Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    douglas,
    
    an interesting question. for me, it depends on my state of mind
    and current life stage. it depends on whether i'm involved with
    someone that i care deeply about. i've seen my attitude towards
    this issue change before, and it may change again some day.
    
    liz

	Sex without love ?   I don't think it is a great sin,
   but I don't see the point of it either.   Sex is not like
   food, in that you don't need it for survival.   I believe
   no one is harmed by going without sex, while people are
   sometimes harmed by having sex inappropriately.

	I avoid casual sex, since it may lead to entanglements
   that I would prefer to be free of if something *real* were
   to come along.   I know from experience that it is worth
   the wait.

	Sex without love > zero, but so what?   I could sell my
   fancy car for $100 any time I want that $100, and that would 
   be better than zero;  It would still be a stupid thing to do.
   The potential value of real intimacy is such that it is worth
   saving as special.   One should not squander one's experiences 
   cheaply.

	Alan.

    Sex without love? After all the romantic novels we read as teenagers,
    and all the messages we got from our parents, it's surprising any
    of us have tried it! I agreee with .3 and the issue of AIDS has
    changed a lot of people's behavior as well. 
    
    Seriously, the conditioning of our society has been that sex is the 
    ultimate intimacy between two people who love each other. I think 
    you'll find that many women will tell you that sex as an expression 
    of love is far more gratifying and rewarding.
    
    Somehow this is an issue where I've heard very definite male and
    female sides, and yet the men I've discussed it with agree that
    it's better with love, yet they still want it if there's no love
    in their life at the moment.
    
    This topic should definitely be answered by both men and women!
    
    Maryan
     

    It has definitely been my impression in life that more than 50%
    of all adult males view sex the way .0 does, and it has also been
    my impression that more than 50% of all adult females DO NOT view
    sex this way.  I think most women want their sex lives to involve
    love whereas I think most men think of sex as just another fun activity
    life has to offer.  I think these differing attitudes have caused
    many women to be hurt by men, and have also caused many bewildered
    men to discover that there are women who consider them to be
    insensitive assholes.  I think it's important for men and women
    to be aware of the fact that, in most cases, sex means more to women
    than it does to men.  I think most men should be aware that even
    if they do consider casual sex with somebody they may not give a
    damn about to be fun, most women just do not feel that way.
    
    I really wish men were not like this.  I wish the average man viewed
    sex the way the average woman does.  As one of best friends (a man)
    once said to me when I was recounting a woeful tale to him, "Always
    remember Lorna most men will screw anything that comes down the
    pike."  With a few exceptions (and maybe more now due to aides),
    I must regretfully say that I think it's true.
    
    The fact is that even though casual sex may be fun, what I am looking
    for in life is really love - not casual sex with somebody who doesn't
    care if I get run over by a truck the next day.
    
    I agree with Liz that I have gone through phases (influenced by
    booze or loneliness) where I have waivered on the issue of casual
    sex.  But, I think sex is best when you're in love, and still good
    if you're with a person whom you either really *like*, or whom you
    find to be incredibly attractive.  
    
    And, I'll tell anybody my deepest feelings in regard to my parents
    but that doesn't mean I'd want to have sex with them.  I definitely
    consider my body to be more intimate than my mind.  This may be
    largely due to brainwashing but it's the way it is.
    
    Lorna
    

    I say sex without love has a tendency to be unfulfilling.  The men
    whose opinions I have heard in the past seem to agree.  Again, another
    point of view I have heard but do not subscribe to states that sex
    without love is better than no sex at all.  I would say if one is
    to have sex without love, at least have it with a friend or someone
    you feel warm about...
    
    Sex, in my mind, is not worth compromising on...it's a serious decision
    to make (particularly for a woman...where no birth control method
    is 100% effective)...
    
    -Jody
    

    Sex and love, sex and honesty, sex and trust.  All important and
    very rewarding.
    
    I don't want one without the other and it's nice to have all three:
    love, honesty and trust.
    
    ...and commitment!  The icing on my double-rich chocolate cake.
    
    Cat

    I would propose that sex and love are identical in every way, and
    that any distinction between the two is for the convenience of the
    individual. What indeed is the basic difference when you take away
    the gloss?
    
    I've had numerous opportunities to experiment with my way of thinking
    and ultimately learn that even with the 4 a.m. beauty queens, there
    has been some level of respect, caring (dare I say love) created
    in the hours preceeding the sex act. 
    
    Slice it anyway you want, but don't try to tell me that sex and
    love aren't the same!

    re .8 Well I suspect you won't listen but sex and love aren't
    the same at all...it is entirely possible to have either of them
    without the other.

    re .8, I love my daughter very much but sincerely doubt that we'll
    ever have sex together.  I also love my cat, Raven, more than I
    do most of the human race but have no plans for Raven and I to have
    sex.  On the other hand, I have (oh no! don't be shocked!) had sex
    with more than one person that I didn't love or even especially
    like, and it didn't really amount to anything special either.  Physical
    contact and love are not the same thing.  To me love means you'd
    run into a burning house to save my life, not that at 3 am when
    drunk and bleary eyed you'd have sex with me!
    
    Lorna
    

    I've had sex without love and love without sex.  Both can be quite
    enjoyable.  Sex is a physical act, while love is an object of emotions,
    hence they are very different, and it is difficult to compare them
    abstractly.
    
    While sex without love may be greater than 0, I think that it is much
    less than love without sex (and much much less than love and sex
    combined).  A lot of this comes from how one views it after it is
    over with.  Sex without love is sort of like getting drunk; it's
    enjoyable while it lasts, but the after-effects are not necessarily
    pleasant.  Having love present before sex lowers the possibility
    that you question the wisdom of your ways afterwards.
    
    I suppose that a lot of this is nuture rather than nature.
    
    Rich

    Sex with someone you love is great.  Sex with a friend can be very
    nice.  Sex with someone you find very attractive/exciting can be
    terrific at the moment, but after the excitement blows over, you
    wonder why you did it.  I can't imagine having sex with someone
    I didn't consider either a close friend or was *extremely* attracted
    to.  Not that I would judge anyone that did...
    
    On the other hand, I have some friends that I love dearly, but can't
    really have serious thoughts about sex with.  It's just not that
    kind of love.  I can't quite explain this though.
    
    Elizabeth

RE: .5

"I think most men should be aware that even if they do consider casual sex with
somebody they may not give a damn about to be fun, most women just do not feel
that way."

The casual sex male probably thinks women should be aware that even if they
do not consider casual sex with somebody they may not give a damn about to
be fun, most casual sex males feel that way.  Who is right?  Why?
    
"I really wish men were not like this.  I wish the average man viewed sex the
way the average woman does." 

The casual sex male probably wishes that all women would be like him.  Who
is right?  Why?

RE: .11

Love without Sex rates pretty high on my list...  But it is below Sex & Love,
and well above Sex without Love.

Jim. 

    Actually, if men and women were upfront about their needs and
    expectations, people could make better choices about participating
    in casual sex or not.
    
    In my experience, however, most women want more than "quick fun sex".
    
    Many men whom my friends and I dated acted like they wanted more
    than casual sex--until they got it.
    

    Let me add my statement of confusion:
    
    Sex:  Can be done with someone to whom you're attracted (even
    just for the moment) or a good friend for the ultimate SELF 
    gratification (if the other person enjoys it, that's nice too).
    
    Making Love:  Giving the gift of yourself to another person for
    THEIR satisfaction.  It's guaranteed that you'll enjoy it too.
    
    jean

    RE .15:
    
    	I promised myself I would be in read-only mode for at least
    five days after posting .0 but your definitions weigh too heavily
    on my thoughts.
    
    	Please, why can't two people who are not in love with each other
    engage in sex which is not entirely for " ... ultimate SELF
    gratification ..."?  Can't two people give of each other without
    being in love?  Yes, people in love tend to give more of themselves
    to their loved ones but do they have to be in love in order to give
    some of theirselves?
    
    Douglas

    love (luv) n. [<OE. lufu] 1. a passionate affection for one of the
    opposite sex  -make love 1. to woo, embrace, etc. 2. to have sexual
    intercourse.
    
    sex (seks) n.[<L. sexus]1. the attraction between the sexes 2. sexual
    intercourse
    
    Websters makes little if any distinction between the two words in
    the literal sense. How can anyone that respects the opposite gender
    even dream of sex without love. A permissive society does not dictate
    the feelings of people. When someone is looking for an excuse to
    humiliate, degrade or trample another human being, they create their
    own because civilization doesn't give them the excuses they seek.
    GROW UP!

    Why can't sex between friends include "I like you.  I don't want
    to spend a majority of my free time for the rest of my life with
    you for whatever reason.  Still, I would like to please you sexually,
    and increase the bond of our friendship"?
    

    Reply to the last few...
      
    Sex can be given and taken to fullfill sexual needs. There is a place
    for casual sex between good friends to develop a bond leading to less
    than marriage. I find the argument that sex without love is nil
    is funny. Those that say so haven't even defined love and which
    type of love they are looking for.
    
    I agree completely with Elizabeth... 

    
    Have you really been in Love, I mean really? How do you know, how
    do you really know you're in love?
    
    The first time I have sex with my wife I wasn't in Love, I enjoyed
    her company, I liked her, and respected her, but love her, not then.
    
    I was just divorced and didn't really care if I ever had another
    relationship, I just needed the closeness, sharing, Love didn't
    come for months afterwards.
    
    I firmly believe in having sex without love, respect, caring yes
    but love? Who can say what it really is?
    
    Cal.
    

    re .0
    
    I get the distinct impression that the topic is a paraphrasing of
    something I said here recently.  So I guess I'll clarify my opinion
    a bit.
    
    I find that sex without emotional involvement (other than lust)
    is a big zero at best, distinctly icky in general, and decidedly
    horrible at worst ("please let it be over soon").
    
    "Emotional involvement" doesn't necessarily mean "love" or "true
    love".  It simply means I need to be nuts about that person while
    (immediately before, during, and immediately after) we are petting
    or having sex (or cuddling w/o sexual overtones).
    
    This has been true for me as long as I have been sexually active.
    
    When I am not currently nuts about the person, any touch is a
    subconscious reminder of how truly _separate_ we are, how inadequate
    all the forms of expression are (including tactile expression).  And
    then... well perhaps it's like being constipated: you work and work and
    only a very small amount of solid passes.  By the time you are willing
    to give up, you are more uncomfortable than you were before you started
    trying. 
    
    Haven't you ever _really_wanted_ to have sex but for some screwy
    (so to speak) subconscious reason your brain refuses to let your
    body have a good time?  
    
    Lee

    Reply to .23, Russ,
    
           (Campers, please excuse this ever-so-slight digression)
    
    Ok, I'll play D.A., B^)

            >   It sounds pretty traditional, and it is. I think The
            > Sexual Revolution went overboard in pleasure pursuits (70's)
            > at the expense of keeping/establishing the Lasting Values
            > (incl Marriage vs Relationship changes) that form the basis
            > (Foundations) for a Damn Good Relationship.
                                  
    You changed the subject here but I'll comment anyway...
    
    I wouldn't say that it went overboard. I'd say that it generated a
    different lifestyle from the traditional norms they and some of us were
    taught. Most of all it exploded the myth of "forever". No relationship
    lasts forever. Some last longer than others. Some people live well
    within the changing relationships scenario, generating and experiencing
    happiness and sadness in that framework. Others live well within the
    'one and only" scenario, generating and experiencing happiness and
    sadness within that framework. 
    
            > Everything's
            > right regarding shared guilt free pleasure. It is/was ever-
            > thing else that the 'Revolution' *produced*, that raises
            > serious questions regarding JUST WHAT the People involved
            > might REALLY Have been looking for.          
    
    What is "shared guilt free pleasure"? If your not going to follow
    the topic at least please define what your talking about or start
    a new topic.
    
            >   One get's the impression that a type of Comparison shopping
            > Mentality raised it's head many a time for many people.
            > I can see the importance of being/finding a compatible
            > partner with someone. Having 10 - 20 different partners
            > in the hope of finding the Millenium gets pretty FAR from
            > what was taught Mom & Pop. 
     
    This is contorted.  So-called comparison shopping happens in both
    frameworks.  Having 10 - 20 different partners is far from what
    mom and pop were taught but then again some of what they were taught
    has no application for us today. Times change, cultures change,
    people change. That cannot be stopped no matter what is taught at
    any time to any class of people. The wheel of life rolls onward...
    
    And for that matter one cannot excel at any activity, hobby or game if
    they don't practice. Do you expect anyone to play baseball well if they
    never go out onto the field? Waiting for Ms./Mr. Wonderful to absently
    mindedly come along serves no wo/man well. In exposing ourselves
    to a number of different personalities we become more aware of what
    lifes possibilities are.
    
    Now an inexperienced person can walk up to the plate hoping to hit the
    homer and win the prize. That forebodes ill. It is a recipe for
    disaster.
    
            >    It seems to me that the Pleasure principle dominated
            > over many other Values. And Foundations like getting engaged
            > & Married. A sence of Permanence rather slipped away. A
            > Shift towards the convenience of painless Disposability
            > at the first sign of trouble. Like adding a chemical to
            > a House's Foundation to prevent it from hardening.
      
    Don't blame the pleasure principal for the failure of marriages.
    There are many, many other contributing factors to be taken into
    consideration. This is a little too simplistic. If you need something
    to blame then blame lifes big and little pressures. You'll be a
    little closer to the cause of the problem than blaming failure on
    the pleasure principal.
    
            >   When signals don't go thru, it is during those vuln-
            > erable, very Human moments, that we find out our partner's
            > prejudices (patience, understanding, selflessness).
            > Along with our own.
            >
            >                                       Russ
    
    I associate with a larger than average number of ex-hippies (can a
    hippie ever be ex?). Some have turned into yuppies. Others into average
    everyday people. Most are not married, some are with semi-open
    relationships. All of them have more options than the more traditional
    minded person. On the average they are as happy or happier than
    the traditionally minded. With more options comes more possibilities
    to experience happiness.
    
    Now, if you don't mind, why don't you start a *new* topic on free sex
    or the sexual revolution since that's what your talking about? 
    
    Now back to the previously scheduled topic...

    re .22
    
    Lee, I agree with you in a kind of a way...
    
    Sex without love does not have to be equal to nothing but sex without
    any emotional involvement is nothing.  
    
    By this I mean that I don't have to be terribly in-love with a man in
    order for us to have sex. However I have to at least be infatuated at
    the time.  I consider lust is part of the emotional involvement. 

    Wow!
    Where to begin?
    I just see that many people have many definitions of love.  I live
    my life according to my rules.  What you define as love, what you
    determine to be casual, may or may not concur with my definitions.
    
    I have a good friend.  From the start of our friendship it was nothing
    but sex.  I was not about to be tied down to anyone and she still
    wanted to date alot of different men.  To this day she is still
    my friend and I hers, yet she and I have our own seperate dating
    game.  Whenever the urge for me gets to her, I am usually only a
    phone call away and vice versa.  We both enjoy each other sexually,
    but neither of us wants a relationship.  For the past year she has
    been seeing someone steady, yet when she wants a little different
    excitement, we get together.  And if he knows or not, is of no 
    importance to me, that's part of her life.
    
    I really enjoy this relationship, even if it is only sexual.  Life
    is too damn short to pass up opportunities to live.  Men will flame,
    women will flame, I really don't care.  It is what I WANT to do!!
    It makes me happy, because we have an honesty that I don't see in
    alot of other people's relationships.  Too bogged down with antiquated
    fantasies of LOVE, people forget to just enjoy each other.
    
    Like I said, maybe you will find this an appalling lifestyle, maybe
    not.  It works for me.
    
    

    re .26
    
    I'm not appalled in the least, if anything, I admire your honesty.
           
    re. basenote
    
    Sometimes, being "in lust" rather than "in love" can be a safer,
    kind and even loving place to be.  I feel the problems arise if
    and when one of the individuals doesn't truly understand what level
    of emotion the other is willing to give, or if one individual wants
    to take more than the other has to offer.
    
    I agree that for every individual there is a different definition
    of like, love and lust.  Not every relationship that we have is
    meant to be an "I'll love you forever" relationship.  I don't think
    that means a relationship that is less than "Love" is of no value,
    and a relationship of short term, hours even, can have a lasting value .
    Whether we realize it at the moment or not, the act of sex gives
    to, and takes something, from each person. Only the individual can
    determine what that something is.
      
    It has been my experience that for every lover I've had there is 
    some fondness, but I do not require love to enjoy the feeling of sex. 
    I've experienced sex with someone I just liked (but definitely lusted
    for) that was great, and I've also experienced sex with someone I 
    loved very, very much, that was darned near lousy.
                                                                    
    To me, there are two ingredients that are really required for true
    enjoyment of sex:  respect and honesty with both yourself and the
    other person.
    
    For everything there is a season..............
                             

    Elizabeth said much of what I would've said, but Lee said it
    even better. Most of the problem here is a question of semantics.
    How do you define "love"? I see a difference between "loving"
    someone and "being *in* love" with someone. I currently love
    many, many people of both sexes (plus various cats :-)), but
    I'm only *in love* with one person. I don't feel I have to be
    in love with a woman in order to have sex, but I feel that I
    should at least love her. Only one time did I ever have sex with
    a woman I didn't love, and while the physical gratification was
    nice, I just felt empty about the whole thing.
    
    This discussion brings to mind one of my favorite movie quotes,
    from LOVE AND DEATH:
    
    Diane Keaton: "Sex without love is a meaningless gesture."
    
    Woody Allen:  "Yeah, but meaningless gestures go, it's the best!"
    
    --- jerry

    
    
    From what I've seen over the years I believe;
    
    1- Most men will (as someone has stated already) screw anything
    that comes down the pike, if givin the opportunity.
    
    2- Most women have to be in love (or like very much) with the guy
    first. The exception to the rule for many women is when the guy
    is very attractive.
    

    Interesting reading...
    
    RE: 31 - my thoughts also
    
    

    Hi,
    
    born in 1940, I had my first sexual encounter at age 19.
    
    I made a rule, I have never gone to bed with anyone that I would
    not have married.  I have not Loved each and every one of these
    partners.  But, I think that sex just for sex's sake is a waste
    of time for both parties.
    
    I HAVE never had sex with a prostitute, even tho I have tried a
    few times.  I fail to function in the hurried rush of the act,
    I have to have some feelings toward my object of lust.  
    
    Love enhances sex as sex enhances love; however it is possible
    to have sex with a friend and enjoy it, but the BEST I have ever
    experienced is with my wife, I LOVE HER AND SHE LOVES ME, AND
    FIRST AND FOREMOST WE ARE FRIENDS.
    
    SEX-LOVE > 0, LOVE-SEX >> 0, LOVE+SEX+FRIENDSHIP IS INFINATE.
    
    Dave
    

    RE: .33
    
    > I made a rule. I have never gone to bed with anyone that I would
    > not have married.  I have not Loved each and every one of these
    > partners.
    
    Are you saying, then, that you would have married someone you didn't
    love?
    
      Alan

    re .34
    
    yes, I did my first time around.. it was a mistake, but I do not
    think that all would be so bad.. perhaps its just optimism!
    
    Dave