I consider myself a modern woman ... why should I only be allowed to have one lover and a husband?
"If you knew what you were doing you would probably be bored."
This is an interesting topic. It's difficult to separate the two for me. To have sex was the same as being in love with someone and loving that person. I know it is due to the way I was brought up. My husband has taught me that they can be separated and I have eperienced that separation. Sex for the physical pleaure of sex and sex for both pleasure and LOVE. It still is difficult and I am not totally there yet. It's a journey.
I might just be old fashioned here, but I think it's called making love for a reason and more than 2 people in a relationship is unnecessary.
I think the answer to that question is anatomical. A man gets his climax from sticking his member into something (whether it be a hand, a pussy, an ass, or a hole in a tree for that matter). He busts his nut and it's done. There is no vulnerability involved, and therefore emotions can easily be separated. For a woman, sex is an entirely different experience, as it requires something to be inserted into her body. This means that sex for a woman is by definition a surrender to vulnerability. Allowing yourself to be vulnerable requires emotions. So, for a woman, sex and love are intertwined for this reason.
Your question is one that has been asked for centuries. Since people are all different in what they are looking for you will get a variety of answers. No two people are identical in their wants and desires and I am sure there are many out there who will jump at having more than 2 people in a relationship. It all boils down to what kind of relationship you are after. As a general rule I think that women have a tougher issue with this then men do (and this is just my opinion here). We as women are or can be very emotional and without a connection, sex or making love doesn't work well. Some need emotional intimacy as well as physical to make it all work. There are some men I am sure who fit that description as well. Mine is not to judge, there are so many types of relationships out there and it all boils down to whatever works for those involved.
The issue is best explained by the mix of biology and culture. Sex is inherently riskier for women then men. Men enter women's bodies. Men can't get pregnant, and until recent decades paternity was difficult to establish at best. Safe, reliable contraception is less then a century old. And men can, in theory, impregnate a vast number of women while a woman can have only a limited number of offspring. While culture of mating and reproduction extends back many centuries.
Because women have much more at risk then men, they logically ask for a higher standard before becoming comfortable enough with someone to have sex. The premium placed on virginity in many cultures is intended to assure paternity, and thus the man's continuing support in the rearing of children. Human civilization grew up with those biases built in. Slut shaming, the 'groping' and even the burqua all grew up as ways to assure paternity rights. And the bias in those rights was reinforced by both men and women.
This also changes the sexual balance between men and women and how our politics broke down. Except for prostitutes, no man wanted to be with a loose woman. A woman who was willing to say yes, was relatively rare and that balance is reflected her on Lush. How many potential cyber partners does a woman enjoy in a chat room. How long does it take before a man hits on a woman? Minutes. But for men the situation is reversed.
In essence, sexual condition for women is Pavlovian, for men Skinnerian. In Pavlovian conditioning, every time the lever is pressed (or the bell rung) the reward is given. It's easier for most women to find sex, if that's all you're going for is sex, Animals trained under pavlovian conditions press the lever only when they're hungry. Because sex is easy, women naturally aspire to more.
For men the situation is often reversed. Except for a few rock stars/celebrities, sex isn't so easy. My presence in a chatroom is a matter of no interest until I stand out in some way. I could spend hours in a chat room and its iffy if a single woman would initiate conversation, sexual or otherwise. Men face a more Skinnerian situation, where you have to press the lever to get your reward, but you never ever know if a reward is coming, It is random and intermittant. Animals conditioned that way press the lever constantly because they can never have confidence a reward is coming.
Now that's sort of basic biology, but remember the biology of men and women has derived over centuries. For a man, finding a woman willing to have sex with him is difficult, so success is self-affirming in and ove itself. For a woman sex is easy, so they want more, they are more invested before they admit a man to their body. For women it is often the cementing of a pre-exiting bond. For men it's often that way too. We aren't unaffected by sex. But rather, we don't require the emotional commitment before saying yes.
TransitionalMan, that's essentially what I was trying to say, but you put it so much better.
who can't? Sex and love are totally different seperate things, no connection.
Not that I necessarily agree with the following view but feel it has some merit to be considered. And that is that women are naturally promiscuous (we're not talking culturally here ) because they want to have sex with as many partners as possible so that a sperm war can be initiated within them so that the 'fittest' sperm is victorious. Thus perpetuating the survival of the fittest.
Who says we can't separate the two, but I'm not going share my half of everything I do and own with a mistress, so why bother with marraige at all. Imade that decision 25 years ago when I unloaded the ball and chain and decided to live my life to the fullest. But that was my decision I don't recommend it for everyone.
sex can be a release, sometimes your hormones are boiling, you need release.
love is much deeper, its what's inside, its knowing someone is there, good times and bad.
I'd like to think they can be separated, but I like to think the person I would have sex with is at least a good friend, but it seems like my female friends want to possess me, just like my wife, so at least with my relationships it doesn't seem possible.
love and sex when they meet in one relationship is amazing. I have had love without sex and sex without love and both together in one relationship, and marriage without love OR sex, i understand the difference and I think most of us do, but I love the magic that happens when you have both, the real question is, why don't more MEN want that too?
Because there is an emotional attachment with sex, at least for me. Ha...emotional attachment seems to be my phrase of thecweek....
If you enter into a marriage where you vow to love, honour and protect one another before friends, family and God, you shouldn't be looking for anyone else outside of that union. Jesus Christ! If that's the case, why fucking get married in the first place? What is the bloody point in commiting to one person if you intend not to be faithful? Not everyone needs to seek out sexual satisfaction outside of their marriage so to make such a generalized statement that it takes 3 or 4 people to make a marriage work is ridiculous and immature to say the least. What happened to old fashioned values and morals? You want to play the field and throw your pussy or cock around like it's a party favour - wonderful - go crazy! To each their own. But don't use an unfulfilling marriage or an unfulfilling relationship as an excuse to do it. It's cowardly at best.
To answer your original question, I think women are just as capable of separating love from sex and it has nothing to do with marriage.
I want to jump in on this because I'm actually a man who has issues with separating love and sex.
To be honest, I only really want to have sex with someone I love. That hasn't always been how it has happened, but certainly the best sex I've had has been based on love.
In an ideal world, I would only ever sleep with women I'm in love with. Hopefully, that will be the case for the rest of my life.
My point is, don't generalise or assume that men think one way and women another. It irks me.
They can. They're called swingers. It works for some couples, not for others. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Straight up cheating is another story.
Totally agree with JohnC and Clum. One can always fuck, but with the emotional attachment it's so much better.
Sometimes I fuck. Sometimes I make love. It depends on who I'm with.
I think many women can separate the two but we will always be more selective than men because we have more to lose and are generally more inhibited.
Which is why some men will use the word "Love" or ply a girl with drink to get their end away
