Love and Sex
  by Armin A. Zadeh, MD, PhD

How are love and sex related? Both are common components of romantic relationships, but their dynamics are quite different. From an individual perspective, love and sexual desire may even be competing impulses.

Both, however, serve the same evolutionary purpose of passing DNA from one generation to the next. While the function of sexual desire is to facilitate the physical transfer of our genetic information to our offspring, love aims at protecting individuals (and their DNA) to facilitate their own reproduction.

Love and sexual desire may exist independently. Many deeply loving relationships have no sexual component. These bonds, often referred to as platonic, can yet be very powerful. Sexual relationships can also exist independently of love. We all know examples of relationships that are purely physical. In some instances, partners actually dislike each other but still enjoy sex together.

Love occasionally has a negative effect on sexual desire, and vice versa. Freud recognized that sex may trigger the impulse of aggression, which conflicts with loving feelings for a partner. Love demands protection and preservation. Aggression— while not necessarily intentionally hurtful—involves feelings opposed to love, such as power and domination. Some individuals indeed have better sex with partners they don’t love because they have fewer inhibitions about hurting their partners’ feelings with their words and actions. On the other hand, sex among loving partners may have a much more sensual, rewarding character—as expressed in the phrase making love.

Men and women may seek different attributes in partners depending on whether they are looking for love or sex. Attributes such as aggressiveness or promiscuity may be appealing to somebody looking for sexual adventures, but they are often not sought after in long-term partnerships. Nevertheless, a relationship based on sex—without love—may sometimes evolve into a loving relationship. After all, it involves two people spending considerable time together and sharing intimacy. Eventually they may get to know each other and enter a partnership.

Sex and love are, however, distinct impulses that should not be confused. Because sex may lead to ecstatic feelings and short-term satisfaction, an associated relationship may be perceived as meaningful although it often does not develop into mature love. Regardless, many people repeatedly seek the excitement and satisfaction of sexual relationships. Fromm argued that such “orgiastic” bonds, if excessive, may be the result of developmental delays or substitutes for emotional connections.

Even so, recreational sex has become a popular leisure activity, facilitated by online dating sites and smartphone applications. As lust, or the impulse for sex, is a strong human drive, people indulge in sex much as they indulge in other impulses, such as feasting or enjoying stimulants. Common among these impulses is the transient nature of the satisfaction they provide. Some cultures and religions, such as Hinduism, regard the pursuit of instant gratification as a passing developmental phase. Eventually most people recognize the temporary nature of the fulfillment and look for more meaningful, lasting satisfaction.

Provided that there is mutual consent between adult partners, there is no ethical concern with frequent sexual engagements, as long as those involved have no expectations beyond sexual satisfaction. Given the strong drive for sex among humans and the undeniable excitement associated with sexual encounters, humans’ responses to lust are an important aspect of life.

Since one function of lust is to promote procreation, and the chances of passing on our DNA are increased if we mate with more than one individual, we typically feel lust not for a single partner but rather for a range of individuals who exhibit certain external characteristics or behavior, such as body shape or inviting posturing. These characteristics are largely genetically determined but may be influenced by social mores and behavior patterns. We may feel a stronger lust toward people we do not know—again an evolutionary advantage, as it promotes fusing our DNA with that of multiple partners to create new life, as opposed to the same partner repeatedly. Similarly, people may feel a stronger attraction toward younger adults, whose fertility is generally greater.

Among primates, humans are unusual in that they copulate more than most other species and copulate through-out the reproductive cycle. Such high sexual drive likely contributed to human reproductive success, but it may be a problem for monogamous relationships. Although many long-term couples enjoy fulfilling sex lives, the drive for engaging in sexual encounters with multiple individuals does not abate when we enter a committed relationship: it may even increase as the novelty and excitement of sex with a partner fade. For some, the lure of novelty may grow over time, creating conflicts with a partner. Similarly, as partners age, younger “competitors” may appear more attractive. It is therefore not surprising that many partners in long-term relationships face fidelity problems.

Reliable information about lifetime infidelity rates among couples is difficult to obtain, given the stigma associated with infidelity in Western societies, but most estimates suggest that it occurs in 10 to 40 percent of relationships. In the beginning of romantic relationships, the excitement and passion make it easy to focus lust on the partner. Over time, the passion may wane: this should not be seen as evidence that love has died but rather as a natural phenomenon. If this occurs, frank communication between partners may open possibilities for the improvement of sex in monogamous relationships.

From an evolutionary standpoint, strict sexual monogamy may not be the optimal way to increase a species. Intuitively, it would be more effective for individuals to have several relationships that allow reproduction. Sexual monogamy is comparatively rare among mammals. By contrast, social monogamy—that is, a couple looking after their offspring together—appears advantageous to the species. Thus, while love and sexual desire may stand in conflict at times, both play a strong role in supporting the species’ survival.

Taking an abstract, idealistic view of love, we might permit our partner to engage in sexual activities with other people if this would contribute to the partner’s happiness. Social movements based on the idea of “free love” have arisen throughout human history, but they probably became most popular during the sexual revolution in the 1960s. While free love works for some people, many, if not most, have trouble consenting to a partner’s mating with others, as it strongly conflicts with our territorial instincts and our sense of selfworth. To resolve this conflict and avoid the associated hurt feelings in typical modern romantic relationships, partners have to prioritize monogamy over sex outside the partnership. Lust for other individuals has to be contained and suppressed for the good of a loving relationship.

From a pragmatic standpoint, giving in to lust for other people is shortsighted and typically endangers the partnership as well as the happiness of all those involved. In other words, the benefit of engaging in sexual activities with other partners is generally small compared to the cost of potentially destroying a good relationship.

The satisfaction derived from sex is typically brief compared to the permanent fulfillment of a loving relationship. Thus, it is important to emphasize that the choice to engage in sex outside a relationship is an active decision. Some may feel that the appeal of sex per se, or sex with different partners, is worth the cost.

Others try to have it both ways. Individuals who cheat on their partners often claim that it happened as a result of a spontaneous impulse, without conscious thought. However, the conscious or subconscious decision to engage in infidelity usually is made before the opportunity presents itself. In other cases, infidelity is rationalized by pointing to perceived hostile actions by the partner.

Let’s review the example of Andreas and Ruth. Their names and story have been modified to retain anonymity, but they are based on true events. Andreas and Ruth had been married for six years and had two young children. Ruth was often exhausted by the time they went to bed, and she was rarely in the mood for sex. Andreas resented her for their inactive sex life, and in his mind this justified the possibility of cheating. After all, it was Ruth’s fault. If she consented to sex more often, he would not have been pushed into this situation.

On a business trip, Andreas went out to a bar with some colleagues. After a number of drinks, he started to flirt with a female colleague and invited her back to his hotel room. The next day, he had a bad conscience but blamed his actions on his wife’s attitude and on alcohol.

In truth, however, he had no justification for blaming anybody or anything but himself. He acted without love for Ruth: he acted with disrespect and irresponsibility. Had he committed to being a loving partner, he would have seen that Ruth was exhausted because of her sacrifices for their family. He could have tried to take some of the burden off her shoulders. He could have arranged for a weekend alone for the two of them to rekindle their romance. He also could have understood that parents of young children may have different priorities, at least for a while.

Ironically, Andreas was convinced that he had never loved anybody but Ruth. He did not have any feelings for the colleague he slept with. In his mind, the casual encounter happened in a moment of dis-inhibition, triggered by physical attraction, alcohol, and lust. His case illustrates that mere affection or concern is not necessarily love. Love—again defined here as the continuous effort for the happiness of another person—demands focus and devotion. Even if Ruth never found out, Andreas did something that he knew would deeply hurt his wife. He acted selfishly, without considering the happiness of his loved one.

Sexual desire may be influenced by love. Surveys among couples reveal that satisfaction with marital sex declines when partners feel less loving toward each other. Often, dissatisfaction with the relationship results in less sex, which in turn increases the probability of infidelity. Thus, a sudden change in the quality or quantity of sex in a relationship may be a sign of a problem that should be addressed. Conversely, love for a partner—and with it, sexual desire—can be restored by conscious effort. Loving attention to a partner promotes an increase in sexual desire in the partner.

Is it possible that Andreas indeed loves Ruth despite what he did? When impulses such as anger, fatigue, or frustration dominate our minds and actions, we may say or do things that do not convey a lot of love. Such episodes do not necessarily mean we feel no love for this person. Similarly, when an impulse of lust is paired with an opportunity of intimacy with somebody else, yielding to that impulse may not conclusively indicate a complete lack of love for a partner. It does mean, however, that the person who cheats has not mastered love.

Andreas’s love for Ruth was not important enough to him, not sufficiently strong, to contain his self-serving impulses and prevent his infidelity: he lost his focus on love. A person with a great capacity for love recognizes such impulses and controls them. The weaker the focus on love, the easier it is to be distracted by impulses and give in to them. Many people are like Andreas. They may feel some love for their partner, but not enough to control egocentric impulses and withstand challenges.

In life, we generally cannot have it all, and everything comes at a price. A loving relationship is among the most valuable achievements in life, but it requires sacrifice, including the sacrifice of some individual freedom. The excitement of entering new relationships will cease; raising children requires an equitable shouldering of parenting duties. This seems a small price to pay for a life full of love, care, and respect.

Excerpted from the book The Forgotten Art of Love: What Love Means and Why It Matters ©2017 by Armin A. Zadeh. Printed with permission from New World Library — www.newworldlibrary.com.

Armin A. Zadeh, MD, PhD, is the author of The Forgotten Art of Love. He is a professor at Johns Hopkins University with doctoral degrees in medicine and philosophy as well as a master’s degree in public health. As a cardiologist and a scientist, Dr. Zadeh knows, from first-hand experience, about the close relationship between heart disease and the state of the mind. Visit him online at theforgottenartoflove.com.