Men are naturally better able to separate sex and love
 

Have you heard this theory?

That men are naturally better able to separate sex and love, at least better than women.

That this is possibly because men are the invaders and women the invaded (physically that is).

That women are more likely to require intense feelings of love and trust because they have to accept a man inside of them.

I have to say that when I originally thought about this, I believed it.

But I am now having second thoughts.

While I accept the idea that women are more likely to require love and trust before sex, I don't think it has anything to do with physical structures of genitals. I hypothesis that it's a learned cultural behavior. A cultural gender role. I can imagine the roles reversed.

What if women were the more aggressive. And men were taught that women just want them for their penis. Would we then be saying something different?

Would we be saying that men require love and trust because their penises are being consumed by vaginas?

I think men and women have the same sex drives, and men are better able to separate love and sex. Not because of anything physical, but because men are NOT taught to connect them. I mean we are told to connect love and sex, but we are not coerced like women are.

Women are taught to be over-protective of their vaginas in a sense. I am not a woman so I don't know how it happens, but I would assume that at some point around puberty, women are made aware that men are going to want them sexually and they should not give it up. Men definitely do not get this impression about sex.

It's my opinion that our culture allows men to be men and in some way prevents women from being women. I've been hearing these stories about women not knowing anything about their own vaginas as late as into their twenties. I have to say, I feel sorry for those girls. I couldn't imagine.

I agree that this isn't about penetratOR versus penetratEE, but I also disagree that it's entirely cultural and learned.

Evolutionarily speaking, the the female of the species has much more invested in sex--they're the one carrying the offspring, caring for the children, etc. You could say that sex has the potential to cost the woman much more than it costs the man who, biologically, does the deed and his contribution is done.

Women are genetically programmed to have sex only in the context of a relationship in which the man will be sticking around, supporting her, being a provider. Men are genetically programmed to squirt their seed far and wide (try to get that image out of your head!).

That's not to say that men and women can't be just as capable of separating sex and love (though the desirability of that is debatable), just that there are certain genetic predispositions in the matter. It's like a genetic predisposition for cancer doesn't mean you'll get cancer, but it does say something about the odds.

I have and have never had separating the natural physical act of sex and love.....I also have no problem incorporating love into said act....but then Im usually told Im not the "typical" female

It may be true that in general, men are more able to distinguish between the two. But I believe there is a huge difference between sex with someone that you love and sex with someone that you just want to have a good time with.

Pornstars.
Hookers.
Strippers.


All female dominated careers. (If you wanna call being a hooker a career.) And all jobs that involve separating the act of sex from love.

Well put.

I am quite able to separate sex and love, though, generally, I do find sex to be a very intimate and intensely close experience. I do not have to be in love to have sex however, not even close.

I have been in love 4 times in my life. I have had sex many more times than that. (I'm one of those guys who doesn't know "my number" however, suffice it to say that it's more than 40.)

I have several female friends, and have had many a late night conversation about sex and love and relationships over a few glasses of red wine with many a charming young / not so young woman. I can safely say that they too have had much sex where there has been no love. In fact, I've met a few women who claim that they've never even been, "in love"; yet, they aren't virgins.

I don't think that women wait to be in love to have sex. In fact, in my experience, most women I meet / date usually end up in my bed on the first date, or at the latest, the third date. (My ex that I was with for 5 years surrrendered the pink on the first date, so please don't draw conclusions about that either.)

Bottom line, as the old saying goes, women need to have a reason to have sex, men just need a place.

Women are more selective about whom they have sex with than men are, hence maybe the perception that women need to be in love, or at least in a committed relationship. I think that fact stems from 1000's of years of evolution of being the one to carry and raise the children as well as the societial taboos that have arisen around female sexuality.

So, to conclude, do women want to get laid for the sake of getting laid?

You bet your ass they do. It's just that they aren't going to put out for the first guy that comes around the corner of the bar.

I think most people can separate sex from love until they fall in love.

Just because men may (and sometimes may not) have more sex outside of a love relationship, doesn't mean they separate the two more easily. In fact, I've found that many men get extraordinarily wrapped up in the 'sex = love' dynamic when they are in love.

Besides, I don't think sex is about love for women so much as it is chemistry.

You will never find more psychobabble then in the area of sex.

Its amazing just how wrong most psychologists and psychiatrists have been wrong on the subject, and those wrong ideas do take hold in the public imagination.

Invading penises?

The concept sounds best if told in a fake German accent...

'Ze male is the aggressor, the invader, into ze female, who becomes subjugated by his penis, and surrenders to it.'

There are strong biological reasons why women are more 'picky' with mates than men, that is part of it, but the concept that women have a hard time separating sex from love is more wishful thinking and guilt. Either that or a lot of women have loved me after briefly meeting me, and while I know I'm a great guy, I don't think I'm quite THAT great (well maybe).

Women do tend to seem to feel more 'guilty' over enjoying sex and that is cultural, so by throwing in the love aspect, for a lot I think that makes them feel better about it.

See, there's another difference between men and women.

I've never heard ANY of my male friends say the word, "chemistry". You'll never hear a guy say, "Yeah, we have such great chemistry together, I just want to make love to her all night long". More likely, you'll hear a guy say any number of various things like, "Man, she's got a great ass and I love to nail her", or "That's fucking nice!, I'd love to nail her"

Women say "chemistry" all the time. I'm still not sure exactly what it means, but generally speaking, it means she wants to sleep with a guy.

Well, I think it simply comes down to the fact that men are pretty much guaranteed an orgasm, whereas women have to be reasonably sure that a man is going to meet her halfway...therefore that 'foreshadowing' of good chemistry (for example, 'the way he's looking at me makes me want to stick my hand down his trousers right here in the restaurant') is important.

...And also, I have heard men comment about chemistry (or lack thereof) in regards to sex many times...

I'm kinda funny that way. If I don't make my partner orgasm, I'm quite distressed. I need to know that a) she's turned on, and b) that my abilities are such that she can orgasm.

I actually find it very thrilling to make a woman cum. It's quite exciting actually. Some women really raise the roof to the point you think that the neighbours are going to call the cops. (Something I also enjoy - sex with the windows open. Just a bit of fun I suppose.)

I find it so 1960's if I hear a woman complain that her man just blows his load, rolls over and goes to sleep.

Well see, I kind of see that as the same thing as looking for chemistry. You want someone to disappear with for a while, not just stick your dick in a hole and cum, to put it delicately, lol.

Some men care about this with a one night stand, as you have shown, but I will guarantee you a lot of them don't. And this is probably why women have the reputation of holding out 'for love.' That was probably true 50 years ago, but these days I suspect they're holding out for someone whom they're pretty sure they're going to have a good time with.

I believe the phenomenon is real, but I don't think it has to do with the psychological implications of the, uh, physical interconnection. I think it's mostly pop cultural indoctrination, primarily from movies, TV, music, and the constant bombardment of certain consistent advertising messages. I think it makes women more vulnerable to/responsive to emotional information. Meanwhile, men are taught to be more aggressive and "rational." They're less likely to require an emotional bond.

I mean, come on. We all know those guys who tell the girl he loves her just so he can get in her pants. So I'm pretty sure that it's a genuine phenomenon. But I'm pretty sure that it's a cultural thing, not an inherent psychological thing.

In short, I vote for nurture over nature on this particular issue.

While I think culture has a large part to do with women afraid to admit they like sex just for sexs sake, I'd have to say that its not culture that teaches men to be more aggressive and rational.

Sometimes culture mimics nature, not the other way around.

While people who think nature has an influence on our behavior almost never say nurture has now part, its common for people to say nature has no part, which just doesn't make any sense when sex and sex roles are so important for a species survival.

I wasn't aware that there was a connection between sex and love.

There is supposed to be.

You didn't just say that.

Where there is (romantic) love there is sex with love.

Where there is not, there is not.

Seems kind of silly to insist it is one or the other.

Yeah...in addition to those female-dominated professions, honest casual sex takes two. To answer the OP, I find this to be a slightly disguised hurtful social myth (the correlary being since normal, or 'good' girls can't or shouldn't seperate sex and love, the ones who can are 'bad' or 'sluts') that I really don't see any evidence for in reality.

But then you need to ask yourself where the cultural influence over our psychology comes from.

Personally, I believe that as with many things, our culture emphasises and stretches things, but it\'s not a cause, it\'s a catalyst. There\'s an underlying psychology to this issue which far predates any culture. Whether you include TV, books, radio, cinema, advertising - when compared with the time it takes to evolve any significant changes to our bodies or psyches, no cultural influences last for long enough to have any significant impact on our evolution.

women will lie to society to make u think this, because thye wantto avoid u. u must udnerstand where u stand. u are a piece of shit to them. they WANT AND HAVE casual sex and in reality have no problem with it, just NOT WITH YOU. you are inferior and not worthy of them. only famous people like rockstars deserve it, and to a lesser extent naturally cool and outgoing socialy skiled men most of whom were nto bulied in hihg school and usualy did some bullying. realise the majoirty of women in this life get what they want, with a minority of men, and lead much more sexually privileged lives than men, except for the 'real men' that they reward.

I agree with this. Most of the sexually-active females I know (including myself) are fully capable of enjoying sex without love. Some girls will make a big deal about "making love" and "the greatest form of intimacy" when they've fallen for the guy.. but these are the same girls who will enjoy a raw, rough fuck from the same man when they're just in the "he's attractive in many ways" stage.

But, as you previously mentioned, chemistry does need to be there (for me, anyway). I won't have sex with someone who doesn't turn me on, and I certainly won't have sex with someone who isn't fun to make out with or goof off with. Seriously, if you don't have a sense of humor and can't make me smile, you're not getting in! Sex should be fun AND can be funny.. attaching an extremely high level of seriousness to it can sometimes ruin the experience, especially if the two people who are naked together are not in love and are using protection.

Witness vaginas,
feeling wild and free;
loving it.

See the wet penis,
imagining otherwise,
and then remember.

What we want
isn't often comprising
what we get.

You got something to say to me!? JESUS, WHY CAN'T YOU JUST PM ME!?

Because I'm public.
If you want to talk some more,
Private message me.

or, sometimes, maybe it's because a guy has serious hostility issues due to an intractable sense of self-loathing and can only communicate one level above grunting and pointing. what say u?

I don't know about other ladies, but personally I find that to be a real turn-off

So there I was, trotting across the plains, thinking about my penis. I could smell it in the distance, and I wanted it so much I could taste it. Soon she appeared, and we thrashed about like the animals I had seen UKking earlier.

I don't know where she is, or what she's doing, but she had my son, I hear, and loves him.

:eek:

If you take a look at a questionnaire (almost any about the subject of "what matters most in life"), you'll see some answers by women to the effect of "he who dies with the most toys wins," and then the men will have said, "he who dies with the most women wins." More often than women, men are the ones who spend a portion of their life struggling to become appealing to the opposite sex. On the other hand, women get attention, solicited or unsolicited, from an early age onward. That's why there is such a difference in the pursuit.

most men, including me, don't even think about falling in love until after sex has been had. we're so curious about what the sex will be like and so horny to get it on, that it can get in the way of getting to know a girl enough to fall in love with her. we can be very attracted and build on chemistry, but we don't let our minds go down that path till we're blissfully staring at the ceiling.

also, i think it has to do with how men and women get turned on. men are more visually stimulated (hence porn being so popular with them) while women historically get turned on by other aesthetics (smells, thoughts, sounds). the latter is naturally more involving and more stimulated by actually being "in love", while the former lends itself to point A to point B mentality.

Here is a snippet of what I found so interesting in relation to this OP:

Link

Biology is fascinating!!!

Yes it is!

I don't think that the shape of genitals has anything to do with it much. This seems like Freudian thinking. A somewhat odd hypothesis.

What matters more IMHO is the different investment that males/females must make in child raising. The "cost of sex" to a woman is higher. That is to say that after sex, a woman may get pregnant. If she is pregnant, she can't have children with any other partner until the first one is born. During some of that time it'll be harder to hunt and/or gather food. When the child is born, she will feed it. Additionally - childbirth itself is risky (or was, prior to modern medicine).

And of course... some guys are violent eh. Women are generally smaller and hence are vulnerable in another way.

So I would expect, that evolution will have influenced our psychology, ie that the average woman will choose more carefully than the average man.

hormones