The point here being that, in a MATURE relationship not based on that innate “attraction” that people feel they cannot control, sexuality becomes an expression, as you stated. People seem to believe the emotion should be driven by the sexuality, instead of the other way around.

And actually, of those who are “in love” with inanimate objects, they do desire closeness with said object through sex and physical touch, and they wholeheartedly believe that said “table leg” expresses itself towards them in its own way. Its amazing what our own chemicals can do that is completely against our better interests in life.
   

It’s not that sex is the only axis of a relationship, but it is part and parcel of several important aspects, as Helene mentioned: emotional, intellectual, physical, spiritual. The physical aspect is an expression of love and intimacy. When you’re in love with a person (as opposed to a table leg), you want to express your feelings of love, attraction, and closeness through sex and physical touch. That attraction, intimacy, and bonding is present when you give your partner a goodbye kiss, cuddle in bed at night, or are just holding hands. In a healthy relationship, all the elements are present and strong, and important to most people.

Honestly, what you portray sounds a lot like a “new age” description of that chemical high people get around each other…TEMPORARILY.  Human bonding CAN be accentuated by sexual activity…but it isn’t REQUIRED and in some cases I’d say isn’t even a good idea.  Sex IS an activity…plain and simple.  Yes, we are driven to do it for the purpose of creating offspring (and there is some evidence that human females continue to engage in sex as a method of keeping their partner long enough to begin to raise a child–but that instinctual drive is by no means permanently aimed at a single partner). 

Your description of “sexual energy,” while seemingly “new age” in portrayal is simply another way of describing the “high” that’s been discussed here in “magical” terms.  If you feel its so magical, “energy driven” or somesuch, I can pretty easily dispell that right away.  I could simply give you some medication that will wipe out your sex hormones.  Or, you could take a good dose of currently overused SSRI antidepressants.  Your serotonin levels in your brain will skyrocket, depressing dopamine and norepinephrine production and I guarantee you will not care one iota about sex or ”sexual energy” while you are under the influence of one of these mechanisms. You will still desire human interaction and contact…but sex?  Nope…not a single bit.  In fact, the concept of sex and desire may very well repulse you. 

Conversely, I could, given enough experimental time and behavior analysis, stimulate dopamine production in your brain and cause you to fall “in love” (using society’s common defintion of this) with a table leg.  I’m NOT kidding about this.  In fact, there are documented cases of people falling “in love” with inanimate objects, which includes both a psychological and a brain chemistry component.  And YES…they try to have sexual relations with these objects, and wholeheartedly believe said objects are the “one” for them. 

Plainly put, when the “sexual bond” forms an “axis” of a relationship, then with time, the loss of sexual function (including the loss of general DESIRE which occurs when hormonal and neurotransmitter levels change), the relationship crumbles…precisely because an axis has “crumbled”…if you choose to define your relationships this way and make sex and sexuality a central point of them.
       

On the contrary! It is with your  – somewhat narrow – definition of sex (sex as an ACTIVITY) that it would be impossible under those circumstances… When the sexual bond forms an axis of the relationship, then sexual connection and interaction are not destroyed by an illness or injury  but are always possible. Sex is a look, a touch, a transmission of desire, a flow of sexual energy between two people – this is what I mean by sexuality being a key axis of a relationship – its not all about f##king!

I believe you’re using two different definitions of “chemistry.”  There’s physical “chemistry”, and there is emotional and mental “chemistry.”  It seems you made your choice on a mate based on characteristics…but not on how well those characteristics worked with you on an emotional or mental level.  I suspect the end of your relationship had very little to do with sex or sexuality, and much more to do with those other basic incompatibilities.  You described your marriage as ending up being “disfunctional, lonely, filled with pain, lack of respect.” That sounds like emotional and mental incompatibility, having nothing to do with sexual “chemistry.”  Do you honestly believe that “lack of respect” and pain would have magically disappeared because you wanted to have sex all the time?  NO! You might have been high for a while which might have masked this for a short time…but, the problem wasn’t sex or attraction on the level everyone seems to be talking about. It was that emotionally or mentally it wasn’t tenable.  That’s a completely different thing. 

I completely disagree with your statement that sex is an axis of a relationship. If that is true, then when sex becomes impossible (either through health issues, loss of libido, age, injury, etc.) then with your definition, the relationship effectively becomes damaged and untenable.  This SO belies the realities of life and I propose to you that what you are saying is not an absolute truth, but rather something you, personally, have defined for yourself.

All throughout history there have been PLENTY of deep, meaningful, and satisfying relationships that were life-long in nature and did not involve sex AT ALL. A perfect example of this is relationships between women during Victorian times. Plenty of women formed very intense, connected bonds with one another during those times (defined as romantic friendships) that lasted their entire lives but sex, for most, was not a consideration or a desire. These were not homosexual relationships, either, and many of these women spent their lives together, facing the world as a team and yet neither were desiring sexual activities between each other.  Yes, there was touching, cuddling, and so forth, but these are NOT sexual activities…these are the activities of TOUCH which are completely different.

We currently live in a completely oversexualized society, where practically EVERYTHING we are exposed to upholds sex and sexuality as some kind of goal to be pedestalized. We define our relationships with others around sexuality (as you seem to do on some level) and yet it is in reality, without all this externally-applied definition, such a SMALL part of our actual lives.  I personally know people who go large segments of their lives without sex, and are PERFECTLY HAPPY.  Its only when we start deciding that sex was a core need as important as food that we make ourselves miserable.

Don’t get me wrong…I think sex is great.  Its fantastic, and I love it myself. But I certainly am NOT going to define my relationship with a person around it in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.  

This leads me to the whole attraction debate. I am not saying that people should make life-long commitments to others they are repulsed by.  However, I think a lot of people are really confused as to WHY they are repulsed.  Sure, there are the obvious ones…bad hygiene, and so forth.  But other than that…why?  This comes back to a very interesting thing that keeps being said: “You can’t help who you are attracted to.”  Well…yes…and no.

First of all, the “initial” attraction people feel (without knowing anything about the person really) is driven visually, and by things such as smell, histological compatibility, and so forth.  If we were simply basic animals, that’s all there would be to the whole issue.  But…we’re not (even though in this society we try to act as though we are and that’s all that’s necessary).  That component of attraction actually makes up less than 5% of the package.

The rest is…you.  Your psychology and in this effect, YOU have a very big mental part of attraction.  In this effect, you DO have some control as to who you are attracted to, and to whom you are not.  This is why I was talking about attitude.  If you have convinced yourself that you cannot be with someone because of a lack of spark, then of course you will never FEEL attracted.  Conversely, if you feel emotionally that you really enjoy someone and are not open to societally driven mental blocks about this sort of stuff, you WILL feel attracted.

Many people argue with this, but there are very keen examples that I use to point this out.  I myself have experienced being attracted to someone…until they opened their mouth to speak.  My attraction very quickly waned until it would be nearly impossible to have any kind of physical reaction around this person.  The opposite has happend as well.  This is the MIND at work…and whether you want to admit it or not, IT is the biggest sexual organ and the PRIMARY producer of attraction…not some strange force in the universe.

If you are someone who has decided you have to have that “high”…then yes, you will find your attraction to anyone who does not give you that high going away rapidly. In some cases, you may even turn it into repulsion.  Your mind REALLY DOES have that kind of control…and understanding your own psychology and its influence is the first key in understanding yourself and your relationship choices.

@Nadia:
From what was written, and Evan’s reply…I don’t see where anyone got the impression that she was saying she was repulsed by her partner.  I saw that nowhere in the communication at all.  So…you’re encouraging her to put on the brakes based on….what?  That you “sense” she is repulsed by him?  What I read in what she said was that she never had “sensational” chemistry with him (which implies there IS some chemistry there…just not sensational…and what is sensational? Does she expect everlasting knee-buckling reactions?  Its pretty subjective here). I also gathered she has a really deep connection with him but seems to be yearning for the butterflies and weak knees…which is what Evan was talking about.  

It also seems a lot of people here were not reading this woman’s message very clearly by asking if she’d ever spent considerable time with him, been on vacation with him, and so forth.  Read the message again, carefully as I’m sure Evan did.  She’s been with him for FOUR YEARS (and guess what…that mellowing of sparks and so forth are a guarantee at that point).  Only TWO of those years have been living in different cities long-distance.  So, FOUR YEARS, two of which were likely close together and spending a lot of time together, and two living in different cities and seeing each other I would bet regularly.  Read her first paragraph:

“I’m in a four-year relationship with a truly amazing guy. He is thoughtful, considerate, and funny. We share many of the same interests, and we truly enjoy spending time together. We have been living in different cities for a couple of years now and have managed a great long-distance relationship.” 
       
She defines him as a great guy.  She really likes spending time with him.  She respects him and his thoughtfulness humor.  Interests that are compatible.  I’m not sure where ANYONE got the idea she was repulsed by this guy.  She NEVER EVER said that anywhere.  My guess is that Evan caught that, and even from some of the questions she was asking, was betting that she was feeling “less attracted” for a variety of psychological reasons or insanely high expectations of what “chemistry” is.  Most of the replies here that sit there and say “don’t do it” seem to have only read what they WANTED to see in her message which seems to be something like “I’m unsure about my boyfriend because I’m repulsed by him but like him.”  Or, they somehow read that she’d never spent significant time with him together.

I think there is a HUGE difference between what you are describing and feeling completely repulsed by your partner to the point of not wanting physical contact with him. I think those of us who are encouraging her to put on the breaks are hearing that she feels more than just the organic fading of a spark.