Does sex = intimacy?

Ok, it is a stupid question but something is concerning me about the sex question and I am not sure what it is but I will try to analyse it.

Loving More Mission Statement is:
 To educate people about and support polyamory as a valid choice in loving relationships and family lifestyle.
 and they believe (that)  
Loving relationships and healthy families can come in many beautiful and valid forms

Polytical's Mission Statement says: We are here to help people who identify with any form of ethical non-monogamy, or people looking to find information about what polyamory and related relationship models actually are.

Nothing about sex here.... Perhaps because they acknowledge that sex does not equal intimacy.


Today in Poly in the news (thanks Alan) has an excerpt from an article that had a line that bothered me, it was:

This always makes my girlfriend and me giggle. Here’s a tip: It’s about the sex. If it weren’t, we’d be close friends 

So?  A friendship can be just as loving and passionate as some romantic relationships?  Think about in history, intimate friendships between women, who never married but lived out their lives together dying as 'old maids' Now we may say  that 'Oh it is obvious that they were lesbians' Yes, in many cases but what if, because of stigma, female sexual repression and the like, those women never, ever had sex with each other, would they been any less lesbian? Were they any less in love?  Is the nature of their passion downgraded to 'close friend' in our mind just because they never felt the need to get wet and sticky?.

 I am well aware that sometimes I stress for greater definition  of Polyamory but I am pretty strict about the idea that Amory = love, not love + sex.   That just  having lots of hot sex, with someone you see on a regular basis does not mean you are being loving.

Perhaps this is just another example of what irks me with 'Monogamish' (and the use of Polyamory when they mean Polysexual or simply 'open') that the writer of the article seems to indicate that what is most worthwhile about her hot sex life with her girlfriend is that it makes her a happier and more sexual wife, I am not sure how I would feel being considered a married woman's viagra but......

 There’s a pile of scientific evidence showing that a new sex partner is the most surefire cure for sexual dysfunction and low libido, especially for women.......That’s hot. I get all the excitement of an outside love affair – the wild sex, the sympathetic ear, the chance to fall in love all over again – without the bitterness of betrayal

So, I am a bit disturbed that this girlfriends relationship value seems so linked to the indirect sexual benefit this woman's husband, one does wonder whether she would be sacked if there were no indirect sexual benefit to be had, is this just Dyad Protection all over again?

Also,  in my quest to be more inclusive and accepting of the vast spectrum of human social behaviours (whether they are what I would consider Polyamory or not is not important, I feel all consensual sexual behaviours and gender expressions deserve the utmost respect and protection under the law) .  I have got to thinking about what sex means to me, what it means to me in relating how intimate I feel with someone or whether I need to have sex with someone to feel close or whether sex changes the way I relate to people and I have  realised, even though I am quite sexually demanding in general (I have a high amount of testosterone in my blood stream, I  think).  Sex, does not a relationship make and if all your other needs are being met, is sex the one defining element which totally changes the nature of a relationship from life partners to 'may as well be living with my brother/sister'?  Isn't that just Monogamish (harhar) thinking?

Is it only valid Polyamory when you are having sex with the other person?  What about the arms of a vee?  Sisterwives?  What if you no longer have sex with your primary but still have sex with your secondary is this not Polyamory? Where does all this leave our Asexuals? Are they left to be lonely, unable to bond/have a family with any one because they refuse to have sex?  I would like to think that they can have a place in the Poly world where we don't expect just one person to meet all our needs but if even those who define as Poly only want partners who will have sex with them, than are we not moving towards a definition of Poly as sexual based, rather than intimate and loving?  I once gave a Unicorn hunter a sound ticking off after she claimed the Unicorn needed to have sex with her too because she expects a life partner and she never would have a life partner who won't have sex with her.  That woman is looking towards a world of disappointment. 

I mean, I get the incompatible libido argument and that is definitely the case that many couples start out in polyamory precisely  because of that very reason but to say about Polyamory  is It’s about the sex well all I want to say to her is 'Speak for yourself sunshine because call me a hippy but to me, it is about the lurve.......'