Quote of the Day

[jackofallgeeks]

Prester Scott: People who can only think of sexuality when they think of love are beneath contempt.

I just wanted to point out that, yes! Love does not have to be sexual to be real and meaningful, and the one does not imply the other. This is a point that I hold to, and try to convey. Love does not have to be erotic.

Comments

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed -- at the risk of causing somebody great offense, that's one of the reasons I want absolutely nothing to do with the vain, self-indulgent "metrosexual" side of mainstream gay culture (even if I were thin, Aryan, buzzcut, and Armani enough for them). But by the same token, I hold people who can only think of debasement when they think of sexuality beneath contempt as well. I'm not speaking of you or Scott here, who have always been at least reasonably tolerant... But I do often speak of moralists and hedonists as being side of the same coin, because they both cling to the belief that all sexual pleasure is inherently sleazy and ugly. One side fears it, while the other practically insists on it, of course. But both are unwittingly allies against people who want to exalt sexuality as a spiritually and emotionally fertile phenomenon, not a merely self-gratifying or biologically fertile one.

Still, I think you, Scott, and I are mostly on the same side again (it must be that time of year ;> ). People who would deliberately choose sex without affection are like the living dead to me. >_

[surichan.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear!

(Although, I must say - erotic love is a wonderful thing. It would be less wonderful, certainly, were the "love" bit not a part of the equation - but when it is... ::nods::)

[ambereternal.livejournal.com]

At the risk of starting a debate here, I have to argue that it depends on the type of love to which you are referring. The love between a husband and wife is designed to be, and should be, sexual in some sense. Granted, it's not the most important part of that relationship, and I don't want you to think that I'm implying that. But I do believe that a marriage that has a healthy sexual aspect is healthier in every other respect. On the same token, the relationship MUST be healthy in EVERY other aspect if it is to be healthy sexually. Does that make any sense, or am I just totally insane?

[mordainlove.livejournal.com]

i always have viewed sex as being rather second to every other part of the relationship. then again, i'm still a virgin and will probably stay as such for a great while yet, being that i'm not one to rush into anything nearly as heavy as sex without... well, without a pretty secure relationship being in place.

i think sex gets over-simplified in the world today. the mentality that everyone is doing it, so i should be too sort of thing. i don't get it ... but what do i know about the subject, really? ::light laugh::

[higheststar.livejournal.com]

As someone who has almost been married and is not a virgin, I think I offer a different perspective. Sex can be a great way to express affection, that's true. But when having sex within a relationship, if there is trouble with the relationship, I can tell you from frst hand experience that your sexual life is merely a reflection of your intimacy (non sexual) and the other aspects of the relationship. And in this way, is has nothing to do with love. I loved someone very much once but when we developed lots of problems (even before we recognized the problems) the sexual aspect of the relationship no longer exists (and I still love him now, but am not IN love with him)

But it depends on the relationship whether sex without love feels empty.

Hmmm...

[emeraldove.livejournal.com]

I could have sworn I left a comment to this.. was it deleted?