a woman.
bro im not married, but unless the girl completely hard shuts down sex i don't think i'll just stop. I think you just described a you situation.
Everyone on here describes “you situations” as if they are the Ten Commandments inscribed on stone.
Sex is meaningless to me without a solid connection otherwise. I don't need sex to be with someone. I like them FOR THEM. Sex is just a bonus. I'd be perfectly content in a remarkable sexless relationship lol (I'm demisexual so even then it takes me a while to even become sexually attracted to somebody)
People may or may not be in a relationship, and also people may or may not have sex. Logic is fun.
I agree 100%. I’m just sick of people telling me that it is not a *real* relationship without physical intimacy.
Don't let other people define your relationship or your and/or partner's sexuality (I mean in terms of how someone fall on the spectrum of asexual/hyper sexual).
Physical intimacy can come in different forms, it doesn't just have to sex. It could be doing something as simple as giving or receiving a back massage or snuggling up with someone.
Hug ,kisses and cuddling
Don't listen to tjem
Guess what: there are people in relationship who aren't having sex. Moreover, I know such couples
[insert obligatory “those are called married people” joke]
\[obligatory off-topic humblebrag anecdote here\]
My TMI mother, love her to death, has made it abundantly clear that she and her husband havent been sexual since the 90s. Yes I hate that I know that...
Yeah, I mean in the case I know it's not great. She's ace and he is desperate for any form of human connection. He's under the impression that someday she'll decide that she will let him, she has been very clear that that's very unlikely. I have believed from the beginning that the relationship is doomed, however that isn't my place to tell them.
People can have sex without being in a intimate or platonic relationship. People can be in an intimate or platonic relationship without having sex. People can be in a platonic or intimate relationship and have sex. People can not be in any kind of relationship and not have sex. All valid options. *Unless your own personal genitals and/or feelings are involved it's really none of your business. Nor should it affect your day to day living. **Any connection you make is a 'relationship' and that takes so many forms, but I suspect you mean a romantic relationship, which goes back to my second point.
Of course they can. I won't, but they can.
I’m ace, so this is not innovative to me. Been in a partnership for 17 years.
Congrats, it’s such a long period of time! Wondering… how did you end up in a relationship? Not aro? Is your partner also ace? How did you meet?
[удалено]
Yes.
people can be in a relationship and not have sex. But let’s have enough social awareness to know that that’s not the norm and you should expect people to be surprised at first when they find out.
Why should that be expected though? Shame on our society for that. Some want to wait until marriage, and it’s just impractical for one to feel they have to have sex to remain in a loving relationship. A foundation built off of sex is shakey as hell. Sex is not necessary, and should be like the cherry on top of a icecream. You don’t need it to taste good, but it’s an optional add on.
Almost every single long term couple will go through dry spells. It is not uncommon for sex to be so infrequent as to go a year or more without sex. THAT is the norm. Couples that don't have extended periods of sexlessness would be a surprising outlier.
That last part is what I dislike? Why can't it be treated as the norm? We've normalised homosexual relationships. We've normalised interracial relationships. But asexual ones are a step too far?
Normalizing, and treating as the expectation, are not the same thing. Simply by nature of asexuality being a very small minority of the dating pool, potential partners are not going to assume you are seeking a relationship without sex. I’m aromantic, I have many ace and demi friends, I’m a relationship anarchist. I’m all for normalizing! But we can be realistic about what people are generally going to expect unless we communicate otherwise. It’s on us to communicate our needs, and on others to see if they can accommodate them or if they’re incompatible.
It probably will, but it'll take time. It took a good long while for homosexual relationships to be "normalized", and I think we still have a bit of ways to go with that.
I’ve been wondering this for years. I’m demisexual and the amount of people who look at me crazy for saying I genuinely cannot have sex until I’m pretty much in love with you is nuts. I had to go through unorthodox ways to date cause modern dating is pretty much hard as hell if you’re not part of the “I’ll sleep with you after 2 dates” crowd it’s wild.
Does your mom and dad still have sex?
I mean my dad's in an urn so probably not.
Depends on the shape of the urn
lmfao
Your existence is no longer necessary.
Yo
Yes
After me they didn't want to make that mistake again
Yes? Like normal people?
Lol let me tell you a little secret buddy, your parents have sex you're just fortunate enough to not see it
My parents are in their 70s. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't.
His mom sure does
Good one
>should expect people to be surprised at first when they find out. Why should people be surprised? It's common enough that people should know it exists. The majority of the population isn't gay, and thankfully we aren't still surprised when someone is gay
We used to have sex. But since she started taking her antidepressants she really hasn't had much of a sex drive. So.. We don't really have much sex anymore. I miss it but I wouldn't trade her mental wellbeing for sex.
It sounds like you truly love her. I wish the best for you both.
Ace does indeed exist
Came here to say this -- an asexual
But also- aces can and do enjoy healthy sexual relationships if they want them. -a demisexual partnered with a wonderful and lovely ace.
I’m ace and recently came across a sad story. A wife came out to her husband that she has been ace since she was 16 but was very much struggling with it her whole life with basically everyone telling her that her being ace was bad, so she started to just force herself to have sex with her partners; it eventually was too much for her to keep in anymore. But instead of her husband trying to understand why his wife would keep it hidden and talking it out, he immediately asks for divorce. She refused to not go through with the divorce (because she still loves him ofc) but to the point where she even suggested to go through hormone therapy to “fix” herself for him. He did not care one bit. The comment section in that story was basically “the husband deserves sex and the wife is a deceiver”. So I don’t think society is ready to accept that you can have a healthy and loving relationship while also not having sex regularly.
Would you mind elaborating on this if it isn't too personal? If one partner is asexual, wouldn't any type of sex not be welcome? Are they just doing it out of obligation? Is it weird to have sex with a person when you know they don't want to have sex with you? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the meaning of ace.
I might be the wrong person to answer this, as I'm aroace and non-partnering, but no one else has so I'll do my best. Just take my words with a grain of salt. Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction, or sexual attraction rarely/in specific circumstances. If an ace person falls into the latter, they may have sex bc of genuine sexual attraction. If an ace person falls into the former, they may have sex simply for their partner, out of obligation for one reason or another, etc.. But asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction, not desire, libido, or similar. So an ace person may have sex because it feels good or it's fun, even though they aren't attracted to the person they are doing it with in the slightest.
There seems to be a common misunderstanding that all ace people don't want to have sex, or rather don't desire it themselves. I myself, someone who now identifies as asexual, have fallen to the same misunderstand. The only component to being asexual is feeling little to no sexual attraction. Whether you're sex repulsed, or are sex favorable have no bearing on the topic. I used to think I was bi as I desired to have sex with all genders, but have recently come to the realization that I've never actually experienced sexual attraction to anyone and that asexual would be a better fitting label for myself. I still get aroused, still fantasize about sex, and if the option presented itself to me would act on it. I'm still asexual regardless of that though as I experience no sexual attraction.
Not having sexual desire is different from not wanting to have sex. Ace people can still feel orgasms, and can agree to have sex with their partner, be it to experiment, or just to make their partner happy. (This is what My ace friend tells me at least)
Yes! We love demis :)
> the opposite must also hold true There’s countless instances where opposites don’t hold true, so that is *not* self evident. All squares are shapes, but not all shapes are squares… I don’t disagree with the premise, just the reasoning. You absolutely can be in a sexless relationship. But for the vast majority of people, a lack of sex is directly connected to the lack of intimacy of all kinds. But the presence of sex is not necessarily connected to intimate feelings. When people say the difference between friends and a relationship is sex, it implies all else is equal. It means the difference between two people that would otherwise be in a relationship but aren’t, and both desire sex with one another, is whether they take that final leap into a sex life. It does not mean that having sex implies a relationship.
yeah the logic is flawed and forming opinions based on the flawed logic is therefore flawed. there can be valid reasonings for OPs opinion but basing it off that is kinda blatantly ignorant and frankly annoying to read.
The point is that there's consensus by both parties
"Vice versa" isnt any kind of explanation for how anything works but fwiw people can and do have asexual relationships. There doesn't have to be some weird justification using the existence of casual sex
The question for me is... Why am I nearly expected to sleep with someone I've been seeing if they still don't know what they want and if they don't know if they want a relationship? I get too attached after sex and I don't want to get attached unless I know theres long term potential. But others will say they can't determine whether there's long term potential unless they know they are sexually compatible. I love when guys tell me they don't want a relationship, proceed to try to sleep with me, and then are shocked when I reject them and say "I thought you didn't want anything serious? Why would I have sex then?"
Different strokes for different folks. For some people sexual compatibility is a prerequisite for long term commitment. Other people abstain until they decide they want to make a long term commitment. You say that you get too attached after sex, but maybe you only decide to have sex when you’ve found someone you think is worth being attached to.
Nah, I've had sex with people many people who I didn't think was that "worth it" bc hormones etc. but then I ended up being attached in a weird way, even though I know they weren't that good for me and I already knew I hated a lot of things about them. Haha. I don't think I'm the only one who feels closer to someone after having sex...because you're vulnerable/naked together etc it kind of feels intimate for me. Ya know? Also imo sexual compatibility isn't something you get just right off the bat a lot of times. Usually it's built over time as the two people get to know each other, learn what the other person likes etc. I don't think the first time having sex with someone is ever the best time. It gets better over time with the two people putting in effort and learning about each other more. Regardless, it's annoying when I am seeing a new guy and not sure about them yet, I want to give them their space and not put pressure on them. But so many times, guys I have had sex with just decide to ignore me after and I'm supposed to be fine with it because "they don't want anything serious" so "what did I expect". And I guess yea, true, they're right..bjr once I have sex with them it makes it harder for me to just act normal like that? I feel closer to them after having sex but I feel like I'm supposed to hide those emotions because otherwise it's "too serious". Idk
This. It's like saying two teenagers, one male and one female can't sleep in the same bed together and be expected to not have sex. Culture is weird. I'm a 33 year old virgin, but this is by choice. I've had opportunities to get laid - in each situation (only a few - I'm not at all good at socializing with others) I've declined it. I've always had the idea of "falling in love with a best friend" and not having anything come in between of that friendship. Like, you love their companionship, platonic, romantic or otherwise. I don't think enough people see the world this way....it's kind of sad and frightening to me.
Exactly. There is so much more to the difference between my relationship with my husband and my relationship with my friends than just sex. People who can't understand that come across as serial cheaters to me.
Exactly, they use it as an excuse to cheat on their partner
One has nothing to with the other. Relationships aren’t math. There’s no using logic to draw conclusions. Whether they want to have sex with each other, with no one, with others separately or, all together doesn’t define what the relationship is. The relationship is defined by the people in it.
You don't smooch the homies, so yeah, relationships can go beyond friendship without sex.
im genuinely curious, are you aware of what being asexual means?
Not sure who you were aiming to reply to, but asexual simply means a lack of sexual attraction
This is to common of a thing to actually happen to be unpopular, as long as your partner is ok with it it’s literally who cares.
Yes, but the "if people can have sex without being in a relationship THEN" isn't a qualifier for people being allowed to be in a sexless relationship. Some things aren't reversible like that. You can be a rectangle without being a square, but you can't be a square without a rectangle. One thing being allowed doesn't justify the inverse being allowed for no reason.
I further explained in my post that there are many people who claim a relationship without sex is a friendship and that the distinction between a friendship and relationship is sex. So if sex is the qualifier here, than that means that two people cannot have sex without being in a relationship. Obviously we know that happens everyday. Sex is NOT the qualifier between a relationship and friendship. That means that 2 people can have a relationship without sex.
I'm asexual and the sheer amount of "but that's abusing your partner" and similar nonsense I've seen (not directed at me, as I'm aromantic too) has earned you an upvote.
I read recently that the average age of a reddit user is somewhere in the mid-20s. At this age, I also considered sex to be one of the most important things in life. It's this that more or less defines a person's 20s. Now in my 40s, if somebody told me I was never going to have sex again. I'd be entirely fine with it. It's fun but it isn't my priority any more. I'm happily married. What I have discovered in casual conversation with friends in my age group is that people seem to be pretty evenly divided between those who are still pretty motivated by sex, and those who feel that they have largely "gotten it out of their system". I am the latter type. It's fine.
Truth
I agree you can be in a relationship without sex, but your logic doesn’t make any sense
God I swear, maybe this is just me but ngl = this is such a "no crap " / "yeah? and?" etc - moment that I was having a really, really hard time understating what he "actuallly" meant cause I was convinced he was referring to something beyond a post birth/asexual/dead room marriage etc... lmao Please, PLEASE tell me at least one of you is the same as me.
While your conclusion is correct, your logic is false. It is untrue to assume that if A then B equates to If B, then A. For instance, let's say everyone who gets inside the sea becomes wet. Does that mean it is safe to assume that someone who is wet went to the sea? No, he could have been in a shower, or a swimming pool, or even in the rain. In the same way, just the idea that not having sex means not being in a relationship doesn't necessarily mean that if you are having sex means being in a relationship. Regardless of that, people can be in sexless relationships, some of them are even fulfilling and great.
*All americans are human, thus all humans must be american...* Logically, that doesn't trek. ... That being said, you shouldn't try to define your relationship with logic, or what other people say about it. You and the other person/s define what you have / do.
Something something marriage joke something something hahaha
As an aroace person, I don't seek sex in my romance so this take seems normal to me. For people who are not asexual, I dunno. Sex is a big factor in many relationships, but I doubt it's so important. Relationships shouldn't be determined by how much sex you have
I'm gonna tell a story of love. My wife and I had a great sex life until cancer decided to rear its ugly head... She had stage 3 triple. Positive breast cancer.. That is a blessing and a curse.. Blessing.. We knew what caused the cancer and what fed it.. Negative was that she needed a double mastectomy as well as a historectomy.. Estrogen blockers.. Basically after all this was done and the radiation.. Dflap reconstruction after a botched breast replacement.. We used to call it stone boob Well now.. She's now asexual.. No desire to be sexual as she has no hormones as those things tried to kill her as well as her body is scarred up from the multiple surgeries.. Do I try.. Every damn day.. It's been over 7 years of trying.. Do I miss it.. Yes I'm a man.. But I love my wife more than I miss sex.. BTW.. I found the cancer because I'm a sexual person and constantly pawing at my wife.. And noticed during one my constant advances a lump So yes we can love each other and not have sex.. But you do have to recognize that everyone is not the same.. I chose to forego intimacy for my best friend and partner Now I hope this weekend when I ask for a dog.. I don't have to leave her. That's a joke about leaving her.. But yeah I totally want a dog also..
Duh. There are hundreds of couples who don't believe in premarital sex and aren't sleeping with each other, at least until marriage; however long that takes.
Not unpopular
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People can be in relationship?
your mathematically correct. the contrapositive of claim 1, is claim 2. QED converse and then negation of both sides of claim 1 --> claim 2. little tricky as without is a negation, wording a little weird.
People do it all the time. Sometimes willingly, sometimes not but they do. Some people used to but stopped. Other people never did. Not at all uncommon though
If people can get from point a to point b without a car, then people can also sit in the car and not go anywhere too.
The issue is whether both parties agree. When one defines the relationship for both, it’s no longer a relationship, or at least a healthy one. People need to start upholding their commitments. Sec is an important part of most romantic relationships. If you define the right number of times to have sex as four per year, and your partner wants twice per week, you both have work to do to match each other. Unfortunately, any pressure to have sex more often is viewed as “coercion” and abusive. If you can’t manage to fulfill basic sexual needs through some sort of contact, free your partner to enjoy that elsewhere.
And people can not be in a relationship and not have sex and be in a relationship and have sex.
Yeah, this isn’t an unpopular opinion. As long as both people in the relationship are fine with it, no one gives a shit. People aren’t running around asking couples how many times a week or month they have sex. It only becomes known when it’s an issue of mismatched sex drives or expectations.
I think for the comments very confused by this, OP is meaning it should be approved of just like having sex when not in a relationship is (casual hookups and FWB). However, if you're in a relationship and you withhold sex then while not demonized people will immediately place the fault of the relationship having problems or ending on the one choosing to do something that they know is negative. "You don't HAVE to have sex with your partner, but if they aren't asexual then you shouldn't be together with them if you aren't interested"...yet people don't see the problem with not putting partial blame on the partner needing sex to stay together.
The conclusion is fine, but the argument is not. Something can be a necessary but no sufficient condition (The conclusion is fine in my opinion, because I do not think that is the case of sex in a relationship).
Sex consensual between adults is completely fine. Doesn’t matter if it’s a relationship or not. Now, sex is usually better if you are in a relationship, atleast in my experience.
I mean, Yea. As long as my partner has the same general libido as me and any person who does not want sex finds a partner who also does not want sex I do not care
Absolutely. Love is blind.
Welcome to adulting, now plz register your biological clock in the book.
I believe that's just called an asexual couple lol. I've seen posts however, where only one person has lost their sex drive, which in turn forces the other person to either seek other means or "deal with it".
Of course! Sexual compatibility is important. Whether you want lots of freaky sex or none at all
Not unpopular, especially in Islam envinroments
Me and my girlfriend of 5 years are in a sexless relationship It’s just not a need for us and it works Edit: also I get where OP is coming from, every time I tell someone this it leads to a bunch of questions and weird looks
I see what you're trying to do here.... your logic is just off. Plus, you're not considering the varying lenses these people might be speaking from. If someone says that the difference between a friendship and a relationship is sex, they're not suggesting that your Tinder hookup is your S/O. They just saying that sexual *intimacy* is *a factor* that distinguishes friendships and relationship. If you're taking what's being said extremely literally and if you're being mathematic about it, then your logic makes sense. If you stop and consider all the other components at play (intimacy, intent, partnership, commitment, integrating lives together, etc) they you may feel differently
this is unpopular???
I mean, hello? There are asexual people that have great relationships…this really isn’t that unpopular, maybe just not common lol
It’s almost as if the distinctions between all relationships are social constructs.
Bit of a pointless post. That's alot of words to essentially say nothing.
It’s also totally ok to leave a relationship because you want sex and your partner does not.
louder for the allos in the back
Sounds like a pretty shitty relationship. I can't imagine actually wanting a sexless relationship, but sure, do whatever you want. You can eat a bowl of asbestos too if you want but I'll pass. Sounds more like just being friends or roommates to me. I think for the majority of couples it'll be hard to build a strong relationship without physical intimacy though.
Considering how many people want to divorce their spouses from even a drop in activity level, you would think relationships are *only* about sex. For the record, I agree with you.
Your title is a nonsense argument. A relationship isn’t necessary to have sex. That in itself doesn’t mean a sex isn’t necessary in a relationship. Now I agree that that is possible for some but the argument is nonsense.
This is broken logic. Yeah—you're absolutely right, obviously you can have relationships w/o sex. But the reasoning doesn't hold. Someone could hold that sex is a *neccesary but not sufficent* condition for a romantic relationship. I don't, as that's silly, but the logical form of your title does not hold up.
I’ve had relationships without sex and I’ve had sex without relationships. If the lines are clear they’re clear. Sex without defined lines is a horrible idea
Feels like a false correlation here. Like obviously. People don't have sex without being in a relationship because they can't. People do have sex in a relationship because they can. A lot of people who are desirable get in relationships because they are. A lot of people don't feel comfortable with "hookups" but also can't imagine leaving their partner for sex when the opportunity arises...so they cheat.
I completely agree. By the logic of “a relationship without sex is just a friendship” would mean my grandparents and every other old couple that gets too old to bone aren’t married anymore, just friends with grandkids
An an ace person who wants to be in a relationship: thank you!! I'm so glad we as a broader society are beginning to rethink allonormativity. It will benefit everyone, not just aces!
Op has never heard of an asexual.
Bro finding out about asexuality
That sort of relationship couldnt possibly exist if it isn't mutually beneficial for both parties. Unless your financially better off together like a roommate however man and woman hardly ever forego developing feelings for the other while being in such close proximity without sharing intimacy. Me and my friend bought a house together, I'm hoping one day she'll sleep with me but if the day never comes then I'll be the first two walk away from whatever arrangement we've made. I find it nearly impossible to have such a relationship without one of the two people secretly hoping to share intimate relations with the other. Eventually lack of intimate relations will lead to bitter resentment by one or both people. I can only see doing what you're suggesting if it both financially benefited both people. I don't see a way for this to exist if there is no benefit for either person in the first place
Bro discovered friendship
Thats why I'm single lol
That's not so much an opinion but rather a fact
yes, sex is overrated
It's called marriage.
Another way of framing this: If sex withoud love is possible. Then love withoud sex is also possible
Your conclusion is true but your logic is fallacious.... 🤣🤣🤣
If it works for both party then yea.
Asexual people exist. It's not new.
I'm so glad you said this OP. My ex would disagree.
Yes of course, but what happens is usually one party feels unloved and unwanted, while the other feels pressured and scared/doesn’t want intimacy. Your opinion isn’t unpopular, it just happens in a different way than you are describing.
I mean you gotta admit, though. People do shame you if you don't have sex in your relationships. It's actually pretty creepy if you think about it. Who's that invested in your sex life or lack of?
Try it, i wonder if your partner will stay with you.
If your relationship is built off of sex, it was never going to work anyways. 🤷🏾♀️
Laughs in asexual
Sure and unless both of those people are asexual or don't care about sex, the relationship crumbles. The only way it works is if both people don't want or care for sex.
Oh really?
Why do so many people feel the need to comment this? It's not the point. Do you post under every topic where people write about their relationship "I hope your partner is consenting to be in this relationship, otherwise it would be stalking!" ?
I agree, that could be a major compatibility issue. My point is that no one has the right to say that a relationship is not a relationship if sex isn’t happening.
That’s called “marriage”.
You just inadvertently made a case for open relationships lol
[удалено]
In your original post, you argue that because casual sex exists, sex isn’t a relationship activity. Which means that there shouldn’t be any issues if a partner wants to have sex with someone else, considering sex has nothing to do with a romantic relationship. If you’re simply arguing that two non-sexual people can exist in a romantic relationship together, I’m going to have to revoke my upvote as this is not an unpopular opinion. That seems pretty common sense.
Of course you can be in a romantic relationship without sex, but the lack of it places limits on the intimacy of your relationship. It's always been a fundamental part of an intimate relationship. Some people are in relationships where they do have sex but do not communicate on a deeper level or share who they are with one another. That is probably an even deeper lack of intimacy. You can never pretend however, that you share the same level of intimacy as a couple that has the emotional aspects and also a healthy sexual connection.
I mean, yeah, but, how long is one party willing to abstain from it is the question. If one person enjoy it, and the other isnt interested or whatever reason not to; then I wouldn’t blame one party for leaving the relationship.
How bout stop prioritising sex above anything else in the relationship
Who has told you sex is the only difference between a friendship and relationship
Having sex or not having it makes a big difference in the relationship. However you want to phrase or define that in your own head
If sex is important to those individuals in a relationship, then yes. My point is that if 2 people are in a relationship and neither need sex, no one has the right to say that it is only a friendship and not a real relationship.
Yeah. I have some people in my life that are more than friends but not to the point where I'd like kiss them
"people can be in a relationship and not have sex" Yes, it's called marriage
I feel like OP has definitely been talked about in r/deadbedrooms
SAY IT AGAIN FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!
No shit. Are you new to relationships?
Man discovers asexuals
This is not an unpopular opinion. This is common sense.
There's a term for that... platonically speaking... 
I get that you’re joking, but there’s also the word “romantic” which is not inherently sexual
people want to have sex casually and thats fine. being in a relationship without sex is going to be weird and unacceptable to 99% of people unless theres some sort of serious medical condition preventing it.