dd3953

this is a debate i don't know the answer to. i have a slight idea, but i am sure everyone else has an idea that doesn't match mind, that's the reason i am posting this thread. I posted another thread asking if they think homosexuality is a choice or not.

i believe that homosexuality is about love not sex. my main reason for this: many people have sex with members of the same sex, let they love the opposite sex. i believe that all sex has some connection to love or attraction. there are other people that believe love is sex.

so after reading the comments and seeing that a few people disagreed me with, i was wondering how many other people do. maybe i am just a hopeless romantic, fine.

here is the question (and it goes out to everyone, no matter gay or straight):: which statement do you agree with AND why??
a) sex is love (or sex comes from/after love)
b) love is sex (or love comes from/after sex)
c) other

__________________
[Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

Gilda

c) other

It's a question that applies equally to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

My answer would be that these are related and often linked, but are separate things. Love can find expression through a a variety of means, one of these being sex. A sexually intimate relationship can build into a loving one.

There are people who have sex without ever loving their partners. This happens a lot, else there wouldn't prostitutes.

There are people who love their companions without desiring sex with them. Being asexual doesn't render one incapable of love.

Being hetero/homosexual isn't solely about either love or sex, but the sexual attraction element is the more important defining characteristic of the two. I know of several lesbians who identify that way not because they feel no sexual attraction whatsoever to men, but because in having had relationships with both men and women they find themselves unable to connect emotionally to men the way they do with women. I know of straight women who feel the same way, that they can find themselves attracted to other women, but can't conceive of having a romantic relationship with another woman. In these cases, it's more a matter of capacity to love than degree of physical attraction.

For most men, their physical attraction to men or women is hardwired at birth, but I have little doubt that love can come from a close physical attraction or that physical intimacy can grow from a close emotional attraction.

Orientation is generally defined by ones primary physical attraction, which usually coincides with one's primary emotional attraction/romantic connection. When it doesn't, this can make for some disastrous relationships.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Toaster126

I'll pick c as well. Sex and love can be the same thing or wildly seperate depending on who is doing the answering.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

soma

C. They don't always go together.

__________________
Having Girl Problems?

dd3953

so i am in my own little world thinking that the two work together, and that one is needed to fully enjoy the other . . . . wow, that kinda sucks

but outside of these forums i have seen nothing to show me otherwise. . . . i have read the posts above, and that's all well and fine (on paper) but i have seen nothing in real life to show me that the two can be in a happy and healthy manner without love (or at least a strong ass attraction) coming before the sex.

granted, you can do it anyway you want, but i still think sex is love (or that love comes first) because that is the only way i have seen it happily done. just becuase you can switch the two around does not mean it is right or a good way to do it . . .

it's sad that i seem to be alone in that . . . .

__________________
[Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

Troublebot

"i still think sex is love (or that love comes first) because that is the only way i have seen it happily done."

Now see, you're changing your original post. In the OP you only ask which we feel comes first. Now you say "love, then sex" is the only way you're seen it happily done.

In that case, I agree with you. The best sex is had with someone you truely care about and who truely cares about you. Gay, straight, whatever.

However, in my 36 years and, admittedly, small amount of experience, I've seen people have sex for all kinds of reasons. They're lonely, happy, horney, sad, angry, vindictive or simply to screw up someone elses day.

While I'd like to join you in checking off "A" I think the realist in me has to go with "C". Sorry!

__________________
Howard Moon: The wind is my only friend.
Wind: [whistling] I hate you.

hambone

C.

I didn't put too much thought into this as there are always exceptions. Real quick.

Love does not always lead to sex. Ex: Physical limitations could prevent this.

Sex does not always lead to love. Ex: prostitutes.

__________________
"Like liquid white from fallen glass,
Nothing to cry over"

Deltona Couple

As I have been in a subject discussion similar to this one, here is my theory that I have been pretty much able to show substantial evidence.

The answer would typically be "C" and this is why.....

"SEX" in a nutshell is the physical union of two bodies (can be hetero or homosexual) There is no "love" required for this act to be made, however some people do CHOSE to not allow themselves to have "sex" if there is no love involved. Personally I think what we need to do, is look at the terminology used:

Therefore "SEX" would be not having the requirement of having love, but if there would be an emotional attachment, then it wouldn't be "sex" it would be considered "making love" in the adult form of the use of these words.

Basically if you were to have sex with a total stranger, most people would say "I had casual 'SEX' with the person I met at the bar", and in the other term, most people would say "I 'MADE LOVE' to my wife/husband/SO last night."

Now that doesn't mean that two people in love can't have "SEX". Imagine a quickie that two people would have say in the afternoon before the kids got home, THAT could be considered having "SEX" with your SO.

Now As I say, this is my OPINION, but I think that by the way it is broken down, it could be pretty close to commonality.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

dd3953

hmmm, i don't feel i changed my original post, i thought i expanded on it.

& i understand the "realistic" part of you. i have that, too, it's just not loud enough

__________________
[Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

Halx

The traditional view is that you only have sex with people you love. This is, in my opinion, a value brought upon us by religious, conservative, and "moral" authorities. If you step beyond those bounds, you end up feeling guilty, at the very least.

The other view is that it's *all good.* Love and sex is what you make of it. Nobody passes this value down, its just something learned by yourself.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

AnyOtherDay

Well I think you can JUST have sex, and it would be good. But if you are having sex with someone you love then I would think the sex is better. There is a difference between just fucking and making love.

analog

I enjoy sex, prefer sex, where there is a connection of some kind. It doesn't have to be "love", but the type of connection you feel with a person you'd want to date, or have a relationship with.

For me personally, I can lust after a girl all I want... but if it's just lust, and I know i'd never want more than a random hook-up, the act is not satisfying.

I am just a person who enjoys sex with someone they feel something for, and by "feel something for", i mean more than "I would like to penetrate her".

Deltona Couple

HEY!...you stole what I said!....lmao

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Xera

for me certainly the answer is C.

There were many things in my past that prevent me from associating sex with intimacy. I simply cannot. I'm sexually dysfunctional though. I admit to being all screwed up in the bedroom.

To me sex is just an activity that my body enjoys participating in every so often. This does not bother my husband because he knows that I feel this way I'm not likely to divorce him just because he has sex with someone else, I mean come on, for me, that would be the same as divorcing a man for going hiking with someone else. If there is no intimacy, there is never a violation of intimacy.

The best sex I ever had was with a guy whose name i don't even remember now. He was a bouncer at a bar I used to go to. He had a 3 inch wide tongue. I liked him.

__________________

~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~