INTJ, I need to say this because I see it everywhere on Reddit and it's truly disturbing.
So many people seem incapable of understanding love unless sex is a constant presence. No sex? Then the partner must be cheating. Or they don't love them. Or the relationship is "dead." No nuance, no context, no emotional intelligence (just instant catastrophizing).
The worst part is how sex has become a form of validation. Not intimacy. Validation.
"If my partner desires me sexually, I'm valuable. If not, something is wrong with me or them."
That's not love (that's externalizing self-esteem).
I've seen people say things like, "If we don't have sex, I can't know if they're the love of my life."
That single statement demonstrates how superficial the framework has become. Love is reduced to chemistry and frequency.
There are other ways to love and connect:
a date without an agenda, a picnic, a letter, shared silence, emotional security.
But modern culture seems incapable of tolerating connection without immediate gratification. Everything must be tested, measured, and validated, preferably quickly.
Sex matters, yes. But when it becomes the sole indicator of love, the relationship ceases to be human and becomes transactional.
Honestly, sometimes I just look at it and think: What kind of society did this?
Only the people involved in the relationship can decide what’s important (or not) within it.
https://i.redd.it/qb47tq3181dg1.gif
Completely agree.
That statement is technically true… and completely irrelevant.
Yes, you’re right, only the people in a relationship decide what’s important to them. But that doesn’t invalidate analyzing broader psychological and cultural patterns. Saying “everyone decides for themselves” isn’t an argument; it’s a way to shut down the discussion when it gets uncomfortable.
We analyze patterns in economics, sociology, and psychology all the time without telling individuals how they should live. Relationships are no exception. Observing that many people equate sex with self-worth or love isn’t imposing rules; it’s identifying a trend.
Reducing the conversation to pure relativism avoids the real question:
Why has sex become such a dominant indicator of value in modern relationships?
So no: this isn’t about policing or controlling anyone’s relationship. It's about understanding why so many people react defensively when that indicator is questioned 🤓
It is more relevant than literally anything else.
That's not the impression I get, at all. It has always been important to some people and it has always been unimportant to others.
"Everywhere on Reddit" is a very small section of people. And the part of reddit you personally browse is even smaller.
Just because something is relevant on an individual level doesn't automatically make it the endpoint of the analysis. The individual and the collective are not mutually exclusive. Precisely because people make different decisions in their relationships, it's possible to observe patterns in how certain ideas are repeated and become culturally normalized.
Saying "it's always been this way" is a broad statement that explains nothing. The point isn't that everyone thinks the same way or that differences didn't exist before, but rather that today we see a greater explicit association between sex, self-esteem, and personal worth, amplified by specific platforms, discourses, and social dynamics. That's an observable phenomenon, though not universal.
And yes, Reddit is a partial sample. But partial samples also reflect dominant narratives in certain cultural spaces. Analyzing them doesn't mean extrapolating them to all of humanity, only asking why they appear so frequently and why they generate defensive reactions when questioned. That's the conversation I'm interested in, not dictating how anyone should live their relationship. Bye.
OP, you are caught up in observation bias. It’s just your distorted perspective. People live different lives and have different circumstances, find a partner that will share your values and don’t worry about the others.
Thanks for your comment. But let's be clear: I am NOT saying how anyone should live, nor that all relationships are the same. I am POINTING OUT repetitive PATTERNS in how many people confuse sex with love or self-worth. That's not a personal opinion; it's an observation.
When you say that "everyone lives their own life" when I'm pointing out a pattern, it's just an excuse for you to avoid facing reality. It's the typical tactic of someone who doesn't want to admit that what's normalized can be problematic: you don't see it, you ignore it, and you accuse the observer of bias. But ironically, the one who tries to silence the evidence is the one who reveals their own bias, their fear of questioning their worldview, and is exposed. So yes, I can publish a point of view, I can analyze patterns, and yes, I'm going to point out what others choose to deny because it makes them uncomfortable :)
What are “the patterns” and what analysis methods are you implementing?
Oh, I see you want to view my “methods of analysis” as if we were in a laboratory, with graphs, statistics, and a scientific review committee 🤡. Let me clarify something: observing patterns in human behavior doesn't require a degree or special software, just attention, critical thinking, and common sense.
The “patterns” I'm pointing out are clear in people who automatically confuse sex with love, whose self-esteem depends on being sexually desired, who assume a relationship “dies” if the frequency of sex decreases. That's not my opinion; it's a recurring and observable behavior, repeated in comments, forums, and shared experiences.
If your impulse is to ask about “methods of analysis” instead of confronting the fact that these patterns exist, all you're doing is revealing your own need to justify the unjustifiable. You can disguise it as academic doubt, but you're just afraid 🤓 afraid to question what society normalizes, afraid to admit that your worldview might be limited.
So yes, I can publish a point of view, identify patterns, and point out trends. If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry, the problem isn't mine; it's your inability to see reality beyond your ego and your imaginary manuals.
Externally validated, well-evidenced facts are what an INTJ preferably judges by. (Extraverted thinking, or "Te".) So, yes, the "graphs, statistics, and a scientific review committee 🤡" is something a correctly typed INTJ should actually logically value as their preferred way to determine a thought's value to reality.
Apparently, you don't share this INTJ preference -- which is fine, to be clear, I'm not implying that it is a bad thing at all -- but I think that highlights the issue where some here clash with this. You're asking the INTJ here to rely on someone else's (your) logically consistent introverted thinking ("Ti") conclusions. Ti's conclusions are essentially subjective (as in mainly originating from the "subject" -- the individual themselves and *their* gathered information). Yes, the conclusions here (judging function) are drawn in what appears to be a logically consistent way to you, and your gathered information. But since a Ti-user's thought cannot point to such externally validated fact, they require a lot of convincing power with arguments, and proof to demonstrate their thoughts' value to reality. And it tends to miss the ingredient that is like catnip to INTJ judgment. That is, until the Ti-user does test, make, or come up with large number studies that Te-users so love -- and then it's accepted and even referenced quite easily.
Being logically consistent to the subject and producing ideas, but not necessarily being an external fact, is a downside to Ti's freedom in judging; whereas the downside of an INTJ's Te is how it limits itself to already existent facts and thus doesn't necessarily produce any "original" judgment.
It might be worth it to check whether you prefer Te or Ti for judgments on gathered information for typing yourself correctly. Again, I'm not saying this with any malicious intent or anything, as every type is hugely valuable and without Ti we'd be lacking new logical insights. I'm just noticing a lot of Ti-usage & valuing here, and confusing Ti(-Ne) for Ni (you are judging noticed patterns, not simply noticing patterns and then judging by externally validated fact), so it might be worth noticing that for your own typing process.
Ah, of course, the classic INTJ cognitive function labyrinth to justify your inability to accept something simple: that observing patterns in human behavior doesn't require graphs, statistics, or a scientific review committee. While you analyze Ti, Te, Ni, Ne, and the entire imaginary MBTI pharmacopoeia, millions repeat the same mistakes of confusing sex with love and dopamine with commitment. That's the observable, tangible reality, not some "INTJ judgment ingredient" you can manipulate to feel intellectually superior. What I do is simple: I see what happens, I put it into words, and I point it out. You're inventing layers of cognitive theory to disguise your inability to confront the repeated facts right before your eyes.
If you want to reduce it to Ti versus Te and judgment hierarchies, fine, but it doesn't change the fact: my observations aren't subjective fantasies; they are recurring, consistent, and visible patterns. People react this way, generate conflicts, measure their love in penetrations and dopamine, and suffer because of it. While you were lost in your MBTI manuals trying to label cognitive functions, I'm pointing to the root of a cultural phenomenon. You can complicate everything with jargon, mind maps, and functions, but that doesn't make what's happening in reality irrelevant. In other words: you analyze your ego; I observe society. And that makes all the difference.
No, I never even debated or voiced my opinion on the sexual-culture claim itself; I was not denying the observable behavioral patterns nor said anything regarding their relevance.
Instead, what I replied to and thus addressed is how a conclusion can be valued in different manners, as per the above comments.
Thus I pointed out that moving from observation to general claim depends on one's standard of validation, which (including the one relevant to the comment I replied to) may involve preferring external, verified evidence. Such a preference is not an ego defense, nor a rejection of reality, and just as valid as any other preference.
I was never disrespectful in this, and did quite the opposite of claiming superiority (by pointing out where our "Te" by itself can be too limited). And I feel there is no need for making (erroneous) baseless assumptions / personal remarks regarding inabilities, due to someone discussing MBTI in an MBTI subreddit.
Anyway, I've clarified my point on what I was --and was not-- addressing, and shall thus end it there.
Thanks for the clarification. I understand now that your comment wasn't aimed at refuting the core argument about cultural patterns, but rather at pointing out differences in validation standards and how different people value a conclusion (observational experience vs. formal external evidence).
At that point, there's no real conflict: it's true that there are different preferences regarding what kind of evidence is convincing, and that doesn't imply bad faith, ego defense, or denial of reality. My position was never that only one approach is legitimate, but rather that observing social patterns is also a valid form of analysis, even if it doesn't always take the format some people prefer.
That said, I think we've both made it clear what we were (and weren't) discussing. There's no need to drag this out any further. For my part, I consider the matter closed here.
When everyone around you seems “problematic“, except yourself, it’s time to seek help.
😂 Thanks for the suggestion, but pointing out social patterns isn't my problem.
If the idea that many people confuse sex with love or self-esteem makes you feel attacked, that's your problem, not mine. Observing reality and discussing it doesn't require "help," it requires the ability to face the evidence without resorting to cheap insults. 🤡😂
Telling em to "face the evidence" is impossible as the so-called evidence only exists in your head and your personal experiences. Your post: "I see it everywhere", "so many people seem [xyz] to me", "I've seen people say things like [xyz]", "modern culture seems to be [xyz] to me", "I just look at it and think [xyz]". Look at those keywords being "I" and "me" there
Thinkers like intj do value evidence. But personal experience is not evidence in a scientific or rational sense. It's anecdote
Evidence must be testable, verifiable by others, and not dependent on one person's (your) perspective. You never provided such a thing, so it isn't there to face 🤷🏻♂️
I understand what you're saying, but there's a key point of confusion I want to clarify one last time.
I never claimed to be presenting a scientific study, nor did I ask that my observations be treated as experimental evidence. What I did was social and cultural analysis, which doesn't operate under the same criteria as strict scientific validation. Observing repeated patterns in discourse, attitudes, and shared experiences doesn't cease to exist just because it's not accompanied by graphs or papers. In sociology, philosophy, and cultural analysis, that kind of observation is a legitimate starting point, not a fallacy.
That said: if your personal standard for considering a claim valid is exclusively quantifiable and externally verifiable evidence, that's fine. It's a methodological preference, not a refutation of what I pointed out. It simply means that this kind of discussion isn't relevant to you, not that "there's nothing to address." They're different frameworks.
My position is clear now, and so is yours. There's nothing more to resolve here, so I'm closing the topic and won't respond further.
Who are the “many people confuse sex with love” you speak of? What evidence do we need to face here?
When I say “many people,” I’m talking about observable social patterns, not a list of proper names or a customized lab experiment for your convenience. Discourses where personal worth depends on sexual desire, where the absence of sex is automatically experienced as rejection, failure, or loss of love, have consistently appeared in everyday conversations, forums, couples therapy, popular psychology, and cultural debates for years.
I’m not presenting a paper or trying to shut down an academic discussion; I’m pointing out a cultural phenomenon, just like when we talk about consumerism, external validation, or emotional dependency. If your standard for recognizing any social pattern is “show me a study right now or it doesn’t exist,” that doesn’t invalidate the phenomenon: it only indicates a difference in how we evaluate reality.
My point isn’t to convince you or “prove” anything before an imaginary tribunal. It’s to describe a recurring confusion between love, self-esteem, and sexual gratification. If you don’t see it or it doesn’t resonate with you, that’s fine. Not every analysis is mandatory for everyone.
I'm closing this topic here.
As many other replies here, It's not quantifiable by merely observing a couple of reddit posts unless you survey enough actual people with validated research methods and tools and have the professional knowledge to backup such research, you can't justify you're own observations as a universal truth. Besides moral grounds limitations, love itself is irrational and it's meaning is entirely up to the people in the relationship, people in general will judge others on criteria completely skewed by their own personal beliefs or what they feel right (as long as we're not crossing rational moral grounds as I aforementioned).
I'm sorry, I didn't read your whole post, but I just the gist of it. You're right in that people's value in a relationship must be more then sex (unless they agreed otherwise at the outset). No one should feel manipulated into it for any reason, or like they owe it to their partner. They should be doing it only because they want to, and not when they don't.
I felt very similarly to you as a teen, honestly, but I also let society influence my opinion of sex. I learned for myself over time that sex with your one person isn't about you giving it to them, them needing it from you, or having it taken from you, it's about wanting to be as close to that person as is possible, physically and experientially. Love is many things, but when you both want that because of who that other person is and what they mean to you, it can't be anything but love.
Exactly, that's precisely what I'm pointing out: sex doesn't determine a person's worth or the strength of a relationship. When it becomes a "duty" or a validation mechanism, it ceases to be a true connection and becomes transactional, but many of the comments here don't understand that.
As you mentioned, true intimacy arises when both people want to share closeness and experiences because of who the other person is, not because of social pressure or external expectations. That's what truly sustains a relationship: emotional intelligence, mutual care, and a conscious willingness to be present, not the frequency of sexual encounters. I'm glad to see you see it from the right perspective. I'll continue to go against the grain of what most people think. Only a few truly grasp this, and you're one of them. Thank you ☺️
It does seem to be the way of things. I’ve been married for fifteen years. We are Christian, so we wanted to wait until marriage for sex. It’s amazing how many people asked “How will you know if you’re compatible?” as though the quality of the sex was the most important factor in determining if we should be together. It seemed to state, as you kind of indicated, the value of the other person being summed up in the pleasure they could give me. As though all the things I loved and respected and admired about the other person were trivial in comparison.
Edit: typo
OMG, TOTALLY 🙌🏻. But tell that to the cavemen who insist that “without sex it’s just friendship” 🤦🏻♀️. Fifteen years of marriage and compatibility wasn’t based on the frequency or quality of sex, but on love, respect, admiration, and mutual care 🤍
It’s amazing how some people reduce everything to instant gratification, as if everything else in a relationship, like shared values, loyalty, and emotional connection, were irrelevant. Your experience proves it: sex can be the cherry on top 🍒, but NEVER the foundation of a real bond. Thanks for your excellent contribution! 🤍
I don't think people appreciate just how odd Christian marital commitments truly are, historically. And therefore how fragile this form of commitment actually is.
Prior to christianity (and sikhism), there were no major philosophies or religions that explicitly required sexual monogamy. Marriages were many things: sexually monogamous wasn't always one of them. Just ask the Romans who practiced the earliest forms of monogamy. Monogamy meant relational commitment and maybe resource commitment, but not sexual. Wealthy roman men would always keep multiple partners.
Christianity, which explicitly requires both emotional AND sexual monogamy, had such a vast impact on our way of viewing the world, and our relationships with one another, that people (including secularists) forget just how hedonic we actually are.
Sikhism is not a proselytizing religion, so christianity does all the heavy lifting for this mode of human relation. Even practitioners of judaism moved towards a more christian, sexually monogamous pattern but only AFTER christianity.
In human history, human always practiced polygamy, polygyny, or serial monogamy. There has never been strictly enforced monogamy that were strictly enforced and maintained ever in most of human history although the facade of monogamy did exist. Facade does not equal to reality. Humans are not designed to exist in strict monogamy. Just look at body count on both sides of gender. Left to their own device, humans naturally practice polyamory of sorts. I suppose commitment or promise of partnership involved may differ.
Who says it’s new?
I don't know what all the fuss is about, plenty of marriages exist without much if any sex.
That only works if both parties are ok with that.
Some comments here seem to disagree: many swear that without sex, the relationship is "dead" or just friendship, as if emotional intimacy and real connection were irrelevant.
Your point is the one that makes sense: many relationships work perfectly well without sex being central, and that doesn't diminish their value or depth. It's incredible how some people lose sight of the obvious by following a cultural mandate.
Sex and marriage are 2 separate issues although it has socially expected connections. Marriage is essentially a social contract to form a family to create legacy of children or partnership to help each other. As a part of procreation, sex is necessary parts of that. But does sex confirm love or lack thereof? No. It is nothing but physical desire and exchange of pleasure at bottom line which can on some occasion result in certain mental and physical exchanges that affect both parties. It is rather complex. Carl Jung does a pretty good job of explaining how physical connection can affect mental side of relationship. Is intimacy necessary for marriage? No. Since many partnership like business does not always involve emotion like love or affection. Rather things like respect and trust are much more essential to any relationship since you can not stay in relationship with person you do not respect or trust. Sometimes, love, marriage, and sex are all in one package but it rarely continues being the same. Most relationship usually ends up with respect and trust as an essential building block. When one side breaks that covenant, the relationship ends. Since we do tend to fail to prioritize things like respect and trust, it is no wonder why so many relationship fails.
Here, finally, we're much closer to a real point. I agree on the essentials: sex, love, and marriage are not synonymous, even though culturally they're sold as a single package. The common mistake (and precisely the one I've been pointing out) is using sex as a moral barometer of love, when in reality what sustains any long-term relationship is respect, trust, and mutual responsibility.
Desire can exist without love, love without desire, and marriage without either. Confusing these aspects is what generates resentment, guilt, and emotional dependence. When respect or trust is broken, the relationship falls apart, whether there's sex or not. That's where the real breakdown lies, not in the frequency of sex.
My point was never "sex is bad" or "it doesn't matter," but rather that it can't be the central measure of value, love, or commitment. When it's placed there, everything else deteriorates. With that said, I consider the matter closed.
I agree. I think the issue is that people have been trained to value sex far more than they value humanity or real love.
Sex has become the number one priority in a relationship to many because it’s seen as the ultimate form of bonding.
Modern contraception is part of the cause, sex became more of a fun activity to do at any time with less obvious consequences. It’s pleasurable, free, bonds couples, it’s good exercise and boosts mood.
Men are also far more susceptible to prioritising sex because their biological needs for it are naturally stronger. They also have access to the an almost endless catalogue of porn for free from youth, and this access trains their brains to subconsciously objectify women and desire transactional sex as part of their self “worth”. Men are trained that if you aren’t having sex then you are a loser, so it follows that if they have a relationship and aren’t having sex then their needs are being disrespected and disregarded.
Women recognise that to keep a man in the modern world, you have to be sexually available to them, and so at first might compete by giving into being “sexy” for their partner, fulfilling their daily needs and give into this habit of sexual transaction, but ultimately they are usually the first to experience burnout, especially if they have children. Thus relationships often hit this road bump and each side blames the other without actually thinking about what’s really going on.
Exactly! 🙌🏻 Thank you for your comment; you really captured the essence of what I'm trying to say. You, I, and a few others clearly see how society has put sex on a pedestal above humanity, emotional connection, and true love.
I love how you explained it 👻: from the cultural pressure on men and women to the way sex becomes a "measure of worth" rather than a real bond. That's precisely what I want more people to understand: it's not that sex doesn't matter, but when it becomes the foundation of everything, it replaces intimacy and genuine connection, and that's where relationships become superficial, draining, or transactional.
It's refreshing to see someone understand that there's another way to love: conscious, emotional, and deeply human, without depending on immediate sexual validation. Thank you 👻🤍
I've outgrown this way of thinking quite a while ago, but I carried on believing the people who really did think this way loved me, and were comfortable enough to share that intimacy with me. I used to believe making the first move as a lady was taking initiative and going for what I wanted, since that's how things go. As if having sex, like a man, was something I could do and just forget about. I quickly jad to put that out of my mind. All that "You'll never know unless you ask" bullshit only applies at the grocery store😂. Half the time men dont even like themselves, let alone anyone else. And everytime I ended up genuinely liking somebody, it backfired. I chose wrong. I was around quite a few people who didn't want what was best for me, but nobody told me upfront they didn't want me around. It confused me for the longest time.
It warped my idea of what sex was even for, and what I lacked in all of my relationships was consistent and reciprocal intimacy. So eventually I just realized I'm not a horndog and never will be, and thank goodness.. I enjoy sex, it just doesn't serve a purpose for me unless there's a real connection, and I feel like ive failed to find it and settled for what I had in front of me. Thats what I kept hearing.."don't be picky, just talk it out, you'll warm up to them". Im not a model, but I consider myself attractive and always thought people who approached me thought the same. I entertained people who weren't my type, but I enjoyed spending time with them for the most part.. Up until the point I realized why they even kept me as company. I've never had any (real) male friends, it was always some deep seated resentment if they weren't getting anything out of it. So none of that anymore.
It was always some self-serving way to get around to what they wanted, or to prove themselves rather than make me feel good about myself, or share a moment. And for a while I felt very ugly and used. I don't enjoy entertaining anyone who talks to me now, because I can tell almost immediately its superficial and it wont go anywhere. You can smell it on them. Like sure I could have sex, but atp in my life nobody is worth it. I wish it was different. I would like someone to feel the way I do about them for once, and have reasons for not wanting to give up. I would like someone to protect that intimacy with me, rather than indulge in it..
Hahaha, the supermarket bit cracked me up 😂. But seriously, what you're saying perfectly reflects what I'm trying to point out: sex doesn't define the value of a relationship or true affection. What's missing in many modern interactions is real, reciprocal intimacy, not instant gratification or superficial validation.
I completely agree: entertaining someone without an emotional connection is a waste of time, and using sex as proof of love or as a form of self-affirmation is primitive 🪨🤦🏻♀️. True intimacy goes beyond impulses; it's care, respect, and genuine connection, and your example perfectly demonstrates that 🤍. Thanks for your input! 🤍🤍
Completely agree with everything you said! Glad there are people who think this way coz that's what I always felt but was always the only one to do so.
You, I, and some of you here agree that sex isn't the foundation of a relationship. But if you only knew the things I've read 😅 There are people who literally swear that without sex there's no love, that without sex it's just friendship, that the relationship is "dead," or that your partner will automatically leave you. They act as if emotional connection and intimacy are irrelevant, and everything depends on the frequency of sex.
That's why I think it's important to say this: sex isn't the only indicator of love or value in a relationship. There are people who have deep, lasting, and happy relationships without it, simply because they prioritize intimacy, mutual care, trust, and shared experiences. By the way, thank you so much for your input! 👻
Yup. It is needed to be said more often, glad you took the initiative! But I must point out one thing though, it will be more men who will not agree with you than women. These "people" you are talking about are mostly men. (Trust me I've seen enough of this world to say this).
It is very common that cheating partners will stop having s*x with their partners but that is not the only cause. I will not comment further to avoid persecution.
Exactly, you're right, that reinforces what I'm saying: the absence of sex doesn't always indicate infidelity, relationship problems, or disinterest. The point remains: sex can be a component of a relationship, but it's not its definition or the only indicator of connection or commitment. The obsession with interpreting it as an absolute sign is what makes these patterns so worrying 📉. Thanks for your input! 🤍
When my wife was dying from cancer I don't think she felt like sex and I didn't feel like it was appropriate either. If we use the reproductive theory, we had done that and I have three kids. Love has three components: passion, intimacy and commitment. Throughout the relationship I believe all must be there but there is no way you can maintain all three 24/7 for years. Since then I have had passion but no intimacy or commitment twice and currently have intimacy with no passion or commitment. I have been in love once and lust many times. Maybe someday it will happen again. The society that did it is corporations. Sex sells so you expect people to sell themselves in that department like ads, videos and social media.
This is a completely understandable reason though. It’s a different story entirely if you are talking about someone who prefers masturbating to porn over sex with their partner.
Thanks for sharing 🤍. Your example perfectly illustrates what I'm trying to point out: love doesn't disappear when sex isn't present, and a real relationship can't sustain passion, intimacy, and commitment at the highest level constantly for years. To think otherwise is to not have lived enough.
What worries me is seeing so many comments reducing everything to "biology" or "reproductive drives," as if that completely explains human relationships. I've read things like: "without sex it's just friendship," "love is just chemistry," or "if there's no constant desire, it's not real." That framework ignores illness, grief, trauma, life stages, deep attachment, and conscious choice. Using biology to explain origins doesn't justify making it the sole criterion of value. If that were the case, commitment during illness, fidelity without immediate gratification, or long-term care wouldn't make sense, and clearly they do.
I agree with you that the problem is cultural. The constant commercialization of sex has pushed many people to use it for personal validation instead of understanding it as an important, but not total, part of the relationship. That's where the relationship stops being human and starts to feel transactional. I really appreciate your input. It adds the nuance and experience that are often missing from these discussions.
And you are basing this off reddit posts? You are making arguments throughout this thread like a stereotyped INTJ teen.
Is this all you have? Do you have anything more to say on the subject rather than silly attack on ideas? Do you have any thought of your own on the subject?
Sex is nothing but about desire and body function. It has some limited relationship to love, but not directly related. See definition of love people misunderstand all the time in the following.
Orion Taraban does a pretty job to define the term efficiently in modern terms.
1. Love is "Self-Emptying" (The Humiliated Self)
Taraban defines love not as an emotion, but as the total sacrifice of self-interest for the good of the other.
2. Love = Relationships
This is his most blunt distinction.
3. Love is a "Divine Commandment," Not a Feeling
Taraban argues that love is a higher state of being that "lulls knowledge."
So most of thing we call love is our own desire, our needs, our wants. Not love. Since loving someone may include a possibility of severing the relationship with the person you love the most if relationship itself is bad for the person you love.
Exactly. And that's precisely the point many avoid because it's uncomfortable. Much of what people call "love" is actually attachment, desire, need, or fear of loss. Love, in a more mature sense, isn't about clinging to what you want to receive, but about being able to prioritize the other person's well-being even when that means giving up the relationship.
If a relationship harms, limits, or consumes the person you claim to love, staying in it out of need, habit, or gratification isn't love: it's dependency. Loving can also mean letting go, setting boundaries, or ending something that's no longer healthy, even if it hurts. That distinction (between love and need) is precisely what many confuse and what causes much of the resentment I've been talking about.
With that, my position is clear. I won't pursue this further.
And on the flipside, many people engage is casual sex. Sex does not inherently mean anything. It's an extracirricular activity to which only some people attribute emotional significance. I agree. A lot of folks need to grow up.
If sex has no intrinsic meaning and for many people is just a casual activity, then using it as a measure of love, personal worth, or commitment is a logical contradiction. It can't be "just sex" when convenient and the "ultimate proof of love" when it's lacking. This inconsistency is what generates emotional confusion and fragile relationships.
I agree: many people need to mature, not in a moralistic sense, but in learning to differentiate between desire, attachment, validation, and real love. When this distinction isn't made, suffering occurs, people demand what sex can't provide, and they call things that aren't love "love."
Sex was never and will never be the proof or the expression of love. Its an act done by both loving partners among so many other things. In my opinion sex will barely make 5-10% if the whole relationship at most. OfcI also preserving my personal preference of saving that sort of connection to be with someone really special and committed to completely.
Exactly. That's basically what I'm pointing out. The problem isn't sex itself, but when it becomes a test, a measure, or a substitute for love, self-esteem, or commitment.
The fact that sex exists within a relationship doesn't automatically make it love, and its decrease or change doesn't invalidate it if everything else remains intact. When sex occupies 5–10% and not 80–100%, there's room for trust, care, loyalty, and real intimacy.
Thank you for expressing it clearly and without confusing desire with value.
I think that is the fundamental difference between the male and female view of sex. They’re opposite ends of the magnet, so it makes no sense to the other.
End of the day what is love? An emotion that’s triggered by brain chemicals.
Why do men and women have different views on sex? Because if our drives matched we would overpopulate the planet. Your average male wakes up every day with morning wood. If women were ovulating every morning then there would be non stop pregnancy. The earth would be stripped of resources by the population spike.
Why do women value the intimacy of a relationship over sex? Is it because biologically they’re weaker and less aggressive than males and they learned over the millennia that they needed a support structure to survive, people to help collect food, watch out for predators?
Are men wired to be goal oriented because of the millennia of scarcity based resources? Think how about few centuries ago the Industrial Revolution wasn’t a thing. If you wanted to survive you needed to grow food or hunt. If you had a larger pack this was easier to farm and hunt. You needed to procreate.
Is love purely an emotion from brain chemicals?
I think I heard this from a movie or something once- that love is an action. Yes, we can feel a love emotion, but real, meaningful, long-term love is more than that. It's choosing commitment, choosing to care for another person, to be faithful, to be kind. Even on the bad days, when your brain isn't full of love chemicals. You can be mad, hurt, depressed, and still choose to love someone- even when you don't feel it. The emotion is a part of love, for sure, but if that's all it was, then no relationships would ever survive long-term or past any hardships.
But also, your theory about evolutionary reasons for different views on sex doesn't really make sense. Humanity is already overpopulated and using up Earth's resources. Or we can look at other species, such as deer. When all their natural predators are removed, the deer will easily begin to overpopulate and strip their environment of resources, too. Evolution doesn't have a plan- it is simply favorable traits being passed down more than unfavorable traits. There is no goal to prevent overpopulation, and often biology actually does favor reproducing over not reproducing. In times and places where infant mortality is high, people would have lots of children, but not all of them would survive to adulthood. Males of a species typically are more focused on quantity when it comes to mating & reproduction- because that is how they can maximize passing on their genes. A man can knock up 10 girls all in the same week, and that's potentially 10 instances of his DNA being passed on. A woman could ovulate once a month or every day, but she can still only get pregnant once in that month.
I don't really know why our bodies work on a monthly cycle- maybe just due to needing time to prepare for a pregnancy and time to flush out unfertilized eggs and start over? But I don't think it has anything to do with affecting the frequency of pregnancy. I mean, without birth control, a woman could still easily be "nonstop pregnant". Plus, afaik women can still have a strong libido even after menopause or even when they have fertility issues.
But regardless, back to the point- love is bigger than just brain chemicals or sex. A relationship that is only built upon sex or temporary brain chemicals highs is not going to be fulfilling or last. We also can love (in a different way) our parents, siblings, close friends, children, etc without needing sex or the same emotions that come from romance. And I think many women do value sex in a relationship- but they need more than just sex. I don't believe men are inherently incapable of desiring deeper relationships, either.
Bottom line, love is a human made concept we all share as a treasure of mutual shared fiction. The uniqueness is that we all share the understanding and treasure it. However, it is not a real object like an apple. So it is in essence a fiction made and shared by humans. Sexual desire is actually driven by actual brain and chemicals in our bodies. So it is real in that sense. Marriage or partnership is another concept made up by humans and shared as a shared fiction. The uniqueness of humanity is our ability to utilize so many shared fiction to uphold relationship of huge population starting from 1 to 1 to 1 to many. No other being on this planet can form a city with population exceeding 10 million. Our shared delusional fiction is what allowed homo sapiens to do what is unnatural
tbh i think you’re slightly misinterpreting a few things here.
Even in male/male female/female relationships one partner may vastly overvalue the importance of sex while the other does not.
Overpopulation is not a concern for the cavemen hormones, as under cavemen conditions most infants would die, as would many pregnant women. Overpopulation is a result of medical intervention attempting to save every life and succeeding with most.
I agree with you about women valuing the safety/intimacy aspect of a relationship somewhat more than men. But at the same time, a lot of men these days apparently crave intimacy a lot as well. In fact, some parts of psychology would argue that even sex is an attempt to find true intimacy and deep connection but without a proper foundation that obviously won’t be the case.
I do also believe that true romantic love can exist without sex. Realistically, cavemen hormones are gonna jump in at some point, so for most people it comes to sex anyway sooner or later, but would you argue that if we’d take away the hormones completely, two partners wouldn’t love each other anymore, or two new partners couldn’t end up loving each other eventually?
Feel free to disagree with me but actual true love in 2 people would also continue to exist even if one partner could no longer have sex (physical illness, trauma, age etc). If the love stops at thar point then it wasn’t love, just cavemen hormones, which is unfortunate. But many people are capable of continuing to love their partner even if a relationship is without sex.
There’s even couples in japan where the wives are ok with purely physical cheating as long as the husband still only loves them. However weird that is, i guess many people would argue that love by itself doesn’t include sex. If you get to have it with a person you love, that’s a cherry on top, but going into any long term relationship and requesting it as a "proof of love" (as OP described) is absolutely silly. At that point it’s smarter to state straight away that it’s just about cavemen hormone satisfaction
Women select their mates carefully not because of population concern, but a concern for their own protection and safety. Our evolution required female species to find their mate who can bring back the resource and protect them. So women had to be careful in selecting their mate. If not careful, that could have spelled death for themselves in the past. In modern society, that borderline has now faded due to prosperity and abundance. In fact, hypergamy is running amok in many modern nations causing relationships to shatter. What works for each people, no one knows, but there are certain things like respect and trust we expect from each other to uphold any relationship. And there are certain things that tends to be universal like how our brain or basic instinct are formed. Hypergamy is one of those things. Is there any reason why women prefer men taller than them? Not logically, but in human evolution, it is connected to biological instinct connecting height to better protection or better resource. That is not true or realistic at all, but human brains and instinct does not care or can not make the distinction. So shorter men does unjustly struggle to get through the door to find their relationship often forcing them to be really funny or have vibrant personality in comparison to taller men. It is rather complex mix of things.
ofc it is a complex mix of things. Also i’ve never stated that women pick their partner because of population concern. Obviously it’s about safety, as i’ve even said so myself.
You’re also correct that hypergamy is ruining a bunch of relationships because of how common it’s become to marry someone based on external factors rather than what they represent by themselves.
The height issue is a very known problem everywhere, and has been for centuries. "Napoleon complex" is an unfortunately common phenomenon. Even many incredibly rich men are turned down if they have that complex, but this also goes hand in hand with self esteem issues that further lower the perceived attractiveness (it’s harsh but is the brutal truth). A short guy who carries himself well will always have more success. Same thing applies to women with an unfortunate hip/waist ratio or zero curves. All of this is just basic biology talking and there’s no way around that. One thing is physicality but the other is always confidence/charisma.
I’d like to point out that once a guy is taller than maybe 6’7 and starts experiencing some lifestyle problems, women will also stop chasing that guy (unless he’s a rich and confident basketball player). Same way that very few men want a completely overweight woman, however enormous her curves might be at that point.
Height for men and curves for women will always be biologically relevant even if you think it’s "unjustly". Both are markers of excellent development for any offspring. The only issue these days is that modern societies + the internet make it possible for both genders to sideline the less appealing options because they have the trust that they’ll find someone "better".
If we’d still live in clans of about 50-100 people that we’ve known since childhood, dating and finding love would be a much more natural process.
But that’s not the case so we gotta play by the new rules. It is what it is
Hahaha, the "cavemen" thing cracked me up 🪨😂. They really do act like primitive impulses justify everything, like evolution gave them license to reduce relationships to pure chemistry and survival.
I completely agree with you: true love doesn't depend on sex. It can be the cherry on top, a nice extra, but never the foundation of everything. The fact that some people need to see it as proof of love is, seriously, completely caveman-like 🤦🏻♀️. Thanks for putting it into perspective with clear and reasonable examples 🤍
humans don't even have seasons like a lot of higher mammals, they are almost always in season for the entirety of their reproductive span. men are always ready to have sex, making sperm every day, and women aren't like pandas who only ovulate once in a blue moon. humans are kept in balance by the fecundity bottleneck of a woman only realistically in nature being able to birth one child or twins at a time and each offspring needing 9 months and after that a hell of a long time to mature to become independent
humans are very sexually active for mammals to make up for this.
the reason men and women have different views an sex is because the male and female strategies for passing on their genes are different due to the sexual dimorphism the species has ended up in. it's a cul de sac with no way out of it for the present moment. men are stuck in their role and women are stuck in their role biologically as far as natural human forms go. so men adapt their sexual strategy to their role and women to theirs.
although there has been a dramatic shift away from polyandry/polygamy and tournament mating like chimps do during the human evolution, toward monogamy, and the reason for that is simple - without an incentive to sacrifice themselves to build a functioning civilisation, men won't break their backs so that Chad can get all the women. individual men have to be assured they will get a shot at passing on their genes in a civilised manner, or it all burns down and returns to tournament mating. part of the problem and the dissolution that you see in society today is because those rules that enforced monogamy and civilisation are breaking down in favor of things resembling tournament mating.
Monogamy is all about legacy and ability to secure assets or resource for future children. Only way to secure that is by prohibiting mating of women to other men.
well yeah i mean the biological imperative for that are obvious, if we aren't gonna have a world where men fight to the death to have women, then you need an organizational principle like monogamy. and from that a more complex civilization was permitted to be built
it's why purely matriarchal primitive societies are far less efficient and couldn't compete with the more organized and aggressive patriarchal ones, because the men in them are not incentivized nor organized
You’re not making a deep argument you’re flattening human behavior into biology because it’s easier than dealing with complexity.
Reducing love to “brain chemicals” doesn’t make you rational; it just shows a lack of explanatory depth. By that logic, trust, morality, art, and meaning are also irrelevant yet societies still organize around them.
Your evolutionary argument is also lazy. Human behavior isn’t dictated by raw reproductive impulses anymore. We have contraception, culture, self regulation, and symbolic meaning. Evolution explains origins, not how people should interpret intimacy in modern relationships.
Claiming women value intimacy because they’re “biologically weaker” isn’t science it’s a post-hoc justification of historical power structures. You’re confusing physical dimorphism with psychological dependency, which are not the same thing.
And framing men as goal-driven providers because of ancient scarcity ignores individual variation, social learning, and modern context. It’s narrative, not evidence in short you’re using biology as a shortcut to avoid engaging with emotional, psychological, and cultural reality.
That’s not insight. That’s reductionism dressed up as intelligence. 🙂
This sounds a lot like ChatGPT wrote this but I'll bite.
What is logic, trust, morality, art, meaning? It doesn't exist, you can't touch or feel it. Why do we organize society around imaginary principles? Is it because we learned as a species to unite to overcome our challenges? What is a culture but shared experiences, history, art, music? That is what defines entire countries and why countries go to war with each other.
"What is honor compared to a woman’s love*? What is duty against the feel of* a newborn son in your arms… or the memory of a brother’s smile*? Wind and words. Wind and words.* We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love*. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy."*― George R.R. Martin
Human behavior is defined by raw reproductive impulses. We just don't want to acknowledge it. It's ugly. Look at the fundamentals of advertisement; it's being used on you in real time. Advertisers learned that sex sells to men. You cannot go anywhere without seeing sex being used on a billboard, movie trailer, etc to appeal to men. Women too, but not as much. Have you ever seen a group of women and then one of them introduces a baby into the group? They're all enamored for the most part. That's their coded in maternal instincts kicking in.
Psychological dependency and physical dimorphism are linked. Why do you think movie stars like Henry Cavil and Arnold Schwarzenegger are so popular among women? Muscles indicated strength and thus protection and resources.
My evidence for the male side of the aisle was the reference to pre Industrial America where people lived in log cabins and farmed\hunted. Men had seasonal time crunches and had to be very goal driven to have the resources to survive winters when there was no game or plants to eat. Men do appreciate intimacy too, probably a learned feature in mate attraction.
Calling something “ChatGPT-like” isn’t a counterargument; it’s basically admitting you don’t know how to deal with structured reasoning unless it’s wrapped in personality or emotion.
Nothing I said requires AI. It requires a basic analytical separation between explanation, meaning, and reductionism, which you keep collapsing into one thing. You are right about one thing, though: concepts like logic, trust, morality, art, and meaning aren’t tangible, but that doesn’t make them imaginary in the derogatory sense you’re implying. Money, law, language, and math also can’t be “touched,” and yet entire civilizations function because of them. Intangibility ≠ irrelevance.
Citing literature about love doesn’t support your argument either. In fact, it contradicts your idea that human behavior is driven solely by reproductive impulses. If raw reproduction were the sole driving force, poetry, art, sacrifice, long-term relationships, celibacy, and non-reproductive love would not persist across cultures.
Your argument about advertising demonstrates influence, not causation. “Sex sells” works because humans already assign symbolic meaning to sex, not because we are helpless animals functioning solely on instinct. Conditioning exploits psychology; it doesn't define it.
The same flaw appears in your examples about babies, muscles, and historical survival. You are describing trends and then treating them as total explanations. Evolutionary pressures shaped predispositions, but they did not eliminate cognition, self-control, culture, or individual variation.
And this is the crux of the problem: You continue to confuse biological influence with biological determinism. No serious psychological or evolutionary framework claims that humans are nothing more than reproductive machines. That's a superficial version of science, not real science. Reducing humans to impulses doesn't make the vision "brutally honest." It just avoids confronting complexity.
If they are youngish and in a relationship and not having sex something is wrong either physically or with the relationship and to think otherwise is a coping mechanism or just pure denial. To be specific I mean NO sex, or sex less than once every three months. An exception could be older people who are healthy and just have lower libido which is totally natural.
I'm ready to be convinced otherwise but I can't imagine there is much of a case against this.
As for sex being actual proof of love, it's not, it's just one of the natural side effects of love and when it isn't present could be an indicator "something" is wrong.
Interestingly, you yourself said it: older adults who have lower libidos still maintain stable and functional relationships. So, according to your initial logic, the absence of sex should indicate that “something is wrong.” But in the example you yourself gave, there’s nothing wrong; the relationship remains stable and functional.
So, in your own words, your assertion falls apart: the absence of sex doesn’t prove that anything is wrong, nor does it invalidate the relationship. Rather, it demonstrates that your measure of “relationship health” based solely on sex is useless and reductive.
The absence of sex in old people doesn't prove anything wrong because they have lower hormone production, that's the distinction.
If they aren't old and love each other and aren't having sex (defined as less than once every three months, which is being very generous) something is wrong either physically or with the relationship. In other words, the old people have an excuse, the younger people don't...there must be something wrong.
Edit: I also wanted to add that a relationship can be stable and functional without sex. Take a step further, someone in the relationship could be cheating on the other and the relationship could be still be stable and functional...but if there's cheating, or no sex, there is *something* that is going wrong, traditionally speaking.
That's precisely where I disagree and where I'm closing the topic.
You're assuming that if there's no sex among "young" people, something is necessarily wrong, and that this "something" invalidates love. That's not an objective truth: it's a normative criterion that turns a sexual expectation into a diagnosis. Saying "older people have excuses, younger people don't" reduces human complexity to hormonal levels and frequency, as if desire didn't fluctuate for psychological, emotional, existential, or contextual reasons that don't imply an absence of love.
That something is different doesn't mean something is broken. And that's the central error. Love isn't proven by meeting a minimum threshold of sexual activity or by conforming to a "traditional" definition. It's proven by the capacity to maintain care, respect, commitment, and honesty when the parameters change (including sex) without turning the other person into a failure that needs explaining or excusing.
And when you say that a relationship can be "stable and functional" even with infidelity, but that "something is still wrong," you're confirming my original point: stability and functionality are not synonymous with love, nor is sex (or its absence) a reliable yardstick for measuring it.
So no: the lack of sex in people who aren't older doesn't automatically prove that "something is wrong" in the relationship. It only proves that sex isn't happening. Everything else is cultural interpretation, not a universal law.
That's all. I won't respond anymore.
No. The thing that is wrong in that example is hormone production as we get older.
Sex is overrated. The end.
I literally dont care about sex. At all. Whatsoever.
Least asexual INTJ
Relationships that suddenly lack physical intimacy often have an issue unaddressed. Sex is part of relationships. When a part of a relationship disappears, it's a message. If my partner wasn't physically attracted to me, I wouldn't feel physically attractive. I actually want to be physically attractive to my partner.
There's a weird sort of trend of people being extremely afraid of sex or extremely transactional about it. I think the better question is "why can no one seem to have a healthy sex life".
Yes, I understand your point 🤝🏻: the absence of physical intimacy can be a message in certain relationships, and it's natural to want to feel desired by your partner. Your observation about people who are afraid of sex or see it as transactional aligns with what I'm pointing out: modern culture has turned sexuality into a form of validation, not connection.
But here's the key difference: not every sexless relationship indicates that "something is wrong" or that love has disappeared. Many couples go through periods without sex due to stress, anxiety, health issues, or simply different priorities, and they continue to build emotional intimacy, commitment, and mutual care ❤️. Sex matters, yes, but it's not the only indicator of love or the value of a relationship, and reducing it to that is precisely what makes modern culture so worrisome and transactional 📉.
so question. If women want to remain attractive to men, why do they let go of their asset that makes them physically attractive? Isn't it delusion to think that men will just remain attracted due to mental connection? Sex is connected to desire. A women with exceeding body weight and dirty sagging body may cause difficulty for men in engage in advanced age. By nature, men are attracted to younger women with clear skin, big eyes, hour glass shaped bodies which all indicates prime health. This can be maintained by religiously attending physical exercise like weight lifting and yoga mixed. However, most women especially in USA let go of their discipline and let their body decay. why is that? What is wrong with exercise or walking to stores instead of getting in the car to drive a short distance? Female mind does not work like male mind in terms of physical attraction being connected to their visual observation. So difference is not about good or bad, but a simple natural consequence of how the human mind and build are made up. Knowing that, should women still allow their body to deteriorate by eating sweets, junk food, and not working out? Have you seen body builders over age 50? They are beautiful.
What a weird implication to take from my incredibly milquetoast message which is essentially "if sex suddenly stops, then there's probably something going on."
By nature, women are attracted to men that have attractive traits that a lot of men pretend to have early and then get very lazy about over time. And? What's your point? I want the person I date to be attractive to me. I want to be attractive to the person I date. You'll really have to actually connect what I said to what you're saying. They are unrelated at first blush.
To be fair from an evolutionary standpoint, sex is the purpose of attraction and the only reason any of us exist on this earth while romantic love is a societal invention installed in our brains from constant exposure to movies and poetry. As animals we want our genes to continue so sexual selection is one determinant of genetic worth and value. Its easy to see how that is connected to individual feelings of value / self-worth. Lastly a relationship without sex is really just a form of friendship. Which isn't bad but also isn't what people seek when they are looking for a romantic connection. I do understand the aversion to seeing us all as chemically driven machines though. We certainly want to believe we are somehow superior to that.
Here we go again 🤦🏻♀️. You're mixing up the evolutionary origins of things with what they mean in real life, and that's a fundamental error.
The fact that sexual attraction has evolutionary roots doesn't mean that sex is the only or primary purpose of a romantic relationship today. Evolution explains where certain traits come from, not how relationships function emotionally, psychologically, or socially today.
Saying that romantic love is just a "social invention" ignores everything we know about attachment, pair bonding, and neurobiology. Culture influences how love is expressed, but it didn't create it from scratch.
It's also a strange leap to equate sexual selection with personal worth. Evolution operates at the population level, not as a moral or psychological measure of a person's value. Mixing those two things is more your ideology than science.
And saying that a relationship without sex is "just friendship" is a gross oversimplification. Romance involves exclusivity, emotional intimacy, commitment, a shared vision, a long-term bond… sex is part of that, not what defines it. Reducing people to "chemical machines" doesn't make the argument any more serious. It just avoids confronting the real complexity. You're not being brutally honest, you're being simplistic. 🙂
No, philosaraptor and Hefty-Ad-7884 are both right. The purpose of attraction is sex, and sex, to produce offspring or to serve as an end unto itself. Romantic relationships are little more than precursors to sex -- think about it, what is a romantic relationship without the promise, or possibility of sex? It's a familial relationship, a friendship or a one-way friend-zone.
In the nomadic stone age, when we travelled in groups, men would procreate with a host of women, and the protection of the women was provided by the men in the group; the women would also procreate with other men within the group. Women would together care for the babies, developing greater social intelligence, and the men would hunt for resources, developing the aptitude required for procuring resources.
Marriage itself was a later technology to socialize men into committing to a partner (or partners, depending on culture) long term, and sharing resources.
Marriage and longterm romantic relationships have to be socialized into men... but communal bonding, friendships and sex (casual or not) are the actual base necessities of human interaction.
Interesting description of the Stone Age, Excersian, but let me point something out: if the purpose of a romantic relationship were only sex, how do you explain modern couples who have been together for decades without sex due to illness, trauma, age, or conscious choice? According to your logic, those relationships would be nothing more than "friendships" or "friend zones," which is absurd and direct evidence that your reductionism fails.
In other words, you're using historical and biological evidence to justify something that doesn't hold up against observable reality: humans build complex bonds that go far beyond reproduction and primitive impulses. Reducing everything to sex + resources is not only incorrect, it's childish 🤦🏻♀️.
Couples that have been married for a long time rely on their commitment to each other, and their shared history and bonding. Look into why arranged marriages are more successful their alternatives.
I think the evidence is observable. But I'm also not arguing against romance, I think romance is important.
This makes no sense, because plenty of animals pair bond and mate for life, and they have no access to media. And that's all romance essentially is.
You may see yourself as a chemically driven machine, but don't project that onto the rest of us.
You're absolutely right, Yoffuu. Pair bonding, long-term attachment, and selective mating exist in multiple species without mass media, movies, or social narratives. That alone dismantles the idea that romance is merely a cultural construct.
I see many comments reducing humans to simple chemical machines or animals solely focused on reproduction 🤦🏻♀️, and what they're doing is projecting their own biases. Biology explains mechanisms, not the meaning of those mechanisms. When ignorant people reduce everything to impulses, they ignore attachment systems, cooperation, and lasting bonds that clearly predate modern society.
I’m an asexual INTJ so I experience no sexual attraction. If I had a partner, it would be based on a romantic or emotional connection rather than a sexual one.
For people who do experience sexual attraction, there are many couples who, at some point, stop having a desire for sex but still stay together. They don’t stop loving each other, continuing to work and provide for the household and care for their homes and for each other and their children if they have any, demonstrating compassion and proving that love can be shown without sex.
Exactly 🤝🏻. That's precisely what I'm trying to point out: sex can be a component, but it doesn't define the entirety of the relationship. What matters is the connection, the commitment, and the conscious choice to stay and care for the other person, even when sexual desire disappears or is absent.
It's incredible how primitive the argument sounds in some of the comments that insist "without sex there is no love" 🤦🏻♀️. The evidence from functional relationships, co-parenting, and mutual support demonstrates that love is not a biological transaction, but a complex system of care, respect, and affection. Your example as an asexual INTJ perfectly summarizes this: emotional intimacy can sustain everything else without the need for constant hormonal impulses. Thanks for your contribution 🤍
And most of them are miserable and afraid of divorce.
That’s a misconception. Being miserable arises out of more serious conflict between a couple. Being afraid of divorce as well, where a married couple feels that they’re too different and don’t get along too well, but stay together for their kids. But if they still get along, have a good relationship, and still love and respect each other as people, there’s little reason for anyone to be miserable. Many marriages find satisfaction in emotional closeness, companionship, shared goals, or other forms of intimacy. This shows that sex frequency is only one piece of the marital satisfaction puzzle, and not the definitive one.
I have never talked to people in the situation where they have all the other things but not sex. They are all miserable. I included having resentment towards your partner as being miserable.
I will grant there could be some in the situation you described but they are the exception not the rule.
But modern culture seems incapable of tolerating connection without immediate gratification. Everything must be proven, measured, validated preferably fast.
seems like you answered your own question.
It seems so, I answered my own question 😅. But seriously, can you believe there are people who say that “without sex, it’s just friendship” 🤦🏻♀️? As if all the love, admiration, and emotional connection were irrelevant compared to instant gratification!
I’ve read comments that perfectly illustrate this: that love is just chemistry, that if there isn’t constant sex, the relationship is dead, or even people who reduce everything to “caveman hormones.” Others have said that long-term relationships without sex are worthless, ignoring couples who go through illness, trauma, or simply the passage of time and remain connected 🤦🏻♀️.
what kind of society is this? a pretty sexualized one.
friendship and meaningful partnership has taken a back seat hasn't it.
but the value of sex depends on the persons involved ultimately. some people can do without it. others cannot.
Hi, I remember you from a comment you made on my previous post. It's great to see you here again 👻
Exactly, that's precisely what I'm trying to point out: this society is so focused on sex that friendship, emotional intimacy, and meaningful relationships have taken a backseat. And yes, as you say, the value of sex depends entirely on the people involved. For some, it's central; for others, it simply isn't, and that doesn't invalidate the relationship or the connection.
Let me answer the question you really want to ask:
Answer: Nowadays men are using sex as a test for genuine interest in him, rather than interest in other things the guy brings to the table (attention, money, security, clout). It's downstream of them getting used for meals and attention on dating apps. So sex is seen as a helpful test to avoid getting used.
Yup. It is a reaction to market forces.
Yea ofc there are relations where sex is a necessary form of connection and without it those relations degrade. Some of them are completely superficial and some of them are deeply understanding and meaningful.
Believe it or not, most people enjoy good sex and most people have a raw biologically driven desire for intimate physical connection. For most people, sexual desire is a fundamental component of themselves. I think being accepted as a whole by your partner is 99% of the time a necessity for a healthy relationship. Someone not fully accepting your sexual aspects can’t possibly be a good thing.
Can there be true love without full acceptance of your partner’s sexual nature? Yes I think true love can exist like that but I think those relationships always come with the sacrifice of neglecting that unfulfilled sexual nature. Most people don’t want to sacrifice a fundamental part of their being.
Is the importance of sex blown out of proportion in discussion overall? Sure. But it’s not always due to some vile transactional motive. In my opinion, good sex vs bad sex is 99% of the time a reliable indicator of the relationship’s health.
Interesting perspective, but your comment self-destructs 🤦🏻♀️. First, you acknowledge that true love can exist without sex, but then you say it always involves ‘sacrifice.’ In other words, you admit my point while trying to invalidate it with a generalization about what ‘most’ people want or need.
Furthermore, what you say about biology and ‘raw sexual desire’ ignores the clear evidence that deep, functional, and lasting relationships exist without sex, including those between elderly people, asexuals, and couples who prioritize emotional intimacy. It’s not a sacrifice; it’s simply another way of loving.
In other words, your argument is based on personal and culturally conditioned perceptions, not on a universal truth. And the more you try to make sex the center of every relationship, the more you reveal that your position is limited and reductive.
Nah. You fail to say anything about the cases where sexual nature is truly sacrificed. You fail to accept the reality that sexual gripe equals non-zero resentment no matter how much you love somebody.
Elderly and asexual people clearly aren’t sacrificing a strong and fundamental aspect of themselves 🤷♂️. Love existing in the absence of sex in those cases has nothing to do with cases where sexual nature is actually sacrificed.
Even in cases where ”emotional intimacy is prioritized” you would expect open and clear communication of sexual preferences and the full acceptance of one’s sexual nature. If one’s sexual nature is unable to be fully expressed that is always a case of ”sacrifice” or ”compromise”.
Therein lies your problem: you're building an entire system based on your own projections, classifying people as "sacrificing their sexual nature" versus "not sacrificing anything" as if that solves anything, but in reality, all it does is expose your inability to conceive of other forms of love that don't revolve around sex.
The evidence is there: older couples, asexuals, people who prioritize emotional intimacy and mutual care demonstrate that sex is neither a requirement nor a universal standard. When you call it "sacrifice," it's YOUR way of rationalizing what doesn't fit YOUR biological view and ensuring your world remains predictable. But these cases exist, they work, they last, and they are happy. Your argument fails because you try to turn your personal and culturally conditioned experience into a universal law, and that makes it irrelevant in the face of reality. To make it simpler, you're talking about your fantasy of how "relationships should be" while ignoring everyone who proves otherwise; that's the real inconsistency, and you're exposing it yourself.
Nah. I fully accept cases where sex is not important as true love. I stand by the premise that good sex is fundamental for love to people with averageish or higher sexual drives (top ~80% of the people on the chart where x axis is sexual drive and y axis is population (normal distribution)). Why do I believe this? Because I think full acceptance of one’s sexual nature by their partner is a necessity for true connection. Because I think neglecting your partner’s sexual nature is not full acceptance and not true connection.
Ironically, I think it’s you who falls victim to ”” talking about your fantasy of how "relationships should be" while ignoring everyone who proves otherwise ””.
You’re the one generalizing the low/no-sex love for everybody. You’re the one ignoring the data where poor sex life is directly causal for degredation of relationships (love).
Here we go again 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ Look, you keep falling into the same trap of trying to turn your limited experience and imaginary statistics into a universal rule of love. You talk about “average sex drives” and graphs as if human relationships were simple mathematical equations, completely ignoring the emotional, psychological, and social complexity that underpins true love. 🤦🏻♀️
The problem is that you generalize about what a sex-based relationship “should be” while ignoring irrefutable facts: happy older couples, asexual people, relationships where sex isn't the priority but intimacy, trust, and mutual care are. In other words, you're just defending a standard that only exists in YOUR head, while the real evidence is hitting you in the face. Just because sex is fundamental to you and those who share your drive doesn't make your perception a universal truth. You're trying to project your world onto everyone else, and that's exactly what your argument reveals: fear, limitation, and a reductionist view of love.
I’m sorry but you’re the one projecting imo to be fully honest.
Let’s just take a step back. You’re all in on emotional intimacy and trust and all the good stuff. So am I.
To me, emotional intimacy means truly seeing a person for who they are, meeting them where they are and accepting them just as they are, and then choosing to give them your love + care + trust.
Now, what should you do with a partner who has an average or higher sex drive? Accept them as they are and give them your love and care. Care for sexual desires included.
Sexual desire is literally natural. It’s not always some mental void for validation or a selfish desire for pleasure. It’s a desire for physical connection with another person.
Ah, look, the funny thing is you accuse me of projecting, when all I'm doing is simply reading other people's reality 👁️. I'm talking about people who react the way you describe: they feel unloved, that the relationship is "dying," or that something is wrong if they don't get sex. This isn't just my imagination or a personal impulse; these are recurring patterns seen in comments, forums, surveys, and everyday experiences. That's OBSERVATION, not projection.
Now, you are projecting, AND VERY STRONGLY. You're projecting your own sex drive, your biology, and your need for sex as if they were the universal rule. YOU SAID: "Good sex is essential for love to work," meaning your world revolves around your hormones, and you decide everyone else has to follow your mold??? And when someone doesn't fit your "average sex drive" chart, you call it sacrifice or dissatisfaction, just like YOU did. That's not analysis, that's your own reductionist view of life turned into dogma.
Let me put it simply: for the thousandth time, there are happy older couples, asexual people, relationships that prioritize care, trust, and emotional intimacy. That exists, it works, and it lasts! You're just trying to invalidate it because it doesn't fit into your equation of "biological need = true love."
So, if we're talking about projection: you project your biology and desires onto everyone else, while I observe how they actually react to the absence of sex. I see patterns, while you see fantasies of how relationships "should be." And not only that: every time you try to impose your imaginary statistics or graphs as law, you only reveal your fear of accepting that true love doesn't need sex to exist.
Accusing someone of projection when they're simply observing reality while you deny it is the very definition of projection. And that exposes you.
I could be asexual and my points hold just the same.
Just for the record, you used the word projection first so you can leave your bickering to another time.
Well to explicitly refute your elderly and asexual argument; the reason you observe them in loving relationships without sex is because they don’t need sex to feel truly accepted and truly seen and truly connected. Observation: elderly people and asexual people have no/little desire for sexual connection. Boom. Power of observation. Why do you think they have anything to do with people who have desire for sexual connection?
Another observation: a lot of people have sexual desires. Another observation: sexual desire is instinctual. Another observation: instincts are a fundamental part of humans. Another observation: neglecting a fundamental part of our nature is worse than caring for it.
You observe people in dying relationships due to bad sex because it’s that important to them. What you’re doing is coming on here and telling everyone else that sex isn’t that important and that those people are bad at loving others. You’re projecting onto everybody that sex isn’t that important.
When I observe people in dying relationships due to bad sex I think ”OK sex must have been that important to them” and move on with my day.
Look, you call what is actually your own projection turned into a universal rule "observation." You say, "Old people and asexuals don't need sex to feel accepted... boom, powers of observation." 🤦🏻♀️ No. That's not observation, that's a specific case that doesn't validate your fantasy that sex is necessary for everyone.
Then you come along with, "Many people have sexual desires... neglecting a fundamental part is worse than taking care of it." What you're doing is projecting your biology and your sexual needs onto all of humanity. That's not science or universal truth; it's your inner world trying to become law.
The real evidence is clear: older couples, asexuals, and those who prioritize intimacy and mutual care function without sex. And they function perfectly well, while you stubbornly insist that "taking care of one's sexual nature" is mandatory for love. That's not observation; It's an inability to conceive of other forms of connection.
In short: I observe real patterns: people who measure their love by penetration and feel bad if there's no sex; you project your sexual impulses as if they were the absolute rule of love; and calling that "observation" is just disguising projection with clever words, because the reality remains: true love doesn't depend on sex to exist.
Every attempt you make to invalidate what works outside of your libido reveals your fear, your limitations, and your reductionist view. Your "boom, power of observation" doesn't hit the evidence; it only shows that your gaze is trapped in your own sexual impulse and nothing else.
So yes, I observe real patterns. You project biological fantasies. The difference between us is what separates reality from illusion 🤡
The more you defend yourself, the more you humiliate yourself. Every attempt to justify your need for sex as a “universal rule of love” only exposes the limitations of your vision and how imprisoned you are by your own impulses. It's not my fault that your relationships are bad, that you measure everything in penetration and dopamine, that you interpret intimacy as a biological calculation instead of a real human connection 💀. Every time you try to impose your libido as the standard, you're showing that your love isn't deep: it's reactive, primitive, and vulnerable. The truth exists outside your hormonal fantasies, and the more you ignore it, the more you portray yourself as incapable of understanding what it means to truly love.
My last relationship was like that. It felt like sex was the ultimate proof of love. I even overheard her one day on the phone insinuating "I should be all over her" to a friend in a tone I can't forget. Needless to say, I didn't like that very much and it was a determining factor for me letting her go. Though I loved this woman, I was not incredibly attracted to her physically. I also didn't find her to be incredibly intelligent. We had great chemistry and were friends first, which is my preference but over time it felt more about sex than anything. For her, the relationship was not sexually edifying unless sex was nearly everyday and for me , the relationship was not intellectually stimulating or edifying and therefore, incompatible for long-term romance. Not a worthy trade for my solitude.
Absolutely 😌. That's exactly what I'm trying to point out: when a relationship is reduced to sex as proof of love, what truly sustains a deep connection is lost: intelligence, understanding, friendship, emotional intimacy.
What you share demonstrates exactly why we can't measure the value of a relationship solely by sexual frequency or physical desire. You can love, respect, and enjoy someone without sex being the center of everything. And when sex becomes a "must" to validate the relationship, it simply reveals a lack of self-esteem, social pressure, or transactional expectations, not real love.
Your experience reinforces what I'm saying: true love isn't based on dopamine or constant attraction; it's based on presence, mutual care, and authentic connection. But tell that to the people in the comments if you want; keep reading, and you'll see someone who says that sex is 99% responsible for a relationship not working. 🤦🏻♀️😂You have to read things, for God's sake!
[deleted]
Ah, look, the typical trick to deflect information 🤦🏻♀️. The cake analogy is exactly what it reveals: you have no idea what you're talking about, but you want to sound profound with culinary comparisons. Human relationships aren't RECIPES or ingredient charts that one can manipulate at will. No. They are complex, emotional, psychological, and social. But that's too abstract for your "sex = everything" logic, right? 🥶
Let's be clear: 1️⃣ You project your biology and impulses as if they were universal rules. "Especially for the male counterpart" is a translation of what you really mean: "My physical desire = law of nature." People don't work like YOUUUUU, and there's plenty of evidence: asexual couples, older couples, relationships that prioritize care, trust, and emotional connection. These relationships exist, they work, and they flourish without SEX BEING THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING!!!!!!! Just because your ego can't process it doesn't make it a lie 🤭
2️⃣ Your imaginary cake sounds elegant, but it's a trick to disguise your IGNORANCE. You believe that every person needs sex as a fundamental ingredient and that, if it's missing, the relationship automatically fails. That's not observation; it's your reductionist and primitive world projected onto everyone else. And every attempt to justify it with analogies shows that you no longer have arguments, only verbal embellishments to save your opinion 🤭
3️⃣ I'm not saying that sex has no value! WHEN DID I SAY THAT?!!!!!! I'm pointing out real social patterns: people measuring their love, self-esteem, and happiness in penetration and physical desire. That's what happens. That's what's repeated. That's what demonstrates the distortion I'm criticizing. You, on the other hand, see everything from your biological bubble and try to turn it into a universal law.
4️⃣ Every time you try to turn your personal experience into a “law of nature,” every imaginary chart and every pie analogy only exposes your fear of accepting that others love without constant sex. That's the truth you hate to admit, and the more you defend it, the more ridiculous you become. 😂 The more you defend yourself and embellish your pie fantasy, the more you humiliate yourself. It's not my fault that your relationships depend on your hormones, your libido, and your limited view of love. Reality is still out there: true love doesn't need sex to exist, even if you can't grasp it. xoxo 💋
[deleted]
Haha, sure, “you use ChatGPT” 😂💀. The classic move when you’ve run out of arguments of your own. Welcome to the club of people who lose debates with me 💋 look, what you just said is exactly the level of banality that gives you away: talking about “saving my future relationships” while completely ignoring the patterns that sustain true love. 😂💀 Every time you make a comment like that, you only reveal that you understand nothing beyond your libido and hormonal fantasies. Your “advice” sounds like the typical echo of someone trapped in their own physical needs, without a shred of understanding of how intimacy, trust, and mutual care sustain real relationships. Meanwhile, I observe the reality repeated in millions of cases, while you project your desires and hopes as if they were universal laws.
And no, I don't care about “saving future relationships” for you or anyone with this reductionist view. What I do care about is making it clear that your biological bubble and your obsession with sex as an absolute rule have no authority over how people truly love. Every attempt you make to mock me with sarcasm only reinforces the obvious: you don't understand love outside of your impulses, and every time you defend it, you humiliate yourself further in the face of reality. So keep making your pie analogies, your imaginary charts, and your fantasies of a "universal law of desire"; I'll keep pointing out what actually works and exists, even if admitting it makes you cringe. 🤭💋
[deleted]
Thanks for confirming my point exactly. When ideas run out, elementary school insults appear. You don't debate: you throw a tantrum. If your best argument ends up being imagining other people's bodies, you not only lost the debate, you also made it clear that you were never intellectual. Good luck with that.
I think what you are missing here is the individual. What makes a relationship good and healthy are based on an individual getting their needs met by a willing partner.
So if sex is less important to you find a partner that shares that view.
The other thing I see a lot is women not showing men their love in any other way but sex. And when a woman does show her love in other ways, other women attack her.
Interesting attempt to shift the focus to "everyone is an individual," but that doesn't refute the clear patterns I'm pointing out. I'm talking about how society has normalized reducing love to sex and sexual validation, not about each isolated case. The fact that you can adjust your life according to your preferences doesn't erase the reality of millions who confuse desire with value, frequency with commitment, and the dopamine rush of sex with true love.
And regarding your observation that "women attack other women when they show love without sex," there you have it, a perfect example of what I'm saying: sexualized culture punishes any form of love that doesn't depend on immediate gratification. It's not a matter of individuality; it's a social pattern, and that pattern is what your argument is ignoring.
In other words: your personal exceptions don't invalidate the rule or the visible effects on society. You can keep talking about individuals; I'll keep pointing out trends. And the difference is that trends repeat themselves, are observed, and shape how people love and suffer.
It is not about immediate gratification but getting any gratification. Men are told to give and give but not expect anything in return. This is an issue with women. Go yell are women that stop others from putting in the work to show love besides sex.
Also the generalized trend means nothing to the individual. You want to can the trend you have to change the experience of the individual. You don't just tell them to stop. They are defining love as sex because that is the only way it is shown to them.
I know so many women that will not cook for a boyfriend, will not buy them gifts, will not check up on them, won't initiate conversations or dates, will not try help solving their problems. If the only thing you do to show love is sex don't be surprised when it is see as sex is need for love.
Okay, let's get this straight: YOU'RE COMPLETELY SPOILING THE FOCUS. We're not talking about each individual performing "gestures of love" like cooking, giving gifts, or initiating dates. We're talking about cultural and social patterns that repeat themselves time and time again, where millions confuse sex with love, frequency with validation, and dopamine with commitment. That won't be erased by telling anecdotes about women who don't cook or don't buy gifts 🙄.
Saying that "if women only use sex, don't be surprised that men need it to feel love" is exactly the problem I'm pointing out: sex has become the currency for proving affection, not for each isolated individual, but for a systemic pattern that affects generations. And yes, the gratification can be more than immediate, but the root remains the same: external validation, not intimacy or real connection.
If you want to change something, start by understanding the patterns before jumping into individual experiences. The trend doesn't exist because individuals are "bad" or "lazy"; it exists because the entire culture has taught us to measure love in penetrations, likes, and hormonal rushes.
As long as you remain focused on individual stories, you're still missing the forest for the trees. And that's precisely the point I keep repeating: trends shape how people love and suffer, and denying that doesn't make it disappear. God, I've told you the same thing several times already. And I assure you that your response to this message will be the same, but with a twist 😂
It is a general trend. It is clear I agree with that. But you fix it on the individual level.
So do you want to talk about fixing it or just complain about it? I bring up the reason it is happening because it should be fixed. And to fix it you need to Identify why it is happening.
You are blaming the trend on a culture but culture is the actions and experiences of individuals.
So if you want a solution we can talk about that but I don't have interest in just complaining and throwing our hands up.
Look, don't get me wrong: I'm not "throwing in the towel" or complaining, I'm pointing out the root of why millions confuse sex with love and dopamine with commitment. And the root isn't in an isolated individual, nor in "some men or women being lazy or bad," but in systematic cultural patterns that are repeated generation after generation. If you think that "culture" is reduced to the sum of individual actions, you're looking at the world with a microscope and not with a strategic vision. Each individual action is part of the pattern, yes, but the pattern is much larger than the sum of its parts. Denying that is missing the forest for the trees, and that's exactly what's happening to you.
If you want to talk about solutions, perfect: but first you have to accept reality as it is, not as you'd like it to be. The “solution” doesn't begin by correcting 10 isolated men or women; it begins by questioning and changing the SYSTEMS that normalize measuring love in penetrations, likes, and hormonal highs. As long as you keep thinking that it's enough to “fix it on an individual level,” you'll continue living in your little fairy tale world where relationships work like equations. And they don't. The evidence is in every comment, every experience, and every pattern I keep observing. That's what others call “complaining”; I call it seeing the unfiltered truth. 🤓
Sorry but I don't see you as wanting to fix the issue. You just want to complain. There is not a system that is doing this. It is the actions of individuals.
That is what you are doing by looking at a fake system instead of the individual situations.
I would suggest doing some research in psychology, biology, sociology, and behavioral development. This will give you a better place to discuss this issue and others.
Ah, of course, “they’re just the actions of individuals,” the classic argument of someone who can’t grasp patterns or think beyond their own bubble. 🙄 Look, darling, you can keep clutching your microscope and examining each isolated action as if that would solve the problem of love reduced to sex and dopamine, but that doesn’t change the evidence right in front of your face: millions of people repeat THE SAME MISTAKES, create THE SAME MISUNDERSTANDINGS, and SUFFER THE SAME RESENTMENTS, generation after generation. That’s not fantasy, that’s not “complaining,” it’s recognizing a concrete SOCIAL pattern that transcends the individual. Denying it is simply closing your eyes to reality because you’re afraid to admit that the world doesn’t revolve around your isolated observations.
And yes, you can recommend I read psychology, sociology, biology, and behavioral development, but the truth is, what’s needed isn’t a manual; it’s the ability to see beyond your epistemological narcissism. A SYSTEM IS NOT JUST A MULTIPLIED INDIVIDUAL; a system is the complex interaction of MILLIONS OF DECISIONS THAT GENERATE COLLECTIVE CONSEQUENCES. As long as you continue to believe that correcting 10 people solves a pattern that has shaped entire societies, you will remain trapped in your fairy tale. I don't "just complain"; I observe, analyze, and point out the root of what many ignore while you try to cover up the sun with a finger. 🤓☀️
Why have fun not solving any issues so you don't lose your hobby.
If anyone reading wants to actually solve the issue.
Show your partner love though actions that improve their lives and shows you are thinking about them
Encourage others to do the same.
Defined people that are being attacked for showing love in none sexual ways. And encourage others to do this as well.
Ah, right, “solving the problem” according to your simplistic manual: reducing everything to individual actions as if that were enough to fix social patterns that have been ingrained for generations. 🙄 What you call “showing love” and “encouraging others” is exactly what ignores the root cause: millions confuse sex with affection, dopamine with commitment, and repeat the same mistakes over and over because the entire culture normalizes this dynamic, not because there's a single person being lazy or bad. Your proposal isn't a solution, it's a band-aid for a systemic problem.
And yes, you can spread love left and right, point the finger at “those who attack,” and give relationship etiquette advice, but that doesn't change the fact that the root of the problem lies in the cultural normalization of sex as a currency of love. As long as you continue to believe that a complex social pattern can be resolved with individual acts of goodwill, you're only demonstrating your inability to see the whole picture. I'm not enjoying a hobby; I'm pointing out what others ignore while you hide behind simple rules to feel useful. I'll let you be useful, xoxo bye bye.
because we live in a secular and sinful society. what people say "love" is actually just plain lust. its because we live in a time where everyone is miserable and have no respect for anything sacred. there are no more gentlemen, respectable ladies, and people stopped respecting the sanctity of marriage. people just forgot what LOVE actually means. its only in the 21st century that divorce rates skyrockets and single mothers are through the roof because of early pregnancy. also including the hookup culture and sexting. its because they lost the fear and respect of love and turn it vile. its honestly depressing that modern Humans today just forgotten the teaching of the bible. Kids and adults stop fearing God.
He/him etc pronouns are also about defining and telling people my sexuality and who i would sleep with.
For some people for some reason, sexual identity has become as important as a name and credentials.
What's worse is no sx, dead bedroom = permission to cheat mentality.
You can thank hook up culture. Love has been replaced with transactional relationships. Women what the expensive dinner and hand bags because that is what social media is pushing. It is all about status. It is even to the point that social influencers will not show their boyfriends because they will lose followers. The followers want to see powerful women using men for money. Having a boyfriend seems like compromise to them.
Men that play into this know that there is little chance of a long lasting relationship. It is all about hitting it as soon as they can otherwise, they fear of missing out on an opportunity they might not get again anytime in the near future. Because a smaller population of men get most of the women's attention, body count becomes a source of pride. So is it love or love of the ego? Playing off that it is love increases the chances of making the connection.
Love is an emotional aspect. Marriage looked at consummation as the binding contract between two people. Maybe it is some part of a rebellion against a government issued piece of paper declaring love between 2 people. In the age of instant gratification, why not rush to the part that can simulate the feeling of love without actually being in love.
Between the fear of missing out and the fear of settling when there can be something better, people are clinging to now and hoping to jump to something better all at the same time. It is all about committing just enough to detach if a better prospect comes by.
There are parts of what you say that describe real phenomena (hook-up culture, instant gratification, market logic applied to relationships), but your analysis goes off the rails when you turn that into a battle of the sexes and a moral caricature.
Reducing the problem to “women use men for status” or “men are just looking to accumulate bodies” is exactly the same simplistic thinking I criticize: replacing love with transactional narratives. A culture that commodifies desire benefits no one; it distorts both sides because it turns people into means, not ends.
And there's the central point you seem to be touching on but not quite grasping: when sex is used to simulate love, status, or validation, we're not talking about connection, but anxiety, fear of missing out, and terror of real commitment. It's not ego-driven love or true love; it's the absence of both.
The problem isn't that people have casual sex, or that they reject legal contracts, or that they use social media. The problem is confusing intensity with depth and access with connection. And that (precisely) is what leaves relationships fragile, replaceable, and always ready to jump to "something better."
If everything can fall apart the moment a more attractive option appears, it's not freedom: it's emptiness in a very disguised way.
There is no simple answer but I think you got my intent just fine. The problems of people dating now was nothing like it was when I was a kid. I am 49. I have seen how everything became a delusion among people. Women rate themselves as a 10 because it is all about attitude. They feel they should not be measured based on their looks. That men should see their worth for who they are and not what they are. Yet, they want a man that is 6 foot, makes 6 figures, and have a 6 pack. None of that has to deal with character. They friendzone men on purpose and chase those that will use them.
Please note that I am 6' 2", actually bring in 6 figures, and had a 6 pack. I valued intelligence so that ruled most women out of my dating pool. I was chased but that doesn't mean much if you are an INTJ and know that most of the girls are not worth your time. I found one that met my criteria. I married her shortly after I turned 19 while she was 18. We are still married.
The men that have the 3 6s know that women will chase them. They do not take the women serious. They will use the women for one thing. It is a good arrangement because the women they use think they are the table when it comes to what is brought to the relationship. It isn't a battle of the sexes. It is the current situation.
Those dictating the narrative are the outliers. Unfortunately, people believe the influencers that are more promiscuous than the average person. The average man has 6+ partners in their lifespan. Average woman is just over 4. Among the influencers, the numbers are much higher. So the perceived depth of relationship is shallow. People like to mimic those they look up to. Welcome to the demise of a deep meaningful relationship for most people. It only takes a few people burning others to spread the fire of mistrust.
There are actually dating coaches on Tik Tok teaching methods to either drain as much money from men or how to quickly seduce women through shady practices. So once again, Social Media is a big part of the problem. It distorts reality.
If you think I am wrong about social media, that is fine. I can tell you that I experienced life before and after the Internet. I seen what it has done and I am grateful that I am not in the dating market. It is touch out there because of the delusions split between both sides. People think watching Tik Tok is a hobby. I have been asked by women how do find a lasting relationship. I told them to look in their friend zone. That is the person that will stick by you and that you get along with. They value you and having you in their live. They are less apt to hurt you and will help you through the hard times. They either said ewww or flat out said no. Yet they keep hopping from one bad relationship to another because they have no common ground and nothing beyond physical attraction.
It's a major fraction of the complex puzzle that is love. It's sensual and releases oxytocin, hence making people feel more connected. You may not prefer sex but others will. As someone else said, the relationship itself (and the persons within it) determine what's valuable (sex, status, commitment, loyalty, honesty, etc.). It's not exclusive to sex. I've actually seen an uptick in sex negativity and asexuality amongst young people now, so maybe more people are in your camp than you realize.
No one is denying that sex can create connection or release oxytocin. That's basic biology. The point isn't "sex is bad" or "I don't like sex," because that's a misinterpretation of what I said.
What I'm questioning is when sex stops being part of the relationship and becomes the measure of personal worth, love, or emotional stability. Then we're no longer talking about connection, but about dependence on external validation.
It's true that each relationship determines what's valuable, but that doesn't negate the existence of cultural patterns where sexual desire is used as a barometer of self-esteem and commitment. Pointing out this pattern doesn't invalidate those who enjoy sex or those who prioritize it; it simply shows that it shouldn't be the axis around which love is defined.
And if there's also a backlash today toward asexuality or less sexualized models, that doesn't contradict my point: it reinforces it. It's a response to decades of confusing chemical intensity with real intimacy.
In short: sex can be a plus, it can be a companion, and it can be enriching. But when it becomes the central criterion for feeling "worth it" or for a relationship to "exist," that's when love stops being love and becomes an emotional substitute.
I see. I don't have an answer for that since the line between sex and love becomes blurry. People are sensory driven and irrational, especially in romantic and sexual relationships, so that's my two cents.
What a needlessly verbose post. Also, "modern culture", lol there's a lot to unpack here especially considering you're a teenager, but I'll just give my opinion as a queer, polyamorous INTP adult man.
A relationship is whatever the people in it decide it is. Boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, husband, they are ALL just labels that signal a set of commonly known expectations that are defined by society and individual values. Beyond the defaults that come with those labels, everything else is negotiable and very personal to the people involved in the relationship. A relationship is you coming to the table with someone and putting down your cards. You negotiate. You put down what you want and what you can provide, and the other person does the same. This can be anything: exclusivity, sex, frequent date nights, meeting each other's families, having children at some point, etc. You come to a common arrangement. That's what guarantees a happy relationship. When those agreements aren't being met, you end up with resentment and worry.
Everyone else that's not at the relationship table is just noise.
For most people, it just so happens that sex is very frequently one of those cards that are put down. It's not our job to judge them for being unhappy when their personal needs aren't met. It's not immoral for someone to value sex in their relationship.
As for the "why" sounding ridiculous, well of course. If you're horny and your partner constantly deflects with excuses, of course your mind starts wandering. And the people posting on Reddit aren't calmly theorizing, this is them coming to their last resort. Do you think people aren't aware of how bad it looks that they're posting about their partner on Reddit? They're at the end of their rope. They're going to be irrational and their mind will jump to stupid things.
I'm not arguing that relationships are negotiated or that each relationship has its own agreements. That's obvious, and I've never denied it. What you're doing is describing how relationships work on an individual level, while I'm pointing out a broader cultural pattern. They aren't opposing planes, they're different levels of analysis.
Saying "each relationship decides its own rules" doesn't invalidate the fact that there's a culture that pushes many people to measure their self-worth and the emotional stability of a relationship almost exclusively through sexual desire. Pointing out this pattern isn't judging those who value sex, nor is it saying it's immoral; it's questioning what happens when it becomes the central axis of love and self-esteem.
That someone is at their emotional breaking point and posts on Reddit explains the intensity, but it doesn't contradict the point: they get there precisely because they've learned to interpret a lack of sex as rejection, failure, or lack of love, even when other factors are at play. This doesn't arise in a vacuum; it arises from cultural narratives repeated for years.
In short: no one is "judging" private agreements or saying that sex doesn't matter. I'm pointing out that when sex ceases to be a negotiated part of the relationship and becomes the barometer of human worth, something has become distorted. If you think that's unnecessary to point out, fine. For me, ignoring it is like only looking at the table and refusing to see the whole room.
With that, I'll close the topic. Not every disagreement is an attack, and not every cultural analysis is a moral judgment.
You're asserting a "broader cultural pattern" but you don't actually know if sex is the primary barometer of human worth to these people. It's simply one signal among many in relationships that you're just noticing discussions about and your jadedness ("modern culture") is making you hone in on it. Saying it's "cultural" doesn't make what you're saying analytically sound. A lack of sex is valid as a form of perceived rejection in a relationship.
The jump from "people often interpret lack of sex as rejection" to "culture has distorted love into sexual validation" is a leap, not a logical conclusion.
No. What you're doing isn't "correcting" me, it's watering down the argument so you can dismiss it. Nobody (not even me) has said that sex is the only barometer of human worth. You invented that straw man argument to feel like you refuted something. What I'm pointing out is that in a huge number of contemporary discourses, sex functions as the central signal of validation, even if it's not the only one. And yes, that's an observable cultural pattern, not a personal obsession of mine.
Saying that "a lack of sex is a valid form of perceived rejection" doesn't contradict my point: it confirms it. The problem isn't that someone feels rejected; the problem is that rejection is automatically interpreted as a devaluation of the relationship or the self. That's not a natural law: it's a learned interpretation, socially reinforced. Your normalizing it doesn't make it neutral or inevitable.
There's also no "logical leap" between observing that sex is interpreted as validation and concluding that love is distorted when that validation becomes central. This relationship is widely discussed in social psychology, attachment theory, and cultural studies. The fact that you haven't thought of it before doesn't invalidate it; it only reveals the limitations of your analytical framework.
And finally: trying to discredit an argument by implying that the person making it is young doesn't give you authority, it takes it away. If you were as "adult" as you imply, you could discuss ideas without resorting to condescension. I'm discussing concepts; you're discussing my age. That says it all.
With this, I'm done. I have no interest in continuing to explain the same thing to someone who confuses "disagreeing" with "not understanding."
I'm not gonna bother reading this since it's simply intellectually dishonest to reply to people using AI. Do I recognize the irony? Of course. But a discussion requires two people actually thinking, not one of them outsourcing their counter points to a robot.
Not reading isn't an intellectual stance, it's avoidance. And accusing "AI" when you have no counter-argument is the modern equivalent of covering your ears and saying "lalala."
Using tools isn't dishonest; what's dishonest is retreating while feigning superiority when an argument makes you uncomfortable. I ended the conversation because it was already clear. You're continuing it just to avoid admitting it.
Relax: you don't need to read it. The point was already made anyway.
Counter argument - sex is the one thing above all others which is reserved to be shared only with one's partner and which cannot rightly be gotten from someone else. Those factors give it enormous value - or else why would cheating MATTER?
It is in virtually all cases an integral part of a promise made to someone else, and that they made to you.
Is that important?
Yes, it's important, but not for the reason you're suggesting.
The fact that something is exclusive doesn't automatically make it the core of love or its primary measure. Fidelity matters because it breaks agreements, trust, and consistency, not because the sexual act has an intrinsic value superior to everything else. Betrayal hurts because of the deception and the breaking of the pact, not because of the mechanics of sex itself. If it were only about sex, then lying, double lives, and the loss of trust would be irrelevant… and they aren't.
Furthermore, the argument that "it's the only thing you can't legitimately get from someone else" is false in practice. Exclusivity also exists in deep emotional intimacy, vulnerability, shared life projects, loyalty, daily care, and in many relationships, that carries more weight than sex. In fact, there are relationships where sex can change, diminish, or disappear, and betrayal remains unthinkable because what's central is commitment, not physical access.
The problem I'm pointing out isn't that sex is part of a promise, but when it becomes the promise itself. When that happens, love ceases to be a bond between people and becomes a contract for gratification. And that's where many relationships become fragile.
So yes, it matters. But it doesn't matter more than anything else, nor does it alone define the existence of love. With that, I conclude my position: whoever wants to reduce love to sexual exclusivity is talking about agreements; I'm talking about meaning.