From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: [From alt.sex]  Relationship between love and sex
Keywords: love sex attraction possession
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:18:48 GMT

I just saw this article over in alt.sex and saw many elements in it of
interest to the poly people here.  I need to reread it a couple of times
to clarify my opinions, so I'm not going to offer any now.  Enjoy.

Jon Noring

*************************************************************************

In article btowle@ecst.csuchico.edu (Brendon Blaire Towle) writes:

Okay, now the elections are over, the hysteria has passed, and we can move on
to other things.  So...

Warning #1:  This article starts a new thread, with little explicit sex.

Warning #2:  This article is fairly long.

Warning #3:  This article is not mindless.

The following 10 paragraphs are quoted from an essay by Michael Crichton
("The Andromeda Strain", "Congo", etc.).

#BEGIN_QUOTE

Most of the people I know confuse love with possession.  It's easy to 
understand why; it's built into the fundamental assumptions of our culture.
"You're mine," says the popular song, "and we belong together."  Hardly
anyone stops to question the sentiment.

As soon as we feel love, we immediately attempt to possess.  We speak 
confidently of _my_ boyfriend, _my_ wife, _my_ child, _my_ parent.  We feel
justified in holding expectations about those people.  We consider that 
perfectly reasonable.

Why?  Because all of our concepts of love ultimately derive from romantic
love - and romantic love is furiously, frantically possessive.  We want to
be with our lover, to have him or her to ourselves, to _possess_.  So strongly
do we equate love with possession that we may even feel that if someone does
not want to possess us, he or she doesn't love us.  Yet I would argue that
what we call romantic love isn't really love at all.  It's a kind of 
emotional storm, an overpowering, thrilling attraction - but it isn't love.

Real love isn't possessive.  It can't be.  Love involves giving, not taking.
Yet the desire to possess actually springs from the lover's own need - the
need for approval from the beloved, for support from a parent, for straight
A's from a child, for status, for _something_.  A possessive lover is overly
focused on what he or she's getting, not giving.  The lover may dignify this
dependency with the name love, but it's a lie.  How can you really love 
somebody when you're dependent on him or her for things you need?  That isn't
love - that's just manipulation to keep the needed stuff coming your way.  
And love isn't the same as need.

Of course, a loving relationship will produce interdependencies.  But, too
often, the pleasure of freely giving changes to a fear of not getting.  This
person - your lover, your girlfriend, your child - is suddenly so _important_
that you worry about what's going to happen.  And at that moment, love stops.

People sometimes wonder if they're feeling real love.  These same people never
wonder if they're sexually aroused, or sad.  Then what's the problem about
recognizing love?  Most often, it's because they're sensing a conflict.  They
feel the depths of their need, not the heights of their love.

There _are_ ways to know real love.  It feels calm.  It's steady, and can
easily last a lifetime.  It's nourishing.  People grow under it's influence;
they become who they really are, not what someone expects them to be.  Real
love isn't blind;  on the contrary, people feel understood, accepted for who
they really are.  It's healing.

So whenever you hear that love is blind, or love can't last, or love is 
destructive, you can be sure that you're actually hearing a description of
lust, or desire, or need.  It's an accurate description, because needs really
are transient and destructive.

But love is something else entirely:  an emotion of deep caring that asks
nothing in return.  It's an emotion that is fulfilling without any expectation
at all, and so rare that most people in our society can't even imagine it.
They can't imagine feeling it, or receiving it.  They may even believe it
doesn't exist.

But it does.  And it's the best thing there is.

#END_QUOTE

Now, for the sex.  I'd say I'm sorry for the long build-up, but I'm not - it
was the whole point.

To the best of my belief, I have had love as described above once.  The
relationship lasted two years, and the love for maybe half that time.
(The love has come back now that the relationship is over, BTW).

The point of this is that during the period when the love existed, the sex
was far better than anything else I've ever had.  The orgasms were better,
the fears of inadequacy and of not satisfying the other person were non-
existent, the sex lasted longer and was more enjoyable, we were more willing
to perform acts that the other especially liked (oral sex and light bondage), 
etc., etc.  And, in general, my sex drive was higher, but less insistent.

Has anyone else had similar experiences?  Does anyone care?  I believe that
the ideal environment for sex is a loving, caring environment where "play" is
encouraged - very easy to obtain as above, very difficult to obtain otherwise.
Any responses?

Intelligent flames will receive intelligent responses.
Knee-jerk flames will receive public humiliation.

Brendon.  Who _still_ enjoys an occasional evening of pure lust. 

****************************************************************************


-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.

------->   I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92
------->   support UNITED WE STAND!