I used to have major arguments with my ex about this. He wouldn't do the deed with me if he thought it was born out of need rather than love. Which led to more need & hence months without (and I didn't even have toys in those days).
I don't think my exasperated exclamations of "Well, I haven't gone out & fucked anyone else, have I?" particularly convinced him of my love and devotion.
Luckily CurlyCpl understands I love him at all times & needing sex doesn't mean I love him any less - it just means I'm randy. I am immeasurably more happy these days - married a great man.
Bet meal times were fun, all that plain boiled rice.
Did he seriously think that? He wasn't a medieval maiden was he? I'm really flummoxed by that.External Media
I can't fault you on your excellent logic CCW! I'm still confused... What an odd man/monk.
In fact, it's with the man I love most in the world that I've had the kinkiest sex which would definitely fall into the fucking category. Without the love and trust we have I don't think I could participate.
I think that having sex slowly, in a gentle, caring manner is not making love. It's just having sex slowly, it's just a different style of sex. Whether we have sex facing each other looking into each others eyes <barf> or have a quickie on the stairs, we still love each other the same amount. No extra "love" is being made.
I think I'm in this camp. I think an unnecessary distinction between the two makes sex much more impersonal and less intimate than it often is. Can you make love fast? If you have sex but slow down does it become making love? Do you have to love to make love? If there's a contradiction or problem(s) as above then you have an issue concerning the logic of the idea.. but then I'm a philosopher!
It seems a purely semantic issue for an act that is pretty much the same in my opinion. I also don't take to the term because I think it takes some of the lust and passion away by describing it as making love.
So for me... No. Not really a difference, I find the term making love pretty redundant.
I'm glad someone agrees - I was starting to feel like the only......unromantic....one on the thread.
I think that calling a certain style of sex "love-making" simply implies that other ways of having sex are without love, which is ridiculous.
I think that having sex slowly, in a gentle, caring manner is not making love. It's just having sex slowly, it's just a different style of sex. Whether we have sex facing each other looking into each others eyes <barf> or have a quickie on the stairs, we still love each other the same amount. No extra "love" is being made.
I think I'm in this camp. I think an unnecessary distinction between the two makes sex much more impersonal and less intimate than it often is. Can you make love fast? If you have sex but slow down does it become making love? Do you have to love to make love? If there's a contradiction or problem(s) as above then you have an issue concerning the logic of the idea.. but then I'm a philosopher!
It seems a purely semantic issue for an act that is pretty much the same in my opinion. I also don't take to the term because I think it takes some of the lust and passion away by describing it as making love.
So for me... No. Not really a difference, I find the term making love pretty redundant.
I'm glad someone agrees - I was starting to feel like the only......unromantic....one on the thread.
I think that calling a certain style of sex "love-making" simply implies that other ways of having sex are without love, which is ridiculous.
I think it's a much more unromantic idea that there could be times when I was having sex with my partner without love! It doesn't matter if we're doing it fast, slow, naked, clothed or with whips, chains and vibes - I love him exactly the same.
I think it's the relationship between the people that determines whether the sex is loveless or loving - not the speed or style!
I think that having sex slowly, in a gentle, caring manner is not making love. It's just having sex slowly, it's just a different style of sex. Whether we have sex facing each other looking into each others eyes <barf> or have a quickie on the stairs, we still love each other the same amount. No extra "love" is being made.
I think I'm in this camp. I think an unnecessary distinction between the two makes sex much more impersonal and less intimate than it often is. Can you make love fast? If you have sex but slow down does it become making love? Do you have to love to make love? If there's a contradiction or problem(s) as above then you have an issue concerning the logic of the idea.. but then I'm a philosopher!
It seems a purely semantic issue for an act that is pretty much the same in my opinion. I also don't take to the term because I think it takes some of the lust and passion away by describing it as making love.
So for me... No. Not really a difference, I find the term making love pretty redundant.
I'm glad someone agrees - I was starting to feel like the only......unromantic....one on the thread.
I think that calling a certain style of sex "love-making" simply implies that other ways of having sex are without love, which is ridiculous.
I think it's a much more unromantic idea that there could be times when I was having sex with my partner without love! It doesn't matter if we're doing it fast, slow, naked, clothed or with whips, chains and vibes - I love him exactly the same.
I think it's the relationship between the people that determines whether the sex is loveless or loving - not the speed or style!
xxKPxx
wev'e been together so long now its love but sometimes it's kinky rough fast wet but i still love her to bitsxxx
When i,m out at a swingers club its just sex with others, but when me and hubby are alone is love ,i just love how gentle.his touch is all over me ..yes i do just at times want quick sex with him but most of the time its how he makes love to me getting me worked up his kisses on my neck and back slowly getting me to the point of no return xxx
I agree on both sides - slow sex feels more "loving" though in reality I know the love is just the same and just as important. It's just amplified by lots of kissing, touching and looking at each other. But hard and fast sex can have the warm and fuzzy glow too. I don't think there is a distinction personally - but I can see why it may feel like there is!
I guess the difference is between sensuality and fucking - both of which (for me) are filled with love!
Anytime me and my partner have sex its always about love because we love each other, i understand why people have the distinction though in ease of descriptions, rather than saying we fucked long slow and sensually you just say we made love, and instead of saying it was rough hard etc you just say we fucked
i like both sides and i like that me and partner can swap and change midfuck from one to the other
I just really hate the phrase "making love" .....aside from anything else it makes me picture Chef
It makes me think of those really annoying Chistian types...
I want to fuck sometimes, OK? I don't care if God's putting me on his hell list!
Yeah....I have feelings like that on a daily basis.
Thanks a lot guys. I just love being frequently tormented, pitied, scorned and mocked by some of the arrogant non- Christians around. As one of the 'really annoying Christian types' I genuinely enjoy love-making, sex and fucking, and tend to use different terms relating to the mood and the way each make me feel irrespective of 'love-level'.
I just really hate the phrase "making love" .....aside from anything else it makes me picture Chef
It makes me think of those really annoying Christian types...
I want to fuck sometimes, OK? I don't care if God's putting me on his hell list!
Yeah....I have feelings like that on a daily basis.
Thanks a lot guys. I just love being frequently tormented, pitied, scorned and mocked by some of the arrogant non- Christians around. As one of the 'really annoying Christian types' I genuinely enjoy love-making, sex and fucking, and tend to use different terms relating to the mood and the way each make me feel irrespective of 'love-level'.
Well... It would help if I spelt it correctly!
I was referring to a type of Christian, hence my use of the word types.
The type that knocks on my door telling me I'm going to hell for not 'knowing the error of my ways', or the type that believes my non-marital 'love making' has secured me in hell, or the type that preaches in the street at me claiming the end is nigh. The type that have a lovely soft exterior that ooze love... until you get to know them and they're actually rather dark people who will guilt you in to anything.
Do I think you are wrong? Yes. Do I think all Christians are idiots, fools or cut from the same cloth? No.
I understand why some of those that seem two faced or decpetive are classed as 'really annoying', most of the time it seems to be personality related (I lived with one for a year). Any two people will disagree on some points but despite having huge arguments over key issues (social, political and otherwise) with some that I consider friends I respect anyone that genuinely seeks understanding. Rather ashamed that I can't face going back to philosophy this year after some events from last year, hurting a lot right now. My parents are and were practising Christians, one side of the family are rabidly anti-religion (especially Judeo-Christian) to the point of being abusive. I learned from the Christian lot to value and enjoy sex (parents gave good sex ed and guidance for a start), have only slept with one man although we failed at the waiting until post ceremony bit!
I reserve the right in real-life to express opinions and ideas but that right must be universal. One person I count a friend has recently become very condescending and while I understand that he thinks me deluded it's still insulting, especially when I've gone 8 hours out of my way the same day to save him £60! You can be a logical Christian we exist. I ramble, due more meds shortly so the above may well be incoherent. I probably shouldn't post on days when my head isn't holding together so apologies in advance.x
Apologies Rowan, it was never my intent to upset anyone.
I understood Wanda's comments to refer to religious zealots rather than to Christianity generally.
Whilst I don't share your beliefs I would strongly defend your right to believe whatever you will. I would just ask that you respect my right not to believe it.
Although if you're right & I'm wrong spiritually I know where I'm destined in my afterlife.
