Can Men Fall in Love WITHOUT sex?

[madmarten]

I don't believe love is merely some mechanism that came from evolution. I think love is divine/spiritual. Sex is an expression of love. THe insistence on separating the two comes from a society where many men have been taught that its okay to appreciate the sex-act without commitment/love.

 

 

 

But what about the men who say they slept with a bunch of women but didn't really feel a thing for them? How can it be a lie? I mean, love is something we rarely are able to lie about, even if it was: I don't see substantial motivations for the lie.

 

I didn't say that if a man has sex he automatically loves her. You are making a logical error. However romantic love requires a degree of sexual expression and desire. I guess actual sex doesn't have take place for that to happen, but it is pretty natural manifestation of it.

[Gratsy]

I didn't say that if a man has sex he automatically loves her. You are making a logical error. However romantic love requires a degree of sexual expression and desire. I guess actual sex doesn't have take place for that to happen, but it is pretty natural manifestation of it.

 

But how are they linked? I'm talking about sex without romantic love.

[cat_lady]

Yes, and it actually makes it more likely! Thats why women are told to hold of having a sexual relationship with a guy until he develops feelings for them - having sex early on ruins those feelings.

[cat_lady]

But how are they linked? I'm talking about sex without romantic love.

 

If you want to talk about it from an evolutionary perceptive, anthropologists/psychologists say that women have a tendency to fall in love with whoever they are sleeping (in fact, its not a tendency its a biological reality b/c during sex our body releases hormones that "bond" us to our partners - which is why FWB relationships don't really work in the long run for women, they tend to fall for their partners) b/c the survival of offspring depends on a woman's presense, thereforee, if she is romantically attached to her partner, she is much more likely to stay with him and rear the child, thus continuing the species. Also, with women being the physically weaker sex (PC aside, imagine a woman trying to chase down a mastodon for dinner) so its beneficial for them to stay with a man.

 

For men its more advantageous to sleep with lots of women - since a woman takes a month to produce an egg and nine months to give birth, while it takes a guys a couple of hours (sometimes minutes) to get the sperm count back up, sleeping with lots of women is the best investment for the species to survive. Which is why men can have sex and not love someone and can love someone and not have sex. Evolutionary speaking, these feelings didn't evolve together.

 

Furthermore, recent research at some major university (NYU I think) isolated a hormone produced inside a womans body that is absorbed by a man during intercourse that acts like a weak form of oxytocin for men. The kicker: its not absorbed through latex. So in the fast, casual and STD culture currently present, women are having sex, they release oxytocin and fell attached to the guy, the guy on the other hand already doesn't associate sex with love AND he's missing the small dose of the hormone that would naturally bond him a little to the woman b/c they are having safe sex - putting women at an emotional disadvantage even more. My personal theory is that this why married men in affairs don't leave their wives often, as long as he's sleeping with her and having safe sex with his mistress, he will be more emotionally attached to her.

Also, this is why its advisable for women not to enter FWB situations or jump too early to bed with a guy.

 

BS or not, this is the "scientific" explanation to your question.

[Gratsy]

I had a friend who slept with a girl without a condom and he hated her after it. Unless he was lying, he was still able to separate the attachment, or at least that is the way it appeared to me. I think the main reason men are more attached to their wives than their mistresses is b/c they made a commitment to the wife, and sometimes she gave him children...not always the case though, which I'm guessing you know. Anyhow, interesting take, thanks