NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, the eternal question. Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive? Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection? Does sex inherently create an emotional connection? What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?

Ah, the eternal question. (1)Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive? (2)Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection? (3)Does sex inherently create an emotional connection? (4)What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

(5)What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?

1) Absolutely, but probably not the majority of the time for the majority of people.

2) That would depend on the individual's definition of "fulfilling". Pleasure itself is fulfilling for many people. Some people can't experience that pleasure without an emotional connection of some kind.

3) Biology would say yes, probably, at least for females, whose bodies release hormones during orgasm that give them the desire to "cling" or maintain intimacy, while men supposedly experience hormones that give them the desire to flee or withdraw. I wouldn't say it's inherently emotional, but it can get tangled up and confusing.

4) When pondering questions and mysteries of human sexuality, I always go back to bonobos, because they're awesome. Bonobos rub their genitals together to reduce tension and bond through a mutual experience of pleasure. Sex is the glue of their society, and it is, by and large, a much more peaceful society than we have at present pretty much anywhere. So... maybe emotional connection is inherent to sex. Hmm. Must read more De Waal.

5) I think there are common stereotyped expectations for women to be clingy and devoted to those they're sleeping with, for men to be unattached and promiscuous.

I think the reality is something that's very difficult to untangle and really contextualize. You can't de-socialize sex; it's impossible. We are social creatures, and sex is a huge part of socialization. It's also a huge part of being a living organism, at least one that reproduces sexually. I think the reality is that anyone peddling the idea that sex is "purely physical/biological" or "purely social/emotional" is talking out of their ass.

Ah, the eternal question. Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive? Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection? Does sex inherently create an emotional connection? What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?

I believe that you have to have some sort of emotional connection with a person for sex to be at it's best (though some of the worst sex I've had has been with someone for whom I cared).

That said, there's a great deal to be said for the "zipless fuck."

I know that it can't for me, but since I don't seemed to have been cloned, I'm fairly sure that my own feelings on the matter are not the same for the rest of the planet.

That said, I agree with Ryadn in that sex is so wrapped up in out social interactions that trying to seperate it out is just going to give ya a headache.

I'm going to have to agree with Ryadn.

I'm going to have to agree with Ryadn.

It beats the hell out of my take on it which is:

Love takes time.

Lust only takes a 6-pack.
:tongue:

It beats the hell out of my take on it which is:

Love takes time.

Lust only takes a 6-pack.
:tongue:

Those a very wise words.

Sex isn't love it may feel like it but it isn't.

One can have sex without loving someone, one can be in love with someone without having sex, and yes that includes love on a physically/mentally attractive love.

3) Biology would say yes, probably, at least for females, whose bodies release hormones during orgasm that give them the desire to "cling" or maintain intimacy, while men supposedly experience hormones that give them the desire to flee or withdraw. I wouldn't say it's inherently emotional, but it can get tangled up and confusing.

FYI:

You're only half right. The "bonding" hormones are released in BOTH sexes. It's just myth that men differ from women in this respect, a myth which exists purely because that's what our culture claims is supposed to happen.

In fact, men actually experience more of a proportional spike in the "cuddle" hormone (oxytocin) than women do, because women have higher levels of this hormone normally and thus the female body is more desensitized to it. Contrary to popular myths, it's actually men who are "more hormonal" about sex. :P

Ah, the eternal question. 1) Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive? 2) Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection? 3) Does sex inherently create an emotional connection? 4) What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

5) What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) I would say it has a tendency to in many people, possibly even most. However, it is not an end-all be-all foregone conclusion.
4) Sex results in many chemical releases into the body. I'm no biologist, but I know that these are often instrumental in developing feelings of love over time.
5) I try not to think too much. It gives me a headache.

What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

**WARNING**
**LONG BORING SCIENCE POST BEGINNING**


The main players in the neurochemistry of sex are: dopamine, the reward hormone; prolactin, the hormone of satiation; oxytocin, the cuddle hormone; and levels of androgen receptors, which are the molecules that bind the "sex hormones."

Following orgasm, dopamine, oxytocin, and androgen receptor levels drop off, while prolactin levels rise. So let's go one at a time.

The change in dopamine levels results in a phenomenon that is sometimes called "The Coolidge Effect." President Coolidge and his wife once visited a farm and were shown a rooster who copulated with hens all day long, day after day, and Mrs. Coolidge approved of this so much that she asked the farmer to let the president know about it. The president thought for a moment and then asked the farmer, "Does the rooster do that with the same hen?" The farmer replied, "No, sir." "Please tell that to Mrs. Coolidge," the president said.

This "Coolidge effect" is actually observed in both males and females; after copulating frequently with one partner, the animal will become exhausted and stop seeking copulation, but if a new mate is introduced the animal will be revitalized and will again start seeking copulation with the new partner.

This effect may be attributed to the rush of dopamine at the beginning of a "relationship" and the subsequent drop off of dopamine after copulation, because this neurochemical pathway is fundamentally the same reward system at work with food or drugs or any other chemical reward. Our dopamine reward system produces those feelings of "craving," whether for food or sex or whatever, and orgasm is basically the biggest blast of dopamine that a human can legally obtain. But since we also experience a dopamine "hangover" after the reward, the brain begins to associate a current partner with decreased reward, and thus a new reward source seems more appealing. (I'm really oversimplifying this so please please please don't any of the other neuroscientists around here get mad.)


Dopamine withdrawal follows orgasm just like it follows after a drug wears off, and our body uses (among other things) prolactin to keep our reward system from bouncing right back and sending us into another cycle of craving and reward. We need this, obviously, because otherwise we'd be just like those rats that keep pushing the "reward" lever until they starve to death. Prolactin helps to keep us uninterested in copulating for long enough to go hunting or get a drink of water or sleep for a bit, so we don't just copulate endlessly.

This is the "roll over and go to sleep" phenomenon that many people experience after sex. Men may experience a much faster drop in dopamine and a much faster rise in prolactin than women do, based partly on our innate hormonal balances and also based on the distribution of receptors in our brains. It also is linked to some of the complaints that long-term couples report, about how their sexual interest levels aren't the same as when they were in the "honeymoon" phase of their relationship; all the symptoms that these couples describe are a match with what occurs with elevated prolactin levels.


Another interesting after-effect of orgasm is that the decreased androgen receptors mean that males are less sensitive to testosterone, which (as most people know) promotes both aggression and sex drive. Hence why men who've recently orgasmed tend to be more mellow and also less likely to seek out more sex. Women experience this effect as well, but since women normally have less testosterone the effect tends to be less significant in their systems.

One very interesting feature of human relationships is that some hormone levels in men and women seem to converge when they are in love; men who say they are in love will show decreased testosterone levels, while women who are in love show elevated testosterone.


While the dopamine reward system may encourage having sex with multiple different partners, there is also a balancing effect from hormones like oxytocin, which encourage bonding and monogamy.

There's evidence that dopamine and oxytocin impact each other's release, and we know that a balance of both hormones is needed for "love." But it's a delicate balance and it is thrown wildly out of whack by the spikes in hormones created by orgasm. This is why Tantra exists, as a matter of fact; having sex without orgasm is the way to avoid that massive dopamine blast, the "hangover," and the associated shake-up of hormones in the brain.

Here's the really neat thing about oxytocin: the higher your levels of oxytocin, the MORE receptive you are to it. In other words, it's the opposite of the dopamine system, because with dopamine you keep needing more and more to get your "fix" because the reward value decreases. Oxytocin doesn't work that way. Another difference from dopamine is that oxytocin reduces cravings, but also increases sexual receptivity. This is why sex can feel more satisfying even before/without orgasm.

**END OF LONG BORING SCIENCE**


And that's why women are better than men in every way.

Bet you're going to go back and read it now, huh? HAH.

**WARNING**
**LONG BORING SCIENCE POST BEGINNING**

And that's why women are better than men in every way.

Bet you're going to go back and read it now, huh? HAH.

Yummy, can I take you home?
:P
My bf will likely disapprove but you can just warble-garfle that post to him and he will like you long time.

Ah, the eternal question. Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive?

Yep.

Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection?

For many people, yes. For me, no.

Does sex inherently create an emotional connection?

Emotional connection? I believe so, the emotional connection may not be a -positive- one though. It could be awful.


What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

I don't really know how to understand and answer this question.


What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?

Only speaking for myself, my expectations were that it would be tender, slow, emotionally overwhelming and enjoyable. My reality was that it was physically pleasurable right at the end, frenzied, physically overwhelming, sticky, and emotionally not something I had any great connection to whatsoever. Frankly, it was like a more exhausting form of masturbation, which I usually don't bother with either. As for what I think, at the moment it's something that I can go without. Ask me again in a couple of years and I'll have a different perspective to give you. Whether that'll change my thoughts on it is another matter.

**WARNING**
**LONG BORING SCIENCE POST BEGINNING**


....
**END OF LONG BORING SCIENCE**


And that's why women are better than men in every way.

Bet you're going to go back and read it now, huh? HAH.

I hate you because that worked.

Ah, the eternal question. Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive?

Most NSGers love at least one of their parents.

Most NSGers don't have sex with either of their parents, nor do they intend to ever do that.

One can certainly have sex without love. It's pretty awesome too.

One can certainly have love without sex. That is even more awesome.

Sex with one you love rocks your world. *nod*

Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive?

Yes, they can be. To have sex there's no need to love the person you're having sex with and to love, there's no need to have sex, not in any sense.

Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection?

Yes, it can be. I, unfortunately, tend to connect, which brings a lot of problems.

Does sex inherently create an emotional connection?

It can, if only for those minutes while the sexual act lasts.

What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

Dare I appeal to the words 'feeling' and 'emotion' here? Honestly, I don't know.

What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?

In sex, there's but one expectation: to be fulfilled. In love, well, that complicates things. When one loves and that love is corresponded one has a lot of expectations, all of them quite complex and oftentimes we want them met.

What is the reality? The reality is that in both sex and in love not all that we want is fulfilled.

As to what I think... irrelevant to what's being asked.

No opinion, but the song referenced in the opening title is going to be stuck in my head all day now. I hate you.

**WARNING**
**LONG BORING SCIENCE POST BEGINNING**
<snip>
**END OF LONG BORING SCIENCE**


:hail::hail::hail::hail:

*Goes off to read more on the neurochemistry of sex and relationships*

Damn, I wish they covered that in our neuropsychology module, my main study of the neurophysiology of the brain has been either in relation to drug addiction (particularly the dopamine reward system and how this relates to 'psychological' addiction) or pathological psychology (ah, the amygdala, so small yet so important).

Damn, I wish they covered that in our neuropsychology module, my main study of the neurophysiology of the brain has been either in relation to drug addiction (particularly the dopamine reward system and how this relates to 'psychological' addiction) or pathological psychology (ah, the amygdala, so small yet so important).
Well, in fairness, it's good to start out studying the reward pathways in terms of drug use, because that's a MUCH simpler situation. With drug use, you apply one particular (known) chemical and evaluate the response. With sex, you're applying a whole range of sexual and psychological stimuli, so you have piles and piles more variables to worry about.

Moreover, with humans there is always the question of "what came first?" (har har pun har) By which I mean, the on-going debate about whether a feeling occurs first and then produces the physical response, or if the physical response happens first and determines what feelings we will have.

A simple example of this is the old trick of taking your date to a scary movie to increase the odds that they'll want to make out. It can actually work, because your body experiences physiological arousal from being startled or scared, and this physical arousal is extremely similar to the physical state that you'd be in if you were sexually aroused; heart rate and respiration up, pupil dilation, etc etc etc.

This is also part of why people who are in extreme situations together will often bond very intensely. The physiological arousal can, as a side effect, prime some of the bonding/relationship pathways for us. This doesn't necessarily have to be sexual, though it quite often is.

Sex does not have to involve love so it's mutually exclusive. Especially if you are only looking for a one night stand with a prostitute. While sex usually supplements a romantic relationship it by no means requires one.

Well, in fairness, it's good to start out studying the reward pathways in terms of drug use, because that's a MUCH simpler situation. With drug use, you apply one particular (known) chemical and evaluate the response. With sex, you're applying a whole range of sexual and psychological stimuli, so you have piles and piles more variables to worry about.

It was more that we were studying drug addiction (in one of my advanced modules) and thus studied the reward pathways. There is often more emphasis on structural areas of the brain than specific neurochemistry in the core neuropsychology modules. Of course I'm a forensic psychologist, so it's not surprising that most of my forays into neuropsychology have been on the pathological side.

Moreover, with humans there is always the question of "what came first?" (har har pun har) By which I mean, the on-going debate about whether a feeling occurs first and then produces the physical response, or if the physical response happens first and determines what feelings we will have.


Ah, the old cause and effect chestnut. It's actually quite surprising how many processes generally considered physiological and automatic have a significant top-down process involved. And of course let us not forget the physiological feedback loops. The classic example of this is in facial expressions. If you smile, you feel happier than if you frown, even if said expressions are entirely 'faked'.

Arguably it's probably a two-way process with each feeding into each other and either reinforcing, shaping or attenuation the impact of the other. But of course that raises the question of how, by how much and what may be the situational demands on these.

...And of course let us not forget the physiological feedback loops. The classic example of this is in facial expressions. If you smile, you feel happier than if you frown, even if said expressions are entirely 'faked'.....

I wish more things were like this. Like if you walked around all day like you had a really sexy ass, you would eventually get one.

I wish more things were like this. Like if you walked around all day like you had a really sexy ass, you would eventually get one.
Life can't be quite as magical as that, but we do know that subconscious elements alter human posture and gait. In other words, a person who is "thinking sexy" will often show subtle changes in the way they stand and walk, even if they aren't consciously trying to be sexy. This can definitely change the way your badonkadonk is perceived. (Bear with me, I sometimes slip into technical jargon.)

Life can't be quite as magical as that, but we do know that subconscious elements alter human posture and gait. In other words, a person who is "thinking sexy" will often show subtle changes in the way they stand and walk, even if they aren't consciously trying to be sexy. This can definitely change the way your badonkadonk is perceived. (Bear with me, I sometimes slip into technical jargon.)

That made me laugh.:D

Life can't be quite as magical as that, but we do know that subconscious elements alter human posture and gait. In other words, a person who is "thinking sexy" will often show subtle changes in the way they stand and walk, even if they aren't consciously trying to be sexy. This can definitely change the way your badonkadonk is perceived. (Bear with me, I sometimes slip into technical jargon.)

That reminds me of The Practice Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_Effect). Good book if you haven't read it.

Let's show a proper example instead of speculation?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/08/relationships.healthandwellbeing

That should answer the question :)

Ah, the eternal question. Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive? Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection? Does sex inherently create an emotional connection? What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?
Of course they can be mutually exclusive. Otherwise, there would never have been summer flings, rebound sex, friends with benefits, one night stands, or prostitution.

The question is what do you prefer? Myself, I prefer a steady committed relationship -- one that's loving -- but that's my preference and not a demand that everyone feel that way, too.

Wow, going to have to catch up on Bottle's awesome posts, thank you! I'm glad this thread wasn't left orphaned!

I wish more things were like this. Like if you walked around all day like you had a really sexy ass, you would eventually get one.

Bad example, your ass is already perfect.

Dunno...did you ever want breasts?

Sex without love is certainly possible, and sometimes it's all that is needed. As long as both sides are aware of what is happening, I've seen those things last for some time and sometimes even coming to cordial ends.

(Romantic) Love without sex however is something that is made up because one side is more in it than the other. There is absolutely no reason not to do a person you love, or at least want to do them (unless we're starting to talk old age or something). As a result, if one partner wants it and the other doesn't, that means that one partner is more in it than the other. In other words: the classic "let's just be friends" situation and the thing that leads to the emergence of the infamous ladder theory. :P

(Romantic) Love without sex however is something that is made up because one side is more in it than the other. There is absolutely no reason not to do a person you love, or at least want to do them (unless we're starting to talk old age or something).

What if one or both partners are physically incapable of engaging in sexual activity, for whatever reason? Terminal illness for example.

(Romantic) Love without sex however is something that is made up because one side is more in it than the other. There is absolutely no reason not to do a person you love, or at least want to do them (unless we're starting to talk old age or something). As a result, if one partner wants it and the other doesn't, that means that one partner is more in it than the other. In other words: the classic "let's just be friends" situation and the thing that leads to the emergence of the infamous ladder theory. :P

You're incorrect.

FYI:

You're only half right. The "bonding" hormones are released in BOTH sexes. It's just myth that men differ from women in this respect, a myth which exists purely because that's what our culture claims is supposed to happen.

In fact, men actually experience more of a proportional spike in the "cuddle" hormone (oxytocin) than women do, because women have higher levels of this hormone normally and thus the female body is more desensitized to it. Contrary to popular myths, it's actually men who are "more hormonal" about sex. :P

...my Female Physiology professor lied to me. :(

What if one or both partners are physically incapable of engaging in sexual activity, for whatever reason? Terminal illness for example.
I would call that an exception. Same with extreme cultural or religious pressures. But I think I covered those pretty much by saying "want to" sleep with someone rather than actually doing it.

But, generally speaking, when two adults (or indeed teenagers) want to sleep with each other, they will.

You're incorrect.
Because...

I really don't think that I'm wrong on this one. The idea of romantic love that involves no sexual desires, even if there are impediments to actually acting on them, is entirely made up for anything but extreme cases like the ones above.

But more to the point is that from this follows the idea that if you love someone and they won't sleep with you, chances are that they don't actually love you back on anything other than a platonic (and hence not romantic) level. And I don't think it matters whether you talk about girls or guys here either.

Because...

I really don't think that I'm wrong on this one. The idea of romantic love that involves no sexual desires, even if there are impediments to actually acting on them, is entirely made up for anything but extreme cases like the ones above.

But more to the point is that from this follows the idea that if you love someone and they won't sleep with you, chances are that they don't actually love you back on anything other than a platonic (and hence not romantic) level. And I don't think it matters whether you talk about girls or guys here either.

Because...

I'm asexual, and I do not have the desire to sleep with -anybody- or the capability to feel sexual desire. And I reject the implication that because I'm incapable of feeling this desire I'm somehow incapable of love. So I love people, and I will sleep with them, but I don't -want- to sleep with them and wouldn't were it not a necessary act to maintain a relationship with people who -do- have a sexuality. Were I in a relationship with another asexual, we'd not have sex, but we're still capable of loving each other. Dismantling your argument.

Ah, the eternal question. Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive? Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection? Does sex inherently create an emotional connection? What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?

Yes, yes, yes and I really don't know.

...my Female Physiology professor lied to me. :(
Haha, might have just been old data.

Oxytocin is linked to a bunch of exclusively female functions, like lactation and childbirth, so the bulk of research on it has been done with females. Information about how oxytocin impacts males has lagged behind a bit.

(Romantic) Love without sex however is something that is made up because one side is more in it than the other. There is absolutely no reason not to do a person you love, or at least want to do them (unless we're starting to talk old age or something). As a result, if one partner wants it and the other doesn't, that means that one partner is more in it than the other. In other words: the classic "let's just be friends" situation and the thing that leads to the emergence of the infamous ladder theory. :P
Actually, couples who are in love but do not want to have sex are uncommon but definitely not non-existent, and it is profoundly silly of you to claim that their love is somehow less valid simply because they don't want to fuck.

I would call that an exception. Same with extreme cultural or religious pressures. But I think I covered those pretty much by saying "want to" sleep with someone rather than actually doing it.


I think it's an exception that disproves the rule.

But, generally speaking, when two adults (or indeed teenagers) want to sleep with each other, they will.

If they want to. If they can. If either is untrue they can still love each other romantically.


Because...

I really don't think that I'm wrong on this one. The idea of romantic love that involves no sexual desires, even if there are impediments to actually acting on them, is entirely made up for anything but extreme cases like the ones above.

I think confusing romantic love with sexual desire is a rather common, and wrong, idea. The one is not the other, one is not dependent on the other.

Ah, the eternal question. Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive? Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection? Does sex inherently create an emotional connection? What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?
Can they be mutually exclusive? You mean, can having sex and having an emotional attachment called love exclude eachother?

I suppose it's possible, but rare.

On a related note, I do believe you can engage in a loving relationship without sex, as you could engage in a sexual relationship without love. But personal experience tells me I've had the best sex in a loving relationship and the best loving relationships I was in involved sex.

I think it's an exception that disproves the rule.
You mean "law", not "rule". Rules do have exceptions.

You mean "law", not "rule". Rules do have exceptions.

Well OK.

Though... cannot a law have an exception too?

-snip-
-snip-
-snip-
Okay, let's take it to the real world then: if you meet someone, and you like them and want to have sex with them, and they are hesitant and/or come up with some reason for why they don't want to or can't - wouldn't you think something is up? I know that in my experience, which is all I can really draw from, it means that "she's just not that into you", and that if you replaced me with someone else, there'd be no hesitation.

Okay, let's take it to the real world then: if you meet someone, and you like them and want to have sex with them, and they are hesitant and/or come up with some reason for why they don't want to or can't - wouldn't you think something is up? I know that in my experience, which is all I can really draw from, it means that "she's just not that into you", and that if you replaced me with someone else, there'd be no hesitation.You're dating the wrong women then :p

Let us take the example that really has no exceptions. If you met an asexual girl, do you think she is incapable of loving you? Even if you want to have sex with her. By the way, there are people who choose to be 'asexual' (behavior, not biologically) or simply who don't want sex, even if not as extreme -- but it still holds. Doesn't mean she doesn't love you. Maybe she wants to do something else, like a walk with you in the park (ok that was just an example).

Unless of course, she has with someone else. (except rape, ofc).

I've seen a quote like "An intellectual is a person who found something more interesting than sex."
Maybe she wants to be an intellectual? :p
I'm a geek so I could be biased :D

Haha, might have just been old data.

Oxytocin is linked to a bunch of exclusively female functions, like lactation and childbirth, so the bulk of research on it has been done with females. Information about how oxytocin impacts males has lagged behind a bit.

Was watching Supernatural last night, more specifically the episode Sex and Violence - I was quite amused when oxytocin came up, especially as I had the smug satisfaction moment of "Ah ha, I know what that is :D". So thank you Bottle for enhancing my viewing experience.

Of course with that episode I was even more amused at the form the siren took to make Dean fall in love with him - I swear the writers are just playing to the slash fan base.

Okay, let's take it to the real world then: if you meet someone, and you like them and want to have sex with them, and they are hesitant and/or come up with some reason for why they don't want to or can't - wouldn't you think something is up? I know that in my experience, which is all I can really draw from, it means that "she's just not that into you", and that if you replaced me with someone else, there'd be no hesitation.
Call me crazy, but...

I'd ask them. I wouldn't assume that a person's sexual reluctance means they're not interested in being around me, I'd just ask them if that's the case.

Was watching Supernatural last night, more specifically the episode Sex and Violence - I was quite amused when oxytocin came up, especially as I had the smug satisfaction moment of "Ah ha, I know what that is :D". So thank you Bottle for enhancing my viewing experience.
You thank me now, but just wait.

My boyfriend is now almost completely unable to watch any science-related shows thanks to me. Whenever they start talking about how the hero's powers are because of "amazingly high levels of adrenaline in his system!" or some such BS, he turns to me and says, mournfully, "Adrenaline doesn't work that way, does it." No, no it does not.

Though I am proud of the fact that one of my pet peeves has rubbed off on him...he's now just as annoyed as I am by shows where space ships make noise. SPACE IS A VACUUM. SOUND IS GENERATED BY WAVES OF PRESSURE IN THE AIR. OF WHICH THERE IS NONE IN SPACE. AAARRRRGGGHHH.

I'm cool, it's okay, I'm cool. *deep breath*

Though I am proud of the fact that one of my pet peeves has rubbed off on him...he's now just as annoyed as I am by shows where space ships make noise. SPACE IS A VACUUM. SOUND IS GENERATED BY WAVES OF PRESSURE IN THE AIR. OF WHICH THERE IS NONE IN SPACE. AAARRRRGGGHHH.

I'm cool, it's okay, I'm cool. *deep breath*

*fires phasers*

*makes phaser sound*

Though I am proud of the fact that one of my pet peeves has rubbed off on him...he's now just as annoyed as I am by shows where space ships make noise. SPACE IS A VACUUM. SOUND IS GENERATED BY WAVES OF PRESSURE IN THE AIR. OF WHICH THERE IS NONE IN SPACE. AAARRRRGGGHHH.

I'm cool, it's okay, I'm cool. *deep breath*

:eek:

*fires phasers*

*makes phaser sound*
*twitch*

Whenever they start talking about how the hero's powers are because of "amazingly high levels of adrenaline in his system!" or some such BS, he turns to me and says, mournfully, "Adrenaline doesn't work that way, does it." No, no it does not.


I thought they used the term epinephrine, not adrenaline, in the US?

*twitch*

Honestly, it used to bother me too, but then I realized that the giant epic space battles would be very boring without sound, so I just embraced that in their universe, space has sound, and physics be damned.

I thought they used the term epinephrine, not adrenaline, in the US?
Adrenaline is most often used and most commonly recognized. However, if a show is trying to sound science-ish, they use "epinephrine" and I don't know how many laypeople in America are aware that they are the same thing.

Weirdly, even in neuroscience circles people seem to use "adrenaline" a whole lot, but you almost never hear anybody talk about noradrenaline; they always call it norepinephrine.

You thank me now, but just wait.

My boyfriend is now almost completely unable to watch any science-related shows thanks to me. Whenever they start talking about how the hero's powers are because of "amazingly high levels of adrenaline in his system!" or some such BS, he turns to me and says, mournfully, "Adrenaline doesn't work that way, does it." No, no it does not.

Though I am proud of the fact that one of my pet peeves has rubbed off on him...he's now just as annoyed as I am by shows where space ships make noise. SPACE IS A VACUUM. SOUND IS GENERATED BY WAVES OF PRESSURE IN THE AIR. OF WHICH THERE IS NONE IN SPACE. AAARRRRGGGHHH.

I'm cool, it's okay, I'm cool. *deep breath*

Ah don't worry, you should hear me shouting Psychology/The brain does not work that way! at the TV screen. I have yet to see a show get psychology right, although I have to say a couple of shows are getting better at the whole fact that when traumatic things happen, people get fucked up and a 5 minute talk about how they're daddy didn't like them is NOT going to cure it. But decent actual psychologists? Who aren't psychoanalysts... pfft, never happens. That and fucking up how the brain works - I may not be that up to date on the neurochemistry but I'm pretty damn good on the neurocognitive structural side of things and it's not how people think. That and psychopathology - people do NOT get madness right. *deep breath*

I'm getting better though cos my friends always bitch slap me when I go into the rant and say that if they can't complain about computers, I can' complain about psychology.

Honestly, it used to bother me too, but then I realized that the giant epic space battles would be very boring without sound, so I just embraced that in their universe, space has sound, and physics be damned.

Heh half of me gets what you mean the other half says, meh it's a work of fiction, poetic license and all that.

Ahhhh conflicted halfs!

Heh half of me gets what you mean the other half says, meh it's a work of fiction, poetic license and all that.

Ahhhh conflicted halfs!

Though I have to say the 'no sounds in space' was used for very effective dramatic purposes in the new Star Trek film. Though they did still have the sounds of phaser fire in the big battles, so they weren't entirely consistent with it.

Jeez, leave it to Bottle to turn a discusion on love into a discourse on the names of chemical compounds found in the human body and space physics...

Well OK.

Though... cannot a law have an exception too?
No. Laws aren't meant to be broken, so they're disproven in the case of scientific laws (and possibly revised afterwards) or broken in the case of society's laws and carry a form of punishment.

Rules can be ignored depending on the circumstances, so long as they remain the default action to take.

Jeez, leave it to Bottle to turn a discusion on love into a discourse on the names of chemical compounds found in the human body and space physics...

She's a rebel and she'll never ever be
any good
She's a rebel cause she never ever does
what she should

*rocks out*

Okay, let's take it to the real world then: if you meet someone, and you like them and want to have sex with them, and they are hesitant and/or come up with some reason for why they don't want to or can't - wouldn't you think something is up? I know that in my experience, which is all I can really draw from, it means that "she's just not that into you", and that if you replaced me with someone else, there'd be no hesitation.

That's not really what you just said though, is it?

"(Romantic) Love without sex however is something that is made up because one side is more in it than the other. There is absolutely no reason not to do a person you love, or at least want to do them"

Emphasis mine.

But I don't want to turn this into a superserious argument. That would be tiresome.

And I can't really argue your question except highly hypothetically. I don't meet people and want to do them. But if they were hesitant at initiating sex and by some crazy set of circumstances I actually noticed this, then no I wouldn't come to the conclusion that they just weren't that into me, since for these circumstances to all arise I'd have to have been with the person for some time already and be wanting to talk to them rather than just assume. Since I'm aware of the existence of asexuality, I'd ask them if that was the issue (though really there's so many other things it could be). I try never to jump to conclusions for a very simple reason. I just don't like surprises. So really I'd have discussed the persons sexuality probably extensively before I got in a relationship with them, so I'd know what to expect.

I try never to jump to conclusions for a very simple reason. I just don't like surprises.

You won't do well on NSG.

You won't do well on NSG.

Aye. I don't, haven't you noticed?

Aye. I don't, haven't you noticed?

I plead the fifth.

Adrenaline is most often used and most commonly recognized. However, if a show is trying to sound science-ish, they use "epinephrine" and I don't know how many laypeople in America are aware that they are the same thing.

Weirdly, even in neuroscience circles people seem to use "adrenaline" a whole lot, but you almost never hear anybody talk about noradrenaline; they always call it norepinephrine.TechnoBabble (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnoBabble) is even better.

You're dating the wrong women then :p
Tell me about it.

Let us take the example that really has no exceptions. If you met an asexual girl, do you think she is incapable of loving you? Even if you want to have sex with her. By the way, there are people who choose to be 'asexual' (behavior, not biologically) or simply who don't want sex, even if not as extreme -- but it still holds. Doesn't mean she doesn't love you. Maybe she wants to do something else, like a walk with you in the park (ok that was just an example).
So if it's not biological, what possible reason could there be? Isn't it rather more likely that she's not looking for a romantic relationship, but simply another friend?

I mean, what distinguishes romantic love from friendship?

Unless of course, she has with someone else. (except rape, ofc).
Which, I'd argue, is more likely to be the case than not. But of course, maybe I've just made the wrong experiences.

I'm a geek so I could be biased :D
Geeks fuck, I'm pretty sure. :P

I try never to jump to conclusions for a very simple reason. I just don't like surprises. So really I'd have discussed the persons sexuality probably extensively before I got in a relationship with them, so I'd know what to expect.
That sounds all very reasonable, but I'm not sure it's realistic. I've come to the conclusion that when it comes to love, "picking up" and all that sort of thing, those who are good at it have two particular traits: they can easily read between the lines at all times, and they have no fear in forcefully acting on what they think they read.

Trying to spell out things explicitly is the quickest way to a friendship, but nothing more than that.

I'd ask them. I wouldn't assume that a person's sexual reluctance means they're not interested in being around me, I'd just ask them if that's the case.
"So, how come you won't fuck me?"

You've probably got a point, but it's not a conversation I'd necessarily enjoy having on either side.

That sounds all very reasonable, but I'm not sure it's realistic. I've come to the conclusion that when it comes to love, "picking up" and all that sort of thing, those who are good at it have two particular traits: they can easily read between the lines at all times, and they have no fear in forcefully acting on what they think they read.

Trying to spell out things explicitly is the quickest way to a friendship, but nothing more than that.


Again, incorrect. Every relationship I've ever been in involved spelling things out very specifically, as I was friends with them for some time before things developed. So yes, it was a quick way to a friendship. And then it matured beyond that. I'd be much more inclined to accept what you said if you even attempted to define them as generalisations, but you keep speaking in absolutes that I'm living proof of being wrong. And this is the internet. You're not allowed to be wrong here.

And if you want to know what distinguishes romantic love from friendship, from my experience, it's the way my heart leaps whenever someone I love is near me, the way that I couldn't imagine my life without them, the way I love to be close to them as I sleep in bed, the way their touch makes my skin tingle, and the way that I can understand them so deeply because I care for them so. When their pain is my pain and their happiness is my happiness, and vice versa. To me, that's love. A whole load of sentimentalist bullshit that happens to perfectly encompass how I feel for those I love. And you know what? it doesn't involve sex.

Again, incorrect. Every relationship I've ever been in involved spelling things out very specifically, as I was friends with them for some time before things developed. So yes, it was a quick way to a friendship. And then it matured beyond that.
Interesting. The number of people who assure me that this happens is impressive, but it's not something I would rely on. I don't think it's right to become friends with someone in order to get into a romantic relationship.

I'd be much more inclined to accept what you said if you even attempted to define them as generalisations, but you keep speaking in absolutes that I'm living proof of being wrong. And this is the internet. You're not allowed to be wrong here.
Of course they're generalisations. Everything in these matters is, because ultimately everyone is a little bit different. But there are certain general rules that one can observe out there. And the fact of the matter is that it is simply not a good idea to be friends with someone when you actually want to be more than that. It's dishonest and painful for everyone involved.

So how does one make clear that friendship is not what you're after? Well, you can explain it nicely and rationally, but that has never worked for me, nor for anyone I know. At least if you make a move, and soon after meeting this person, you know where you're at immediately. Because if you get rejected, it means 99.9% of the time that they're not interested and you can pack up and go home.

A whole load of sentimentalist bullshit that happens to perfectly encompass how I feel for those I love. And you know what? it doesn't involve sex.
But that is because you're an exception.

Geeks fuck, I'm pretty sure. :Pah... that wasn't my point :p

I mean, what distinguishes romantic love from friendship?example (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/08/relationships.healthandwellbeing) (I posted this before though).

tell you what though: you don't send love letters to "friends", and love letters have nothing to do with sex as far as I know.
I'm not 100% sure where the line is, but from these examples, it is pretty obvious no? :)

example (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/08/relationships.healthandwellbeing) (I posted this before though).
Well, he doesn't say much about what love is actually like when you don't have sex. In fact, he says: "People always ask how our marriage is different from just being friends, but I think a lot of relationships are about that - being friends. We have built on our friendship, rather than scrapping it and moving on somewhere else. The obvious way we differ is that we don't have sex, though we do kiss and cuddle."

Now, that doesn't say about any relationships not included in "a lot", but it does say something about his. And it's probably more supportive of my hypothesis.

tell you what though: you don't send love letters to "friends", and love letters have nothing to do with sex as far as I know.
I'd like to point out that I've never sent a love letter in my life. The occasional love text message, maybe, but that's it. Although romantic gestures of that kind are socially expected to work, I don't think many girls actually change their mind because of them. If someone you don't love sends you a love letter, there's not going to be a working relationship at the end of it. Similarly, if someone you love doesn't send you a love letter, but simply gets the message across in a less romantic way, an excellent relationship can follow.

Anyways, let me summarise:

Unless the factors involved are somewhat exceptional, ie asexuality, old age, extreme religiousness, etc the following holds as a general rule:
1) If you ask someone to have sex with you and they won't, they are not interested in a romantic relationship
2) If you ask someone to have sex with you and they will, that does not necessarily imply that they are interested in a romantic relationship.

Uncontroversial enough?

I'm not 100% sure where the line is, but from these examples, it is pretty obvious no? :)
Nothing involving love or romance is ever obvious, I would say. But then, these days I'm seriously wondering if whatever feelings I've had over the years were actually what people call "love". And to be honest, whatever they were, they were probably counterproductive in actually making anything happen.

Now, that doesn't say about any relationships not included in "a lot", but it does say something about his. And it's probably more supportive of my hypothesis.She isn't just another "friend" of him. And don't you find it funny that he only can have such a special friend of the opposite sex? Think about it.

Anyways, let me summarise:

Unless the factors involved are somewhat exceptional, ie asexuality, old age, extreme religiousness, etc the following holds as a general rule:
1) If you ask someone to have sex with you and they won't, they are not interested in a romantic relationship
2) If you ask someone to have sex with you and they will, that does not necessarily imply that they are interested in a romantic relationship.

Uncontroversial enough?I agree with (2), but not with (1). In fact (some time ago) I read that psychologically the percentage of people not willing to have sex (for various reasons) is even higher than the percentage of asexuals (documented, it is 1%, but it says it's rising cause like gays, they are "not out of the closet" yet etc).

I'm not asexual, but due to my own philosophies, I would probably not have sex (for pleasure that is, not procreation) at all, you'll have to trust me when I tell you that I can love people, or rather to put it more in perspective, that I am attracted "romantically" to girls and not boys, for example, which is a difference ;) (you could say, I "prefer" other things instead :D, but that's oversimplification and I won't detail my personal philosophies here :))

Nothing involving love or romance is ever obvious, I would say. But then, these days I'm seriously wondering if whatever feelings I've had over the years were actually what people call "love". And to be honest, whatever they were, they were probably counterproductive in actually making anything happen.No, but the examples I think would give some kind of mental image in our imaginations. Sure, not precise, but the basics and a crude approximation of romance or love, we have :)

Ah, the eternal question. Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive? Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection? Does sex inherently create an emotional connection? What are the gendered and biological elements that link the rubbing of our genitals against someone else's with feelings of love?

What are the expectations, what is the reality, what do you think?
Speaking only for myself:

Sex is its own reward. Good sex creates feelings of happiness and friendship in me, as I wish to keep that person around me. I have had lasting friendships with ex-lovers.

Love is separate from sex for me. Love comes out of a history of fulfilled trust in the relationship.

FYI:

You're only half right. The "bonding" hormones are released in BOTH sexes. It's just myth that men differ from women in this respect, a myth which exists purely because that's what our culture claims is supposed to happen.

In fact, men actually experience more of a proportional spike in the "cuddle" hormone (oxytocin) than women do, because women have higher levels of this hormone normally and thus the female body is more desensitized to it. Contrary to popular myths, it's actually men who are "more hormonal" about sex. :P
That makes total sense and comes as no surprise to me, based on my relationship experience.

I wish more things were like this. Like if you walked around all day like you had a really sexy ass, you would eventually get one.
If you walk around all day for enough days, you will. Walking is good exercise.

What's love...but a second hand emooooootion?

What's love...but a second hand emooooootion?

Just checking something with the posting, nevermind me.

tell you what though: you don't send love letters to "friends", and love letters have nothing to do with sex as far as I know.
I'm not 100% sure where the line is, but from these examples, it is pretty obvious no? :)

It's a tricky boundary. I realized I was in love with my (same-sex) best friend when I was 16. Now, being a personal who is very much NOT asexual, this was accompanied by the realization that I wanted to have sex with her. We were closer than best friends, but not actual lovers. There was a feeling of a bond closer than friendship, a sense that she was my "one", and a desire to be her "one" above all others. Adoration, devotion, jealousy--intense jealousy! Someone might say that it was not true love I felt, but a single white female-type of stalkerdom, but if they say it to me I'll shank them in the parking lot.

Anyway, I believe it was romantic love I felt for my friend through those late teenage years. Then we had an epically ugly fall-out in college, and I haven't seen that bitch in years.

It's a tricky boundary.
See, that's what I mean. You don't know, and contrary to anyone who will say otherwise, simply asking and talking about it will not lead to the outcome you want. It's all about reading between the lines, about emotional intelligence.

Anyways, I went to a presentation on this paper today, and it made me think of this thread, and this whole issue in general. Ignore the maths, focus on the message. ;)

http://www.pitt.edu/~ojboard/papers/vagueness.pdf
In light of this interpretation of our model, we can now revisit our introductory examples. In the Seinfeld example, the speaker is George's date and George is the listener. The type space consists of the date's true intentions, e.g. [casual friendship, sex], and George's action space consists of different degrees of involvement, with each degree implying how long he will try to continue the conversation, whether to call in case he decides to go home, etc. The elements of the message space are sentences in natural language that George's date can use to express her intentions in varying degrees. They could range from a simple \Good night" through \Would you like to come in for a coffee?" to \I would like you to stay with me tonight."
There is noise in the production of these sentences, when George's date fails to find the right words to express her intentions or has a different perception from George about the conventional meanings of these sentences. There is also noise in George's processing of these sentences, again because of possibly different perceptions of their conventional meaning, but also because by the time he responds he may not remember the exact wording, his date's body posture or the inflection in her voice. Even if George's date wanted to be perfectly clear, her attempts might be frustrated if George cannot believe that his date really is so blunt and therefore takes her statement to be ironic. George and his date are likely to have different ideal points for their degree of involvement conditional on the date's type. Suppose that George's date is interested in sex but biased in the direction of casual friendship. If the date's bias is strong but not overwhelmingly so, in our model she can make a statement that with high probability is interpreted as openness to some limited amount of intimacy.
The noise smoothes out George's beliefs and as a result permits some fine tuning in the date's manipulation of these beliefs and consequently of George's actions. For the audience, the humor comes when George updates his interpretation, perhaps because he suddenly remembers a cue that clarifies the likely meaning of the invitation for coffee.

It's a tricky boundary. I realized I was in love with my (same-sex) best friend when I was 16. Now, being a personal who is very much NOT asexual, this was accompanied by the realization that I wanted to have sex with her. We were closer than best friends, but not actual lovers. There was a feeling of a bond closer than friendship, a sense that she was my "one", and a desire to be her "one" above all others. Adoration, devotion, jealousy--intense jealousy! Someone might say that it was not true love I felt, but a single white female-type of stalkerdom, but if they say it to me I'll shank them in the parking lot.

Anyway, I believe it was romantic love I felt for my friend through those late teenage years. Then we had an epically ugly fall-out in college, and I haven't seen that bitch in years.

No matter how long I live, it amazes me to see how that can turn around in the blink of an eye. I also giggle each time it happens, because I'm a cruel bastard who relishes in other peoples' suffering, even if it's temporary.

Anyway, I believe it was romantic love I felt for my friend through those late teenage years. Then we had an epically ugly fall-out in college, and I haven't seen that bitch in years.

Hahahahahaha...that was awesome! The loving descriptions ending in 'that bitch'! Sort of proves it was love :D

"So, how come you won't fuck me?"

You've probably got a point, but it's not a conversation I'd necessarily enjoy having on either side.

I honestly find that humor is really handy for situations like those. You know that saying about how there's truth in every joke? It works. You can talk about a serious subject in a light-hearted and funny way, but be completely honest as you do...it often puts people at their ease and lets them know that you want to know the truth but you aren't going to be an asshole if it turns out that the truth isn't precisely what you'd been hoping for.

I honestly find that humor is really handy for situations like those. You know that saying about how there's truth in every joke? It works. You can talk about a serious subject in a light-hearted and funny way, but be completely honest as you do...it often puts people at their ease and lets them know that you want to know the truth but you aren't going to be an asshole if it turns out that the truth isn't precisely what you'd been hoping for.

"Maybe if you tell me the bad news in a good way, it won't sound so bad."
-Prince John

Sex and love...can they be mutually exclusive?

Yes.

Can sex be fulfilling without emotional connection?

Depends what you mean by fulfilling, but in my opinion, yes.

Does sex inherently create an emotional connection?

Not necessarily. Look at prostitutes and rapist for example.