A new practitioner article separates endometriosis care from intimacy support, with guidance on closeness, boundaries and communication without pressure.
On October 31, 2026, Intimatherapy published “Endometriosis and Sex: How Can a Sex Therapist Help?” It names Abigail Waud as author/editor. The practitioner article considers how couples can discuss pain and intimacy without treating sex as an obligation. Its central distinction is between medical care for endometriosis and support for a person's relationship with sex.
The article's central communication idea is simple: wanting closeness does not have to mean promising sex. For a partner, hearing “not tonight” need not be read as rejection of the relationship. This is guidance about making wishes and boundaries clearer, rather than an instruction to achieve a particular sexual outcome.
The article focuses on people with endometriosis and their partners. Its format is a practical educational discussion of intimacy and the approaches a sex therapist might introduce. It addresses both the person experiencing pain and a partner who may be unsure how to respond.
Its scope includes a person's relationship with their body as well as conversations within a couple. Waud describes therapeutic approaches alongside individual client experiences. The emphasis is on increasing choice and safety, not encouraging someone to endure pain in order to maintain a sexual relationship.
For readers unfamiliar with this kind of support, understanding what a conversation with a sex therapist may involve provides useful background. The distinction to keep in view is the purpose of the conversation: understanding intimacy and communication rather than assuming that more frequent sex is the desired result.
The article describes pain during or after sex as a common experience among people with endometriosis. Its relationship guidance focuses on reducing pressure and avoiding assumptions about what either partner means. Instead of discussing only the sex that is not happening, it suggests talking about the closeness each person wants and can comfortably offer.
In Waud's account, a person can ask for closeness without committing to sex later. That separates an immediate wish from a future expectation. A request for touch does not have to become a decision about everything that might follow.
The distinction also applies to the partner hearing the request. The article encourages couples not to interpret “not tonight” as an automatic statement about their desirability or the relationship. It recognizes that one partner may feel rejected while the person experiencing pain may feel guilty.
Those feelings can be discussed without changing the boundary. The point is not to require someone to offer another form of intimacy whenever they decline sex. It is to make room for a conversation about what is mutually wanted, including whether any closeness is wanted at that moment.
The article presents sensate focus as paying attention to touch without making penetration, orgasm or arousal the goal. Noticing sensations and expressing preferences take the place of working toward a required sexual outcome. This is the therapeutic approach as the author describes it.
That framing changes the question from whether an activity will lead to sex to whether the experience itself is wanted. Arousal is not a task to complete. Nor does agreeing to touch establish an obligation to continue or move toward something else.
The article also makes a broader distinction: intimacy need not mean sex, and sex need not mean penetration. In this discussion, penetration is one possible activity rather than the measure of whether a couple has been intimate.
Waud suggests short exchanges during touch as part of a couple's shared sexual language. Her examples include asking for a slower pace, asking a partner to stay in one place and saying when it is time to stop. These are specific statements about a present preference or boundary.
A check-in does not have to explain the whole relationship. Its purpose in the article is more immediate: making the current experience clearer to both people. A preference expressed earlier is not treated as a promise about how someone will feel later.
The primary article is practitioner-authored education, not a clinical trial. It does not report a trial of sensate focus specifically among couples affected by endometriosis. Its explanations therefore should not be presented as proof that these approaches improve sexual function or quality of life in this population.
The client examples also need careful interpretation. They involve changes related to timing and tiredness, as well as stress and alcohol. These are individual experiences described by a practitioner, not controlled evidence that the same adjustments will help other couples. They do not establish a routine that readers should follow.
The article explicitly states that sex therapy does not treat endometriosis or replace appropriate medical care. Its optional suggestions about pace or lubrication, and about having more control over movement, do not address the underlying cause of pain. These options are conditional on what the person wants rather than universal recommendations.
The distinction between physical assessment and relationship support fits the broader approach described by Merck Manual Professional. Its overview of female sexual concerns calls for a focused sexual history and physical examination. It also considers biological and psychological influences alongside sociocultural and interpersonal factors.
That approach gives the medical and relationship conversations different but connected roles. Discussing expectations is not the same as assessing a physical cause of pain. Equally, a physical assessment does not by itself describe what partners understand about each other's wishes or worries.
Merck Manual Professional lists pelvic-floor physical therapy and individual or couple psychotherapy among possible management options. Sex therapy is another listed option. The relevance of each depends on the concern and the person's goals, rather than a requirement that everyone receive the same form of support.
Readers seeking context about the role of pelvic-floor care in sexual function can learn about that separate area of care. Its inclusion in broader guidance does not establish that it is appropriate for every person with endometriosis. The shared principle across these sources is attention to both physical concerns and the person's own priorities.
The practical message is not that couples need a more elaborate sexual routine. It is that they can discuss closeness without deciding in advance where it must lead. In Waud's framing, the conversation begins with what each person wants and can comfortably offer, rather than an assumed goal of penetration.
That leaves room for different answers on different occasions. Someone may want closeness without sex. They may want to stop an activity that felt welcome earlier. The article treats those preferences as information to communicate, not as failures that a couple must correct.
For a partner, separating a boundary from an assumption about rejection is another useful distinction. This does not require pretending that disappointment or uncertainty is absent. The article suggests talking about those feelings while keeping the other person's comfort and choices intact.
Couples who struggle to discuss changing needs may find it helpful to understand how relationship-focused support approaches intimacy concerns. The relevant question is what support would help them communicate, not whether they are meeting an outside standard for sexual frequency or activity.
Pain also deserves a direct healthcare conversation. The Intimatherapy article advises discussing painful sex with a GP, gynaecologist or another appropriate healthcare professional so physical causes can be assessed. A clear description of pain belongs in that conversation, alongside questions about the person's concerns and goals.
These are related discussions with different purposes. A partner conversation can clarify whether closeness is wanted and what a boundary means. A healthcare conversation can address the pain itself. Neither requires the person experiencing pain to promise a particular sexual outcome.
Today, draft a question for your partner about whether closeness can be welcome without an expectation of sex.
Treating closeness as a promise of sex can leave changing needs unspoken; Sexential approaches intimacy through evidence-aware education rather than assumptions about what should happen. For adults aged 35 to 65 who find these discussions difficult, its coverage brings sexual function and everyday relationships into the same conversation without directing personal medical decisions.
Follow Sexential for thoughtful guidance on desire, sexual function, hormones, confidence, relationships and intimacy. Explore new articles and evidence-aware resources for sexual wellbeing across adulthood.
An Oxford doctor's call for broader menopause care puts daily wellbeing alongside libido, with context on HRT evidence and regular reviews.
Microplastics appeared in all 48 samples in an infertility study. A clear look at the semen findings, their limits and current fertility guidance.
A review of new advice on sexual pleasure after 40, with context on changing preferences, mutual choice and symptoms that need medical attention.
Explore practical resources on desire, function, hormones, confidence, intimacy and sexual wellbeing.
Read the Blog
