Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Can Women Separate Love and Sex?

By Jennifer Armstrong, Sirens Magazine. Posted July 11, 2007.


Sex, like eating, is a biological drive, and you will lose your mind if you repress it for too long. But some women stave off the need much longer than others.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jennifer Armstrong

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Canvas my works in the SirensMag archives, and you will discover a theme: I enjoy the male form, and I have a healthy sex drive. I also live in New York City, which has a notorious-yet-accurate reputation for wringing the romance right out of life. (Normal-people life, not Nora Ephron-scripted life.) Happily, New York also has a lot of people in it, many of whom are attractive and sex-starved. Do the math, and there you have it: I exist in a world where sex is easy, love is hard, and either way, I still crave sex.

So yes, it's true: I have had sex minus the love, or the promise thereof. And here's the kicker: I am absolutely fine with that. Not "fine" like passive-aggressively not-really-fine. Not "fine" like totally-defensive-about-it fine. Just totally okay with the situation. Not over the moon, naturally, more like caught between the moon and New York City, as it were. I mean, who wouldn't prefer to be having mind-blowing sex regularly with their soulmate? (And if all I've done here is make some kind of sense of that lyric, I'm pretty satisfied.)

I'm a crazy hopeless lunatic romantic, I swear to you. I am, no exaggeration, always in some form of love -- coming out of it, going into it, somewhere in the middle of it. I will swear under interrogation that that's not true, of course; I will not tell you, for instance, whom I could currently claim to be in any stage of love with. But I am. Don't let me tell you otherwise. The point being that I loooove love. And despite reams of missteps in the name of romance, I'm willing to go at it again and again, quite like the trusty definition of insanity about trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

However, often I'm busy. Other times I'm exhausted. Most of the time there simply aren't any soulmates in the offing. (Which is to say that whomever I claim to love at the moment has a girlfriend or lives in another state or is busy touring the country to promote his smash album "FutureSex/LoveSounds.") So I find myself with a potential partner I like well enough, but do not and will not ever love. Maybe we had an instant connection over our love of books, or maybe he was just too freaking yummy to pass up. A real, live man is just better than a vibrator. I don't care what kind of technological advances are coming out of Toys in Babeland.

Many of my girlfriends gasp in wonder at my apparently superhuman ability to transcend the sex-love connection. "I just can't do it," one single one says. "I don't think I could handle that if I were still out there," the married one says. What I say is I don't see any choice. If we're going to do this putting-off-marriage thing we're now officially doing, according to last year's breathlessly reported census results, and we're going to focus on careers instead of kids, and we're going to wait until we find the Big Love before settling down, well, how is it that we're not going to act like nut jobs in the meantime? How are we going to quell that desperate look in our eyes when we meet a prospect? And how are we going to stop ourselves from being blinded by lush lips or a six pack? Girls, there's only one answer: We have to break the ironclad love-sex bond. It's simply the only way to survive all this without going mad.

Heck, one of my friends goes as far as saying she wishes she could have gotten around to a little recreational sex as an adult -- but life had other plans, and she spent all of her 20s in love with the man she's now about to marry. "I did have that kind of sex when I was too young to enjoy it," she says. She learned most of the ropes from her current beau -- who also happens to be The One. Which some of us might say is lucky -- but "I don't see it as luck," she says. "I love him, of course, but I feel like I missed out on an experience."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: sex, relationships, love

Jennifer Armstrong is the co-founder/editorial director of SirensMag.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sex cannot be equated with biological NEEDS
Posted by: meggars on Jul 11, 2007 1:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, my. The fallacies abound.

(1) Sex may be a biological drive, but so is aggression. It's NOT a biological need like eating, sleep, etc. Throughout human existence, people have chosen not to feed the "drive" for various reasons, and they were not all crazy or stupid.
(2) If you claim to have a healthy sex drive, the question arises, what constitutes an unhealthy one? You're already in trouble. "Healthy" and "normal" are moral distinctions here, not biological ones.
(3) The ability to divorce sex from love is not particularly special, or worthy of bragging about. The ability to pair sexual connection with emotional commitment and responsibility in a way that either endures or ends without betrayal is far more rare. And would be a lot more interesting to read about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» For NowhereMan Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: For veggiegrrrl Posted by: hms2004
» RE: For hms2004 Posted by: Whitecliff
» RE: For veggiegrrrl Posted by: wwittman
» just some quick comments... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: You let the cat out of the bag! Posted by: oregoncharles
» Agreed Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: I should clarify... Posted by: oregoncharles
What's with all the Cosmo articles?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 11, 2007 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is Alternet is turning into a women's magazine?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sour grapes anyone? Posted by: imcnotu
» No joke! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: No joke! Posted by: phatkhat
» No no, keep in mind... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» People-watching Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: No joke! Posted by: oregoncharles
Wha the hell is wrong with love?
Posted by: Markson on Jul 11, 2007 2:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Listen, as a man I need hardly anything beyond physical factors to get aroused, however, I believe there is not only a biological reason for women considering other factors simply than physical when considering mating but there is also considerable social benefit. I think the world would go mad if women just had sex with whomever, everyone acted like the male libido unhinged. There must be a counterbalance.

I am tired of love being some sort of four-letter word as if the only legitimate sexuality is that of a misogynistic, homophobic, sex-starved, terribly insecure 14 year-old boy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» xynyx...LOL! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Liberating Posted by: suprmark
» RE: You didn't read the article. Posted by: oregoncharles
Sex and Babies
Posted by: Abushite on Jul 11, 2007 4:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex is to have babies - That's it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sex and Babies Posted by: rotorooter
» RE: Sex and Babies Posted by: Gisele
» RE: Or wherever the hell it is! Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: Sex and Babies Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Sex and Babies Posted by: pdxlinuxchix
» RE: Sex and Babies Posted by: rancespergl
» RE: Sex and Babies Posted by: wwittman
brer
Posted by: brer on Jul 11, 2007 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's like eating and drinking: Listen to your body, and do it in moderation. You will know when you're satiated, and then you will stop. You won't go after anything that's blatantly bad for you. You will use your best judgment.

Haha! Yes, I'm laughing my head off right through my 300 lb body!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thank god, it's true!
Posted by: memphismary on Jul 11, 2007 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well what a relief to know I am not alone! I've always thought this way and have chosen to follow this path for several years now. Of course, there are the usual attacks or judgements by others, mostly men!
I found it quite freeing (and very satisfying!) to not be ruled by the search for 'true love'. Currently, I am with a committed partner and feel that he IS the right one, a soulmate, not the boyfriend-of-the-moment and I better-hang-onto-him-so-I-can-have-sex-thing. Thanks you for writing about this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The comments tell it all
Posted by: edraven on Jul 11, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some women are so repressed by religous tradition (brainwashing) that they say things like, "Sex is to have babies - That's it."

Your article was intresting and the comments, so far, prove that a lot of us (yes, even men) are screwed up.

Ed Graham

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

seems like
Posted by: karyse on Jul 11, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there are a lot of bruised feelings in the comment section. Interesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Honey, listen up . . .
Posted by: hagwind on Jul 11, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You lead a stressful life, I know, but still I'm real worried about you.

"How are we going to quell that desperate look in our eyes when we meet a [gin & tonic]? And how are we going to stop ourselves from being blinded by [wine] or a six pack?"

Sounds like things are getting a little -- how to put it? -- out of control for you, but hey, this is good: at least you've got an inkling that this isn't a good situation. You do know, don't you, that if you're blinded by booze, it's not the booze's fault?

"Girls, there's only one answer: We have to break the ironclad love-sex bond. It's simply the only way to survive all this without going mad."

Honey, this is how I know you're not entirely in your right mind. Since you're having a hard time coming up with alternatives, here are a few: Try a 12-step program. Get out of New York. Find a new circle of friends.

Good luck, honey. You know we'll be here for you when you get out of detox.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Honey, listen up . . . Posted by: theblahmunchkin
risks
Posted by: absolutelyfree on Jul 11, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While from a feminist and social perspective it would be awesome if everyone adopted your attitude, I have no reason to believe they will. Instead, men and women will judge you until a reach a point of self-questioning where you'll wonder if you ever meant what you wrote up above. And, even assuming you use safer sex practices, you may also end up with a permanent, painful, or cancer-causing sexually transmitted virus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: risks
Posted by: skybluesky on Jul 11, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to see a post like yours. Consensual, "casual" sex can be shared between two individuals without plans for a long-term emotional commitment. It doesn't necessarily mean that before, during, or after the sexual encounter there exists objectification or disregard of the partner's emotions or value as a whole person.

And it is silly to come on here and condemn casual sex and blame men and masculinity when many women have taken control of their bodies and rights to choose and enjoyed an encounter of this sort. I see it as being much healthier than so-called female empowerment by dressing more provocatively than ever. There is such a flaunting of sexuality in this society, and I respect a casual sexual encounter between two responsible adults rather than a naive flaunting of sexuality that leads to nothing but a false sense of self-esteem and no pleasure for a woman aside from male attention and esthetic approval.

As for sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, you can never be too careful, but performed with caution and respect, sex without a relationship doesn't have to leave people emotionally or physically damaged. If you can't handle it, don't do it, but it's unfair to negate the choices that some men and women make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: risks Posted by: Progressive Citizen
» RE: risks Posted by: Progressive Citizen
» Oops.... Posted by: Progressive Citizen
» phases Posted by: messedup
So freaking tired...
Posted by: adh on Jul 11, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of rich white women whining about stupid shit on Alternet when I come here to read about demoralizing atrocities and deceptions while drinking my goddamn coffee

That said, I feel obligated to give in my 2 cents: hollow, depressing promiscuity is just the flipside of hollow, depressing monogamy, our pathological culture has driven a wedge in human sexuality in the typically dualistic fashion of religious puritans the world over. For some women sexual "liberation" has given them a chance to break out of that worldview, but I suppose most end up confused as hell like the whatsherfaces from Sex and the City.

My main disagreement with some feminists on this subject is the assertion that there is no need for an analogous sexual liberation of men because of the bastardized Marxist idea that men constitute a class with shared interests that entail the persecution of women. I think this couldn't be more wrong as in our current society I think anyone who says that male gender roles are less restrictive than female ones must be blind or something. The womens movement has given the chance for women to experiment with "male" gender roles, which as a result are gradually becoming, I don't know, "neuterized", but the same hasn't happened to nearly a satisfactory extent with socially unsanctioned roles (homosexuality, fully conscious nonmonogamy, etc.) or for men who are not interested in the traditional roles that society ascribes to them (And I'm talking more about a set of behavioral controls, aped behaviors and attitudes hammered into one in childhood and puberty than necessarily concrete things like child-rearing duties or whatever).

I guess all of this is slowly changing, cultural institutions don't collapse overnight, but its still frustrating to see so much confusion and misery in ones society just because of some sick ideas propagated for centuries at the expense of an entire civilization.

Wow I'm so far from where I started, if you read this comment from the beginning you can probably trace the whole goddamn process of me waking up, good morning everyone! :P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» HAHA!...no Posted by: ateo
» RE: HAHA!...Why? Posted by: TennMom
» RE: HAHA!...no Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: So freaking tired... Posted by: hagwind
» RE: So freaking tired... Posted by: hagwind
» right Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: So freaking tired... Posted by: VisionQuest
ode to the clitoris
Posted by: VesicaPiscis on Jul 11, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You ever wonder about the wonders of the clitoris? There are more nerve endings in that tiny space than any other warm fleshy place on the planet. And for what? Female orgasm is not required for reproduction.

Perhaps in the evolution of our species, the clitoris played a key factor in selection.... a female would look more favorably upon a male that took care to honor the clitoris, that male would clearly make a better protector/provider and so win breeding status.

Studies abound on the penis, but the clitoris remains a mystery. Perhaps Freud would have done better to suggest that the penis is akin to a bloated clitoris.

Unfortunately, western culture is so screwed up by Augustine's infliction and the sexualization of "original sin" that it may never recover a wholesome natural sexuality. The greater the repression, the greater the deviant varieties of sexual behavior.

There's an interesting essay on the subject, Historical Roots of Sexual Oppression by a Professor Erwin J. Haeberle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ode to the clitoris Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: ode to the clitoris Posted by: MartianBachelor
» vestigal penis Posted by: theblahmunchkin
Dr. Joycelyn Elders has some good advice for you
Posted by: davelwhite on Jul 11, 2007 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is another one of those articles where Sexually Non-Repressed (and really horny) people get to treat the rest of us like cretins for not having enough sex, in exactly the same way the abstinence-till-marriage fundamentalists do for having too much at the wrong times, but since they're Non-Repressed we're not supposed to call them on it. Too bad, I'm not playing the game.

Sexual release is a physical need, but sex with partners is not-- if you prefer to get release by having sex with a bunch of random guys, I'm not going to stop you (I hope you use condoms and an additional form of birth control), but those of us who don't do that are not "mad," we have discovered Joycelyn Elders' magic formula for genuine self-reliance in the area of sexual release. Not to mention, not all of us need it as much as you seem to. (Even men, pressured by the culture to see ourselves as hypersexual beings, have a wide range of libidos-- someday, "all guys are horny" will be placed on the shelf of stupid gender stereotypes next to "women aren't smart enough to be doctors" and "now that we have a woman speaker of the house she will end the war.")

Consider your statement "I have a healthy sex drive." Compare and contrast with: "I have a healthy sexual orientation." Liberals, anyway, _know_ that the latter statement is biased-- not everyone has to have the same orientation as you. Why does everyone have to have the same level of sexual interest?

As for separating sex and love, I do think that is a good idea but if you do it, you'll find that not only can you imagine having fun casual sex (which you may or may not choose to actually do-- I choose not to), but you can also take more seriously the emotional bonds that don't involve sex at all. The time you seem to spend hunting up random dudes to sleep with, I seem to be spending living with my close friends, going on vacation with them, driving along the seacoast, whatever. I enjoy this, and although it's like pulling teeth to get a certified M.D. to say that friendship is a "biological need," I still recommend it. (Maybe you do these things too, but all you mention doing with your best girlfriends in the article is criticizing them for not having enough sex-- not very much fun for them to sit through, I imagine. Perhaps you would have more love in your life-- admittedly of the (gasp) nonsexual variety-- if you were less critical of them, as well as of your readers.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sex games and the people that play them
Posted by: solrev on Jul 11, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reproduction is a biological drive. Sex is a head game that every body plays, as this author clearly displays. The funny thing in my life the sex game seemed to be controlled by the female. In my generation the game started out in the fifties as, tell me you love me and I will pull down my pants. Then the sexual revolution happened in the sixties. The game became, I am cool I had sex with you and I do not even know you. After 14 months in Nam and a lot of five-dollar girls, in 1969 I created my own game. I learned that I really like the naked female body. I did not care what head game the females were into as long as they played by my rule. One hour off and a half an hour on and I do not kiss any hairy things. I was amazed in the early seventies how many girls would call me up just so I could talk them into shaving. So I guess they liked my rule. The moral of the story is the drive is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for spittin' it real Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» i get you... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
How many millions of people stay in lousy relationships because of good sex?!?!?
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jul 11, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many millions of people stay in lousy relationships because of good sex?!?!?

How many millions of people stay in good relationships even though the sex is lousy?!?!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: Sex and Babies
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 11, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jennifer Armstrong asks, "Can Women Separate Love and Sex?" The answer is YES! My friend Chris Hull in Portland, points out that women have just as much of a prurient interest in sex as men, but that we live in a society in which they are not as able to express it as freely as men do. (Though this is starting to change...my friend Leigh Stern in San Diego frequents a male strip club called Girls Night Out.)

As for the comment by Abushite, "Sex is to have babies--That's it." You must be joking, right? I'm sick of religious hypocrisy.

The apostle Paul taught his followers to bless their persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), to care for their enemies by providing them with food and drink (12:20), and to pay their taxes and obey all earthly governments (13:1-7). He mentioned giving all his belongings to feed the hungry (I Corinthians 13:3), and taught giving to the person in need (Ephesians 4:23). He told his followers it was wrong to take their conflicts before non-Christian courts rather than before the saints. (I Corinthians 6:1)

Paul taught that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," i.e., it is best to be celibate, but because of prevailing immoralities, marriage is acceptable. Divorce, however, is not permissible, except in the case of an unbeliever demanding separation. (I Corinthians 7) Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality. "This is God's will--your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity and honor, not in lustful passion like the gentiles who have no knowledge of God." (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)

Paul told his followers not to associate with sexually immoral people (I Corinthians 5:9-12, 6:15,18). He condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27) and incest (I Corinthians 5:1). He taught that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Paul condemned wickedness, immorality, depravity, greed, envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, pride (Romans 1:29-30), drunkenness, carousing, debauchery, jealousy (Romans 13:13), sensuality, magic arts, animosities, bad temper, selfishness, dissensions, envy (Galatians 5:19-21; greediness (Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5), foul speech, anger, clamor, abusive language, malice (Ephesians 4:29-32), dishonesty (Colossians 3:13), materialism (I Timothy 6:6-11), conceit, avarice, boasting and treachery. (II Timothy 3:2-4)

Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12). He instructed them to ALWAYS pray constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:17)

Paul praised love, joy, peace, kindness, generosity, fidelity and gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23). He told his followers to conduct themselves with humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2), to speak to one another in psalms and hymns; to sing heartily and make music to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)

Paul wrote further that women should cover their heads while worshipping, and that long hair on males is dishonorable. (I Corinthians 11:5-14) Christian women are to dress modestly and prudently, and are not to be adorned with braided hair, gold or pearls or expensive clothes. (I Timothy 2:9)

My problem really isn't with Christians not being able to follow Jesus or Paul, but with the hypocrisy of reverently saying "I believe," and then ignoring what their religion dictates when it suits them. Why not just be secular, like everyone else? (It would certainly make things easier for those of us in the animal rights movement.)

We really live in a secular society; one in which people just pay lip service to religious ideals. Ms. Armstrong's article is on target.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: e: Sex and Babies Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Sex and Babies Posted by: EJ
» RE: e: Sex and Babies Posted by: EJ
What did I just read?
Posted by: tjg1984 on Jul 11, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the most pointless articles I've seen on AlterNet. Who cares about the ramblings of some promiscuous woman?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sour Grapes Posted by: Libertine
» RE: Sour Grapes Posted by: tjg1984
Biological side of Love
Posted by: freedomintruth on Jul 11, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oxytocin is a hormone released during childbirth and orgasms by both male and females. It is widely believed to be responsible for emotional bonding in forming monogamus relationships. Perhaps our author and many other people who separate sex and love have a dimished ability to secrete or process this chemical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Biological side of Love Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: Biological side of Love Posted by: imcnotu
» Oxytocin Theory is JUNK SCIENCE Posted by: Libertine
» RE: Biological side of Love Posted by: mr. joshua
So, huh, what's your point?
Posted by: tux_racer on Jul 11, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you using us to validate yourself?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Making LOVE
Posted by: DefeatBush on Jul 11, 2007 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I personally never have separated sex from love. Whenever I have/had sex, I make LOVE. But "love" does not HAVE to be always conceived of as an pure, eternal, soul-mating, romantic love. It an be simply opening up and showering LOVE on one person for a very short time. Even a "one night stand" can be a night of LOVE, and not simply physical sex, fantasy sex etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I totally agree Posted by: adh
Has anyone at Sirens ever read "Fear of Flying"?
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Jul 11, 2007 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems the author and everyone who writes for Sirens is under the impression that sex was invented in about 1980.

Whatever happened to Erica Jong, anyway?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What phatkhat said Posted by: hagwind
No Repression
Posted by: lynned2002 on Jul 11, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I am not totally comfortable with casual sex, in fact I don't really enjoy it, I do think it is unhealthy to repress your sexual drive. Look what happens to all those priests in the Catholic church. So many of them turn into pedophiles. Unnatural repression has consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Masturbation is not an adequtae substitute for intercourse
Posted by: rancespergl on Jul 11, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a fallacy. Masturbation is good for releasing some annoying pressure but sex with another person stirs up all sorts of chemical interactions that put it in a whole 'nother place.

I have to think this is obvious to all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of Course They Can!
Posted by: jaby on Jul 11, 2007 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dee-dee-dee...people are one of only a handful of species (among certain other primates and dolphins) that have sex for recreational purposes. Of course a woman can separate love and sex. So can men. And sometimes they can't. Depends on the person, their body chemistry, their brain chemistry, theuir morals and, many times, who they happen to be with. We endure loveless marriages, we stay with people out of loyalty and/or "for the kids" even when the relationship is far past it's expiration date. We have sex with random people sometimes. Sometimes it is just a friends with benefits situation (are the kids seriously still using that term?). Of course it is possible. The mistake here is confusing whether or not it is possible with a defense of promiscuity. I was never promiscuous because, well, because I just wasn't. I liked having boyfriends. I'll admit it. And the vast majority of my past boyfriends liked having girlfriends. And, I'll say this too, I like being married. People say it sucks, but that are wrong, with the right person, being married is awesome, at least for me. I know that the author claims that that is what she strives for, being coupled, but still...just thought I would share.

However, there are lots of people in the world who don't like the idea of being part of a couple or can't find someone they want to be in a couple with and they feel they shouldn't have to give up sex. Good for them. Use a rubber. Go boldly forward.

Know this, however; when you write articles like this one or spend hours agonizing over your "Number" you are making far too big a deal over nothing. I mean, this article is as tired as Sex and the City (a show that I used to enjoy but now find incredibly trite, not because of any change in my single/coupled status, but because it is old news). Go be. That's all you have to worry about. And keeping a supply of condoms and spermicide in your purse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]