|click through for original tweet|
No, because Dr. Ruth is making some pretty sweeping assumptions about relationships here -- namely that "not having sex means not having a partner." Wait -- what? Did you just say -- oh, yes. Yes, you did.
Because me, with no formal training in the relationship advice arena, can think of a number of ways in which "not having sex" can co-exist with "having a partner."
1. Two or more people who identify as asexual and are comfortable with no sexual activity (or exclusively solitary sex) forming a partnership.
2. The person who doesn't want sex (either because of identity or other factors) partnering with one or more people who
a) are content to enjoy solitary sex in the context of the monogamous relationship;
b) are content to enjoy sex with those in the poly relationship who enjoy sex, and non-sexual intimacy with the person who has chosen to abstain;
c) or form a negotiated open relationship in which the sexually-active person can have relational sex with other partners, in addition to maintaining their partnership with the non-sexually-active person.
And in addition to this, of course, there's the many ways in which non-partnered people can have rich relational lives. (And I say this as a joyfully partnered person). They can join religious orders, co-housing and communal societies, nurture their relationships with extended (blood or chosen) families, and generally practice really good friendship skills. Having a "partner" isn't the only way to be in relationship, any more than being sexually active is the only way to be in a partnership.