2006-12-14 01:59:40 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Singles & Dating
sex isnt all about love....just think about it, you can show a person you love them in da most romantic kinds of way without havin sex...sex is da most intamate thing two people share between each other....but sex is also a very strong and powerful thing dat can change a couples relationship forever
2006-12-14 02:03:48 · answer #1 · answered by lilnaychulita 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that is a harder question than it appears at first. But a rather interesting one.
Sex I think is the natural expression of love (romantic love - and I think that's what you're talking about - right?)
But the reverse - not really. I do think for me anyway there are some other requirements. If not loved (and sometimes love is not even enough reason to have sex) I at least have to have the following -
respect
a feeling of being valued
safety
warmth
acceptance
deep emotional connection
attraction
Can those things occur without it being love? Some people, especially younger people would mistake those feelings for real love I think, but I have learned the difference.
If you have love, all of the above and a good sexual relationship then hey, you got it all and kudos, man. You won't have time to be on here.
2006-12-14 02:18:43 · answer #2 · answered by outdone 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sex is not necessary for love. I love my son, and we don't have sex with each other. I'm sure that's not what you meant, so I'll try to answer accordingly. The act of having sex with another person does not require that you love them. Animalistic sexual intercourse happens all the time. The **** industry glorifies it. No love there! If you truly love someone, with an abiding, everlasting commitment, then sex is a gift from God to be used to bring mutual pleasure to one another. This type of physical union was originally given by God as part of a spiritual union where two become one in holy matrimony. The world has perverted that gift mightily. Sex is seen by the world as pure sport, for the most part. It is done to satisfy lust, and has no spiritual connection at all. It's very sad, the deception, if you ask me. Hope this helps...
2016-05-24 02:20:39 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, sex is a way of showing someone that you will share everything with them including your body. This should be a precious gift, not called sex, but love making. Those that just have sex with anyone, dont care about the person they just want to satisfy lust. In marriage it is a way to secure you love, but if for some reason one partner cant do this, then understanding should take over and the love for the person should be greater than what they can give, their body. Sex is a bonus that one receives for the love they share and should not be taken as a right, for it is not.
2006-12-14 02:06:09 · answer #4 · answered by rockandrollrev 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well since technically you should love someone before you have sex, then love is necessary for sex. Obviously people don't really go by that anymore and pretty much have sex when they feel like it.
2006-12-14 02:02:42 · answer #5 · answered by Maizy * 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
love necessary for sex
2006-12-14 02:05:26 · answer #6 · answered by Tek ~aka~Legs! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
for a girl, love necessary for sex.
2006-12-14 02:19:05 · answer #7 · answered by him h 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For me, sex is necessary for love (romantic love). I could not be happy being involved with someone without that.
2006-12-14 02:02:54 · answer #8 · answered by melouofs 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sex does not lead to love as a norm, and clearly one can have sex without love, but considering the fact that sex carries with it emotional ties, especially for women, in additional to the physical, as well as possible long term consequence (disease or children), it is important to ensure that the person that you choose to have sex with is a person that you are prepared to spend the rest of your life with.
2006-12-14 02:03:11 · answer #9 · answered by Toms777 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ultimately SEX is necessary for BOTH.
2006-12-14 02:10:00 · answer #10 · answered by ogmansur 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋