Romance versus Sex

After two prior failed marriages (7 years each, LOL), I, too, have spent 20 years falling ever more deeply in love with my wife.I cannot imagine life without She-Who-Must-Be-Adored. The sex is ever more transcendent, yet steadily less important, and sometimes just...cozy. True Love takes you through such paradoxes.In our early days, I once told her, breathlessly after, "I think I understand the origins of religion!"No one will ever know me so well; I will never know anyone so well.I am incapable of casual sex (prolly why I've been married three times ).My sympathies, Ned.

In England, Land of the Poets, it's obvious. To us in the boondocks, we have to make distinctions.

I think I know what you mean.I fell in all-consuming love with my husband at 18. God, I still remember how the blood would rush through my body at his touch in the early days. Within seconds I was so relaxed it seemed I could sleep forever. And that was fully clothed and doing nothing more than kissing or getting a back rub. I felt like I was super-stoned.I remember this overwhelming feeling of wanting to get as close to him as possible, even the ability to crawl under his skin would not have been enough then.How long it lasted, I no longer remember. A couple of years at least, mainly do to a long distance relationship. Do I miss it now? Sometimes, but I have to agree with others, sex with someone you adore is a thousand times better than a one-night stand or casual sex.Endorphin rush, perhaps? I think many people get addicted to this heady feeling and it's the main reason for infidelity.

I'm a male.Romance and sex are two separate things. Romance can be fun, but I do not find it superior in the least to sex.Romance is essentially mental masturbation. This is not a slam so please hear me out. What you are doing is variably teasing and pleasing yourself with denial of sex. It is about the same as people who have learned to get excited by pain and express how wonderful (greater than sexual pleasure) that is.In addition to denial of sex (which allows you to make it better than it might be) you have an object that is the focus of your romance, which you attach meaning to and fantasize about that object in all sorts of other ways (not just sex). Whatever you envision it can become. And you play with obtaining or perhaps serving that object of adoration.It can become almost godlike as you can attach as much of yourself as you have to that being... until of course you get close enough to have illusions shattered because you have to deal with a flesh and blood person.The point of Romance is not physical sex. The point of Romance is mental pleasure.Physical sex is mixture of mental and physical pleasures, but none of them have to involve idolization. Indeed pure debasement can be pleasurable.Romance and sex have become confused because Western culture has denied sex for so long and tried to limit its justification to purely mental attachments.I do agree that sex with someone you love is one of the best pleasures (though I realize this is not the Romance you were discussing), because it uses so much of both the mind and the body all toward the act of pleasure. With love is trust and so barriers come down which might remain with those you do not know as well.Then again, casual sex can also be some of the best sex ever, especially in large groups where people are socially happy and attentive, even if no one is in love. Unlike sex with lovers, where the lovers may depart and leave pain, that is not going to happen with casual partners... that's kind of the definition of casual.The idea that sex has anything to do with partnering in a monogamistic fashion (ala brennas post) is counterfactual. Yes it helps in bonding, but there is absolutely 0 evidence to suggest that the human species is monogamous, despite a long history of legally enforced dogma on that subject.I am not saying that no one can be happy with a single partner, and have some of the best sex ever with one partner, or that everyone should go out and have orgies or they are really going to be unhappy in life.What I am saying is that the reverse claims are just as much ethnocentric BS.Sex is fun, singular and plural. Do what moves you and if singular is more fun then go with it. Just don't knock plural, and suggest it is somewhat less natural, even if you've had plural and didn't like it.Romance is fun, singular and plural. Yes even romance can be plural. I had a great time romancing several girls at the same time. No sex, but great fun.The mind is a part of the body. All pleasure is usually pleasure. If romance gets you off more than sex, then why fight it? Its all good.AbE: For those saying they feel "hollow" after casual sex, that means you were looking for something else than just sex. I have never really felt hollow after casual sex, and indeed have sometimes felt quite fulfilled. It can be brilliantly intoxicating and powerful. Conversely, without question my most hollow moments have come when a partner I have loved dearly has ripped my heart out and left me realizing how much they were not who I thought they were and our relationship not what I thought it was.AbE2: That was too much a downer ending. Let me point out something which has yet to be mentioned. You can always have sex with other people WITH your lover. That has to be the best sex I have ever had hands down. It is especially heightened when you are with other people that are in love.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-05-2005 06:45 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It's unfair to pick out this comment. I read all you wrote and on the whole I agree. You are right about "casual sex." It is romantic.But I would like to say that the most delicious feeling that one can experience, in my view, is "romantic love," which of course is quite different from "affection" (what I feel for my wife after 25 years of marriage) or from picking somebody up one night.The feeling I am talking about might be described as "enchantment."

Well-put. Potentially confusing, but when you really think about it, that's a great way to put it.

I got that this is what you were saying and that can very well be true for you. What I'm telling you is that it is not the most delicious feeling that one can experience. It may be the most delicious that you can, but given my life experiences it is definitely not true for me.And I really do not mean this as a criticism. Believe it or not I have been called a romantic, and have done some rather incredibly romantic things. I understand that form of pleasure, and readily admit that for some it might be higher than sexual pleasure. Why not? For some singing or acting in front of others is greater than sexual pleasure. For some leading a group of people (command) is headier.My only point is that it is primarily an internal, self created and referencing phenomenon. While the object of one's enchantment may be external, you are actually the enchanter weaving the spell.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, I knew it could sound a bit confusing and am still trying to think of a better way to put it. The biggest problem is that to me that wouldn't be a negative statement because I like masturbation, and find nothing wrong with it... others might not.I tried to make it more poetical in my last post, using rr's "enchantment" angle.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Perhaps there's a heavy dose of mental masturbation even during the raw act of sex.I have a theory that food tastes better in a pleasant environment.

I think that's exactly the best way to put it, frankly. Anybody that knows you is going to be able to guess your attitude towards masturbation.And it's funny - the statement is ambiguous, sort of, but it's true both ways, to different people. Is romance a pleasurable act? Absolutely. Is it, to some people, a pointless or worthless excerise (what most people mean by "mental masturbation"?) Absolutely as well.I think it's a good turn of phrase because I think there's a link between one's view of masturbation and one's view of romance.

There certainly can be, but unlike romance there doesn't have to be, since you have direct nerve endings giving a raw feed of pleasure. I knew a guy once that said sex was just masturbation with another person. I wouldn't approach it like that but obviously he used a rather heavy does of mental selfplay. So you've never been to Chuck-E-Cheez.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oo oo! Pat Evo Psych answer (just to annoy Holmes): the point of attraction in humans is not simply to have sex but to maintain a pair bond sufficently strong to stay together long enough to raise produced child.

Not to disagree, but accomplished how?Release of endorphins during linked with inhaling pheromones to associate the one with the other and induce an endorphin response to just the pheremones?Given that we have yet to find 'human' pheromones?Or is it just a 'trained' response similar to pavlov's dogs? More sex more tail waving on sight?This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*07*2005 07:47 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Plausible. On the other hand, this is the reason I distrust evolutionary psychology -- I am always left with a suspicion that the goal is to explain why white middle class North American mores and social patterns are the natural way that people should live.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Achieved how? I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. It's acheived through Love, unless you're going all Dualist on me, you already accept that love is caused by processes going on in the brain. These processes exist to cause pair bonding so that the parents stay together long enough to raise children (or less teleologically, couples which formed strong pair bonds were historically more able to successfully raise children than those that didn't).