Dominique Strauss-Khan thinks so

For some people yes. Other people like to separate the two.

Well, Love is a four letter word, so there would appear
to be some conection. 

Maybe you can do some research in the field by approaching some girls with this fine line:

Sex or you wanna love me first?

If sex is love then I have had it more then enough, but seriously do you think that sex ever been love?? For sex you dont need flovers and fancy diner. For love all this and more.. For sex much words not needed.. love.. pff they can talk and talk... harsh to lissen sometimes. So No sex is not a love. But from love you will get to the sex.

Sex = any porn movie (without kissing, being tender, etc.)

Love = any romantic movie (with kissing, flowers, etc.)

Moreover, love between two people, I think usually and normally, includes sex. Sex between two people may not necessarily include love.

There can be love without sex... but this "usually" leads to divorce. ;-)) .. unless of course youre over 70... in which case Viagra came to the rescue...

Why do you need to get married in the first place?

love and lust - I always seem to get the two mixed up!!! - whats the difference again? :)

sex without marriage..... cough cough cough... choke...

great ! lol

So that your parents stop annoying you

Moving across the Atlantic works wonders for this.

Not with my parents it doesnt :)

Divorce rate here is 50%, taking that into consideration, investing my money in football bets seems very profitable...

Not sure if money will get you a genuine affection, but of course, they will keep you warm at night (well, they could cover the heating bills!) ;-D

sex with no love = possible, happens often ( especially in GVA)

love with no sex = impossible (in any circumastance)

sex in GVA? = very possible BUT love in GVA? (let's discuss that another time)

@Arpan: One will only get what one looks for. Else, one takes whatever one gets. If you get neither, you wait for one to come up, so you can turn it into the other.

If you've managed to find both, don't get too happy about it - you'll be forced to give up on one sooner or later, sometimes only temporarily (but no one will tell you that).

They are the same thing. The difference is only in one's own mind - that draws the thin line. And there's always more than one mind involved.

So, psst...the secret is - to leave your cash (& cards) at home.

I was thinking about this quis a bit today when had my run, they call sex also making love. So well you can call it sex=love :D

Speaking with Platon and Wikipedia, there are several words for love. Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē.

Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē) means "godly/sacrificial love" (unconditional love) in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo (Σ'αγαπώ), which means "I love you".

 Éros (ἔρως érōs) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

Philia (φιλία philía) means friendship or brotherly love in modern Greek.

Storge (στοργή storgē) means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring.

I hear that maids go for 22-25sfr as long as your home has good public transport access.  As Arnold "Governator" Schwarzenegger has demonstrated, you can get a lot of service for a parsimonious sum.  Definitely a bargain when compared to wedding cake.

Good question , the two are easily confused at times because of ignorance

My Answer :

In order to test the two ask yourself how do you feel afterwards?

sex: is a feeling you cant live with the person 

love: a feeling you cant live without the person 

The psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott maintained
that sex was an ever-recurring therapy.

"There's more to life than sex you know... but not much more".
--Morrissey 

Okay, he actually said "books" but he wrote that in his celibacy
days, and he's happier now...

my statement of belief

i dont believe in quoting 

i dont believe in song writers i have never heard of 

i dont believe in people who live to provocate 

I just believe in Yoko and her art 

yoko and me 

I'm grateful to all these inspirational voices through-out the world
for sustaining generative flow and who invite us into dialogue.

We exist in a world of co-constitution. All intelligable action is born,
sustained, and/or extinguished within the ongoing process of
relationship.

From this point of view, there is no isolated self or fully private
experience. We are always emerging from relationship.

Even in our most private moments, we are never alone. 

Or as the sociolist Nikas Luhman put i: You can not not communicate...

hi david !

Thanks for the informative posting ! Mayb bt i'm too a small to understand all those lines ....can u put it down in a single line, for persons like us ....!

~arpan

"There is something which is at the moment of uttering
being done by the person uttering." --J.L. Austin 

Single line?

The "individual self" is not a state of nature but of language.

For example, you could say that everything I wrote
was nonsence, and it is. 

I place some words on a post, but they have little meaning in
themselves. I say nothing at all on any post until you grant me
meaning.

With unstinting criticism, you could reduce my words to idiocy.
If more charitable, you bring me as a poster into the thread.
If enthusiastic and click the 'thank you' button, you give me wings.

And yet, if I - or someone else  - had no words to give you,
never addressed you, never positioned you to reply, what
are you then able to say? You stand inert.

It is when someone says, "what do you think of this?"
that we are animated, brimming with ideas, opinions, tastes,
and values.

Neither of us is meaning/full except for the other. 

We come into life through relationship.
We exist in a state of inter-animation.

Human beings are constituted in conversation.
We do not own what we say or do. As our words
are absorbed continuing process of co-action,
so we are transformed.

For the psychologist Kenneth Gergen, relationship is the genesis of everything.

In his latest book, Relational Being, Gergen faces us with an urgent and profound challenge:

"What if we could see everything as stemming from relationship"?

If loving and caring relationships are choreographies - dances inherited from our current and past experiences and traditions, how can we deconstruct destructive dances such that we get back into the game?

I believe this needs to be practice oriented and try to think of the idea of new emerging relationships.

If it's relationship first, as Gergen would maintain, then we need hopeful and fresh frameworks for thinking about relationships.

What would we have outside of the current vocabularies of relationships?

Please join us in our discussion of these ideas at our blog on:

http://mentalfitness.ch/what-if-we-could-see-everything-stemming-from-relationship/

Cheers,
David

Love is when you stay around after a good sex session (can there be a bad one?)- lust is when you just get you clothes on and get out of there

most porn is cool - its nothing that women do not do anyway