Hey guys, I am confused with this statement"""""Love for Sex or Sex for Love"""""

Shoot your views

I am amzed to see so many theories are emerging.

For me;

Love for Sex and Sex for Love are both bargaining methods.

Love without sex lives forever with a desire to have it sometimes in the future (This virtually true or impractical)

BUT

Sex without Love have no life-after all who wants to do the same shit everyday & night??

I had found somewhere in a book, "Man do love for sex where as, women have sex for love."

but this idea is completely discredited in real world.

Copycat,

Very interesting read, indeed.

I have some skepticism, though, particularly regarding the mathematics of the lowest and the hypothetical highest animals.

I think the lowest animal which do not show “attachment” do have binary reasoning (knowing presence and absence). So the author’s theory that “attachment” is a result of binary reasoning needs to be modified.

But my most serious skepticism is regarding the imaginary “acausal” love the author speculate about a hypothetical animal that can understand the value of “pi”. Since that was a hypothetical situation, there is not much to argue about. However, my doubt is this: how can an indiscriminately love be love in the first place? Presence of love can be distinguished only by the absence of love, bhaneko ni. An universal love, wherever and whenever exists, is just a basic state of general “being” and not a specific “love”.

In any case, it was a thought-provoking theory. Good one, Pushkar Dahal Ji !  

*** ***

Lootejyu,

Developing compassion by the rejected lover to the rejecting beloved though understanding or over time or even cases where a person keeps “loving” even after being rejected are different issues than I was talking about. These are stories where the pain of being rejected is cured (in the first case) or keeps co-existing with the pleasure of loving (in the second case). So the pain of rejection is a reality and naturality. Mero bhanai tetti thiyo.

>There is only one truth about the type of love and that is:

>it has only one type. You either don't love the person or

>love the person and that is, love him/her selflessly --

>meaning not necessarily expecting anything in return

>(which, obviously is, really really scarce in practice).

>Loving someone for a reason is not love in the first place IMO.

There was a time when I used to think exactly this way. I used to think love is a switch. However, a more careful observation and reading whatever scientific studies have been done have changed my view.

Experts are pretty much in agreement that love is not a singular feeling, it has several components/variables. So, depending on the values of these variables, infinite types and grades of love is possible. You seem to be recognizing only the highest grade of love (for example, “Consumate” love, as described in the table in the earlier posting) as real love. That is fine. However, it will be injustice to deny the other kinds of love, for example, “Companionate” or “Fatuous” love, a status of love.

Then when you say “selfless” love, it is pretty much an emphasis on “commitment” (self-commitment) component of the triangular theory of love described above.

So, if we examine the table above, “Consumate love”, “Companionate love”, “Fatuos love” and even “empty love” (which has only commitment and nothing else) could be “selfless” love.

This is all to argue that love comes in various shades and shape and it is probably unfair to cut an artificial line in order to call some “real” and others not.

Now to confound the already so complex love thing, I have two more sub-variables to add to the triangular theory, making them having 3X2=6 variables.

A priori (मौलिक) and reciprocal  (जवाफी) values for each three components.

I had shared my view about it and about the evolution of my own view on love in general in a thread exactly three years ago. Here is an excerpt:

Thread: Love

10-12-2005

http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openthread.cfm.cfm?StartRow=61&PageNum=4&forum=2&threadid=24483

कुरा के भने, लामो समयसम्म म शंशयवादी (skeptic) थिएँ रुमानी पिरिमको हकमा, अझ नास्तिक नै भने पनि हुन्छ । पिरिम नै त नभनुम, पिरिमको प्रचलित, लोकप्रिय, सांस्कृतिक, साहित्यिक अवधारणासंग हो । यी लोकप्रिय अवधारणाहरुको चर्चा गरिरहन आवश्यक छैन, यो थ्रेडका विभिन्न पोस्टिङहरुलाई सर्सर्ती पढे पुग्छ ।

मेरो अवलोकनको वास्तविक जीवनका प्रेम र प्रेमका लोकप्रिय सिद्धान्त बिचको गहिरो खाडल (gap) नै मेरो शंशयको जन्मदाता थियो । (मलाई लाग्छ, म्याउटिस बुइनीको मामला पनि यस्तै हो ) ।

अधिकांशत: प्रियतमाको जुल्फीको छहारीमुनि बसेर (हिही) लामो ध्यान गरे पछि र केहि स्वाध्यायनमा माथा खियाए पछि मलाई प्राप्त भएको प्रेम-बोध संक्षिप्तमा यस्तो छ :

(१) रागात्मक प्रेम (passionate love) आधारभौतिक (distinct, fundamental) वा एकसरो (homogenous) भावना होईन, बरु अन्य विभिन्न आधारभौतिक भावनाहरुको मिश्रण (blend) हो । मनोवैज्ञानिकहरु यसको पुष्टि गर्छन्, त्यसैले व्याख्या नगरिराखम ।

(२) हरेक प्रेम-सम्बन्ध (relationaship) मा चारवटा स्वतन्त्र (separate) सम्बन्ध-सुत्र (bonds, channel) हुन्छन् । यी चार सुत्रले चार प्रेम-लोकको निर्माण गर्दछन् ।

यी चार प्रेम-लोकको अस्तित्वको अज्ञानता नै प्रेम-दु:खको (शंशय, मतिभ्रम, असन्तुष्टी आदिका कारणले उत्पन्न हुने दु:ख) कारण हो । यसैले प्रेमको चार सम्बन्ध-सुत्र र चार लोकबारे ज्ञान हुनु अतिआवश्यक छ ।

के के हुन् त यी चार च्यानल/लोकहरु ?

यी हुन्:

(i) A को B प्रतिको मौलिक (original) प्रेम

(ii) B को A प्रतिको मौलिक (original) प्रेम

(iii) A को B प्रतिको जबाफी (reciprocal) प्रेम

(iv) B को A प्रतिको जबाफी (reciprocal) प्रेम

यी केहि स्वतन्त्र र केहि अन्योन्याश्रित चार च्यानल/लोकहरुको सार्वभौमिक सत्तालाई स्वीकार र यथोचित सम्मान गर्न सक्नेले प्रेममा कहिले दु:ख भोगनु पर्दैन ।

प्रेमम् शरणं गच्छामि !

Nepe

>If you love someone, Set her free...

>If she comes back, she's yours,

>If she doesn't, she never was....

प्रेमको लोकप्रिय किन्तु अपूर्ण अवधारणाहरुको यो एउटा राम्रो उदाहरण हो । यो अवधारणा "मौलिक" उपखण्डको प्रेमभूमिमा सिमित छ र यसले "जवाफी" उपखण्डको प्रेमभूमिलाई चिन्न ईन्कार गर्छ ।

प्रेमीको हरेक क्रियाले "जवाफी प्रेम" लाई तत्काल, प्रत्यक्ष र बलियोसंग र "मौलिक प्रेम" लाई कालान्तरमा, अप्रत्यक्ष र कम बलपूर्वक प्रभाव पार्दछ भन्ने कुराप्रति माथिको कथन पूर्ण अनभिज्ञ रहेको छ ।

प्रेमीले आफ्नो प्रेमीद्वारा आफुलाई छोड्न सक्नु र छोड्न नसक्नुलाई अलग अलग अर्थमा बुझ्दछन् भन्ने कुराको ज्ञान छैन यसमा, यसैले अपूर्ण छ यो ।

परन्तु, Nepalipoonte ले पोस्ट गरेका ठट्यौलीहरुमा भने कतै कतै यो ज्ञान निहित छ र समग्रमा, प्रेमको यौगिक स्वरुपको पुष्टि भएको छ- ठट्टा नै सहि, प्रतिक्रियाको विविधताद्वारा ।

http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openthread.cfm.cfm?StartRow=81&PageNum=5&forum=2&threadid=24483#169691

*** *** ***

Nepe

>If you love someone, Set her free...

>If she comes back, she's yours,

>If she doesn't, she never was....

Why SHE Nepe?

Apart of that. As I have already mentioned above in this thread, sex and love are linked. As mutation brings the changes in the phenotype which may or may not be heritable depending on the whether or not it is a sex-linked inheritence or not, which is yes in this case.  One such example of different sex character in human is the gayism or lesbianism. This occurs due to  mutation in alleles of 23 chromosome or sex pair. If female, and there is mutation in X chromosome from mother, the phenotype will be codominanance. She will have a physical structure of female and behavioral changes to Male. Similary, male will have female behaviors. Sometimes incomplete dominance can also occur.

For all those who are taking sex and love as different and claim that love for sex is not a true love, prove it. I need a proof. A genetically based not biased proof. Either use quantification or gene expression experiment but just proof it. Otherwise don't try to prove or disprove anything.

Jaya hos!!!

Nepe Ji-

First, I have to disagree with you that the love passed by your, ok mine too, cave dwelling ancestors was genuine. It wasn’t. It’s obvious that their love towards each other was un-conditioned by social and political norms, but I don’t understand how that could possibly make their love genuine. In effect, are you saying that the love of a monkey toward another one is genuine??

Second, I am still not convinced that a lover who expects genuine love is still a genuine lover. Interesting that you use the word "expects" because then there is a certain probability that the genuine lover would not get genuine love in return. In such circumstances, the genuine lover gets hurt and then his/her love towards doesn’t become genuine anymore. These two possible scenarios could co-exist at the same time. My point is: there isn’t anything called genuine love, much less ideal.

guest4 and nepe - i think you guys are saying the same thing or at least in the beginning......
let me help out:
nepe says:" if we invest a genuine love, we expect a genuine love in return. If we invest a genuine sex (a fake love included), we know that we can not complain for not getting a genuine love and getting only sex or getting a fake love."
and then,
guest4 says:" how is it a genuine love when you expect nothing-sort-of-a perfect reciprocation for your feelings, something so abstract. That tells me, its not genuine to begin with."

you are both saying that there is some form of reciprocity involved in genuine love, which I agree with because i do believe in the social exchange theory of relationships and i think this very much applies to love because we’re dealing costs and benefits. you give something you expect something in return.

guest4 now you're saying: "I am still not convinced that a lover who expects genuine love is still a genuine lover." didn't you previously state one needs to "expect" some thing in return? you’re being contradictory now. and i also feel like you're refusing to look at the fact that there could be many forms of love. it not just genuine love, there's ideal love, passionate love, empty love etc as shown by Sternberg's Triangular theory. And now you're bring in consummate love to indicate that such cannot exist. consummate love is the ideal form, it's the perfect kind of love.(according to the theory) and if you were to say that there is no such thing as love (that is love from your point of view) then as classified by sternberg’s theory which is what nepe has brought in and is the most widely studied theory of love it would classified as "none love". this is still a form of love.

copycat – that is quite interesting…..

looti – watching too many bollywood movies these days huh? i have to agree with nepe i don't think it’s a switch that turns on or off. but its all theories…who cares whatever right!?! :D

nepe – i would like to read your additional two theories, anyway for you to briefly translate the nepali?

as to answer the question of this thread it has been shown that men are more fearful of sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity where as women would be more upset by emotional infidelity than sexual. Looking at this from not an evolutionary perspective but more a socio-cultural viewpoint men believe that if their female partner were to cheat on them then there must be an emotional component involved, which in this case I am referring to love. it’s a little bit of stretch but one could conclude that sex for love is the more appropriate/correct term because both men and women are affected more by the emotional component of infidelity. just my opinion though! :)

As far as I my understanding goes, they both stand for each other. You can't have sex without love (unless ofcourse, both have a different agreement), and you can't have much love without sex. Given a situation, it's hard to justify whether a genuine lover has unconditional love, without any sexual intentions. Everybody at some point, I think expects a sexual relationship from a serious long-term commitment. And, if there happens be a relationship with substantial importance given to sex, the fulfillment of that goal changes their priorties, and eventually the relationship "terms". 

NS,

I do not see anybody here denying the link between sex and love. Linked but different- that’s what seems to be what most of the posters are saying. So there is no disagreement on that part. Disagreement is rather on how much different they are.

From Sternberg’s triangular theory and Helen Fisher’s research to Pushkar Dahal’s speculation, all are basically saying that love is sex and something more.

Their views can be roughly summarized this way:

Robert Sternberg:

Love = sex + intimacy + commitment

(Note: “passion” includes both sexual and non-sexual attraction, so the above is extreme approximation)

Helen Fisher:

Sex (lust)--> attraction --> attachment

Testosterone and oestrogen --------------> Lust

Adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin -----> Attraction

Oxytocin and vasopressin ----------------> Attachment

By the way, Helen Fisher is my neighbor. Incidentally, the other day, I was having a discussion with a student from her university and my friend on Fisher’s work and Sternberg’s ‘triangular theory’. After hearing about the three components of love that Sternberg identifies, she said to me that he has missed another important component of love. She calls it “value”. I thought that was a striking observation. I suggested her to write to Sternberg. He will now have to modify his theory to include the fourth component.

On other points, the genetic basis of homosexuality is really interesting. However, my impression was that that was found only in limited cases. I am citing here Savolainen and Lehmann (Nature 445, 158-159, 11 January 2007):

“No predisposing gene for homosexual behaviour has been identified, but there is evidence that genetic controls are involved: for example, human twins are more likely both to be gay compared with non-identical brothers; and male homosexuality is more often inherited maternally, indicating that heritable maternal effects and/or genes linked to the X chromosome are in operation”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7124/full/445158b.html

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Guest4 Ji,

Some of your questions are explained by Nails-ji. On other questions, I think love is not a constant; it is a dependent variable. It can change, fluctuate, even die or revive depending on the beloved’s action/behaviors and circumstances, including one’s own mental condition (for example, depression affects all components of love).

So a genuine change in a genuine love is not unnatural.

As for what I mean by what our cave-dwelling ancestors passed onto us, I was talking about the natural state of love. Let me illustrate it by the example of the cultural institution/contract called ‘marriage’. Once one is in this kind of cultural contract (marriage, engagement or even simple relationship), he/she would be in a social/cultural/political/moral pressure to declare love, often the deepest one, the highest one, no matter what the reality is. So I thought it is necessary to distinguish between natural love and cultural love (one conditioned by the cultural pressure) to understand it more accurately. Tetti kura ho.

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nails,

Thanks for your elaboration on our points. I agree with them.

And as for your thoughts on genderwise difference in the perception regarding infidelity, it makes sense, I think, from socio-cultural and evolutionary perspective as well. In fact the socio-cultural perspective in this particular case may have an evolutionary explanation.

As for translating what I wrote in Nepali, the first thing was basically Sternberg’s theory rephrased. In the second point, I talked about four possible channels/domains in a love relationship:

1. A’s original “love” for B

2. B’s original “love” for A

3. A’s reciprocal “love” to B

4. B’s reciprocal “love” to A

These four channel/domains are partially interdependent. I was, therefore, suggesting that when relationship goes bad (which naturally would make us sad/worried/hurt), we have to examine each of these channels separately, instead of thinking that love might have gone holistically bad.

If we examine all channels meticulously, we might often diagnose that only one or two channels have gone wrong and all others are still intact. Such meticulous diagnosis shall help us to locate the problem precisely, hopefully solve it and even if otherwise, help us to appreciate and cherish what still are intact and remain unscared of falling in love again, no matter how uncertain that might be too.

Hope I could explain it well in my poor English.

Nepe

What is consumate love in Nepali?

Love always is not for sex in my opinion, depends on time. Sometimes you can love someone wihtout physically involved in sex (but mentally I am not sure).

Sex ca ben be a channel  for love, a fulfilling moment can release all those domapine, epinephrine and love harmone from next time.

Consummate love  = चुर्लुम्म माया

Companionate love =  साथी माया

Romantic love = झिल्के माया

Fatuous love = एकतर्फी माया

Infatuated love = मोहनी माया

:-)

Nepe

>Sex ca ben be a channel  for love, a fulfilling moment can release

>all those domapine, epinephrine and love harmone from next time.

Haawaajyu,

That is more or less what Fisher and other experts are saying.

That brings to an important distinction we have to make to understand these issues accurately. The distinction is about the cause and effect.

Say, are these love chemicals effect or cause of love ?

It will require a careful reading of all scientific works to summarize them accurately. However, from the design of some of the researches I know of (for example, studying the brain activity of the subjects already in love !), I speculate that most of these (chemicals or brain activity) are effects of love, some might contribute to cause and others might be involved in both cause and effect. Such complicated molecular scheme are very common in biology.

Nepe