phew......don't know Bob...but I guess so as there are all kinds of relationships.

I believe the love would create the physical need that would lead to sex.

Sex and love are not the same, but "love" must be qualified. There are several forms of love. A person may love their parents or children, but that wouldn't necessarily lead to sex with them. On the flip side, it is possible to have romantic love without sex. Take for instance when one or both people are physically incapable of having sex (although there are alternatives to intercourse).

I think there's all of the above. There are times I have sex just for the physical need, sometimes for the emotional/love need, sometimes for both.

I can have sex without love, I don't need deep feelings for the guy in order to have sex with him (I'd have to at least like him and be sexually attracted to hiim) but I can't have partner love without sex. To me, partner love, a relationship needs to be whole to be happy in it and stay in it. Without sex and/or other parts that make up a relationship it's not a whole relationship to me.

good o know leather..

I think there are layers of the human psyche and soul.

Yes, I think the two are definitely separate spiritual states. When they are combined, WHOA, it's a mind-blowing, soul-enriching experience! It's the deepest level we as humans can hope to attain, short of meeting our maker in death.

Yes, I think there's love without sex. There's the love between a parent and a child. There's the love between friends. There's the love between you and your pet. You can achieve that level of understanding without bumping uglies.

But the sex is the sizzle, the frosting on a cake, the froth on a beer, the fizz in coke as it's freshly poured out of the bottle into a waiting glass of ice, the watering on a flower that badly in need for sustenance, etc (need I go on?).

Both are required to keep people glued together.

I'm sorry Zabooie, I forgot to mention there's also Geezer sex. It doesn't get any better than that. ;o)

I probably should have said that I was speaking of romantic love not friendship love or family love and so on. Sorry about that.

Neither sex nor love is a "need". Needs are things like food, oxygen, and water. Sex is a drive which is very strong. Love is a desire which is not as strong as a need or a drive. So yeah, they are different things.

Imagine you were alone on a desert island. Lack of sex, or of love, will never kill you. Lack of water will kill you in a few days and food in a few weeks. Now imagine that someone you are attracted to, say an ex, dropped onto the island and was willing to have sex with you. Would you say yes, even if you were not in love with them? If they were the only person on the island, other than you, and you started having sex with them, do you think you might one day be in love with them?

To Satcom's questions:

Would you say yes, even if you were not in love with them? Sure, no question about it.

If they were the only person on the island, other than you, and you started having sex with them, do you think you might one day be in love with them? Nope

The word *need* also means a necessity, it doesn't always have to mean life or death of the body. For me, intimacy/sex/love is a need in a serious relationship if the relationship is going to be kept alive and not die. Will I physically die, of course not but the relationship without intimacy, without sex, will die and my love for that person will die.

I believe they are separate for some or we would not have this friends with benefits or sex buddy things going on; where people are hooking up solely for the physical, and then there are those that want to express their love for another through physical touch.

I have had both, I've loved someone and expressed that love physically, and then I have lusted for someone simply based on physical attraction and the sex was great but there was no love at all...it was pure lust.

I'd rather have the love though as it makes it much more meaningful and memorable.

I have had the unique opportunity to experience just-sex and and in-love-with+sex with the same person! He was my first, in college. He wanted me badly and we had this crazy chemistry . . . so we hooked up, many times - and we became friends but were not in love.
Fast forward lots of years . . . we reconnect and actually fall in love. WOW. I truly don't have words to describe the difference. We are long distance now, so yes, we love each other w/o having sex very often. When we are together we of course get as much as we can. But having that kind of lust combined with love is probably the height of the human experience, aside from having a child. It truly makes us want to just consume each other.

Bob, I think what you are actually referring to and asking cannot be answered within the parameters you set with these questions. The answer to your real question is already something you know and believe. Look inside yourself to find the answer.

Good question. The answer will vary according to your ideology on the subject. I can tell you what I believe :) ...I believe sex is a very intimate and powerful thing. In a marriage it's supposed to unite you and make you feel closer to you spose or significant other. It is possible to seperate the two however I wouldn't advice it UNLESS you NEED to. Like I said it's supposed to make you feel closer to that special person therefore the more you have sex with different partners the less likely you are to feel that "specialness" when you finally meet that special person. I want to say that it is possible to love with out sex. Eventually through the act of love however you desire to have sex. Hope that answers your question.

All I know is I love it when I get my AARP discount..

Yes, there's romantic love without sex. People who are in their 80s or have their spines severed or are too sick to have sex drive can still enjoy the warmth of love. But sex is what makes two bodies fit together anatomically completely, a raging hardon into a wet pussy with a hard clit.