Kama, Prema

My turn to inundate this blogspace with my two cents on sex and love as i see it. I am not trying to prove a point and neither am i keen on ridiculing the existing schools of thought. My space. My two cents :) (And please do bear in mind that I am an Indian, and that my thoughts are based on the Indian scheme of things; internationalizing any issue will only bring in more media glare :-P)



Is love a prerequisite for sex? Can you have sex without love and still get what you want? How different is Love from Sex? These are some of the questions that I will be trying to answer with my limited faculty. And what is your incentive for taking your time off to read through this piece of writing? Well, I really don't know.


Let’s go back a 100,000 (+/- a few 100 thousand years) thousand years when mankind, as we know it, was just beginning to take shape. You must have studied in your biology texts in school that every species tries its best to survive against all odds in the given conditions, and the fittest of them all survives. So, what falls upon as a fundamental duty on every member of given specie? - procreate for your own good, for the good of all (and they don't seem to mind that at all :)) The trend continues even to this day, and so here I am.

Now coming to this elusive thing they call Love. Like they all say, there is no one single definition of love and neither do I know how to define it and so I won't. But I am sure we all have a vague idea of what love is all about. Sex and Love - the two words which have been prominent in every cultural landscape that ever existed has played a decisive role in shaping mankind as we know it. After having spoken to many people in this regard, i.e about Sex and love and their correlation (age group being 19-25) , their opinions mostly fell into one of the two following buckets - People who just can't bear the thought of sleeping with someone they don't Love and people who are more than willing to take the dive. The gender distribution of these two buckets is also an important point that needs to be analysed. Men, as many of you had expected, fell into the second bucket. Or maybe, just maybe the women folk are just shy? (This brings us to the next logical question - Are men more promiscuous than women? In a recent study conducted by the University of I-forgot-the-Name, it was scientifically proven that women are also as promiscuous as men)

Now, let’s go back in time again. Just imagine this - a plethora of species struggling to stay alive, man being one among them. Man needs to procreate to survive. Is Love feasible in such a condition? Could evolution wrest the responsibility of the continuance of a species solely on the possibility of the members of a particular species to find a mate whom they "love" and then procreate? Do you see dogs falling in love before hitting it off on the streets? Statistically and demographically speaking, it is quite an impossible feat for all members of a particular species to find their love before the act of procreation. So what can we conclude from this seemingly logical argument? That Procreation is a Basic Instinct found in every member of every species. That people can have sex without being in love and still love the heat of the moment.

Man being a socio-economic animal, falling in love is naturally a risky proposition that needs to undergo a cost-benefit analysis.

To wrap it up – Sex is for Survival! Love is for fools!

Aside - Do you think the emotion of Love evolved at a later stage of mankind? Do you think that Love was absent in the Prehistoric man? Was love a too expensive a commodity for the prehistoric man? (For obvious reasons) Is the emotion of Love (i.e. between a male and a female of a species...love as we know it) restricted to our species only? Hmmm.

P.S: I am a fool.