Is sex different from love?


Lover 5 January, 2008, 15:54	Of course - Expressions of love may include the love for a "soul" or mind, the love of laws and organizations, love for a body, love for nature, love of food, love of money, love for learning, love of power, love of fame, love for the respect of others, etcetera. And there is only one happiness in life: to love and be loved. Love is essentially an abstract concept, much easier to experience than to explain. A person can be said to love a country, principle, or goal if they value it greatly and are deeply committed to it There are many ways to express passionate love without sex. Affection, emotional intimacy and shared interests and experiences are common in friendships and kinships of all human beings. Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst.A leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy. The traditional psychological view sees love as being a combination of companionate love and passionate love. Passionate love is intense longing, and is often accompanied by physiological arousal (shortness of breath, rapid heart rate). Companionate love is affection and a feeling of intimacy not accompanied by physiological arousal. Therefore, SEX is essentially passionate, while LOVE can be compassionate without the element/s of passion! permalink quote 0 Lover
RachEl 5 January, 2008, 16:53	It is a matter of not being prudish but being prudent. Are we asking: Is the act of fornication different from pleasures endued in the contract of holy matrimony between a man and woman and of which also conception of a new family is born and a bond of trust and joy is cultured? That which the Creator has made (pleasure between man and woman who love one another genuinely - in marriage) is not evil or faulty. This is of course the way families are made to this day (naturally, not by "in-vetro")! "Now the body (is) not for fornication" 1 Corinthians 6:13 "Flee fornication. .inordinate affection" Simple. (1 Corinthians 6:18; 3:5) It is better to ask something to the effect: What is the difference between sex and love, don't you think? ("to exhort one to greater works" - a better way) The Creator says there are three things mankind should refrain from: one of which is fornication. Therefore it is highly abhorred by our Creator who feeds us every day (even with knowledge and wisdom to strengthen the soul, as well as bread, milk, meat, fruits, water, vegetables etc. to refresh the body). That which the Creator has purposed is not to be abused or misused. Mankind must return to the ancient way - the way of goodness and health which was formed in love; according to Genesis Chapter 1. Man was driven from the garden because of disobedience. Genesis 3:24 When the first marriage was bonded; man and woman did not know of "sex." Everything was good and holy. Now we (mankind today) have to restore and preserve that which was purposed from the beginning and refrain from, crush all that which is not good and see love flourish on the earth (even from nation to nation). You will see it. permalink quote 0 RachEl
Al2 5 January, 2008, 21:28	Stupid question. Yes love and sex are 2 different things. Put simply love is a bond that stems from a nurturing caring atmosphere and attitude. Love is a product of higher intellect. Sex is merely an act found throughout the animal kingdom in nature, this does include us humans. Cheating on your spouse ect is simply an act of self serving greed, an animal act not an act of love. At least have the decency to leave the relationship first. If a cheater even has the courage to do that, which usually isn't the case. permalink quote 0 Al2
Sanjay 5 January, 2008, 21:40	Sex is Spice. Too little and love remains colorless. Too much and it overwhelms love, eventually destroys it. Russians have a lot to learn from Indians on this one. Kamasutra and Ananga-Ranga are two great works to start with. permalink quote 0 Sanjay
Norman 5 January, 2008, 21:59	There are , basically, three kinds of LOVE: Agape (spiritual), Philos (friendship) and Eros (physical). Some religious scholars believe that they should be in that order. While relationships are not always easy, people should try that sequence. permalink quote 0 Norman
Munchkin 26 May, 2009, 10:02	Surely, it's different. At least sex can be less painful than love which often hurts. Besides, it's easier to get great sex than to find a true love. permalink quote 0 Munchkin
Christelle 26 May, 2009, 10:06	Sex should be essentially used to reproduce and it is only due to the pleasure that it gives us that we do it more than we should. As human beings we always want more when something feels good. So although not for reproductive purposes we crave that satisfying peak we reach during sex. Love on the other hand is a much deeper and encompasses more than just sex although sex is part of it. Love is an indescribable feeling that drives a human being to care passionately about another way beyond just the sexual attraction. permalink quote 0 Christelle
agent provocateur 26 May, 2009, 10:13	Make love not nuclear tests! permalink quote 0 agent provocateur
The Red Baron 26 May, 2009, 13:07	Biology has a lot to say on this. Unfortunately much of what it has to say may prove very hard to accept for people brought up under inflexible social expectations, and backed up by powerful religions. Industrialisation, urbanisation and population growth, have spread these conditions through most modern societies but have also weakened them. Whilst being the dominant form of human relationship in most of the world today, the idea (and ideal) of the monogamous relationship lasting a lifetime is being increasingly undermined by biological evidence. It appears that whilst a human couple will cooperate for the period of a pregnancy and perhaps some time into the child’s early life, after that the relationship is unlikely to continue. The reason for this is the social nature of homo sapiens. This is both one of the reasons for our astonishing success in dominating the world, and the reason why, unlike swans or other creatures, humans do not naturally, ‘pair for life’. We have hardly evolved since the first homo sapiens emerged. Studies of early humans (the ones that hadn’t settled down and were still nomads fighting saber toothed tigers and wooly mammoths) have helped reveal to us who we really are and how we are designed to live. We lived in groups, researchers estimate about 150 people is the optimum group size. It’s the number of faces we’re comfortable memorizing and are happiest living with. Less, we start to feel claustrophobic and lonely. More, we become rude and socially closed to people because we don’t have time for everyone. Both lead to anti-social behaviour. We also raised our young in groups. Males slept around with females in the group. Females raised the young collectively. Jealousy between members of the group was prevented because without everyone pulling their weight all would fail. Psychologists call this “super-ordinate goals.” For starters all the group had access to all the others’ property, space, children, and mates. Marx called this ‘primitive communism.’ But don’t let that put you off because of political connotations. Politics really had nothing to do with it. It was about survival! The greater the variety of genetic combinations (created by sexual couplings) and the greater the cooperation between all group members, the greater the likelihood of survival. We are still the same creature as these first humans. We have not evolved. For evidence of who are we often look to our nearest cousins, chimpanzees. There is evidence that they behave just like we used to. They are promiscuous in groups and enjoy sex. They raise their young collectively. Admittedly they are not the same species as us but let us resist the temptation to overrate the power of our brains. Time and again, especially were it concerns powerful feelings of sex and love, our brains prove spectacularly incapable of defying our bodies. That is because they don’t want to. Society’s attempts at inculcating celibacy and sexual restraint have statistically proved abysmal failures. Sex is certainly one part of the process of sexual reproduction, but anyone who says they don't enjoy it is lying! Then and now, sex is a fair contender for humankind’s favourite pastime. But is it different from love? As humans both seem to be part of our makeup, and it is impossible to disentangle them. Love without sex often seems to wither, or transmute into friendship or companionship. Sex can often fool people into thinking they are in love, a testament to sex’s emotional power. Humans are naturally promiscuous not monogamous. Biological evidence shows that. We can love one, or many, but we are made to have multiple sexual partners. The key to thinking about this subject is to try and question our nurtured assumptions, however uncomfortable that may seem, and base our ideas on what we can reasonably ascertain to be evidence based fact. That evidence does not point to a world based on hierarchies of power and control of society through strict sexual expectations. It points to one far more centered on the creature we are, a loving and social creature that doesn’t want to be straight-jacketed by convention. That may not be what moral crusaders want to hear, but in no way will it lead to anarchy or the moral degradation some doom mongers predict. permalink quote 0 The Red Baron
007 18 June, 2009, 03:47	The trouble with sex is that I can’t see the television and then you have to talk to them afterwards. I thought that if I worked out in the gym the whole day, I’d be a great lover, then I discovered that talking about her new Mercedes works better. I know when I’m in love, I forget about my Harley Davidson for a few hours. My dad taught me about love. You do see love and it certainly seems to be a rare thing in modern society, but there is nothing that cupids me more than seeing two people that are just nuts about each other, connected. Think about those old folks that still hold hands and behave like kids. That’s really neat. I guess if you marry the boss’s daughter, or buy that trophy wife to impress the neighbors, then sex is all you got, and society finds a way to justify a life of misery, as normal. It’s all about value systems. Today most people are for sale. permalink quote 0 007
ahmadinajad 2 July, 2009, 08:55	Um.......yes? Isn't it obvious? I can have sex with you and not care a thing about you. I can also love you without having sex with you. Of course I could also have sex with you and love you - that, my friend, would be called a relationship :). permalink quote 0 ahmadinajad

Lover 5 January, 2008, 15:54

Of course - Expressions of love may include the love for a "soul" or mind, the love of laws and organizations, love for a body, love for nature, love of food, love of money, love for learning, love of power, love of fame, love for the respect of others, etcetera. And there is only one happiness in life: to love and be loved. Love is essentially an abstract concept, much easier to experience than to explain. A person can be said to love a country, principle, or goal if they value it greatly and are deeply committed to it There are many ways to express passionate love without sex. Affection, emotional intimacy and shared interests and experiences are common in friendships and kinships of all human beings. Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst.A leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy. The traditional psychological view sees love as being a combination of companionate love and passionate love. Passionate love is intense longing, and is often accompanied by physiological arousal (shortness of breath, rapid heart rate). Companionate love is affection and a feeling of intimacy not accompanied by physiological arousal. Therefore, SEX is essentially passionate, while LOVE can be compassionate without the element/s of passion!

permalink quote Lover

RachEl 5 January, 2008, 16:53

It is a matter of not being prudish but being prudent. Are we asking: Is the act of fornication different from pleasures endued in the contract of holy matrimony between a man and woman and of which also conception of a new family is born and a bond of trust and joy is cultured? That which the Creator has made (pleasure between man and woman who love one another genuinely - in marriage) is not evil or faulty. This is of course the way families are made to this day (naturally, not by "in-vetro")! "Now the body (is) not for fornication" 1 Corinthians 6:13 "Flee fornication. .inordinate affection" Simple. (1 Corinthians 6:18; 3:5) It is better to ask something to the effect: What is the difference between sex and love, don't you think? ("to exhort one to greater works" - a better way) The Creator says there are three things mankind should refrain from: one of which is fornication. Therefore it is highly abhorred by our Creator who feeds us every day (even with knowledge and wisdom to strengthen the soul, as well as bread, milk, meat, fruits, water, vegetables etc. to refresh the body). That which the Creator has purposed is not to be abused or misused. Mankind must return to the ancient way - the way of goodness and health which was formed in love; according to Genesis Chapter 1. Man was driven from the garden because of disobedience. Genesis 3:24 When the first marriage was bonded; man and woman did not know of "sex." Everything was good and holy. Now we (mankind today) have to restore and preserve that which was purposed from the beginning and refrain from, crush all that which is not good and see love flourish on the earth (even from nation to nation). You will see it.

permalink quote RachEl

Al2 5 January, 2008, 21:28

Stupid question. Yes love and sex are 2 different things. Put simply love is a bond that stems from a nurturing caring atmosphere and attitude. Love is a product of higher intellect. Sex is merely an act found throughout the animal kingdom in nature, this does include us humans. Cheating on your spouse ect is simply an act of self serving greed, an animal act not an act of love. At least have the decency to leave the relationship first. If a cheater even has the courage to do that, which usually isn't the case.

permalink quote Al2

Sanjay 5 January, 2008, 21:40

Sex is Spice. Too little and love remains colorless. Too much and it overwhelms love, eventually destroys it. Russians have a lot to learn from Indians on this one. Kamasutra and Ananga-Ranga are two great works to start with.

permalink quote Sanjay

Norman 5 January, 2008, 21:59

There are , basically, three kinds of LOVE: Agape (spiritual), Philos (friendship) and Eros (physical). Some religious scholars believe that they should be in that order. While relationships are not always easy, people should try that sequence.

permalink quote Norman

Munchkin 26 May, 2009, 10:02

Surely, it's different. At least sex can be less painful than love which often hurts. Besides, it's easier to get great sex than to find a true love.

permalink quote Munchkin

Christelle 26 May, 2009, 10:06

Sex should be essentially used to reproduce and it is only due to the pleasure that it gives us that we do it more than we should. As human beings we always want more when something feels good. So although not for reproductive purposes we crave that satisfying peak we reach during sex. Love on the other hand is a much deeper and encompasses more than just sex although sex is part of it. Love is an indescribable feeling that drives a human being to care passionately about another way beyond just the sexual attraction.

permalink quote Christelle

agent provocateur 26 May, 2009, 10:13

Make love not nuclear tests!

permalink quote agent provocateur

The Red Baron 26 May, 2009, 13:07

Biology has a lot to say on this. Unfortunately much of what it has to say may prove very hard to accept for people brought up under inflexible social expectations, and backed up by powerful religions. Industrialisation, urbanisation and population growth, have spread these conditions through most modern societies but have also weakened them. Whilst being the dominant form of human relationship in most of the world today, the idea (and ideal) of the monogamous relationship lasting a lifetime is being increasingly undermined by biological evidence. It appears that whilst a human couple will cooperate for the period of a pregnancy and perhaps some time into the child’s early life, after that the relationship is unlikely to continue. The reason for this is the social nature of homo sapiens. This is both one of the reasons for our astonishing success in dominating the world, and the reason why, unlike swans or other creatures, humans do not naturally, ‘pair for life’. We have hardly evolved since the first homo sapiens emerged. Studies of early humans (the ones that hadn’t settled down and were still nomads fighting saber toothed tigers and wooly mammoths) have helped reveal to us who we really are and how we are designed to live. We lived in groups, researchers estimate about 150 people is the optimum group size. It’s the number of faces we’re comfortable memorizing and are happiest living with. Less, we start to feel claustrophobic and lonely. More, we become rude and socially closed to people because we don’t have time for everyone. Both lead to anti-social behaviour. We also raised our young in groups. Males slept around with females in the group. Females raised the young collectively. Jealousy between members of the group was prevented because without everyone pulling their weight all would fail. Psychologists call this “super-ordinate goals.” For starters all the group had access to all the others’ property, space, children, and mates. Marx called this ‘primitive communism.’ But don’t let that put you off because of political connotations. Politics really had nothing to do with it. It was about survival! The greater the variety of genetic combinations (created by sexual couplings) and the greater the cooperation between all group members, the greater the likelihood of survival. We are still the same creature as these first humans. We have not evolved. For evidence of who are we often look to our nearest cousins, chimpanzees. There is evidence that they behave just like we used to. They are promiscuous in groups and enjoy sex. They raise their young collectively. Admittedly they are not the same species as us but let us resist the temptation to overrate the power of our brains. Time and again, especially were it concerns powerful feelings of sex and love, our brains prove spectacularly incapable of defying our bodies. That is because they don’t want to. Society’s attempts at inculcating celibacy and sexual restraint have statistically proved abysmal failures. Sex is certainly one part of the process of sexual reproduction, but anyone who says they don't enjoy it is lying! Then and now, sex is a fair contender for humankind’s favourite pastime. But is it different from love? As humans both seem to be part of our makeup, and it is impossible to disentangle them. Love without sex often seems to wither, or transmute into friendship or companionship. Sex can often fool people into thinking they are in love, a testament to sex’s emotional power. Humans are naturally promiscuous not monogamous. Biological evidence shows that. We can love one, or many, but we are made to have multiple sexual partners. The key to thinking about this subject is to try and question our nurtured assumptions, however uncomfortable that may seem, and base our ideas on what we can reasonably ascertain to be evidence based fact. That evidence does not point to a world based on hierarchies of power and control of society through strict sexual expectations. It points to one far more centered on the creature we are, a loving and social creature that doesn’t want to be straight-jacketed by convention. That may not be what moral crusaders want to hear, but in no way will it lead to anarchy or the moral degradation some doom mongers predict.

permalink quote The Red Baron

007 18 June, 2009, 03:47

The trouble with sex is that I can’t see the television and then you have to talk to them afterwards. I thought that if I worked out in the gym the whole day, I’d be a great lover, then I discovered that talking about her new Mercedes works better. I know when I’m in love, I forget about my Harley Davidson for a few hours. My dad taught me about love. You do see love and it certainly seems to be a rare thing in modern society, but there is nothing that cupids me more than seeing two people that are just nuts about each other, connected. Think about those old folks that still hold hands and behave like kids. That’s really neat. I guess if you marry the boss’s daughter, or buy that trophy wife to impress the neighbors, then sex is all you got, and society finds a way to justify a life of misery, as normal. It’s all about value systems. Today most people are for sale.

permalink quote 007

ahmadinajad 2 July, 2009, 08:55

Um.......yes? Isn't it obvious? I can have sex with you and not care a thing about you. I can also love you without having sex with you. Of course I could also have sex with you and love you - that, my friend, would be called a relationship :).

permalink quote ahmadinajad

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields