Love or sex

[Lolita]

Me and my friend are having an ongoing debate - we even approached strangers in pubs about this - is sex about love? Or is sex purely about sex?

Several people we asked said "it depends on the person." I think that, if that is the answer, then they proved that sex is just about sex. If sex was about love, it wouldn't depend on the partner. Do you follow me here?]

Maybe I'm young and naive, but I can't see myself being with anyone I don't love.

Your opinions please...

[atiguhya padma]

There is no necessary connection between the two. Any connection is one of convention or habit or tradition. It is a great danger to teach people that you cannot have one without the other. If you list the differences between the two, and list the similarities, you might wonder why they are so connected. I would suggest religion and politics have much to do with their connection.

[GatsbyTheGreat]

I agree, sex is a natural impulse and love is a mysterious emotion, the two are not necessarily entwined. Sex can be about love, as some people refrain from the act until they know they are truly in love with their partner. Sex can also be about nothing more than catering to one's own carnal desires. I myself find that sex and love are inseparable, mainly because one is boring without the other ;) . But not all people feel this way, so when people answer you with "It depends on the person", they are right.

[amuse]

well, are we talking hormones or the heart?
i was a bit racy in college :blush: but that was short-lived. anyway, i liked sex fine without emotional stuff, i just had crushes back then...i met my boyfriend after moving to pa, and can't imagine how i ever could have done it with someone i didn't love. heat and the heart go very nicely together. ;)
what i don't understand is how people can love someone and not want to have sex with them...that has always baffled me, i have a friend whose girlfriend's just about frigid.

[rocksea]

ya it is possible to have sex without love and love without sex but still i dont feel one is complete without the other and sex from love tastes better for sure,, even if u may feel sex is abt body, it has mental attributes and at some levels u can take it as love itself!!

[verybaddmom]

well, are we talking hormones or the heart?
i was a bit racy in college :blush: but that was short-lived. anyway, i liked sex fine without emotional stuff, i just had crushes back then...i met my boyfriend after moving to pa, and can't imagine how i ever could have done it with someone i didn't love. heat and the heart go very nicely together. ;)

Well said As. i totally agree. there is a world of difference, but because i was married so young, for reasons other than love, i didnt realize it until i had spent way too many unfulfilling years having loveless sex. it seemed so overrated, the whole sex thing. it was something that i actually counted as a chore, like...okay today i have to do the laundry, get groceries, rake the yard and have sex with my husband *shudder*. i couldnt understand what all the fuss was about, but i kept trying to figure it out.....for years. and then i fell in love, and then i got it. i am not really sure that a person could define the difference, but for me it has much to do with freedom and trust. when i was in my "college" phase (i wasnt actually in college, but you know what i mean :blush:) it was all about one or two positions, and then awkward silences. the trust i have with my boyfriend now makes all the difference. i know that he wont look at me funny if i want to try something new, or if im not in the most flattering tummy tucking position. being older is liberating as well, as i am more assertive; i dont mind giving directions now and my appetite has done nothing but grow larger and more demanding. i am comfortable and confident and wow...now sex IS the ultimate expression of love. who knew?

[atiguhya padma]

I think it's interesting that Theodore Zeldin in his great work An Intimate History of Humanity, claims that romantic love was invented by Arabic women during the time of the troubadours, as a way of ensuring that their men returned to them after their campaigns.

I think a study of our historic attitudes towards both love and sex would speak volumes about how authentic our current attitude is to the subject. It seems to me that the strong connection between love and sex, so heavily promoted in Western society, is a social construct rather than a true biological phenomenon - unless, of course, we assume a very broad, wide-ranging definition of love, that encompasses most of the animal world. Our social attitudes have changed so much over the centuries, that I just don't believe that the love/sex thing is an in-built biological mechanism. It is something we inherit from our psychological environment. In addition to history, anthropology might well tell us something here too.

From a biological perspective, love, I presume, would only be meaningful as a means of promoting reproduction. In that sense, it is only a means to an end (there's probably a joke in their somewhere!).

AP

[Isagel]

"Is sex about love? Or is sex purely about sex?"

I would say that sex can be about a lot of things - it can be a display of power, hate, anger, love, compassion, celebration, refuge from anxiety, pleasure, a biological urge and seldom only one thing at a time. Like any action in human relations or communication, I guess.

Fromm wrote about sex as a "life giving impulse", something creative by nature. His view, if I interprete it correctly, was that sex did not have to be about romantic love in order to be sound, what matter is that sex is used in a way that creates pleasure or joy or intimacy, and that is the reason for it.

He wrote that the only perverted sexuality was the one where it was used to hurt, degrade or cause another being pain.

I think I agree with him, the only problem I find is that our motives are so very often all mixed up.

[emily655321]

I think the biggest problem -- for someone like me, anyway...or what I fear for myself in the future -- is recognizing the difference between love and loneliness/neediness. A lot of people who get called "sluts" are just using sex to fill the emotional void. The attention and affection can feel like love, but it's actually just selfishness.

Another thing I want to point out (and it must be true cause I heard it on TV ;)): There is a real difference between how men and women experience sex -- and I don't mean physically. Men have sex and, even if they love the person, they're like, "Oh yay, sex." But when women have sex (and enjoy it, that is) it's a much more emotional experience. Sex can actually cause a woman to FEEL like she's in love with the person. I think that's why most of the women here feel that love makes sex so much better -- not that men don't, but you know what I mean, right? I think it's more often that women feel sex is an expression of love, and secondary to it.

[amuse]

interestingly, it also takes a woman longer to get there than it does a man, but once there, she's got a more intense experience. maybe that translates into feeling more emotionally as well? i've heard that because a woman's letting someone in, it's a lot different from a man's experience, something on the lines of opening up emotionally too. but my bf also put it this way: you have to like the person you're doing it with. not! true, but to him, if you don't enjoy the person, why bother.
and it has a language all its own: comfort me, tease me, cuddle, play, get down, make believe, wait on me, take care of you...it's when that language sings out i love you then it's stellar.
how is the woman the slut here, em? doesn't that selfishness make both of them one? ;) ja?
another thing, the whole procreation argument. we're similar to dolphins; it's not just about biology. if it were, my sex life would be shot; it's lethal for me to get pregnant. i think that argument is bull****.

[emily655321]

Well, guys can be sluts too. But it kind of goes along with my thing about emotion (and don't come down on me, I'm talking about "most often," not "one or the other"): as far as I can see, girls TEND to use sex to satisfy more of an emotional need, while guys TEND to use it to satisfy the physical drive. In other words; most of the time, guys get horny, girls get lonely. That's why I think it's a bit sadder when girls sleep around a lot, because it's more related to an emotional problem.

I agree with everyone else here that sex isn't just procreation. Chimpanzees are another animal that has sex whether the female is in heat or not. There was also a little research done into why so many marriages are failing, and they came to the conclusion that the biggest blow to a relationship is when the couple stops having romantic sex often. They said it's so important because of the emotional bonding involved, as well as the alone time, it's a stress-reliever, and it takes the strain off of disagreements in the marriage because the couple can forget about all that for a while and reconnect with the person they love (emotionally, people; though it is symbolic). People are so stressed out in their lives, and they are so busy, that their spouse becomes more like a roommate than a lover, and then they fight.

[amuse]

re: girls sleeping around, hm. that largely makes sense. (unless she's very horny.)

end of sexond paragraph (oh fine, leave in the typo!): yuch, how sad! :( look them in the eyes, and flirt and smile now and then, people...i figure we're all stressed out enough without stressing the ones we love as well.

[verybaddmom]

not to mention the fact that regular sex keeps you healthier, boosts immunity, promotes cardiopulmonary (sp?) health and releases endorphins that make your all over feel better. also, for some reason, it promotes healthier teeth. i read that in cosmo, of course.

[evulik]

love or sex... ? may I share my opinion?

those are two different words. Of course the greatest things is if one can make love to/with sb he/she loves...

but sex as such is sex... we all have eyes and tastes... and it might happen that to have sex with somebody, you are not going to meet again (in safely manner) is just fine...

don't take me wrong, I have my love and I would die for him... and I am one of those lucky people to have both in one package... :) but still, there is heart and there are hormons in us... :nod:

[emily655321]

That's a very good point, Evulik. But where do you think the line lies, between the greater importance of one over the other? What does everyone else think?--> If a person is alone for a long time, at what point does it become more important to their emotional/psychological well-being to just connect with someone on a physical level, than to hold out for a relationship? Are there times when waiting for love can do more damage than having a taudry fling?

(P.S. I'm not talking about myself, like, "ahem...so I have this 'friend,' right..." :p This really is a hypothetical question.)

[atiguhya padma]

Amuse said:< another thing, the whole procreation argument. we're similar to dolphins; it's not just about biology. if it were, my sex life would be shot; it's lethal for me to get pregnant. i think that argument is bull****.>

Emily said: <Sex can actually cause a woman to FEEL like she's in love with the person>

Den said: <The argument that sex is purely for perpetuating the species is outdated. The social and cultural aspects of sex and intimacy are far greater and important now than ever before>

Amuse: Of course it isn't all about procreation, in a direct sense. However, indirectly it is completely about that. Without procreation, the way we procreate, we would never have developed our specific kind of sexual pleasures. Equally, the development of the concept of love in human culture is all about its value as a means of creating a stable protective nucleus for reproduction. So in an ironic sense, those who say love and sex are inseparable are quite right: love would never have occurred if we did not need families in order to continue as a species.

Emily: I think what you say is very interesting. The way you phrase your statement indicates that there are at least two very similar states of being with regard to love: 1) feeling like you're in love 2) being in love. I would argue that maybe only one of these states exists. Maybe love is like the self: we need to postulate its existence, and experience the feeling of its existence, in order to effectively operate in the world.

Den: your two sentences seem to me to be closely related, rather than mutually exclusive. As I have said in response to Amuse, procreation is essential to the creation of our attitudes such as love, and the social and cultural aspects of sex and intimacy are very much related to procreation. They are not related in a necessary way ie we could have continued as a species without developing our social and cultural attitudes. However, the history and current state of our cultural and social attitudes to sex are dependent on our procreative nature. And this of course will change gradually as our environmental pressures change.

[emily655321]

Emily: I think what you say is very interesting. The way you phrase your statement indicates that there are at least two very similar states of being with regard to love: 1) feeling like you're in love 2) being in love. I would argue that maybe only one of these states exists. Maybe love is like the self: we need to postulate its existence, and experience the feeling of its existence, in order to effectively operate in the world.

Hmm...on the one hand I agree; I also believe "love" to be a label for a specific set of feelings/brainwave patterns/whatever. I don't believe constructs such as "good" and "evil" exist as independent forces in the universe, and I would include the concept of "love" as one of these. That said, the experience we traditionally label "true love" to me differs substantially from a more superficial emotion. I've never been in love, but from what I hear repeatedly there is a huge difference between being in love and merely feeling attracted/affectionate toward another. Brain scans show a specific pattern found in those who profess to be in love.

So, what I meant was, there is a state of being "hopelessly devoted" to someone, and tends to be a long-lasting, intense, selfless experience for each individual. It's this kind of love for which sex strengthens, maintains, and is motivated by, the emotional bond between two people. A really old couple holding hands in the park -- that kind of love. But then there is also a kind of jealous obsession that can develop between people who have what they thought would be "no strings attached" sex; the reason "friends with benefits" relationships don't work out. When a person becomes enamoured with another only after they have sex, it's more of an unconscious claim to ownership. Even if a woman feels really lovey-dovey about the guy because of the neurotransmitters released during sex, it isn't a selfless, long-lasting kind of affection. It's the type of thing that makes people feel jealous and competative, untrusting. It's emotion focused on making sure there will be continued contact with the partner -- the "Fatal Attraction" complex.

I wouldn't call those two forms of the same emotion, even if that emotion is only a series of chemical reactions.

[verybaddmom]

i got to tell you guys, i have never really tried to analyze the connection between love and sex before, and i find it really interesting. this thread also complements the book im reading right now, called "the alchemy of love and lust" which is all about the chemistry and hormones (i know, redundant...tough) that are involved in the whole phenomenon of love and the quest for procreation. however, i am going to sign out now, and get going on my own analysis. ;) my boyfriend is on his way into town for the weekend birthday celebration. we will do some research and get back to you!!! :brow:

[Sycron]

Love is an abstract concept created by humanity, whilst sexual intercourse can be found throughout nature, the backbone of mammalian reproduction on Earth.

[Lolita]

The thing I love about this forum is that you are all so thorough. Any other forum, I would have expected a one word answer!

Don't get me wrong... sometimes I have crazy thoughts of slamming some guy or girl up against a wall and ripping their clothes off, but that's the wild me.

Being young and naive, and innocent (in practise, not so much thought) and with a red flashing light about my head shouting "VIRGIN!" I still like to believe that sex is nothing without love.

Maybe it's because I'm still young and idealistic, that I can imagine myself in a relationship based on love that doesn't NEED sex to keep the flame alight. I'm all for kisses, cuddles and walks in the park and a picnic here and there. It's the little things, eh? *grins*

[emily655321]

Becky, so glad I'm not the only one. :D You've described my attitude perfectly. Although, in long-term adult relationships, I do think sex is a necessary element for most people.



Love is an abstract concept created by humanity, whilst sexual intercourse can be found throughout nature, the backbone of mammalian reproduction on Earth.

I'm afraid I disagree with you here. The word "love" was created by human beings, but it's a label for something real that exists in nature. Other mammels feel love to one extent or another, although it seems mostly associated with parent/offspring and sibling and cousin relationships. The feelings we describe when we say "love" didn't come into existence because people invented the concept; we just gave them a name.

[evulik]

You know I think that there is a difference between love and sex for two things:

1, you can love and like a person you are not attracted to (in sexual way)... like this you create something more mental... in this section we get somebody to love, talk, kiss, hold, watch TV and simply rely on, somebody that will be here for always...
2, while you have sex with person you are attracted to... the way he/she smells, behaves, looks.... (or under the ufluence of alcohol) hihi you enjoy sex, but that's it... great event, great time... but nothing more... you cannot rely, cannot trust, talk etc...

so these are two different points... good for you if those two points meet (like in my case, uff) But I believe that even if I love somebody with my whole heart it can happen that I feel sexually attracted to different guy... it happened to me half a year ago... :blush:

do not take me wrong, please. I am not that bad. I just know that if my boyfriend is attracted to his secretary (that happened too), it is not because of her but her body... (good excuse how to feel more important than she is hihi) it is because of hormons that are in everyone of us... because of this we have also brain to think about possible consequences and heart to care of about love ones... difficult to express myself in Slovak language... I hope that this mix of english phrases make sense at least to native speakers :) uff... does it make sense...? I hope it does... ;)

[amuse]

you make total sense. :)

[emily655321]

Yeah, I completely understand what you mean, Evulik. You can care about someone and yet not have "chemistry" with them, and also vice versa. I know about that -- I've known someone where there was that buzzing in the air kind of thing, but totally uninterested personality-wise.

[evulik]

yep this is exactly what I mean... :) thanks emily, you said in three lines what I did... in how many? :D

[emily655321]

LOL That's a switch. I'm usually the verbose one. :D

[atiguhya padma]

The problem with saying that the animal world can feel love, is that it either trivialises love as a common physical, bio-chemical event, or it is an anthropomorphic statement regarding nature. Also, I find it difficult to believe in the selflessness of love. For instance, if love is selfless, why do so many relationships dissolve through infidelity? After all, it shouldn't matter whether that person you love is faithful to you or not, should it? If it was truly selfless, you would want your loved one to be happy. If being happy for your partner meant having an affair with your neighbour, sister, brother, whatever, why would it matter to you, unless, of course, love did in fact have everything to do with the self?

[amuse]

fine then edit button,
"the message you have entered is too short. please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters."

[amuse]

never mind. not worth the keyboard time.

[emily655321]

The problem with saying that the animal world can feel love, is that it either trivialises love as a common physical, bio-chemical event, or it is an anthropomorphic statement regarding nature.

Actually, I believe it's about 50/50. There's nothing inferior about other species, nor is there anything divine about us. Human beings are so arrogant in finding any and all means of justification for declaring their supremacy over the rest of the natural world. For god's sake, we're just mutated monkeys with machines.


For instance, if love is selfless, why do so many relationships dissolve through infidelity? After all, it shouldn't matter whether that person you love is faithful to you or not, should it? If it was truly selfless, you would want your loved one to be happy. If being happy for your partner meant having an affair with your neighbour, sister, brother, whatever, why would it matter to you, unless, of course, love did in fact have everything to do with the self?

"TRUE" love is selfless. It means the happiness of both lovers is dependent on the happiness the other, and NO ONE is happy when someone they care deeply for trivializes that bond by running around with other people. It takes maturity, personal responsibility, and self-control to remain faithful to someone. It's simply selfish and disrespectful to jump into other peoples' beds while your partner is waiting at home, miserable and dejected. That's not love.

[amuse]

thank you em, for saying that without the ugly disgust i'd begun to respond with.

[atiguhya padma]

Emily,

<"TRUE" love is selfless. It means the happiness of both lovers is dependent on the happiness the other, and NO ONE is happy when someone they care deeply for trivializes that bond by running around with other people.>

I agree. But, as far as I am concerned, this supports my point that love is not selfless.

<It takes maturity, personal responsibility, and self-control to remain faithful to someone>

I disagree. This is a chicken-egg situation. When people remain faithful to someone, we think of them as mature, personally responsible etc. I've known loads of immature, personally irresponsible people who have maintained their faith in their relationships.

<It's simply selfish and disrespectful to jump into other peoples' beds while your partner is waiting at home, miserable and dejected. That's not love.>

You are probably right. But that doesn't mean that love is selfless, which was my point in the first place. What do you do when someone you love wants to jump into bed with others, but also wants to stay with you? I'm not saying that they love you, they probably don't. But if you love them, truly love them with a love that is selfless, then what do you do?

[evulik]

Hi atiguhya padma! (wondering how did you get this name? I had to copy it..)

to some point you are right... I am just moving with my partner to common household.. and sure we have been having problems... etc.. it was not that long ago when he asked: "what would you do if I cheated on you?" and my answer? "It would hurt, but I think I would forgive. In the case it would be just sex and it would happen because of your lack of ability to think of consequences" why did I tell it? he told it to me also.. we care for each other and I would die without him.... but look around ladies, so nice buts walking down the street :brow: I mean I am at the point of just looking, not doing/making and he also... but we spoke and the thing is clear... in the case something like this ever happens to us, we would put it behind us and try again.. we have something that is more important than "accident".... :nod:

but, I agree with emily also, of course I accept cheating to some level, like accident happening once (maybe twice :rage: ).... in the case it ends by jumping from one bed to another.... no, thank you... ;)

[evulik]

just crossed my mind... is b** swearing or not? to me it is not, but maybe it is? :confused: sorry little out of subject, but since I mentioned this word above... I am curious..

[emily655321]

No, it's not a swear. Just slang. :)


What do you do when someone you love wants to jump into bed with others, but also wants to stay with you? I'm not saying that they love you, they probably don't. But if you love them, truly love them with a love that is selfless, then what do you do?

*sigh* Tell me why I bother answering you, sir? :rolleyes: You're not going to get ANYONE to endorse an excuse for sleeping around, or to take any of the blame off of the cheater. Because someone who cheats is a weak scumbag -- and trying to pass off any of the responsibility onto your partner, or turn the issue around and blame THEM for getting angry with the s***y thing YOU did, is just plain sick. A person may still love a cheater -- it wouldn't hurt them so much if they didn't, -- but the love that was once a strong bond of trust between them is gone. By this I mean that there is 1) the feeling of love and affection of one person for another, but there is also 2) an even stronger kind that is created when the love is reciprocated and the two people share a bond with one another. This is the kind of love that is broken and can never quite be repaired when one of them cheats.

And just to be absolutely clear: NO: LOVE DOES NOT MEAN ROLLING OVER AND ACCEPTING THAT YOUR PARTNER MAY DO WHATEVER THE HELL HE FEELS LIKE, WITH WHOMEVER HE FEELS LIKE DOING IT, WHENEVER HE WANTS TO. ALL RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE CHEATER. ALWAYS. AND SAYING IT WOULD BE A BETRAYAL OF "LOVE" FOR THE HURT PARTNER NOT TO ACTUALLY WANT THEIR PARTNER TO CHEAT??? IS, AGAIN, JUST PLAIN SICK. :rage:




Okay, savor it, everybody; that's probably the one time you'll ever see me get angry.

[amuse]

btw, evulik, buttocks (***es) are butts, and buts are "yes, buts." :) think of it as a "t" for each side, it is a more rounded word, no?

wow, i had to self-edit "***"! the whole donkey thing, i guess.

[amuse]

that's exactly why i edited my two earlier posts. figured it wasn't worth getting angry.

glad to see it'll be temporary, em.

[emily655321]

Sorry for losing my cool! :rolleyes: I can get very passionate about things, but shouting people down goes against all my principles. I think I'll just two-step right out of this conversation, eh? Probably best.

[atiguhya padma]

Emily,

1) You haven't really addressed my point. 2) you assume far too much about my personal life, and so in my eyes, your response is rather lame and of no real value to my enquiry. You can go off on a high moral crusade if you like, but don't go around indirectly accusing me of cheating. My point is a purely hypothetical philosophical enquiry, and you and some others don't seem to be able to apply any kind of objective logic to what I am saying. If you can just keep your angry feelings out of it for a while, you might understand what I am talking about.

Just to make things quite plain: I am not endorsing people cheating on others. I am criticising the notion that love is selfless. It is not. No argument here has convinced me to the contrary. Those that think it is are either too heavily influenced by Hollywood, or are deluding themselves.

[atiguhya padma]

It is because love is not selfless, that we even consider partners sleeping with others as cheating. It is because love is not selfless that we get hurt when others cheat on us. It is because love is not selfless that love dies when our trust is betrayed. In all these things, it is because the self is being hurt, the self is being cheated, the self is being betrayed, that love is affected, love diminishes or dies. My argument is not about freedom to cheat. It is that because love is not selfless, we do not allow these things to happen. We withdraw our love when they do, as a form of protection for the self.

Love is not selfless.

[rocksea]

isnt this selflessness coming from selfishness to some point? isnt being selfish a natural instinct? usually we look towards being selfless when we are satisfied ourselves, dont we?
in sex, most of the time the hormones can rule. people who stick to one partner sticks so cuz they realise for long life satisfaction and support you need to. we give so much value to sex in a relationship that the trust is broken when ur partner sleeps with another. i dont think we can compare our sex/love life to animals any more. true, we have animal instincts n hormones but covering that we have a mindset[due to social evolution?] which automatically leads us to a particular way of expressing love n sex.
i feel love is full when both you and your partner are satisfied with it. but for that you need a bit of selfishness and a bit of selflessness. i'll better call that a true love. first of all both partners should realize that they have to take care of themselves [cuz you urself know how best to do that] and then their partners, if such a love is to happen. am i doin some counselling? boringggg.......

'here' the problem is everyone[including me :D] talking abt different things at different levels. it is better try to understand and stop fighting or feeling hurt. definitions of selfishness, selflessness, maturity, logic n whatever can vary from person to person. better see to it ok.

[atiguhya padma]

Emily,

I can't believe how gender biased and prejudiced you are.

<NO: LOVE DOES NOT MEAN ROLLING OVER AND ACCEPTING THAT YOUR PARTNER MAY DO WHATEVER THE HELL HE FEELS LIKE, WITH WHOMEVER HE FEELS LIKE DOING IT, WHENEVER HE WANTS TO.>

Its notable that you think in terms of the cheater being male.

My thinking has developed from a personal experience that happened to me when I was 21. My girlfriend of 4 years standing decided to cheat on me. She left me for the person she cheated on me with. I told her how she couldn't leave me because I loved her. Her friend took me to one side and asked me how I could hold on to her knowing that she believed her happiness was with another. If I really loved her, would I not want her to be happy? Of course I had to let her go. Because if I loved her I would want her to be happy. If love is selfless that is.

So I let her go. And I now believe that love is not selfless, except possibly in the case of parental love, but even there, the sense of self may encompass your children.

[atiguhya padma]

<isnt this selflessness coming from selfishness to some point?>

Of course it is Rocksea. Selfishness is completely natural. Its what keeps us alive. Selflessness we aspire to at times, and when we achieve it, it most often makes us feel good. It therefore stimulates us to further acts of so-called selflessness.

[rocksea]

i too noticed the 'he' but that need not necessarily mean someone is gender biased or prejudiced, ofcourse the statement is in that tone but. it may have come from some experience or fear? watever it is, as far as she is a she, the he comes natural especially when she is bursting out :D. even i must have typed 'she' first instead of saying 'partner' cuz when u r talking from ur own view point and thinkin from ur own side, thatz the most natural thing that wud happen. as long as am a he, i know more how i cud feel when a she is the subject, rt? so

[rocksea]

how I could hold on to her knowing that she believed her happiness was with another.

wat emily is trying to say is how love shud be n defining true love?

and wat padma is trying to say is what love n human nature is n what usually happens in love?

[emily655321]

AP -- You seem to be getting pretty emotional on the subject as well, my friend.


you assume far too much about my personal life, and so in my eyes, your response is rather lame and of no real value to my enquiry. You can go off on a high moral crusade if you like, but don't go around indirectly accusing me of cheating. My point is a purely hypothetical philosophical enquiry, and you and some others don't seem to be able to apply any kind of objective logic to what I am saying.

I just jumped pronouns in my fervor. Perhaps in was a Freudian slip, citing your unique position on the subject. But regardless, I was not directly referring to you. Perhaps I misinterpreted your position of "if you love something, set it free," as "if you love something, remain faithful to them no matter how badly they treat you."


Its notable that you think in terms of the cheater being male.

I wasn't. My English teacher just red-penned me out of the habit of using "they" as a singular pronoun. There is no such gender-neutral term in the English language, so "he" is grammatically correct. (I usually make the effort to use "they" to avoid confusion and sound more casual, but sometimes I forget.)

[atiguhya padma]

Emily,

<"if you love something, remain faithful to them no matter how badly they treat you.">


A mother may do precisely that with her child. Is that not an example of love truer than any other? An almost selfless kind of love? Is it not also true that virtually no loving sexual relationship will fit into this description? What does that tell us about the love between a man and a woman, as opposed to a mother and her child?

It just happens to be the case that the child-parent relationship is dependent on the man-woman relationship. And in many cases, relationships of the latter kind do not flourish without producing relationships of the former kind, excepting in cases of those who do not want children or cannot have them. Now what does that tell you about the idea of a true-love man-woman relationship? I would suggest that it says that the love between parent and child is stronger and truer, than the man-woman relationship. I would suggest that marriages and partner relationships are always unconsciously a vehicle for having children.

We created the concept of love to ensure stable environments for rearing offspring. Today, we have, thanks to pulp fiction and mass-appeal cinema, mind-numbing manacles that tie us to the idea of love as an ontological occurrence. If we look more critically at the concept of love, we can liberate ourselves from the cheap soporific opiate of the sentimental, the kind of drug-induced mindlessness that provokes irrational emotional outbursts in defence of outdated and old-fashioned ideas of love.

[emily655321]

Okay. But when you meet other people who share your opinion, could you please ask them to wear armbands so they can be easily identified and avoided? ;)

[atiguhya padma]

I guess you didn't know I'm half German.

[emily655321]

So am I. But sorry, didn't mean to connote anything by it.

[atiguhya padma]

I had meant to put a ;) at the end of my last message. No offence taken.

[amuse]

oh yes. i most certainly should distance myself from love, by putting parameters around it, looking at it conceptually and critically, and enlarge my mind to become intelligent and do away with it once and for all. i have seen the light, cancel that, the mind!

**** that.

[atiguhya padma]

Did you purposely misinterpret what I said, or is this the level of your general understanding?

[amuse]

god i can't even answer that question, it's so rude! too funny.

[den]

Oh c'mon you guys ... :bawling: ... where's the love?

[emily655321]

That's a Black Eyed Peas song.
Great, now it's stuck in my head.

[atiguhya padma]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00017185-B13A-10D0-B13A83414B7F0000

[EAP]

That's a Black Eyed Peas song.
Great, now it's stuck in my head.

and it's a pretty good one too. :)

[emily655321]

I've read about the voles before. I was gonna mention them, but I've been trying to pull myself out of the convo. (granted, unsuccessfully) :p

[holdencaulfield]

i can definitely see myself with someone whom i dont love but feel an artistic affinity with.it just depends on what kind of person you are and what your mood is like at the given point of time.sex is, and has been always, a power game.love,on the other hand, is empathy.the two are inextricable to the extent one identifies and empathizes with one's opponent.have you read/seen john osborne's "look back in anger"?

[SleepyWitch]

We created the concept of love to ensure stable environments for rearing offspring. Today, we have, thanks to pulp fiction and mass-appeal cinema, mind-numbing manacles that tie us to the idea of love as an ontological occurrence. If we look more critically at the concept of love, we can liberate ourselves from the cheap soporific opiate of the sentimental, the kind of drug-induced mindlessness that provokes irrational emotional outbursts in defence of outdated and old-fashioned ideas of love.

humpf... I'm inclined to agree with you in some respects, but your theory is so full of ambiguous terms, it could mean a hundred different things (...withing the measure of a day, to quote another love song :) )...
for one thing, I agree that "we created the concept of love to ensure stable environments for rearing offspring" ... i think there's a lot of sense behind that and maybe the 'concept' love in this sense needed to step in because people stopped believing in older concepts, like duty, commitment blablabla.... e.g. in the Old Testament and stuff, it was people's duty (thrust upon them by God) to raise a family... maybe this concept bored people for some reason and they needed another incentive to raise a family... but that doesn't mean love is totally man-made and artificial... maybe there was 'love' before, only it was not used as an incentive for marriage in this way....

can you specify what you mean by this "heap soporific opiate of the sentimental, the kind of drug-induced mindlessness that provokes irrational emotional outbursts in defence of outdated and old-fashioned ideas of love"??
maybe you could give some examples of "irrational imotional outbursts and "old -fashioned ideas of love"?

I'll post more later... there's lots of debates going on at once in this thread.. like rocksea said, there's loads of levels here and we'd better sort them out first and make sure who is talking about which level.... maybe if it turns out they are not completely separable, we can mess them up again once we've analysed each in its own right :D

[genoveva]

regular sex keeps you healthier, boosts immunity, promotes cardiopulmonary (sp?) health and releases endorphins that make your all over feel better. also, for some reason, it promotes healthier teeth. i read that in cosmo, of course.

Woo-hoo! This is great news! :banana: