... Love ...
Both? Neither?
I could potentially be the odd vote this week, because 1. I am not a romantic (in fact, asking hubby if I am, I get an absofrackinlutely NOT answer - but then again he is so it balances), 2. I am a biologist, so I see things from a point of view of chemical responces and biological urges, and 3. I am not what would be termed as one who has a faith in higher and everlasting anything, and 4. I tend to not have a strong drive for things sexual, which is odd as hell given my writings. It's nice when it happens, but I don't need it often. And I shutting up on that before I go too far into TMI. : )
Not to say any of these things are bad. : ) Just laying my own quirks out. Although, that 4th one has caused some problems ...
Can you have sex without love?
Certainly. Just ask any hormonal teenage boy. : ) Or anyone who has ever been with a professional (and by that I am certain you know what I mean), or who has ever enjoyed a special kind of club.
And in some cases, it can still be a mind blowing experience. The thrill of the "forbidden", the taboo of a one-night stand. The variety and spice of sampling a different way of doing things.
Which is why I don't think that love is necessary for a wonderful sexual experience. In some cases, with some people though, it does enhance it.
Can you have love without sex?
Certainly. I have loved, and been in love with, straight women and gay men. Sex never even entered into the picture, but the love was just as intoxicating and heady of a sensation, and as lasting. Albeit, unrequited.
Does love make sex better? Conversely, does sex make love better?
Honestly, I think it can, but it isn't necessary.
As I said, I have loved without sex ever entering the equation, and it was beautiful.
I have also had sex without love, and it was still a powerful euphoric sensation.
Flipside, I have had sex with love and had it been less than fulfilling.
As for which one I would pick should I ever have to, between the two?
I'd go for love.
Not because I am a closet romantic, nor because of the belief that sex is less without love, but because I understand human nature well enough to know that we are social creature, and need those close bonds. So I would chose love, knowing that the physical urges I might have could be handled, um, solo if need be.
I would never enter into a loveless relationship, but I think I could be content and satisfied, with a loving but sexless relationship.
You certainly don't need sex for love and you don't need love for sex.... but the combo is what can make the mundane into magic.
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
ReplyDeleteInsightful and intelligent, as always. It's curious that your opening paragraph includes the word 'neither.' That was an option that never crossed my mind.
Best wishes,
Ash
Honest and balanced, Michelle,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me the influence your biology background has on your opinions. I mean, it makes sense, but I wouldn't have expected it.
I also find it intriguing that you write erotica and erotic romance even though you say that you don't have a very strong sex drive yourself. I wonder whether there's really any correlation at all. As I noted on Sunday, I've always been fascinated by sex--I've had a reasonable number of sexual experiences--but rarely have I felt a *physical need*. Desire for me is almost entirely emotional.
Best,
Lisabet
Inferno - Thanks : )
ReplyDeleteAsh - I do know some people that would apply towards. They can't handle physical contact and don't want, or can't handle, emotional entanglement.
ReplyDeleteGood catch! : ) I didn't really address it in my post because it is a bit of a downer to think about.
Lisabet - LOL What's even funnier is that I used to be heading towards a philosophy minor, but dropped it when I transferred, since I would have had to retake all four classes over again and add in four more. My classes would only have counted as "electives" in the field, not towards the minor. What fun!
ReplyDeleteMy biology professors used to do a double take when we did the first day of class, what's your major minor and year of study.
As for the 'ol drive, um, yep, almost non-existant actually. And is the most often frustration point in my marriage. If I was more of a cuddler and toucher, I think it would be less of an issue, but I am not much of a physical contact kind of person. I like my personal space, and someone in it too much of the time is uncomfortable for me.
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteI can sympathize with you about the low sex drive, although in my case I know exactly what it stems from - too much to do and not enough time to relax or sleep. I get very caught up between taking care of the kids and the house and then writing and handling art commissions on top of that, there's very little left over at the end of the day. I'm often ready to plow face first into bed when the Hubster gets home. And he works such late hours, that just compounds the problem.
But then I've also seen people who simply do not like to be touched that much. And I myself am particular about how I'm touched. The Hubster would love to run his fingers through his hair, but knows I'd punch his lights out because it irritates me so damned much.
So again, I sympathize ;)
Thanks Helen. I keep telling myself that when school is over, and I am not doing my headless chicken thing, it will return.
ReplyDeleteMy hair is one area I can handle it. I will sit for hours if someone wants to brush my hair, or simply run fingers through it. But then they are not having contact with skin. It is the pulling sensation on my skin, without any actual contact.
My punching one would be feet. Dear goodness, just leave them alone. Don't look at them, touch them, or breath near them. It drives me batty! LOL