| If I had to choose, personally, I'd choose love without sex. I had a very traumatizing experience in concerns to the other option, so I can't say I'd be into sex without love. Ultimately, though, I would choose a relationship with both. It might be hard to find sometimes, but I think it's possible. |
| Sex without love. Want emotional connection? Make friends. |
| i really only enjoy sex with the one i love tried the other, doesn't really work at all i can be in a relationship without sex tho, so that's my choice |
This. Love is just a close friendship but with physical attraction and sex lol. |
| Sex without love most if I had to pick I guess. |
| Love without sex. There's plenty other things you can do |
 |
Sex without love is the contact of two epidermis. Love without sex is the fusion of two souls. You choose. |
| Hmmm this is hard. I guess it depends on who I'm gonna have sex with or who I'll love. I haven't had sex in a while or felt any romantic feeling towards anyone in like forever. But I guess I would choose love without sex. But if we're talking about anime characters, sex without love. |
Meusnier said: Sex without love is the contact of two epidermis. Love without sex is the fusion of two souls. You choose. Implying injecting billions of little souls into a vagina isn't a 'soul connection'. |
@_THALL_ @feelingofgaze Since you asked, I do have contention with that line of inquiry. While both friend and a lover is essentially an emotional connection, they're not a substitute for each other. There's a reason why one is called a platonic while the other a romantic love. Granting that there's no meaningful difference between the two would have you committed to the idea that two friends who also fuck are basically in love, which obviously isn't true. If there's any doubt to the last sentence's validity I pose whether you'd be in love with a close friend of yours if you happened to be sexually attracted to them. Then you'd be implicitly agreeing that close friendship between two people who find each other sexually desirable is an impossibility. OT: The former. I've had sexual attraction since forever but never any romantic feelings towards anyone. I'd just have sex with some1 else if I wanted to. |
AuronMay 12, 2020 2:45 PM
 |
Auron_ said: If there's any doubt to the last sentence's validity I pose whether you'd be in love with a close friend of yours if you happened to be sexually attracted to them. Effectively, yes. That butterflies shit only happens the first time you fall in love. Incidentally, that is also the first time you ever experience a 'connection' like that, and from that point on you know what depths are possible even in a platonic friendship. Next question. |
_THALL_ said: Meusnier said: Sex without love is the contact of two epidermis. Love without sex is the fusion of two souls. You choose. Implying injecting billions of little souls into a vagina isn't a 'soul connection'. I stand clear from this barbaric Greek idea. This "connection" you refer to has non-zero torsion, something gentlemen can only laugh about. "I have seen in the world," said M..., "nothing but undigested dinners, suppers without pleasure, conversations without trust, liaisons without friendship, and sex without love." Chamfort, Maxims. "Je n'ai vu dans le monde, disait M..., que des dîners sans digestion, des soupers sans plaisirs, des conversations sans confiance, des liaisons sans amitié, et des coucheries sans amour." Chamfort, Maximes et Pensées. |
_THALL_ said: Auron_ said: If there's any doubt to the last sentence's validity I pose whether you'd be in love with a close friend of yours if you happened to be sexually attracted to them. Effectively, yes. That butterflies shit only happens the first time you fall in love. Incidentally, that is also the first time you ever experience a 'connection' like that, and from that point on you know what depths are possible even in a platonic friendship. Next question. Then I suppose you agree with my last edit ? That close friendships between two who mutually find each other attractive is an impossibility? That in order for it to work either one of them or both should find the others' looks not to their liking? That's what that train of thought amounts to. Take it or leave it. |
AuronMay 12, 2020 2:53 PM
|
Meusnier said: I stand clear from this barbaric Greek idea. This "connection" you refer to has non-zero torsion, something gentlemen can only laugh about. "I have seen in the world," said M..., "nothing but undigested dinners, suppers without pleasure, conversations without trust, liaisons without friendship, and sex without love." Chamfort, Maxims. "Je n'ai vu dans le monde, disait M..., que des dîners sans digestion, des soupers sans plaisirs, des conversations sans confiance, des liaisons sans amitié, et des coucheries sans amour." Chamfort, Maximes. It was a joke. Specifically aimed at your usage of 'soul', as if that term by itself means anything at all. But maybe 'soul connection' has implications different from friendship, maybe even brotherly love. Explain, please. Auron_ said: Then I suppose you agree with my last edit ? That close friendships between two who mutually find each other attractive is an impossibility? That in order for it to work either one of them or both should find the others' looks not to their liking? That's what that train of thought amounts to. Take it or leave it. And with that line of thought you're implying that we cannot be in love with more than one person at a time. I'm pretty sure the polyamorous community would find that very offensive. |
_THALL_ said: And with that line of thought you're implying that we cannot be in love with more than one person at a time. I'm pretty sure the polyamorous community would find that very offensive. No, I certainly don't think I do. Would be quite odd since I am for polyamory. Please elucidate why that might be the case. |
|
Flevalt said: I would like to say love over sex, but it's literally impossible for women to love men the way men love women (women prefer Philautia & Eros). So the options for men are actually: "sex without love or one-sided love?" I'll go with sex without love. It's the only valid option. These words seem to come from a broken heart. I bet you fell in love with a woman who didn't love you back. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Auron_ said: I'd think he means that since people who find each other attractive cannot be friends, and since you can only be attracted to non-friends, it wouldn't really help your cause because of their status given by your sentence? I'm off caffeine and low sleep so this might just aswell not make any sense._THALL_ said: And with that line of thought you're implying that we cannot be in love with more than one person at a time. I'm pretty sure the polyamorous community would find that very offensive. No, I certainly don't think I do. Would be quite odd since I am for polyamory. Please elucidate why that might be the case. |
Auron_ said: _THALL_ said: And with that line of thought you're implying that we cannot be in love with more than one person at a time. I'm pretty sure the polyamorous community would find that very offensive. No, I certainly don't think I do. Would be quite odd since I am for polyamory. Please elucidate why that might be the case. Say there are two w*men I'm very close with and am also attracted to. In my definition, I'm in love with both. By your definition, I can only be in love with one because if I choose one and not the other, that other w*men is not my lover but she is still someone I'm very closed to and also attracted to. In other words, she's still my friend but not yet my lover. That contradicts your definition, but by my definition it's fine; I'm in love with both, and I'm making a choice. I could also do with not making a choice but that's another topic. Lisara999 said: These words seem to come from a broken heart. I bet you fell in love with a woman who didn't love you back. Yes, those words definitely come from a broken heart. Know who else has a broken heart? Me. Please gib luv thnx EDIT: nvm it seems like you already have a boyfriend. |
_THALL_May 12, 2020 3:25 PM
_THALL_ said: Meusnier said: I stand clear from this barbaric Greek idea. This "connection" you refer to has non-zero torsion, something gentlemen can only laugh about. "I have seen in the world," said M..., "nothing but undigested dinners, suppers without pleasure, conversations without trust, liaisons without friendship, and sex without love." Chamfort, Maxims. "Je n'ai vu dans le monde, disait M..., que des dîners sans digestion, des soupers sans plaisirs, des conversations sans confiance, des liaisons sans amitié, et des coucheries sans amour." Chamfort, Maximes. It was a joke. Specifically aimed at your usage of 'soul', as if that term by itself means anything at all. But maybe 'soul connection' has implications different from friendship, maybe even brotherly love. Explain, please. The word soul should be mostly viewed as a "poetic" alternative for whatever concept of mind you would like to refer to. It does not necessarily convey any religious meaning (but is something more than a "logical" mind), and you see expressions such as "my mortal soul" more than once. "My soul for dreadful shipwrecks casts off." Verlaine, Angst. "Mon âme pour d'affreux naufrages appareille. Verlaine, L'Angoisse. I already quoted once this text here (Montaigne, Essais), but since I cannot find the thread: "For the rest, what we commonly call friends and friendships, are nothing but acquaintance and familiarities, either occasionally contracted, or upon some design, by means of which there happens some little intercourse betwixt our souls. But in the friendship I speak of, they mix and work themselves into one piece, with so universal a mixture, that there is no more sign of the seam by which they were first conjoined." I have yet to witness such kind of friendship in real life, but similar images of love abound in literature... "brotherly love" are we talking about incest or hidden jealousy? |
Meusnier said: The word soul should be mostly viewed as a "poetic" alternative for whatever concept of mind you would like to refer to. It does not necessarily convey any religious meaning (but is something more than a "logical" mind), and you see expressions such as "my mortal soul" more than once. "My soul for dreadful shipwrecks casts off." Verlaine, Angst. "Mon âme pour d'affreux naufrages appareille. Verlaine, L'Angoisse. I already quoted once this text here (Montaigne, Essais), but since I cannot find the thread: "For the rest, what we commonly call friends and friendships, are nothing but acquaintance and familiarities, either occasionally contracted, or upon some design, by means of which there happens some little intercourse betwixt our souls. But in the friendship I speak of, they mix and work themselves into one piece, with so universal a mixture, that there is no more sign of the seam by which they were first conjoined." I have yet to witness such kind of friendship in real life, but similar images of love abound in literature... These 'soul connections' abound in Eastern literature. Mahmud Ghaznvi and Malik Ayyaz, Rumi and Shams Tabriz, Muhammad and Abu Bakr. There was a 'soul connection' without any s e x because they weren't gay. In other words, love is basically s e x + soul connection. Problem solved. Meusnier said: "brotherly love" are we talking about incest or hidden jealousy? No, we're talking about Aristotle. Philia. |
_THALL_ said: Auron_ said: No, I certainly don't think I do. Would be quite odd since I am for polyamory. Please elucidate why that might be the case. Say there are two w*men I'm very close with and am also attracted to. In my definition, I'm in love with both. By your definition, I can only be in love with one because if I choose one and not the other, that other w*men is not my lover but she is still someone I'm very closed to and also attracted to. In other words, she's still my friend but not yet my lover. That contradicts your definition, but by my definition it's fine; I'm in love with both, and I'm making a choice. I could also do with not making a choice but that's another topic. No no there's no your definition vs my definition. I never provided one myself, I simply looked at yours and took that to its logical conclusion, and then asked if you still agree. I'll rewind back to where you agreed. >you'd be in love with a close friend of yours if you happened to be sexually attracted to them. By that statement one can deduce that close friendships of mutual sexual attraction cannot exist in your reality. The only scenario in which it could be conceived is if either you or them (or both of you) found the others' looks not to one's liking. That's all I said, not 'you can't love multiple people at once' @Yarub I appreciate it Yarub but sadly I couldn't follow. Maybe we're talking over each other and this clarifies things. |
AuronMay 12, 2020 3:46 PM
|
_THALL_ said: Meusnier said: The word soul should be mostly viewed as a "poetic" alternative for whatever concept of mind you would like to refer to. It does not necessarily convey any religious meaning (but is something more than a "logical" mind), and you see expressions such as "my mortal soul" more than once. "My soul for dreadful shipwrecks casts off." Verlaine, Angst. "Mon âme pour d'affreux naufrages appareille. Verlaine, L'Angoisse. I already quoted once this text here (Montaigne, Essais), but since I cannot find the thread: "For the rest, what we commonly call friends and friendships, are nothing but acquaintance and familiarities, either occasionally contracted, or upon some design, by means of which there happens some little intercourse betwixt our souls. But in the friendship I speak of, they mix and work themselves into one piece, with so universal a mixture, that there is no more sign of the seam by which they were first conjoined." I have yet to witness such kind of friendship in real life, but similar images of love abound in literature... These 'soul connections' abound in Eastern literature. Mahmud Ghaznvi and Malik Ayyaz, Rumi and Shams Tabriz, Muhammad and Abu Bakr. There was a 'soul connection' without any s e x because they weren't gay. Sorry, I only know about al-Khwarizmi and al-Kashi. You forget about one-sided love (kata-omoi). _THALL_ said: Meusnier said: "brotherly love" are we talking about incest or hidden jealousy? No, we're talking about Aristotle. Philia. Another Greek idea with no example in real life. |
Auron_ said: By that statement one can deduce that close friendships of mutual sexual attraction cannot exist in your reality. The only scenario in which it could be conceived is if either you or them (or both of you) found the others' looks not to one's liking.. I just explained how they do exist. Let me recapitulate: 2 w*men that I'm sexually attracted to (and they to me) and also very close to. 1 w*man I pick, the other I don't. The other w*man that I don't pick is still someone I'm sexually attracted to and also very close to, but as long as I don't break things off with her, she's my friend. She is the proof that close friendship between mutually attracted close 'friends' can exist. We don't have to turn off our attraction for each other in order to continue to be friends. Of course instead of 'mutually attracted close friends' I simply use 'love', which you don't because you think the two terms are mutually (oh fuck) exclusive. Polyamory is consistent with my worldview, but not with your objection. I leave that as an exercise for the reader. Meusnier said: Sorry, I only know about al-Khwarizmi and al-Kashi. A google search should suffice, especially on Rumi and Shams. Meusnier said: You forget about one-sided love (kata-omoi). Replace sex with sexual attraction. >but where does the soul connection come from in kata-omoi I M A G I N A T I O N Meusnier said: Another Greek idea with no example in real life. Do you even watch anime bro? Philia develops wherever people face struggles together (not at a distance of course). Soldiers? Prisoners? |
_THALL_May 12, 2020 3:58 PM
Auron_ said: I'll jump in on this because I'm bored, although, Thall said it well enough.I'll rewind back to where you agreed. >you'd be in love with a close friend of yours if you happened to be sexually attracted to them. By that statement one can deduce that close friendships of mutual sexual attraction cannot exist in your reality. The only scenario in which it could be conceived is if either you or them (or both of you) found the others' looks not to one's liking. That's all I said, not 'you can't love multiple people at once' @Yarub I appreciate it Yarub but sadly I couldn't follow. Maybe we're talking over each other and this clarifies things. Your deduction is faulty because it deduces: friendships are not possible with love. That just means that if he is truly in love with 2 of his friends, and chooses one as his lover, what would the other "friend" be? No longer a friend? But definitely not a lover because a definite choice was made. The only logical conclusion would be; they remain friends because it is the only conclusion that follows the trend. What I said simple but I wrote it in an awkward way. Here it is in syllogism (or atleast, my attempt at one): Friendships are not compatible with love. People you love are not friends. Ergo; they cannot be friends because you love them nor can they be your lovers because they aren't even your friends. Which is nonsensical so you would be wrong. EDIT: Welp, there's his reply above mine. |
| Sex without Love But if I'm being honest I find it hard to decouple these two things completely. I would likely develop some sort of love/attraction to someone I have sex with. That would be my answer based on your scenario though, would be easier to manage. Loving someone without sex would be hard to manage since I can't get rid of my sexual urges. I'd be completely fine if I didn't fall in love, there's no strong biological impulse pushing me to fall in love. |
<Something> |
| If you get married you get neither eventually, so yeah I dont need to worry about such a choice |
| 한 번만 살지만 제대로 하면 한 번이면 충분해요 |
| Love without sex You can still make love with some1 without having sex |
 Made by k3ti |
| @Yarub Ok that's better. I still disagree but I now see where it lies. friendships are not possible with love let's put that as "romantic love" what would the other "friend" be? No longer a friend? But definitely not a lover because a definite choice was made. It'd be "he/she whom he loves" his beloved, if you will. Your dichotomy is mistaken as the distinction I'm making is "harboring friendship" vs "harboring romance". I don't think it makes much sense to see their feelings toward that person rendered from "can imagine having a happy long future together" to fondness of a friend because he's now taken. And with polyamory it hurts his case even more, as the argument we're having would be nullified since him picking one doesn't mean he can't be with others in that scenario. @_THALL_ I'm sexually attracted to and also very close to, but as long as I don't break things off with her, she's my friend. But the issue is do you feel friendship towards that person, or do you feel a sense of longing, an intimacy more profound? And you saying polyamory is consistent with your worldview really boggles my mind, because then you wouldn't be able to make that argument that your opinion on everyone else defaults to feelings of friendship once you're taken. That wouldn't fly then would it? |
AuronMay 12, 2020 4:46 PM
|
| For all I know love is like friendship but stronger? Sex without love it is then |
 Leading biologist Scott Pitnick said: The bigger your 'nads, the smaller your brains |
Auron_ said: It honestly doesn't need to make any sense. If he made a choice to choose one of them, it automatically degrades the other to something (doesn't matter if he loves her or not). I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm showing you that what you're arguing against Thall is faulty. If you say a person can't shift from "can imagine having a happy long future together" to fondness of a friend because he's now taken, then what is that person going to be if he can't be a lover nor a friend? The fact that he loves that person doesn't do anything here, because we are arguing their relationship, not what he thinks of her. what would the other "friend" be? No longer a friend? But definitely not a lover because a definite choice was made. It'd be "he/she whom he loves" his beloved, if you will. Your dichotomy is mistaken as the distinction I'm making is "harboring friendship" vs "harboring romance". I don't think it makes much sense to see their feelings toward that person rendered from "can imagine having a happy long future together" to fondness of a friend because he's now taken. And with polyamory it hurts his case even more, as the argument we're having would be nullified since him picking one doesn't mean he can't be with others in that scenario. Since it follows that "they can no longer be friends", and yet, he remains friends; then you're just wrong. There are no twisting and turning because it is all dependent on his decisions and the perception of the relationship between all parties. I'll get back to my syllogism: You claim that his post follows from: Friendships are not compatible with romantic love. Thus: People you love romantically are not friends. That would mean that you cannot be friends because you romantically love them - and you may or may not be lovers depending on whether you are friends. This leaves, if you didn't notice beforehand, a whole gap in the topic of "Can friends be romantic lovers?" and the answer would be (it doesn't follow from your logic, this is why it is faulty) yes; the explanation is just the previous paragraph all over again. In even simpler terms, what you said amounts to: Lovers = No friendship Friendship = Lovers See the fault? |
YarubMay 12, 2020 5:59 PM
| Jokes on you, plenty of people here can jerk it to genuine love. In fact, it's probably one of the biggest turn-ons out there. (To some) So it's time to pick up the Kama Sutra and figure out those, uh, "non-vaginal penetration" ways of having sex. Does butt stuff count, 'cause that'd be a shame |
| "You know you've reached peak quality when a doujin is better than the actual source series." (Eg. To LOVE-Ru) Just to list a couple of biases. Likes: A good story, characters, writing, romance, a good plot twist or something that breaks expectations (In a good way), 'backstory' and justice. Dislikes: Bad romance, too much fanservice, the harem genre, yuri, yaoi, and bad writing. |
| I think we put far too much weight on romantic love these days. Romantic love doth not make a marriage or LTR work, it is just the glue holding it when it first starts. And I am talking of experience here of 10 years of marriage, and divorce. You learn a lot. So, I chose sex without love. If I had to chose, because at least sex smoothes over a bad relationship, and sex is enjoyable in its own right. A committment to the other person, with phileos love and a spiritual direction for a committed relationship with the other person it what it takes, forget the insistence on romantic love. I think we have deified romantic love above all else, and made it a personal god of sorts. It is what keeps us single, and what keeps those in a relationship fearful of losing. Doesn't make sense then to base a relationship on that. But at least the sex should be good. |
| idk about you but the closer a girl gets to looking like ronald mcdonald, the more aroused i become. CAV where can we cast our eyes to @PoruMairu who thinks of himself a member of the true church. Helion. |
Yarub said: Since it follows that "they can no longer be friends", and yet, he remains friends; then you're just wrong. There are no twisting and turning because it is all dependent on his decisions and the perception of the relationship between all parties. Ok I get it, you're arguing this from a very literal, subject-independent sense. And yes I guess you'd be right to say technically it is recognized as a friendship even though by heart the feeling isn't reciprocated by one party for whom the other is more than that. I could make the argument that a healthy relationship is where both parties profess what they feel, but you could just as well say it's an unhealthy one but one nonetheless. Though all this deductive reasoning discussion does is detract from the point which I had in mind that when I originally made that post. I'll concede that I hadn't formulated it carefully enough. I suppose I should revise it and I thank you for engaging with me. If one's notion of romantic love is friendship coupled with sexual attraction, then in all cases where the two conditions are met, romantic love arises. Therefore, one can't harbour solely friendship if they sexually desire them. Hopefully I've done the notations correct. I don't think that's a mindset that should be encouraged. To me it's incomprehensible the idea that someone cannot value friendship for its own sake and has to want more because the other person is good-looking. It's rather silly to me tbh. |
AuronOct 4, 1:17 PM
|
_THALL_ said: Meusnier said: Sorry, I only know about al-Khwarizmi and al-Kashi. A google search should suffice, especially on Rumi and Shams. Thank you, I had no idea about the existence of Google. _THALL_ said: Meusnier said: Another Greek idea with no example in real life. Do you even watch anime bro? Philia develops wherever people face struggles together (not at a distance of course). Soldiers? Prisoners? Did you just call me "bro"? "At first I merely took offense; I resented such familiarity. But I noticed the maniacal look on his face [...]" A profile search should suffice. I call them comrades or even accomplices (compères). It is not by watching Rainbow that you can prove that philia exists. |
 Now that I finally found a reason to post that... guess I'll go sex without love 'cause bustin' makes me feel good. |
 |
| Life without sex or love is also a possibility? |
 |
| Nature and selection has chemically hardwired you into this state. You can be a sex addict or a love junkie. Or both with one person. Love is an artificial construct cooked up by the human mind addled under a chemical cocktail to concoct a deeper meaning for the passing on of your genes and protecting your progeny/mate. Which actually doesn't even need one to begin with. Since you are fulfilling your biological imperative. Until a robo girl cutie analogue hacks your nature and your balls can't tell the difference anyways. |
 |
More topics from this board
» Is there any passion besides Anime/Manga that you utterly obsessed with this year?Rally- - Yesterday |
20 |
by LSSJ_Chloe
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» What will you never achieve or get despite wanting it badly and it being a dream of yours?Daemon - 1 hour ago |
4 |
by LSSJ_Chloe
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» What's the most random franchine you've seen get a board game or card game?TheBlockernator - 59 minutes ago |
0 |
by TheBlockernator
»»
59 minutes ago |
|
» Do You Ever Feel Bad About What You Tell Your Cat?KittenCuddler - Yesterday |
6 |
by DigiCat
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Do you ever clean out your online footprints?rohan121 - Oct 6 |
26 |
by Nysse
»»
2 hours ago |