Why living sexless may not be as bad as we think

How often are you having sex? If thinking about your answer fills you with worry that you're not living up to the standard that society has set, it wouldn't be surprising. Leaving aside sex addiction, the popular belief is that 'more is better' when it comes to sexual activity and keeping the frequency and quality up is a challenge that can follow us for a very long time. While we're well aware of the physical and mental benefits of healthy sexual activity, is not having sex a bad thing? Not necessarily.

A longitudinal study, published in the Archives Of Sexual Behavior, compiled survey data on over 17,000 individuals in the United States, to examine the correlation between sexlessness (defined as having no sexual partners within the past year or the past five years) and happiness. The study produced some interesting findings in regards to lifestyle. There was a strong correlation between no sex in the past year and no sex in the past five years. Sexless living was often associated with being currently unmarried and aging. And men who provided less than 20% of the household income were more likely to be sexless. Of particular note, however, was that researchers found no significant correlation between not having sex and a decreased level of happiness. You don't say!

The study does come with its flaws; the concept of sex or sexual activity was not explicitly defined. There are many different interpretations of what constitutes sex (oral, non-penetrative acts, masturbation, etc.), so it's impossible to tell what respondents considered sex to be — intercourse or any sexual activity at all.

However, these findings correlate to a larger trend; people seem to be having less sex. Another study, published last year in the same publication, found that Americans (across all ages, genders, races and religions) were having less sex (by an average of 9 sexual sessions) in the early 2010's than they were having in the late 1990s. Researchers contribute the findings to the rise in individuals without partners, but also to the infrequency of sex amongst those with partners. Even more significantly, a third study found that adult millennials (often called the "hookup generation") along with iGen (collectively those born in the 1980s and 1990s), were more likely to have less sexual partners than GenX (born in the 1960s and 1970s).

What makes these findings stand out the most is that we seem to be in the midst of an overly sexual society (pop culture, dating apps, breakthroughs in gender, orientation and consent) so, if anything, first instincts would assume we should be having more sex, not less. But perhaps the real issue is the unrealistic standard we've placed on sexual activity — in that, if you're "not getting any", there's a problem — rather than respecting the individual choices of those who have less sex, or no sex at all.

There is certainly a stigma around sexlessness. Clinical sexologist Martin Dragan believes that "just because someone isn't having sex, doesn't mean that something is wrong with them. Most people also define the term 'having sex' as meaning intercourse, but that's not always the case either. It's possible to have sex without intercourse, and many other variables are involved in a sexual dynamic besides intercourse (kissing, touching, oral-genital contact, etc.)." There are also a multitude of reasons why one would be living sexless. One assumption of the term that could hold true is that one wants to have sex but, for whatever reason, is not able to. One distinct possibility could be asexuality — simply not having sexual desire at all. "Those who are distraught/emotionally distressed would tend to seek counselling/help, those who aren't distraught typically would not," says Dragan.

"It's difficult to pinpoint this difference between sexlessness as a problem or a choice; sometimes it can be both (survivors of trauma, for instance, may choose not to be sexually active but find that difficult)," Dragan notes. He ultimately believes that, "for those who are sexless by choice, it's not usually a problem regarding sex — it's often some other issue or fear that they try to protect themselves from by preventing close or intimate connections."

Alternatively, there are those who choose to refrain from sexual activity because they believe in its positive benefits. Sexologist, love leader and psychotherapist Carlen Costa has completed three rounds of "intentional, mindful abstinence in the past year" and found it "incredibly enlightening". Costa believes certain circumstances give sexless living a negative light, "the impact of the choice can actually be uplifting and productive in your life. The conscious practice of mindful abstinence is one that can actually heal you, refocus you, release you from the things and emotions that are holding you down." Similar to how a boxer practices abstinence to focus his efforts on a big fight, some may want to "refocus that passion, that fire, that energy into another project or goal, like their career."

With this in mind, Costa points out that it's important to examine the motivations behind going sexless. When it's a choice stemming from "feelings of fear or shame or guilt, however, that is the type of choice that I would consider to be a red flag", says Costa, "because the motivation isn't about fulfilment or growth, it's all fear-based, which is stunted, limiting and detrimental to healthy social development."

Perhaps the growing trend of less sex is simply a reflection of how individuals are putting their own limits on broadly drawn societal standards. While many of us do enjoy and desire regular sexual activity, the frequency, extent and manner of it could and should be defined differently by each individual. Whatever those specifications are, as long as they are motivated by intentions toward living a healthier, more fulfilled life (sexually and otherwise), they should be accepted and respected as an admirable way to live.