Romantic love is usually forceful. It is formed at the level of a char feeling and is an entire body experience. It emerges from nowhere, is never planned for, and it overshadows those who encounter it. It comprises of a necessity and a hysterical urge that dislodges logic. It cannot be equated to mere sexual desire although it contains sexual latent. Nevertheless, this complicated creation of romantic love is hypothesized on one fundamental thought, that love is a trans- past reality of human nature. In other words, love is taken to be an important human process that, in spite of historical change, rests as an ontological base of human way of life. Love is viewed as a practice that changes not. Since it is condensed to the tongues of biology and metaphysics, it functions through ideas of love’s trans-past and common nature (Evans, 2002). Some people argue that love in the form of romance cannot give us what we want, which is the topic of discussion in this paper. So as to explore this argument, this paper shall discuss the fundamental nature of love; making love and regulating sex; the lack of love; haunting heterosexuality; and the escape of desire and constraints of love. The Fundamental Nature of Love Thoughts concerning love and intimacy intertwine with the social construction of heterosexuality (Klesse, 2006). As seen from the contemplation of sexual practice, sexual characteristics, and the combination of heterosexual characteristics, love traverses in the process of heterosexual sexuality. Intimacies are created, synchronized and enacted through the twofold discursive meanings of sexuality and love but more particularly, through the modes in which loving is configured as an instinctive, biological, natural and static truth of human being. It is specifically because love appears to be natural that it maintains its compelling control outside of those dialogues concerned with the nature of relationships. Love’s social construction provides a justifiable reason for heterosexuality because it links the past ideas of essentialism and innateness to the modern construction of sexuality (Evans, 2002). Love is among the most convincing discourses as it functions in such an essentially natural manner. For these grounds we demand to love. And as we demand to love we perpetually do so in connection to its essentiality. The next section looks at how this essentiality constructs specific forms of sexual expression. Making Love and Regulating Sex Love offers a mediating structure via which sex is understood and experienced. The discursive structure of love offers a means by which sexual relationships are conferred and is hypothesized on the self-evident theory that sex should be a truck for founding intimacy. The most pleasing form of relationship is believed to hold in the most excellent blend of sexual intercourse and love. Hence, love not only restrains sex but creates it; it acts as a structure through which diverse forms of sexual activity are understood and performed (Evans, 2002). Thoughts about love structure and replicate forms of sexual activity that are safe are usually experienced in diverse ways, by both women and men. Devoid of love, sex would drop its tentative control and force. That sex ought to be a term of love implies that,