First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
Sex Isn't about love anymore?
Posted 1/15/12
Sex was never about love. An asexual couple may be even more in love than a very sexual couple and vice versa. Based on my own life:

Sex + no love = sex.
Sex + love = sex.

If you're sleeping with someone you don't love who's bad in bed, it can become better if you are in love.
If you're sleeping with someone you don't love who's good in bed, it can be just as enjoyable with that same person you love who isn't good in bed, if that makes any sense at all. That's my opinion, anyway.
Posted 1/15/12 , edited 1/15/12
Apart from late 19th to late 20th century extended Anglo-American pop culture fantasies, has sex ever been 'about' love? I would definitely say that sex works particularly well with love, but I'd also say that it isn't about love, and never has been.

It's not just about reproduction either -- humans have essentially year-'round interest in sex, but females can only reproduce in a relatively short window once a month. Desire does not follow strict patterns of a season, on the part of males or females. Unlike the vast majority of animals out there, human sexual interest extends well beyond reproduction.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/15/12

BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

Apart from late 19th to late 20th century extended Anglo-American pop culture fantasies, has sex ever been 'about' love? I would definitely say that sex works particularly well with love, but I'd also say that it isn't about love, and never has been.

It's not just about reproduction either -- humans have essentially year-'round interest in sex, but females can only reproduce in a relatively short window once a month. Desire does not follow strict patterns of a season, on the part of males or females. Unlike the vast majority of animals out there, human sexual interest extends well beyond reproduction.


Wrong there, Sex is always about love. While I may not love the person with whom I am having sexual relation, it is my love of the pleasure that arises from this that perpetuates my wanting of Sex. In History, likewise, you are also wrong. It is not a myth of the late 19th and 20th century, other recordings of sex as a part of Love- Ovid, Shakespeare, Petrarch, etc.
Posted 1/15/12 , edited 1/15/12

longfenglim wrote:


BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

Apart from late 19th to late 20th century extended Anglo-American pop culture fantasies, has sex ever been 'about' love? I would definitely say that sex works particularly well with love, but I'd also say that it isn't about love, and never has been.

It's not just about reproduction either -- humans have essentially year-'round interest in sex, but females can only reproduce in a relatively short window once a month. Desire does not follow strict patterns of a season, on the part of males or females. Unlike the vast majority of animals out there, human sexual interest extends well beyond reproduction.


Wrong there, Sex is always about love. While I may not love the person with whom I am having sexual relation, it is my love of the pleasure that arises from this that perpetuates my wanting of Sex. In History, likewise, you are also wrong. It is not a myth of the late 19th and 20th century, other recordings of sex as a part of Love- Ovid, Shakespeare, Petrarch, etc.


Amusing attempt at appropriating the illusion of objectivity to claim that I am 'wrong' but imply your opinion and preference is fact (i.e. 'not wrong'). Kindly note that sex being a part of love is not the same thing as sex being about love. Also note that the authors you reference also all wrote about sex outside of love, as well.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/15/12

BlaculaKuchuki wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

Apart from late 19th to late 20th century extended Anglo-American pop culture fantasies, has sex ever been 'about' love? I would definitely say that sex works particularly well with love, but I'd also say that it isn't about love, and never has been.

It's not just about reproduction either -- humans have essentially year-'round interest in sex, but females can only reproduce in a relatively short window once a month. Desire does not follow strict patterns of a season, on the part of males or females. Unlike the vast majority of animals out there, human sexual interest extends well beyond reproduction.


Wrong there, Sex is always about love. While I may not love the person with whom I am having sexual relation, it is my love of the pleasure that arises from this that perpetuates my wanting of Sex. In History, likewise, you are also wrong. It is not a myth of the late 19th and 20th century, other recordings of sex as a part of Love- Ovid, Shakespeare, Petrarch, etc.


Amusing attempt at appropriating the illusion of objectivity to claim that I am 'wrong' but imply your opinion and preference is fact (i.e. 'not wrong'). Kindly note that sex being a part of love is not the same thing as sex being about love. Also note that the authors you reference also all wrote about sex outside of love, as well.


No, you are still wrong, in that you define 'Love' to narrowly. You think that love is simply the romantic attraction between two people, when Love is broader than that, can be classified according to its degree, between relations, etc. etc. 'Love'can be romantic, can be between kin, but it is also true that Love can be the immense desiring of something- you err in your semantics, it is not objectivity (I doubt you understand the word), it is simply that you choose to use a narrow definition of Love, and then follow it by applying it to Love in General. It is simply fallacious, it is as if I choose to define a single cat, say, that that cat is black and white, and apply it to the broader category of 'cats', say, all cats are black and white. You are wrong if you do say the love has no part in Sex, every form of sex is about love, if we take the word love generally, and, as you made no attempt to limit your definition, you are thereby wrong. Then you write of those authors writing about sex outside of love- which is true- but that they also wrote of Sex within Romantic love and made sex integral to Romantic love. Indeed, in Milton's Paradise Lost, for example, sex in sin is described so:

Made to destroy: I fled, and cry'd out DEATH;
Hell trembl'd at the hideous Name, and sigh'd
From all her Caves, and back resounded DEATH.
I fled, but he pursu'd (though more, it seems,
Inflam'd with lust then rage) and swifter far,
Me overtook his mother all dismaid,
And in embraces forcible and foule
Ingendring with me, of that rape begot
These yelling Monsters that with ceasless cry
Surround me, as thou sawst, hourly conceiv'd

and

Then shining heav'nly fair, a Goddess arm'd
Out of thy head I sprung: amazement seis'd
All th' Host of Heav'n; back they recoild affraid
At first, and call'd me SIN, and for a Sign
Portentous held me; but familiar grown,
I pleas'd, and with attractive graces won
The most averse, thee chiefly, who full oft
Thy self in me thy perfect image viewing
Becam'st enamour'd, and such joy thou took'st
With me in secret, that my womb conceiv'd
A growing burden.

While the sex of Adam and Eve in Eden was thus:

This said unanimous, and other Rites
Observing none, but adoration pure
Which God likes best, into thir inmost bower
Handed they went; and eas'd the putting off
These troublesom disguises which wee wear,
Strait side by side were laid, nor turnd I weene
ADAM from his fair Spouse, nor EVE the Rites
Mysterious of connubial Love refus'd:


Observe how terrifying Sex is in evil, and how pure it is in Good. There is then already an association between bad sex and evil, good sex and good in their mind. You may object, saying that this proves your point, that sex was never about love, yet, here, we see Love in its darkest and brightest light. Satan love of Himself lead to his rape of Sin, and Death his love of Power led to his rape of his mother, while Adam and Eve's love were pure and, I would say, innocently Romantic, and shown in such light.
Posted 1/15/12
*Sigh* That's honestly your reply? Is your blood sugar low? If you ever opt to not be a preemptory troll, there might be a viable discussion in here, somewhere. Oh well, next time.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/15/12

BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

*Sigh* That's honestly your reply? Is your blood sugar low? If you ever opt to not be a preemptory troll, there might be a viable discussion in here, somewhere. Oh well, next time.


Wait, there must be some substance in this, beyond the petty ad hominem attacks...either this person has no reply, and simply wants the last word, or it must be in cipher.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/15/12 , edited 1/15/12

longfenglim wrote:


BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

Apart from late 19th to late 20th century extended Anglo-American pop culture fantasies, has sex ever been 'about' love? I would definitely say that sex works particularly well with love, but I'd also say that it isn't about love, and never has been.

It's not just about reproduction either -- humans have essentially year-'round interest in sex, but females can only reproduce in a relatively short window once a month. Desire does not follow strict patterns of a season, on the part of males or females. Unlike the vast majority of animals out there, human sexual interest extends well beyond reproduction.


Wrong there, Sex is always about love. While I may not love the person with whom I am having sexual relation, it is my love of the pleasure that arises from this that perpetuates my wanting of Sex.


Since when did we refer to lust and desire as "love"? Has the language of the topic really evolved to that without us knowing?
And while you may be technically right, you're just nit picking.
You know as well as everyone here that "love" in this case refers to romantic affection.
Sex being "always about love" because lust can by stretch be classified as a love for pleasure, is something that is entirely pointless to bring up and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/15/12 , edited 1/15/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

Apart from late 19th to late 20th century extended Anglo-American pop culture fantasies, has sex ever been 'about' love? I would definitely say that sex works particularly well with love, but I'd also say that it isn't about love, and never has been.

It's not just about reproduction either -- humans have essentially year-'round interest in sex, but females can only reproduce in a relatively short window once a month. Desire does not follow strict patterns of a season, on the part of males or females. Unlike the vast majority of animals out there, human sexual interest extends well beyond reproduction.


Wrong there, Sex is always about love. While I may not love the person with whom I am having sexual relation, it is my love of the pleasure that arises from this that perpetuates my wanting of Sex.


Since when did we refer to lust and desire as "love"? Has the language of the topic really evolved to that without us knowing?
And while you may be technically right, you're just nit picking.
You know as well as everyone here that "love" in this case refers to romantic affection.
Sex being "always about love" because lust can by stretch be classified as a love for pleasure, is something that is entirely pointless to bring up and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand...


No, it is not nitpicking, because Romantic affection is only an instance of the General Concept of Love, and not actually the General Concept of Love itself. It is not irrelevent, as you may think, because it is fallacious to describe a specific cat, say a black and white one, and apply it to all cats, say, all cats are black and white. Unless you clarify what you mean first by something as general as Love, you ought not make general statements. Any lack of lucidity, no matter how absurd and obvious it seems to you should be clarified if you want to make a statement, and claim its truth. You say that I know as well as everyone here that Love means so and so- that is presumptuous on your part, as you don't know that I know. Maybe you have read my other post in response before this, but with your quoted text alone, there is nothing to indicate that I understand love to be used in an unnecessarily narrow sense, and then applied to a general statement that is completely untrue unless taken narrowly. He used a general terminology when he means only a specific instance. Do I need to illustrate why that is fallacious? And even the language of the OP is such that it can be taken generally:


Lately I've been noticing that sex has become more about only the physical aspect and less and less about the emotional kind of thing. Is this all the media's doing? Has something so sacred fallen so far as to be a way of profit? Everywhere you look now-a-days there's sex, The movies, ads, banners, clothing. It's all centered around sex(By all I mean most...) I hear it way to much, I'll be walking somewhere and they'll be 13-14 year old kids talking about how they'd love to -censored- their teacher, or another classmate. Who do you blame though? The media? Parents? Teachers? I just don't know, it's really quite sad that something so beautiful can be molded into simply a physical enjoyment...Thoughts? Opinions?


(Please only reply if your going to be mature about this...)


Thus, he made a general statement that, if taken generally, is false. And there is nothing to indicate that he meant Romantic Love, and nothing in the OP to indicate that the OP meant Romantic Love, so to limit 'Love' to Romantic Love, and give no indication is an error on his part, which creates a general statement that is demostratively false.
115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/12
Making love to someone has been out of picture.Only a few can stay with someone but many people prefer to flirt alot,have sex alot and stay single.But sometimes that life needs to end due to the fact when you get old you are not able to do many things.So its good to have that special someone with you because by 80 I know many would "hate sleeping alone".
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/22/12

longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

Apart from late 19th to late 20th century extended Anglo-American pop culture fantasies, has sex ever been 'about' love? I would definitely say that sex works particularly well with love, but I'd also say that it isn't about love, and never has been.

It's not just about reproduction either -- humans have essentially year-'round interest in sex, but females can only reproduce in a relatively short window once a month. Desire does not follow strict patterns of a season, on the part of males or females. Unlike the vast majority of animals out there, human sexual interest extends well beyond reproduction.


Wrong there, Sex is always about love. While I may not love the person with whom I am having sexual relation, it is my love of the pleasure that arises from this that perpetuates my wanting of Sex.


Since when did we refer to lust and desire as "love"? Has the language of the topic really evolved to that without us knowing?
And while you may be technically right, you're just nit picking.
You know as well as everyone here that "love" in this case refers to romantic affection.
Sex being "always about love" because lust can by stretch be classified as a love for pleasure, is something that is entirely pointless to bring up and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand...


No, it is not nitpicking, because Romantic affection is only an instance of the General Concept of Love, and not actually the General Concept of Love itself. It is not irrelevent, as you may think, because it is fallacious to describe a specific cat, say a black and white one, and apply it to all cats, say, all cats are black and white. Unless you clarify what you mean first by something as general as Love, you ought not make general statements. Any lack of lucidity, no matter how absurd and obvious it seems to you should be clarified if you want to make a statement, and claim its truth. You say that I know as well as everyone here that Love means so and so- that is presumptuous on your part, as you don't know that I know. Maybe you have read my other post in response before this, but with your quoted text alone, there is nothing to indicate that I understand love to be used in an unnecessarily narrow sense, and then applied to a general statement that is completely untrue unless taken narrowly. He used a general terminology when he means only a specific instance. Do I need to illustrate why that is fallacious? And even the language of the OP is such that it can be taken generally:


Lately I've been noticing that sex has become more about only the physical aspect and less and less about the emotional kind of thing. Is this all the media's doing? Has something so sacred fallen so far as to be a way of profit? Everywhere you look now-a-days there's sex, The movies, ads, banners, clothing. It's all centered around sex(By all I mean most...) I hear it way to much, I'll be walking somewhere and they'll be 13-14 year old kids talking about how they'd love to -censored- their teacher, or another classmate. Who do you blame though? The media? Parents? Teachers? I just don't know, it's really quite sad that something so beautiful can be molded into simply a physical enjoyment...Thoughts? Opinions?


(Please only reply if your going to be mature about this...)


Thus, he made a general statement that, if taken generally, is false. And there is nothing to indicate that he meant Romantic Love, and nothing in the OP to indicate that the OP meant Romantic Love, so to limit 'Love' to Romantic Love, and give no indication is an error on his part, which creates a general statement that is demostratively false.


Everything you say is technicly true.
However the practical use of language does play a part in this. And our language just hasn't evolved to the point where the mentioning of "love" in casual terms means anything other than romantic affection. It just doesn't happen. Which is why we when we are talking about romantic affection, don't have to specify any further. Because unless we specify it as something else, "love" refers by default to romantic affection.

That is unless I'm staring right into another culture barrier here...

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/25/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

Apart from late 19th to late 20th century extended Anglo-American pop culture fantasies, has sex ever been 'about' love? I would definitely say that sex works particularly well with love, but I'd also say that it isn't about love, and never has been.

It's not just about reproduction either -- humans have essentially year-'round interest in sex, but females can only reproduce in a relatively short window once a month. Desire does not follow strict patterns of a season, on the part of males or females. Unlike the vast majority of animals out there, human sexual interest extends well beyond reproduction.


Wrong there, Sex is always about love. While I may not love the person with whom I am having sexual relation, it is my love of the pleasure that arises from this that perpetuates my wanting of Sex.


Since when did we refer to lust and desire as "love"? Has the language of the topic really evolved to that without us knowing?
And while you may be technically right, you're just nit picking.
You know as well as everyone here that "love" in this case refers to romantic affection.
Sex being "always about love" because lust can by stretch be classified as a love for pleasure, is something that is entirely pointless to bring up and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand...


No, it is not nitpicking, because Romantic affection is only an instance of the General Concept of Love, and not actually the General Concept of Love itself. It is not irrelevent, as you may think, because it is fallacious to describe a specific cat, say a black and white one, and apply it to all cats, say, all cats are black and white. Unless you clarify what you mean first by something as general as Love, you ought not make general statements. Any lack of lucidity, no matter how absurd and obvious it seems to you should be clarified if you want to make a statement, and claim its truth. You say that I know as well as everyone here that Love means so and so- that is presumptuous on your part, as you don't know that I know. Maybe you have read my other post in response before this, but with your quoted text alone, there is nothing to indicate that I understand love to be used in an unnecessarily narrow sense, and then applied to a general statement that is completely untrue unless taken narrowly. He used a general terminology when he means only a specific instance. Do I need to illustrate why that is fallacious? And even the language of the OP is such that it can be taken generally:


Lately I've been noticing that sex has become more about only the physical aspect and less and less about the emotional kind of thing. Is this all the media's doing? Has something so sacred fallen so far as to be a way of profit? Everywhere you look now-a-days there's sex, The movies, ads, banners, clothing. It's all centered around sex(By all I mean most...) I hear it way to much, I'll be walking somewhere and they'll be 13-14 year old kids talking about how they'd love to -censored- their teacher, or another classmate. Who do you blame though? The media? Parents? Teachers? I just don't know, it's really quite sad that something so beautiful can be molded into simply a physical enjoyment...Thoughts? Opinions?


(Please only reply if your going to be mature about this...)


Thus, he made a general statement that, if taken generally, is false. And there is nothing to indicate that he meant Romantic Love, and nothing in the OP to indicate that the OP meant Romantic Love, so to limit 'Love' to Romantic Love, and give no indication is an error on his part, which creates a general statement that is demostratively false.


Everything you say is technicly true.
However the practical use of language does play a part in this. And our language just hasn't evolved to the point where the mentioning of "love" in casual terms means anything other than romantic affection. It just doesn't happen. Which is why we when we are talking about romantic affection, don't have to specify any further. Because unless we specify it as something else, "love" refers by default to romantic affection.

That is unless I'm staring right into another culture barrier here...



You are staring into a culture barrier- the barrier between what you think is true of our culture and what is not true of our culture. We use the word 'love' not limited to 'Romantic affection', but to all sort of affection. I can say that I love chocolate, does that mean that I have romantic affection for chocolate, or that I love my mother, is that indicative of incestuous and Oedipal feeling toward my mother. We even use love in reference to our friends, our desires, etc. Your attempt to limit it to Romantic Love have no basis in either common use or in lexical definition. It does not by default mean Romantic love. Otherwise a simple expression of affection, say, between brothers would be continually construed as homosexual incest. Unless you live in a nation that does not speak English, or attain fluency in the language through the Romances of Hollywood, cut off from actual use of the word 'Love', you statement is completely unfounded and completely false.
24813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Edmond, Oklahoma,...
Offline
Posted 2/9/12
English itself is horrible about defining love anyways. Greek had four terms for the idea, each word defining a separate concept of love. Surely you do not love your dog like you would your partner? Our society has always played fast and loose with the idea and fine line between love and sex; has for thousands of years and this puzzling feature of the human psyche will do so for quite some time.
My take is from the phrase, "Perception creates reality". If you see the act as a sacred ritual, then of course your sex must be by definition tied to love or it has no meaning. If the act is just another way to fill in the hours, then it would be pointless to wait for love to screw around. And there is a vast ocean of grey in between the two extremes just for added headaches and tearjerking fun after the act.
TL;DR version is its meaning is entirely defined by you and your heart alone.
34207 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 2/9/12
This is nothing new. They call prostitution "the oldest profession" for a reason.
66794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / ???????? ?? ?????
Offline
Posted 2/13/12
Just a quick FYI, could you guys use the spoiler tag to reduce those 15 page novel quotes you're using? Thanks.

Hint: It's the Triangle with the ! in it
First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.