JohnnyBlaze Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 Mangomonkey, it's not that sex doesn't matter in love; far from it. Sex is there right from the start. Chances are, when a couple first met, there was some sexual attraction that got the ball rolling. Most people are unlikely to approach someone (with intent to start a romantic relationship) that they are not physically (i.e. sexually) attracted to. However, sex and love are like engines and cars. An engine is a key component in a car, but in itself, is not a car. Likewise, sex is part of a loving relationship, but love is made up of more than just sex. Also, as couples age, sex itself becomes less of a "necessity". Take any couple that is past the honeymoon stage. They're not banging each other like screen doors in a hurricane nearly as frequently as they used to. For a newer couple, frequent sex is probably more important. To a more established, "older" couple, the focus is probably more on physical intimacy than full-blown sex. So the time that a person has been in a relationship will most likely affect how they answer your question. My personal answer? If there was no sex at all, I'd be a memory. However, if the amount of sex had simply diminished over time, but physical intimacy still remained, yes, I'd stay.
AverageJoe Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 Johnny I have to say I admire your post. Its very dreamy. However, I speak from being practical. Also, as couples age, sex itself becomes less of a "necessity". It becomes less for females, you yourself recognized that in your own post. You would be a memory, as would I.
zengirl Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 Well i know i may be going backwards in this but just humor me. Sex doesnt matter for love right? Well let me ask this For guys. If your GF you loved just decided to stop having any kind of sex but only wanted an emotional bond for years and years for no reason but just to bond. Would you stay with her? AND be faithful? For women. Would you marry a guy with no penis? Nobody has really asserted sex doesn't matter for (romantic) love. They've said they aren't the same and that sex is far from the only, or even most telling, ingredient. It is like saying you don't need milk for a latte. I don't think sex is the most important part of romantic love, just as milk isn't the most important part of a latte to me is (the espresso is). But, of course, you need it for it to be what it is. Without the milk, a latte is another drink entirely. Just like there are different kinds of love. For romantic love, sex and sexual attraction must be present. Unlike the amount of milk in a good latte, sex can change or diminish with time once you've built a relationship together.
JohnnyBlaze Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 Johnny I have to say I admire your post. Its very dreamy. However, I speak from being practical. . And there's the catch. Love is not practical. Love is probably the most impractical thing a person can go through. It offers very few tangible benefits, with a consistently high cost. I'm not talking about marriage; many marriages in the past were for practical reasons (farmland, halting a war, etc), but were loveless. I'm talking about full-on love. Love is about giving, which makes it utterly pointless in terms of practicality. In that same vein, why do we read books when we can just watch the movie? The movie offers more input (visual as well as audio), requires much less interpretation and wastes much less time. Why do we still read books? Because they make us happy. And that's all love is; a kind of happiness.
zengirl Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 And there's the catch. Love is not practical. Love is probably the most impractical thing a person can go through. It offers very few tangible benefits, with a consistently high cost. I'm not talking about marriage; many marriages in the past were for practical reasons (farmland, halting a war, etc), but were loveless. I'm talking about full-on love. Love is about giving, which makes it utterly pointless in terms of practicality. In that same vein, why do we read books when we can just watch the movie? The movie offers more input (visual as well as audio), requires much less interpretation and wastes much less time. Why do we still read books? Because they make us happy. And that's all love is; a kind of happiness. But isn't being happy the most practical thing one can do with their life?
zengirl Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 define happy. In objective terms? You can't. Happiness is a state of mind. I don't believe "love" or relationships are a surefire path to happiness (but if it's not making you more happy than it is the opposite, like any activity that requires energy and effort, it's fairly pointless), though basic human relationships of some kind are fundamental to most people's happiness, as we are fundamentally social creatures by nature. But I don't understand why so many people find love infeasible, impractical, or unfathomable. Not all love is romantic love, and I agree, so far as love goes, romantic love is the most complex, most difficult to build, and most often wasted. But even romantic love, when build upon solid ground with a proper partner by someone who is fundamentally compatible with the idea of romantic love, is completely practical. The issue is that it isn't practical for everyone, and everyone hasn't found someone fundamentally compatible, nor the solid ground to build it on. Its practicality depends entirely on circumstance, and then it comes down to: Who do you believe determines your circumstances? Which is a question everyone will answer differently. Though: If someone doesn't value the notion of romantic love, they should definitely own that. And not try to fit into it. Life is not "One Size Fits All" and neither is happiness.
carhill Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 define happy. Generally, the time I spend away from LS
edgeofdarkness Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 In objective terms? You can't. Happiness is a state of mind..... Life is not "One Size Fits All" and neither is happiness. a simple i dont know would suffice. if you cant define it, then why cite it as being the most practical thing one can do with their life, i would think breathing comes top of the list, im not being funny, all i'm saying is that actually being happy is not the be all and end all, the most important thing is to live life as if each moment might be your last. that doesnt mean being selfish and riding roughshod over other people with a devilmaycare attitude. but the whole point of life is to see that it has its ups and downs and to be content that u can ride the waves and always keep your head above the water. happiness is a biproduct, living well is the thing.
NYCmitch25 Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 In objective terms? You can't. Happiness is a state of mind. I don't believe "love" or relationships are a surefire path to happiness (but if it's not making you more happy than it is the opposite, like any activity that requires energy and effort, it's fairly pointless), though basic human relationships of some kind are fundamental to most people's happiness, as we are fundamentally social creatures by nature. But I don't understand why so many people find love infeasible, impractical, or unfathomable. Not all love is romantic love, and I agree, so far as love goes, romantic love is the most complex, most difficult to build, and most often wasted. But even romantic love, when build upon solid ground with a proper partner by someone who is fundamentally compatible with the idea of romantic love, is completely practical. The issue is that it isn't practical for everyone, and everyone hasn't found someone fundamentally compatible, nor the solid ground to build it on. Its practicality depends entirely on circumstance, and then it comes down to: Who do you believe determines your circumstances? Which is a question everyone will answer differently. Though: If someone doesn't value the notion of romantic love, they should definitely own that. And not try to fit into it. Life is not "One Size Fits All" and neither is happiness. Great post! PS> After reading some of your posts - your points to me are much more clear to me now. I sincerely apologize for the nastiness I exhibited in my previous response, you have very well thought out and concise responses/answers.
NYCmitch25 Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) a simple i dont know would suffice. if you cant define it, then why cite it as being the most practical thing one can do with their life, i would think breathing comes top of the list, im not being funny, all i'm saying is that actually being happy is not the be all and end all, the most important thing is to live life as if each moment might be your last. that doesnt mean being selfish and riding roughshod over other people with a devilmaycare attitude. but the whole point of life is to see that it has its ups and downs and to be content that u can ride the waves and always keep your head above the water. happiness is a biproduct, living well is the thing. eeeeeh, ZenGal is entirely right, she answered it very concisely because it's a state of mind, not measurable goals per se. Seemingly many of your examples in your comments, when destructed, contradict each other (or worse). For instance, why would treating others kindly always yield the best results for one personally? It doesn't, if you don't believe me ask Jesus about that one. Why would living every moment like it is to be our last, be good? It comes down to the age old argument that we all do things for some level of pleasure. Not to say we don't do things that bring us misery either, or that the aggregate of pleasure and pain fails to work out to our benefit, but a potential pay off is there nonetheless. At first, I thought you were drifting into that realm of "anything goes philosophy" which in itself is to expansive to be relevant. Like "what is normal" and "what is reality". Instead, it appears the more credible parts of your argument tended to back up ZenGal's assertions. Happyness is a biproduct, but people strive for it in some measure in whatever they do, no matter how small the rewards may be. So goes the age old assertion.. Edited August 24, 2010 by NYCmitch25
NYCmitch25 Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 If, I were in a relationship, which I have no desire for. Well. Let me put it like this. If I were really hungary and I went home, looked in the fridge and there were no food in there. What would you expect me to do? Im going out to get something to eat, and its possible I may find something when I go out, better than what might have been in the fridge. For you, this kind of lifestyle may work, but to assert that it's best fit for humanity as a whole would seem to contradict a lot of other things. For example, looking at the bigger picture, pairing off of couples stablizes a society. Sure you can say who cares about that, but on a more micro-level, we are inhereintly wired for love. In guy language, denying that desire would be much like suppressing one's own desire for sexual gratification. Perhaps it's all a set of trade off's, which seemingly seems to be favoring the "single couple without kids" love arbitrage.
Ichi-boned Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 Humans are pack animals. Forming social bonds with others is an evolved behavior.
NYCmitch25 Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 Humans are pack animals. Forming social bonds with others is an evolved behavior. Yeah but that still leaves a lot of wiggle room (i.e. to what degree?) .. hence the discussion..
espec10001 Posted August 24, 2010 Posted August 24, 2010 Oh we all come to know true love at some point in our lives. Sometimes true love occurs when we die, we bond and become one with the world. But I want to share some insight as to why romance, real romance is so difficult to come by in America. America is a nation "in the pursuit of happiness". Happiness is that warmful cheer, when all is right and you feel complete and satisfied. Like on a warm sunny day, with all your friends having the time of your life. America wants to keep this feeling going, all the time. So we make believe that all is right in the world; we can easily distract ourselves and switch off unpleasant feelings or thoughts by a push of a button or a popping of the pill. But I like to see Love as a plant. Plant take time to grow. Some plants grow taller than others, some plants bear life giving fruit, and others serve some useful purpose. But too much Sun for the Plant of Love, it quickly dries out and dies! It is overcome with passion and lust! That Love quickly sprouts then withers. America is missing the other half of the equation to grow the Plant of Love, and that is the Rain. Sorrow. Without water, the plants do not grow. Without hardship, pain, grief, we are unable to nurture the plant and allow it to grow into a tall tree. If we were in sorrowful times, truly sorrowful times, we would hold on to what we have with another much more tightly. In happy times, it is easy to discard people and things that bring us discomfort. All I'm saying is that for a Plant to grow, you need both Water and Sunshine.
Recommended Posts