|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted March 21, 2005 04:20 AM |
|
|
Love without sex
We know about sex without love alright, but what about the other way around? Can you be in love with someone without being sexually attracted to them? Whats the role of sexuality in a love relationship? Is sex unnecessary to define love (as in love between two opposite sex partners), or is a loving relationship without sex in fact just a very close friendship?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted March 21, 2005 05:47 AM |
|
|
I posted something related to the topic on another forum. Here it is.
Quote:
What's happening with love these days? Back in the olden days, it could mean the love for God, the love for the world, the love between brothers, between a daughter and mother... It didn't have to do with sex. In the 60's, this concept was further developed: love everything, for ****'s sake.
If you don't love your friends, they are not your real friends! Why do people not say this anymore? When did 'love' turn into some silly, sexual emotion that can only be shared between a man and a woman? And even in that case, why is it so difficult for one partner to tell the other that there is love involved? 'I love you' doesn't mean 'I am in love with you, and want to spend the rest of my life with you'!
What is this snow about only being able to 'love' one person? You should love -all- people! As much as I oppose certain things in Christianity, that idea they got just right.
And it's not just about loving people and things. You can love certain things about people. About complete strangers, even! I can walk down a street, see a pretty girl and love her smile. Why is this wrong? This -is- love. It's love for something beautiful. I also love the full moon when it's shining into my room at night. And I love the ocean. And clouds. And this is true love, not just a more strong varient of the word 'like'. I actually feel love for these things, and I pity any person who does not!
And it's not just the word itself that's not being used in its true context anymore, no, it's far deeper than that. People in general no longer love each other. No, really, they don't, or at least not as much as they used to! Why is this?
Where, my friends, where is the LOVE?!
Ech, **** it all.
Uh, ok, I was a bit drunk. It still sort of reflects my opinion.
____________
|
|
guitarguy
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Rockoon.
|
|
posted March 21, 2005 08:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We know about sex without love alright, but what about the other way around? Can you be in love with someone without being sexually attracted to them? Whats the role of sexuality in a love relationship? Is sex unnecessary to define love (as in love between two opposite sex partners), or is a loving relationship without sex in fact just a very close friendship?
Somehow, I knew this was going to come up after my last post in Downhill Times. 
It's possible to love someone and not be sexually attracted to them, but I think it would be hard for most people. We're a very visual society, so if we see someone (or something) whose looks don't appeal to us, chances are we won't like them _as_ much as if they were good-looking. I think us guys tend to do this more than girls, for semi-obvious reasons.  But that's just my guess.
-guitarguy
____________
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2005 05:32 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 21 Mar 2005
|
I think it's possible to love someone and not have sex with them, but to not be sexually attracted to her would be a hard thing IMHO.
To me, the first thing is appearance. Call me shallow if you will, but what makes me go see a girl or makes me interested in her is the way she looks.
It is not impossible to get to know someone that is not attractive of course, but I find that there are more chances that you get to know someone who looks good.
And here is an interesting phenomena:
When you get to learn about someone that might not be all that pretty, that person's appearance changes. Since it is subjective, you will find a person more attractive if that person's personnality is nice or charming. This has happened to me many times; I find a girl attractive, go out with her, break up and find that she is not all that attractive after all.
So it would be possible to get to know someone who is not that attractive and that she becomes attractive once you get to know her. Nature is a great thing, aint it?
It's all a question of taste and some more intellectual people (more than me anyways) could easily be attracted to someone that is less attractive, but more intellectual.
In the end, for me, you need to be pretty.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted March 22, 2005 08:35 AM |
|
|
It's love .
When you love someone & care about them so much that you would do anythang for them then sex dont have to be an option.
Sex is optional, some people think you have to have sex to show you love them 7 some think if there is no sex involved then you are not attracted to them & it makes them insecure.
Fact women always think about sex more then one times a day once they know of it.
Fact men stare at cute women even if they been maried 10 yrs because were men.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 23, 2005 04:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If you don't love your friends, they are not your real friends! Why do people not say this anymore? When did 'love' turn into some silly, sexual emotion that can only be shared between a man and a woman?
This thread isnt about that at all. Of course you should love many things.
It also isnt about sex being more important than love.
Its about what essentially is love between a man and a woman (I avoid using the word "sexual love" in order not to imply a context). Is it some special kind, different than the ordinary love between friends for example. From there, is sex necessary to define this kind of love, or can it exist as seperate from the other "loves", without the sex?
In one word, is love without sex possible?
I still didnt recieve an answer which addresses what I asked.
Random rant; guitarguy and iyy, if love's just wanting to be with someone, then can you say u r in love with your friends?
Esp. iyy sounded like he was saying love is universal about everything. that'd mean that if u marry a friend (even a guy!) would be the same as if you marry the woman u love but decide not to have any sex.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted March 23, 2005 04:37 AM |
|
|
Its about what essentially is love between a man, woman & a statue  quote]
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Valeriy
Mage of the Land
Naughty, Naughty Valeriy
|
|
posted March 23, 2005 12:28 PM |
|
|
Interesting question
Ancient Greeks defined two kinds of love - Eros and Agape.
Eros is the passionate love based on uncertainty and longing. It is a desperate desire to attain something. It is killed by certainty and availability.
Agape is the kinship love based on understanding and trust. It grows over time as understanding and trust strengthen.
So my interpretation of this is that you can have agape love for a person of opposite sex - feel nice and relaxed around them, have trust and understanding - without being sexually attracted to them.
It depends on priorities. If you seek sexual gratification as your prime motive (whether you consciously admit that or not), sexual attraction will be your primal criteria and agape without sexual attraction will not do for you.
If you seek a relationship of trust and understanding as your prime motive, it will be possible for you to have agape love without sexual attraction. Sexual attraction will be an optional extra.
Some refuse sex without agape as foundation.
Some refuse agape without possibility of sex.
____________
You can wait for others to do it, but if they don't know how, you'll wait forever.
Be an example of what you want to see on HC and in the world.
http://www.heroesofmightandmagic.com
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted March 25, 2005 07:51 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 27 Mar 2005
|
the im
I don't know if I have an opinion on this yet. There's clearly something that distinguishes a romance from a friendship, and it may well be sex. But, truth be told, I have nothing more than vicarious experience through characters in this area. So, I'm hesitant about spouting off.
I can easily imagine love without sex, ie a case where personalities compliment beautifully and drive the "I want to spend the rest of my life with you" response, but the sex just doesn't match up (orientation or whatever). This has happened between my characters; it’s an awkward situation, but the emotions feel realistic. There was also a weird episode in my writing workshop where someone else wrote a story detailing a situation very much like that -- the main character loved her boyfriend but didn't want him sexually. It was clearly romance, but it just as clearly lacked sexual attraction. It made intuitive sense to me, but most others were perplexed as heck ("is she gay or bi?” “if she doesn't like sleeping with him, why is she involved with him?" etc). Friendship + sex = romance definitely looks like the dominant equation. The question is whether it’s the only one. And if it’s not, what other “chemistry” can stand in for sex to make a friendship into a romance?
I just don’t know. Is this kind of confusion what you're looking for?
[On a more mundane level, both my real life and my internet have gone on the fritz. My participation at HC has/will drop accordingly. Just fair warning that I may vanish. ] [Edit 2: @#!%^$ WinXP Service Pack 2! *&^%* It has been removed; my internet is now fixed. Oh, and bump.]
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 26, 2005 04:35 AM |
|
|
Thanks both Val and Khaelo for touching the core of the topic.
Khaelo’s post (which was initially sent as IM to me, btw ) most beautifully reflects my feelings on the topic. Though i’ll add a bit more substance to the thread, as to provide more sensitive spots for discussion.
Its hard not to approach this topic without reserve and caution. For me, it’s the fact that likewise, I havent had much experience with love. Relationships, yeah alright, but I think I was involved just for the sake of experience, not real love.
All my (philosophical, scientific) standing points lead me to believe that there’s no such separate emotional substance as romantic love. I think love in general extends to everything, it’s a paradigm for longing, whether be it family, friends, boyfriends, girlfriends. This is what Val termed agape. On the other side is the eros, the natural sex desire in all humans, which is not to be considered any less exalted than love. Also, I believe the eros manifests on two levels, the lustful sex drive (libido) and the sexual attraction, which relates to the sensual sexuality, to perceive sexually and be perceived. Sexual attraction may accommodate to a large extent what we call “emotional attraction”, as a key element of passionate love (among younger people especially). Meaning, it’s not a simple sex drive which can be appeased with porn magazines for example, but connected with the sexual chemistry felt, which can be aroused by touch, smell, body language etc. Its still a form of the eros however, and guided by sexual desire. Having been recognized as such, it can only achieve fulfillment through sexual gratification, to which it necessarily tends.
Now, this analysis gives some interesting consequences. First that comes to mind, is the myth about romantic love that is sold today. If I agree with Khaelos equasion Friendship (love) + sex (eros) = romance (romantic love), which I do, meaning we discect the myth of romantic love in those two, then we can see a clear different treatment of both by the society. Love is often sanctified as the essential thing in a romantic relationship, but the truth is we cant have that without the eros. Sexual desire is at the same time considered as “less worthy” and more common, something that comes and goes, that you can have with any woman, it’s love that stays. Is it?
Next, they are completely independent of one another, so I find the connection between them that the society is trying to impose non-existent. You can love without having sex, you can have sex without loving. Everything else comes inbetween.
Another interesting thing which follows is the possibility of a pure male-female friendship (or male-male, in case of asmo and his boys). There’s always the possibility of sex vibes, but being sexually attracted is slightly different than wanting to fornicate with her, as we already established (the difference between libido and sexual attraction). Still, unless we’re talking about really unattractive friends, I think its only social decency that unconsciously keeps us at distance. We can say the same about brother-sister relationships (I am aware of the taboo i’m touching here); only in this case the social stigma is so great that it has kept it in the deepest layers of the subconscious. But remember that in Ancient times, the practice of marriage between brother and sister (also in myths) was more than common.
The so extensively exploited expression “I love you” would also be problematic. See, you can say “I love you” to your male friend, but you never do that. In some cases you can love your male friends or your pet more than you love your girlfriend (especially if you’re together for a shorter time), whereas she’s “only” an object of sexual attraction.
I wont go as far as to define humans as sexual beings, but it’s a fact that it (should be) be a key segment of our lives, and be treated as such. Man is an animal afterall, and its this animal nature which sets requirements that are imperative and have to be met, and sex is maybe the most important of them all. Sexuality plays a huge role in social interactions and on subconscious level, i.e. not just with people we “fell in love with”. Some psychoanalysts say that human behavior is actually entirely based on sexuality, as well as the personal identity. And just to fire up passions more, i’ll just mention that I think the sole factor in development of one’s sexuality, ergo sexual attraction and manifestation of libido, is the environment and social upbringing.
To sum up, I don’t think there can be (romantic) love without sex, and its precisely and solely the sex part that defines it as romantic. Romance is dead, long live sex!
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
ConanAmra
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2005 01:30 AM |
|
|
People can have sex without love.But when you truly love someone you dont need to have sex with him immediately.
Me personally when i would love some girl i would be glad to be with her ,to spare some of our free time and to be happiest creature in the universe.
True love=doesnt need sex,its the feeling that satisfies you that you are with your loving person.I know that,what i would do to be with my biggest love?anything,only the feeling that i could be with her,thats all,no thoughts about sex.Only love
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted August 16, 2005 05:58 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 16 Aug 2005
|
About people who experience love without sex: Asexual Visibility.
I still don't know what I think of the ideas presented, but it's an interesting site to peruse.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 16, 2005 04:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ancient Greeks defined two kinds of love - Eros and Agape.
Eros is the passionate love based on uncertainty and longing. It is a desperate desire to attain something. It is killed by certainty and availability.
This is interesting, although not the two types of love I would have defined.
Strange, though, that Eros was also the Greek god, the son of Ares (god of war) and Aphrodite (god of love), and is the patron god of sexual desire and fertility, which is not killed by certainty and availability.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 19, 2005 02:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
About people who experience love without sex: Asexual Visibility.
Heres what it says on their site:
"Asexual people who experience attraction will often be attracted to a particular gender, and will identify as gay, bi, or straight."
Funny, how they are asexual and yet they are attracted by particular sexes, and not characters.
My take on this, is that either its a mental disorder (for some serious cases), or in the majority of cases -psycho-sexual crisis.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
ConanAmra
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 19, 2005 02:37 PM |
|
|
Maybe the mental disorder.
I love sex and I would do it every time if i had the chance .But as I said its really more important for me to be with my girlfriend not because i want her for sex but for the feeling that im with her and we are sharing our problems and feelings together.Thats the main thinf,funny what have you written about the people ,interesting.
____________
When you go to hell tell my mom that i sent you,
you get a group discount.
|
|
TheAsgard
Adventuring Hero
Wise and helpful being
|
|
posted August 20, 2005 02:29 PM |
|
|
Love without sex?
Yes, I believe that love without sex is obtainable between two peolpe whether between people of the SAME or OPPOSITE sex.
If you read "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory" he proposed that individuals will be motivated to fulfill whichever need is most powerful for them at any given time. If you study his pyramid diagram you will see that sex is at the bottom as a basic necesity as is air, water, food and shelter. Love on the other hand is two levels above that as a higher 'need'.
I would tend to disagree with Maslow's theory of sex being a common necesity as air. I believe that two people how truly love each other (as my partner and i do) do not/ should not need to define their relationship with sex. When you begin a loving realtionship with someone, say love at first sight, it is not base on sex but the burning desire to want to spend your life with someone you truly cherish.
If sex is to play some part in the relationship it should not the the basis of the foundation but a united decision between the couple.
So I finish by saying that sex should not play a major part or necesity in love relationships, because they should on unity, harmony and love.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 21, 2005 03:03 AM |
|
|
first, hello asgard, as is proper to do with new members. You are about to have the fiery Christening on the other side - debating conflict with me. 
Quote:
So I finish by saying that sex should not play a major part or necesity in love relationships, because they should on unity, harmony and love.
But unity, harmony and love, thats what you can have in a relationship with a girl as well, or a sibling. Thats not what defines erotic love relationships from others, does it?
When i'm talking about sex, i dont mean the act of banging each other, but the libidious energy and its many manifestations, craving for another person on different levels but with immanent sexuality, sometimes even subconscious (and that could be why its so hard to identify all the sex in the love ).
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted August 22, 2005 02:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Heres what it says on their site:
"Asexual people who experience attraction will often be attracted to a particular gender, and will identify as gay, bi, or straight."
Funny, how they are asexual and yet they are attracted by particular sexes, and not characters.
I don't know what the site means by that. Using sexual orientation names for nonsexual attraction is confusing. Presumbably, by "attraction," they mean the kind of magnetism when you just "click" with someone right off the bat. (For me, this tends to happen with teachers. ) I can see how it might happen by gender: someone who's just more comfortable with women or with men for whatever psycho-social reason. It's not sexual, though, so it's inappropriate to use the gay/straight/bi labels for those patterns. However, the site doesn't make it clear whether they advocate the simultaneous use of those labels, or whether they think confused asexuals use those labels hoping to fit into the popular sex-system.
It appears they are trying to set up another "orientation" based on level of (sexual) interest rather than object of interest. While I agree that there is a range of libidos within "healthy" -- which is why I linked the site in the first place -- I don't know that we need yet another labeling system.
Sorry about the off-topic digression.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
| |
|
|
