Sex and Love: The big difference

The two strongest internal forces in every person are on the one hand sex and on the other hand love. If these forces are consciously used, the respective person can lead an authentic, high-energetic, happy life. If these forces are not used by the respective person, the energy accumulates in the unconscious and fuels evil forces in humans – discrimination, oppression, crime etc.

Most of the human population doesn’t know about this connection, however, spiritual groups or minorities throughout the world’s history have used it deliberately for their purposes – both in terms of ethical and unethical aims. Tantra is, for example, such a practice, which – if correctly applied (!) – uses one’s sexual energy for personal and spiritual advancement.

In order to use the mentioned energy constructionally (thus ethical) for one’s own well-being, one must understand for a start, how its two cornerstones sex and love work.

The Eurocentric/Western education system fails pitifully in view of this task: In sex education, if given at all, important content is not covered and psychologically qualified teachers are in short supply. Concerning love, it is even worse: How a happy, loving romantic relationship or marriage can be achieved together, is considered being common sense while this is certainly not the case. Advice columns in magazines or advertisement can sometimes help, however, these are only designed for the sale of a certain product and not for a healthy education.

This instruction provides a free manual, so that as many people as possible can use their suppressed energy constructionally for their own well-being and, if desired, for personal and spiritual advancement.

As a first step, it is essential to distinguish between sexual desires on the one hand and the desire for love on the other hand. A peculiarity of today’s majority societies (thus Eurocentric/”Western”, “Muslim” and Russian/Asian society) is to mix up these two needs which leads to a crapload of incomprehensible confusion, e. g.:

  • Problems in communication in romantic relationships and friendships
  • The conception and maintenance of sexually open relationships
  • Logical dead ends in the philosophy of alternative communities
  • The patriarchy! *dom dom dom doom*

Indeed all patriarchial structures are at their deepest root built from the mix-up of sex and love. In order to smash the patriarchy, it is therefore necessary to start from this point: The desires for sex and for love are not at all the same thing. Naturally, both needs can be present at the same time, e.g. if you are in a romantic relationship and desire your significant other(s) sexually. Nevertheless, sex and love are two very different stages of the possible intimacy between oneself and another human being.

The romantic level contains falling in love/a desire for a romantic relationship/a feeling of commitment and love. The sexual level contains casual sex for fun with other suitable individuals. This includes romantic relationships especially, but not exclusively. Hedonistic and satisfying sexual interaction is possible between all individuals, who share mutual sympathy, mutual consent and respectful behaviour towards one another as well as keep a basic body hygiene.

In order to be able to differentiate between both levels clearly at each time, I use a special nomenclature which I will explain by referencing my own orientation:

  • Biromantic (also: biamorous) means to be able to fall in love and/or develop a desire for a romantic relationship towards humans of different sexes.
  • Bisexual means to feel purely physically attracted towards humans of different sexes and to desire casual sex with them.

Biromantic includes in any case bisexual. The romantic level thus always contains the sexual level, however, the sexual level is totally valid without the romantic level. Only truly asexual people, who don’t feel sexually attracted to any kind of human sexuality would be exceptional to this principle.

This nomenclature can be applied to all sexual orientations, e.g.:

  • Heteroromantic (= straight) and heterosexual: Enjoying casual sex and falling in love/desiring a romantic relationship is only possible with the opposite sex.
  • Homoromantic (= lesbian or gay) and homosexual: Enjoying casual sex and falling in love/desiring a romantic relationship is only possible with the same sex.
  • Homoromantic and bisexual: Falling in love/desiring a romantic relationship is only possible with the same sex, enjoying casual sex however is possible both with the same and with the opposite sex.
  • Heteroromantic and bisexual: Falling in love/desiring a romantic relationship is only possible with the opposite sex, enjoying casual sex however is possible both with the opposite and with the same sex.

Etc.

The already well-known terms lesbian and gay are used as two versions of the term homoromantic, since most people associate these terms with falling in love/a desire for a romantic relationship/a feeling of commitment and love towards the same sex. In order to describe casual sex, these terms must be altered by adding a noun: Lesbian sex, gay penetration, etc.

But there is more: Both levels are linked to different actions. There are romantic actions (kissing, smooching, cuddling, caressing) at the romantic level and sexual actions (touch which arouses sexually, petting, genital stimulation) at the sexual level. Here is an explanation given in form of a question, which I have asked myself and which confused me before I understood this fundamental difference:

“But there are kisses that create sexual arousal. This does not fit into the separation of romantic and sexual actions.”

Indeed, it does fit. The romantic level includes the sexual level. In the opposite, the sexual level however does not necessarily include the romantic level. If people, who are in love or in a romantic relationship with each other share cuddling, smooching or kisses parallel to sexual actions, everything is fine: Both levels are active, two positive attractions supplement each other. If falling in love/a desire for a romantic relationship/a feeling of commitment and love is however missing, a kiss, cuddling or a caressing gesture is an action without message, where such should be transmitted. This action is thus “empty”, similar to someone moving their lips in a way to speak, but without producing noises.

This behaviour produces side effects: Such an “empty” romantic action generates the unconscious desire to “fill” this activity with the expected meaning, both for the active, as well as the passive person – thus the desire for a mutual crush or a romantic relationship. These “empty” romantic actions are the reason for the well-known “emotional hangover” the day after casual sex (along with romantic actions such as kisses and smooches during or cuddling afterwards) with someone new: Against the popular opinion, it is not because casual sex is “wrong” or “inferior” to that in a romantic relationship, but because the longing after a mutual romantic level and being loved by that individual, generated by the romantic actions, was not fulfilled. If the same individuals meet up regularly and have sex along with romantic actions, they create the perfect situation to fall in love with one another. If this was the wish of all individuals involved, there is no problem. If, however, both/all sides just desire casual sex, such romantic actions should be completely omitted: Without this measure, the situation will lead to guaranteed drama and emotional injuries.

I think that this difference is probably hard-coded in one’s “guts”. However, numerous patriarchal mechanisms suppress the development of this gut feeling in people, starting at infant age. Most people then just don’t listen to the signals of their body since they mistake them for an “alien” or “wrong” reaction. Worse, some people receive the signals of their own body like signals coming from the surface while they themselves are diving underwater. This feeling condition is called dissociation and can lead to perceiving one’s own body signals or even physical pain as “not real” in a way.

The following example, which can be similarly found over and over on the internet, shows the contrast between the mentioned “gut feeling” vs. patriarchal manners. A man writes on a forum for homo- and bisexuality, renarrated version:

“I have been having these sexual fantasies for a while now: I would like to play with another cock than my own. I am straight and I have always been enjoying sex with women, but these fantasies do come back frequently. But, if I pursued them in reality, would I also have to kiss the other man? Just the imagination gives me the horrors. Can someone provide advice on that matter?”

An answer applying the above nomenclature, however, is the following:
This man’s body signals exactly its desires. If wishes on the romantic level and the sexual level aren’t distinguished from one another, such signals cannot be interpreted properly at all. This leads to exactly that confusion which is expressed in the man’s reaction to his feelings. If his desires are separated into romantic and sexual wishes, though, his request makes sense completely: He is obviously heteroromantic, but bisexual. With this template, he can start looking for other men who as well desire casual same-sex activities and is able to start living a fulfilled sex life.