RE: Sex vs Love (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

GoddessImaginos -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:13:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drifa

In prior generations, I think at least some women often had love and sex completely dissociated. Hence my great grandmother informing me that sex was the price women paid for the privilege of having children. Her close emotional relationships were with her female friends and relatives, and were non-sexual. Sex was that dirty thing you did in the dark with your husband that was an inconvenient ten minutes and a mess that you cleaned up after and loathed. And there's a lot of literature that suggests that this was a fairly normal pattern for women of her era.



How sad this is, and how apparently true. I can only hope that women like My own great-grandmother, who had nine children in thirteen years, was in fact enjoying something..



breatheasone -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:19:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessImaginos

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drifa

In prior generations, I think at least some women often had love and sex completely dissociated. Hence my great grandmother informing me that sex was the price women paid for the privilege of having children. Her close emotional relationships were with her female friends and relatives, and were non-sexual. Sex was that dirty thing you did in the dark with your husband that was an inconvenient ten minutes and a mess that you cleaned up after and loathed. And there's a lot of literature that suggests that this was a fairly normal pattern for women of her era.



How sad this is, and how apparently true. I can only hope that women like My own great-grandmother, who had nine children in thirteen years, was in fact enjoying something..

Yeah its true alright. my grandma(a fuckin SAINT!) born in 1919 didn't like sex, and grandpa would "insist."   my mom would here grandma cry, and gag, and stuff...She(my mom) grew up hearing that.[:(]



Sfortzando -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:22:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drifa

In prior generations, I think at least some women often had love and sex completely dissociated. Hence my great grandmother informing me that sex was the price women paid for the privilege of having children. Her close emotional relationships were with her female friends and relatives, and were non-sexual. Sex was that dirty thing you did in the dark with your husband that was an inconvenient ten minutes and a mess that you cleaned up after and loathed. And there's a lot of literature that suggests that this was a fairly normal pattern for women of her era.



I remember talking with my great grandmother when she was still alive and lucid about the romance novels she always read. I remember being sixteen, and she turned to me one evening and said, 'Well, I do get so swept up in the romance of it all, but what are these orgasms these women keep talking about?'. I just about cried - the woman was 93 years old and had never had an orgasm.

EDIT: I accidentally put my own reply in quotes. *facepalm*



Mercnbeth -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:25:04 PM)

~ Fast Perspective ~


Interesting...

Sex requiring love and/or emotional attachment; while WIITWD can be casual and cavalier? A flogger is a flogger, and it doesn't matter who's holding it as long as that need gets satiated? The only problem with doing that is you never know. You may not be having 'sex'; but your partner may be because for him/her the emotional/mental intercourse of S&M, D/s, or any 'scene' is their version of 'sex'.

It appears that many have a sub-program running from their religion, the 'sex-talk' they got from their guardians, or your 'best friend' on the streets; "sex is to be shared with someone 'special'!" Requiring an emotional attachment serves that requirement. Few if any 'sex-talk' sources get into WIITWD so in order to participate in that - nobody 'special' is needed, only a facilitator.

At least there is a reason on the sex side of the equation. Pragmatically, it exists for procreation. Nature makes it fun to get you do do it again, and again, and again. (Or not as in the cases disclosed about ex-spouses.) SM serves no other purpose but fun. Maybe those that disconnect with emotionless S&M can relate on those terms to those capable of emotionless sex.

Personally WIITWD IS sex; interspersed with periodic climaxes and recovery. Without emotions, I wouldn't, and don't do it. As has been said - I find those times I tried to do it without emotional involvement was like beating a blow-up doll.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:32:17 PM)

FR to OP

Do the Evolution, Baby.

Males would only stay to help support a mother and baby if the mother was monogamous, and for the mother to be content being monogamous she needed the endorphins of love.



littlewonder -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:34:46 PM)

When I was younger it was extremely easy for me to separate the two.

These days I want both love and sex or neither at all.



theRose4U -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:35:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I have often found that men think that just because a woman sleeps with them and then tells them they would like to again, that the man thinks that means the woman is falling in love... instead of just taking the compliment that they are just a good fuck.

the.dark.

[sm=line.gif]  Yeah what she said!



breatheasone -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:38:16 PM)

i don't recall anyone saying sex "required" love or emotional attachment, but rather that it was desired/preferred. And i'm pretty sure that for the sake of this discussion sex IS actually sex, i could be wrong but that was the impression i got. Seriously its TOTALLY  cool that you don't think love or emotional attachment are required, i don't think anyone is saying there is one true way....



subonmission -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:50:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterIronwood

I know that don't but I don't understand why most women can't/won't separate love and sex. They are two different things and I have found only the exceptional few women able to separate the two.

I would be interested in any feedback on this subject, particularly interested in any feedback from the women (Domme, sub or slave).



prostitutes would be willing to fuck you and not love you.... problem solved :)



Mercnbeth -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:56:09 PM)

quote:

...If there is no emotional attachment or love, why not?  What difference would it make which gender you fuck?...


well, this slave isn't wired in such a way that she finds females or their sexual organs attractive or interesting, so that would be the reasons why, in the past, it made a difference which gender she fucked, regardless of emotional attachment or love.



theRose4U -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:57:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subonmission

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterIronwood

I know that don't but I don't understand why most women can't/won't separate love and sex. They are two different things and I have found only the exceptional few women able to separate the two.

I would be interested in any feedback on this subject, particularly interested in any feedback from the women (Domme, sub or slave).



prostitutes would be willing to fuck you and not love you.... problem solved :)


Yes but through that generalization BECAUSE I want a man for sex and then want him to go home I'm now apparently a prostitute. I don't have the time for love and/or dating with everything else on my plate. It's not that I'm insensitive or uncaring towards a lover, I'm just clear what he's here for!



Aynne88 -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:57:15 PM)



yes but Merc, not all of us play casually , which I am sure you know.  I wouldn't let anyone wield a flogger on me either, unless I were in a relationship. I am one of those people, if you want to hurt me, you better love me. If you try it otherwise, well...it ain't gonna end well. [;)]. For one of us anyway.

Religion? I have none of that, thanks. Procreation? Managed to avoid it, thankfully. Had my share of one night stands, looking back, it's like McDonald's. I haven't eaten that crap in a decade either. Love me if you want to fuck me, period. Oh, and I need to love you back, just to be clear.



Aynne88 -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 5:58:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

...If there is no emotional attachment or love, why not?  What difference would it make which gender you fuck?...


well, this slave isn't wired in such a way that she finds females or their sexual organs attractive or interesting, so that would be the reasons why, in the past, it made a difference which gender she fucked, regardless of emotional attachment or love.


Agrees.[:D]. heteroflexible on occasion, but I loves men. Good point Beth.



Missokyst -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 6:14:25 PM)

I can separate it.  I choose not to do so.  Sex has always been great for me, but dislike the emptiness I feel when fucking someone I am not willing to be emotionally attached to, note that I said "willing to be".  It does not mean I have to love them to have sex with them.  It does mean that they have to be someone I might want to have in my life for more than a casual fuck.

Why bother fucking for the sake of fucking if a vibrator is handy?  I mean.. if a guy can treat us like a hole for use, can't he just as easily jack off?  Same deal.  If I don't mean squat to them other than a hole, I see no reason for me bother with someone I can only view as a dick.



StolenBiFaeries -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 6:26:12 PM)

Ok, I have never once had the issue of confusing sex & love, ever; & yes I was born & always have been female. Now, just because I do not confuse the two, does NOT mean that I am not extremely selective in who I take to my bed. You can have sex without love & still not be promiscuous, slutty, etc, etc. Sex can be great even without love. Yes, having an emotional attachment to someone enhances the experience, but that doesn't mean that sex without love is a bad thing at all. I suffer no regrets from my decisions about sex whatsoever, nor do I feel any lack of fulfillment in my experiences, which is possibly due to my pickiness regarding sexual partners.

So to ask a question that assumes that all women who can separate sex & love will be sluts, isn't really logical. Honestly, I feel the original question is just following sexist stereotypes. I know plenty of women who do not confuse sex & love, and not one of them would be considered slutty or promiscuous.

I do agree with Darcy though, many men do assume that a woman is falling in love with them just because they compliment them after sex. Why can't men just take a compliment without assuming other intent? Now that would be a great topic. LOL.

Also, just because a woman turns you down for casual sex does not mean that shes a prude or that she has to be in love in order to have sex, it just means that she doesn't want casual sex with YOU.



lucylucy -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 7:16:33 PM)

There’s a big difference for me between sex and love. Regarding sex without love, I absolutely agree with the.dark’s comment:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I have often found that men think that just because a woman sleeps with them and then tells them they would like to again, that the man thinks that means the woman is falling in love... instead of just taking the compliment that they are just a good fuck.


I’ve been told I “fuck like a man,” meaning that I can have and enjoy sex without an emotional attachment. (Interestingly, the two men who told me that meant it negatively.)

BUT—and it’s a big but—sex with love is so much more than sex without love and there are things I would absolutely not do in bed with someone I wasn’t in love with or at least in a committed relationship with. For me, sex without love is all about the release, the physical sensations, and the sensory experience. Sex with love is about all that, plus intimacy and vulnerability. And sex with intimacy and vulnerability is just off-the-charts hot for me. My orgasms are stronger and longer and more plentiful. Why wouldn’t I want that?



theRose4U -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 7:26:54 PM)

quote:

Also, just because a woman turns you down for casual sex does not mean that shes a prude or that she has to be in love in order to have sex, it just means that she doesn't want casual sex with YOU.


I have been told that turning down casual sex (mostly because the penis in question was attached to an asshole) actually means I'm a clost lesbian. Think that one ranks up there with being generalized as a prostitute tonight.



AquaticSub -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 7:45:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisSweetElysium

I am capable of it, going so far to have fuck buddies when I am single.  People who are admittedly hot,  with nice *ahem* assets, but who I'd be mortified to show up with in public as my significant other b/c they're dumb as a box of rocks, or bore me to tears unless there's nakedness involved. 



I wouldn't screw anyone I am embarrassed to say I screwed. However, this doesn't mean I have to be in love with them. There is a middle ground.



AquaticSub -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 7:49:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

...If there is no emotional attachment or love, why not?  What difference would it make which gender you fuck?...


well, this slave isn't wired in such a way that she finds females or their sexual organs attractive or interesting, so that would be the reasons why, in the past, it made a difference which gender she fucked, regardless of emotional attachment or love.


[sm=agree.gif]

While I do find women very attractive, a fuck without emotion doesn't mean I'll take just any ol' body. In fact, I'm more choosey when I'm picking someone just to fuck for fucking's sake. When I'm getting an emotional connection, I find that I can ignore things that turn me off more easily but when I'm just there for the sex... It better be exactly what pushes my buttons or why bother!



LadyAngelika -> RE: Sex vs Love (12/10/2009 8:04:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterIronwood

I know that don't but I don't understand why most women can't/won't separate love and sex. They are two different things and I have found only the exceptional few women able to separate the two.

I would be interested in any feedback on this subject, particularly interested in any feedback from the women (Domme, sub or slave).



Oh I can seperate them, no problem.

Funny thing, I actually meet a lot of men who right off the bat say they can't, but very large number who think that they can, but then their emotions trick them. Then, there is the final group that, like me, can.

Now that being said, just because I can seperate sex from love, and I was able to have prolonged sexual affairs without honestly having my heart involved, it isn't really what I look for anymore. Though it fulfilled me on a purely visceral level, it was a fleeting feeling, often not worth it.

- LA



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875