Why is it Important to Love Who You Sleep With?

[Nanda]

I don't need to be in love with someone to have sex with them, but I do have to like them. I don't see the point in sleeping with someone I don't like. I prefer to have sex with people I love, if only because, like Papersock said, there's an emotional connection there as well, but sex just for the sake of having sex is also fun, and I don't have a problem with it. Maybe it's because I get plenty of love already, so I don't feel the same need for a sexual partner to also fullfill my emotional needs. Or maybe not. I can't really say for sure.

 

[Kerr]

It is important to me because sexuality is important and I do not want to share that with just anyone.

EDIT:

There is also another aspect of it, but I do not know how to explain that one, lol.

 

[T-Dawg]

I kinda noticed it was all theists from heavily dogmatic doctrines that felt love was sacred in this thread.

Which makes sense, seeing that non-theists inherently believe that nothing is sacred .

Have you never dated anyone who you didn`t love?

Why the heck do you have to make fun of me? Part of me screams to report that as you're obviously making fun of me for never having been in a dating relationship, but I have a feeling that you didn't mean it that way and I'm just being paranoid again.
To answer your question, no, I've never dated anyone, but if I did date someone, I would "love" them before doing so (assuming sexual attraction can be called love).

I`m not in my relationship with my wife "because" I love her.

Why then are you in your relationship?

Or improved it.

Come to think of it, back in the "good ol' days," a wife was the property of her husband, and wives were often (or occasionally?) mistreated. Nowadays, women are seen by most men as something to stick one's penis into for a temporary rush of pleasurable hormones, and afterwards the man ditches the woman (some women expect such, as in the case of one-night stands. Others are left pregnant, alone, and feeling betrayed).

I don't think we've gotten anywhere in terms of respecting our womenfolk as actual people. =/

It`s my belief that the ideology that sex is a mystical sacred act is the root cause of all the sexual dysfunction and emotional turmoil in societies that follow such an ideology.

Are you serious? I see far more sexual dysfunction and emotional turmoil in societies that DO have loveless sex. I suppose it depends on your definition of sexual dysfuction and emotional turmoil. You probably think that having to wait until marriage for sex is a dysfuction, as you see a person as being restricted by his faith from doing what he wants, and I think that sexual dysfunction is where sexual acts no longer have meaning for a person, as the entire point of sex is to be an expression of love (to people like me). You probably think of emotional turmoil as the inability to express oneself sexually, and I think of emotional turmoil as a description for the situation where a husband and his wife no longer love eachother.

Obviously, I'd say that society is getting worse, and you'd say it's getting better.

That`s because you equate sex with love (See my last paragraph).

Assuming that we mean sexual attraction when we say "love," then I don't see how it's possible that the two are not related. Assuming that we mean real love when we say "love," then I suppose sex is possible, but I don't see the point. What's the point of having sex with someone if you know you aren't going to have a lasting commitment with them? Is the sex supposed to develop into love or something?

Some people are just seeking sex, companionship, and all the little joys that go with being intimate with someone.

Now we're getting somewhere. So you believe that it's possible for people to enjoy sex even if they don't love eachother? How? (Oh, and if the sex is loveless, how are they getting compassion from it?)

I know of two personal female friends who seem to be unable to find fulfilling life partners so in order to fulfill their physical desires, they have sex without love, and I can tell it hurts them (i think because the sex reminds them of what they wish they had - a long term partner). So, in their cases, it's my opinion that they would be better off abstaining, simply because the sex is resulting in hurt. However, I don't think that applies to all people. I know many people who are in very loving relationships and trade partners all of the time. It never interferes with their commitment to each other, and many married couples could only dream of the deep love and commitment those "Sexually open" couples have in their lives. So in the end, it depends on the individual IMO.

Thank you, MSizer, it's good to have a neutral-ish viewpoint in a discussion. Although, I'm not sure about this part:

and many married couples could only dream of the deep love and commitment those "Sexually open" couples have in their lives

The entire discussion was about loveless sex, not sexual openness. I for one don't mind open sex as long as there's commitment and deep love (personally, I wouldn't have sex with someone before marriage just in case, but that's just my distrust of people), but the debate here is that loveless sex has a point to it, or that it's fulfilling, or something like that.

Keep in mind that going strictly by the Bible (I can't speak for the Quran or the Vedic texts or anything else because I haven't read them =/), "marriage" is never concretely defined, and the only time the Bible condemns unmarried sex is the one passage on "fornication" (forget where it is, it's somewhere in Paul's Letters). As far as I'm concerned, a loving couple who plans on staying together for the rest of their lives is "married," regardless if they have all the legal crap done or not, and if my vocabulary is up to date, fornication refers only to loveless sex. (On a related note, the Bible nowhere condemns polygamy or polyamory, although most passages on marriage in the New Testament imply monogamous marriage)

 

[MSizer]

EDIT: Oh, right, you're homosexual, you don't have to worry about pregnancy. "Atheist queer."

I'm not sure whether you are simply stating a fact here innocently or not, but by the quote marks around "atheistqueer", it really sounds to me like bigotry. I'm withholding the accusation on the grounds that I don't know for sure, but I sincerely hope I'm reading into it too much (and in which case I would sincerely owe you an apology, but also advise you be careful in the way you word such things, as they are open to misinterpretation.

 

[Kerr]

Which makes sense, seeing that non-theists inherently believe that nothing is sacred .

Love is quite close to "sacred" for some of us .

 

[T-Dawg]

I guess would like a home life of love.But not marriage. Never again.

You seem to equate marriage with a lack of love. Did you have a bad experience with marriage? Married people CAN love eachother, you know, and marriage can also be polygamous, or polyamorous, or whatever it is you want. It's a pretty vague term .

I'm not sure whether you are simply stating a fact here innocently or not, but by the quote marks around "atheistqueer", it really sounds to me like bigotry. I'm withholding the accusation on the grounds that I don't know for sure, but I sincerely hope I'm reading into it too much (and in which case I would sincerely owe you an apology, but also advise you be careful in the way you word such things, as they are open to misinterpretation.

It's his title that he gave himself, unless I got him completely mixed up with another person. Sorry if that's the case, I'ma check.


EDIT: Yes, I got it right:

Smoke Offline
Religion: here now
Title:Atheist Queer

My comment was not offensive, or at least it wasn't intended to be. All I said was that homosexuals didn't need to worry about pregnancy and that Smoke's title indicates he's a homosexual =/.

 

[MSizer]

You seem to equate marriage with a lack of love. Did you have a bad experience with marriage? Married people CAN love eachother, you know, and marriage can also be polygamous, or polyamorous, or whatever it is you want. It's a pretty vague term .It's his title that he gave himself, unless I got him completely mixed up with another person. Sorry if that's the case, I'ma check.


EDIT: Yes, I got it right:
My comment was not offensive, or at least it wasn't intended to be. All I said was that homosexuals didn't need to worry about pregnancy and that Smoke's title indicates he's a homosexual =/.

Then out of respect for the fact that I can only trust you're being honest, I apologize.

 

[linwood]

Which makes sense, seeing that non-theists inherently believe that nothing is sacred .

Not at all.
Most non-theists I know hold something sacred to them.
I am not one of them.

Why the heck do you have to make fun of me? Part of me screams to report that as you're obviously making fun of me for never having been in a dating relationship, but I have a feeling that you didn't mean it that way and I'm just being paranoid again.

I think you`re waaayy paranoid.
I know nothing about your current or past social situation.
I was merely making an analogy that people who date would understand.

I had no clue you were not one of those people.

To answer your question, no, I've never dated anyone, but if I did date someone, I would "love" them before doing so (assuming sexual attraction can be called love).

That`s just it, I don`t assume sexual attraction can be called love.
You can have both or neither or one or the other but neither is dependent upon the other.
Confusing sexual attraction with love is dangerous as hell.

I couldn`t love someone without having dated or gotten to know them somehow.

Why then are you in your relationship?

Ultimately because my wife is one cunning *****.
She is strong and intelligent and has our best interests in mind.
She is a partner worthy of my lifetime.

I love her because she is all of this and more but I did not marry her for love.
If I had we would have been divorced 9 years ago.

Come to think of it, back in the "good ol' days," a wife was the property of her husband, and wives were often (or occasionally?) mistreated. Nowadays, women are seen by most men as something to stick one's penis into for a temporary rush of pleasurable hormones, and afterwards the man ditches the woman (some women expect such, as in the case of one-night stands. Others are left pregnant, alone, and feeling betrayed).

You really do need to have a couple of dates.
You don`t have to sleep with anyone I promise.

You`ll see this point of view is extremist once you do.

I suppose it depends on your definition of sexual dysfuction and emotional turmoil.

Undoubtedly.

You probably think that having to wait until marriage for sex is a dysfuction,

Not at all but I think the ideology of waiting to have sex until your married causes dysfunction and only having sex while your married causes even more.

as you see a person as being restricted by his faith from doing what he wants,

I think we are all restricted from "doing what we want" by some form of worldview or another.

and I think that sexual dysfunction is where sexual acts no longer have meaning for a person, as the entire point of sex is to be an expression of love (to people like me).

Yes, to people like you.
We`re not al like you and it seems you would have us follow your beliefs anyway.
What`s that called again?

You probably think of emotional turmoil as the inability to express oneself sexually,

No, I think emotional turmoil is to express love when all one is really feeling is lust(sex) while not being able to distinguish from the two.
That seems to be where the traditional dogmatic conflation of love with sex has gotten us.

and I think of emotional turmoil as a description for the situation where a husband and his wife no longer love eachother.

Indeed, I`ll never have that problem as my love is based upon so much more than sex.

In fact that problem is most often brought about because the married couple was the victim of conflating sex with love.

Assuming that we mean sexual attraction when we say "love," then I don't see how it's possible that the two are not related. Assuming that we mean real love when we say "love," ....

Why do you keep assuming this when I`ve repeatedly stated I don`t equate sex to love.
I love people I have never had sex with.
I have had sex with people I`ve never loved.

I can love without sex AND sex without love.
This is indeed possible.
It can be done.

....then I suppose sex is possible, but I don't see the point.

Then you`ve never had sex.
Have sex you`ll get the point, you may still disagree with the point but you`ll then at least know what it is.

What's the point of having sex with someone if you know you aren't going to have a lasting commitment with them? Is the sex supposed to develop into love or something?Now we're getting somewhere. So you believe that it's possible for people to enjoy sex even if they don't love eachother? How? (Oh, and if the sex is loveless, how are they getting compassion from it?)Thank you, MSizer, it's good to have a neutral-ish viewpoint in a discussion. Although, I'm not sure about this part:The entire discussion was about loveless sex, not sexual openness. I for one don't mind open sex as long as there's commitment and deep love (personally, I wouldn't have sex with someone before marriage just in case, but that's just my distrust of people), but the debate here is that loveless sex has a point to it, or that it's fulfilling, or something like that.

Keep in mind that going strictly by the Bible .....

What if we don`t go by the Bible?

 

[linwood]

Sunstone,

This is not the first time you`ve posted this same OP under a different title.

I remember this exact same debate more than once in your OP`s.

I consistently get in this same argument with the same worldview.

I`m beginning to lean towards the stripping you of you frubals solution as it seems you might be stuffing the ballots so to speak.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not like "Don't have sex w/o love; it's a sin." For me it's a question of my highest personal happiness. Love is the ultimate, the best, the core value. For me, one of the best ways to express, explore, give and receive that is through physical intimacy. So with love you get the best sex. That improves and builds my primary intimate relationship, which for me is the most important one in my life. Further, I think relationships are one of the most important things to us humans. So all in all, that works better for me.

It's not like I haven't done the other, everything from date-rape (with me on the receiving end) to casual threesomes. I don't think the latter is immoral, just that I've learned not the optimum way to organize my life.

Or, to express this more simply, love + sex = the best.

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone,

This is not the first time you`ve posted this same OP under a different title.

That's possible. I've started thousands of threads. It would not surprise me if I've repeated myself now and then.

 

[T-Dawg]

I think you`re waaayy paranoid.I know nothing about your current or past social situation.I was merely making an analogy that people who date would understand.I had no clue you were not one of those people.

Ok, that's fine.

Yes, to people like you.We`re not al like you and it seems you would have us follow your beliefs anyway.What`s that called again?

You're doing exactly the same thing - you want everyone to have loveless sex. How can you accuse me of wanting everyone to follow your beliefs?

That`s just it, I don`t assume sexual attraction can be called love.You can have both or neither or one or the other but neither is dependent upon the other.Confusing sexual attraction with love is dangerous as hell.I couldn`t love someone without having dated or gotten to know them somehow.

True, sexual attraction is not love and shouldn't be, but usually when I hear love, they're actually talking about sexual attraction =/.

No, I think emotional turmoil is to express love when all one is really feeling is lust(sex) while not being able to distinguish from the two.That seems to be where the traditional dogmatic conflation of love with sex has gotten us.

I don't understand how the conflation of sex with love has anything to do with what you described, but thanks for clearing that up =/.

Then you`ve never had sex.Have sex you`ll get the point, you may still disagree with the point but you`ll then at least know what it is.

Indeed, I never have had sex. Maybe it's like religion, where you only understand it once you get into it XD.

What if we don`t go by the Bible?

The paragraph that you left out was just for people who DO go by the Bible, and trying to make an argument that "married" sex and monogamy are not essential to Christianity. If you don't go by the Bible, you probably don't care what it doesn't say.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've loved everyone I've ever slept with. At the very least, during the sex.

 

[DallasApple]

It's not like "Don't have sex w/o love; it's a sin." For me it's a question of my highest personal happiness. Love is the ultimate, the best, the core value. For me, one of the best ways to express, explore, give and receive that is through physical intimacy. So with love you get the best sex. That improves and builds my primary intimate relationship, which for me is the most important one in my life. Further, I think relationships are one of the most important things to us humans. So all in all, that works better for me.

It's not like I haven't done the other, everything from date-rape (with me on the receiving end) to casual threesomes. I don't think the latter is immoral, just that I've learned not the optimum way to organize my life.

Or, to express this more simply, love + sex = the best.

You put took the words out of my mouth honey!

Some people like to compare sex to a variety of other activities..Like flipping burgers or going to lunch with someone.

For me its a lot more personal than that.I dont know why..it could be that having another persons naked body rubbing up against mine and swapping bodily fluids and havign another persons body litterally inside my body is a lot more to me than any other "task" I could participate in and just a little more personal than having lunch with someone.

I dont think it neccessarily has to be love..But "extreme like' and a level of trust and respect I wouldnt need to have to eat a sandwich together.I have to go a little deeper than "aquaintence" or a "job" to really experience the good stuff about sex.

The BEST sex.Tossing it around and it being equivelant to flipping a burger or ANY other activity is fine for some people.But its "just sex" is not the kind of sex I want.I'de rather flip a burger or go have lunch with someone.

Love

Dallas

 

[linwood]

I've loved everyone I've ever slept with. At the very least, during the sex.

That`s my wife says it doesn`t count if you say it during sex.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That`s my wife says it doesn`t count if you say it during sex.

Smart woman.

 

[DallasApple]

That`s my wife says it doesn`t count if you say it during sex.

Why would she care if you loved her or not.? Its only having sex.

Love

Dallas

 

[linwood]

Ok, that's fine.You're doing exactly the same thing - you want everyone to have loveless sex. How can you accuse me of wanting everyone to follow your beliefs?

I think you misspoke.
I haven`t accused you of wanting to follow my beliefs.
I haven`t tried to get anyone to follow my beliefs, I simply answered the OP then defended my position when it was attacked, quite personally as well.

I`ve also just noticed a nice edit to your response to Smoke that I wouldn`t have noticed if you haven`t forced me to go back to evidence your personal animosity.
Here it is..it`s nice.

EDIT: Oh, right, you're homosexual, you don't have to worry about pregnancy. "Atheist queer." Bleh, I dunno about you then. But as for most people...
Besides, if you weren't in love, why the heck do you feel the urge to have sex in the first place? Sex without sexual attraction ("love," as it's most commonly used today) seems kinda pointless...

Your tone towards me wasn`t as nasty but not far from it.
This is why I assume you`re pushing your beliefs in some manner.

True, sexual attraction is not love and shouldn't be, but usually when I hear love, they're actually talking about sexual attraction =/.I don't understand how the conflation of sex with love has anything to do with what you described, but thanks for clearing that up =/.

:bow:

You`ve just managed to supply perfect evidence of why the conflation of love with sex causes misunderstanding while agreeing you conflate love with sex EVEN THOUGH YOU SHOULDN`T in the midst of an apparently misunderstood paragraph.

I`m gonna give you frubals for that, thank you.

Indeed, I never have had sex. Maybe it's like religion, where you only understand it once you get into it XD.

Dear god I hope it`s clearer than the understanding most followers have of their own religions.

 

[linwood]

Why would she care if you loved her or not.? Its only having sex.

That`s why it doesn`t count.

 

[Autodidact]

You put took the words out of my mouth honey!
Dallas

hmmm....so now we know that Dallas has had a threesome or two. :flirt: