Making Love

[HydrogenBond]

I often thought about the basis for the expression "making love". Is there an actual manufacture of the neuro-chemical associated with love due to the piston pump of the machine. Or is it just an expression to make females more receptive to the dirty deed. Males have dozens of names for the same thing, any of which is fine by them. Is it manufacture of love neurochems, rhetoric, or something else?

[Queso]

It should be

MANIFTEST LOVE FROM WITHIN

or

observe love occur between us

[HydrogenBond]

Your definition cuts to the heart of an emotional and spiritual commitment between two people. But the terms "making love" is more ambiguous. It sort of sounds like a manufacturing process of sorts.

[Racoon]

Making Love is a nice PC term for women.(ie- making babies)

 

Love isn't "made" is it??

I thought love "grows", like a tree from a seed...:hyper:

 

"Manifest Love" sounds more accurate to me...:hihi:

[TheBigDog]

It is no more correct than the modern p-whipped male expression "WE are pregnant". What kind of horse pucky is that?

 

Bill

[Queso]

i WIN

[InfiniteNow]

Is there an actual manufacture of the neuro-chemical associated with love due to the piston pump of the machine. Or is it just an expression to make females more receptive to the dirty deed.

Yes to both. There is seratonin, dopamine, and oxytocin release during coitus, and the amounts and intensity of their release is contingent on a number of factors, including emotional and spiritual connection. Adrenaline plays a role too.

 

Also, making females more receptive plays a role too, but it really depends on the female, and also the relationship one has with her. Some girls are cool with "Let's get it on," or "let's go f*$k our brains out right now," whereas others are mortified by anything so intense and prefer the more puritanical terms for copulation.

 

Love only becomes a part of it all if you're lucky. :cup:

[Guest chendoh]

Hold on there Orby! your too eager to jump in the sack. :hihi:

 

To answer HD's question; 'Making Love' is both rhetoric (speaking with artificial eloquence), and a rhetorical question (asking a question for effect and not requiring an answer, usually......NO! ).:)

The term should be 'Lovemaking', which signifies the actual act.

 

Which appeals to the senses better? :)

 

'How about making love tonight, sweetheart?' or

 

'Would you like to engage in a night of lovemaking, sweetheart?'.

 

 

I don't know how the term flip/flopped, over the years, but it did, but it's not the point.

[quote=HydrogenBond].....Or is it just an expression to make females more receptive to the dirty deed.

 

Yes, So choose your words carefully!

 

This===> :love: :rose: :kiss2: :ip: :cup: , NOT this===>:shrug: :note: :hyper: :hihi:

 

[quote=HydrogenBond].....Males have dozens of names for the same thing, any of which is fine by them. Is it manufacture of love neurochems, rhetoric, or something else?

Rhetoric

 

IMHO....After just celebrating our 27th, I can tell you both terms will work, but remember honey works better than vinagar.

 

What about a women's POV, unless there's been one while I'm 'making' this post, it's just the guys so far.

[InfiniteNow]

IMHO....After just celebrating our 27th, I can tell you both terms will work, but remember honey works better than vinagar.

Hmmmm... I've used honey before, but how would vinegar be erotic? I would think the smell alone would kill the mood. :)

[HydrogenBond]

Sexuality even between two stangers, can create a case of infatuation. It could be neuro-chemicals and the pleasure association combining to create memories that will perpetuate the attraction. This is not love, but as guys call it, insnatchuation. Maybe the purpose is to bring two people together long enough where real love can form. Maybe making love is real when there is already love and sex is used to extend the intimacy. Before there is love, it is just any of the terms guys like to use. But, as was pointed out females feel better if lust is wrapped in shiny love paper. But then again, women may use the term because they know guys lust ho's but fall in love with an more honorable girl.

[Queso]

Yes to both. There is seratonin, dopamine, and oxytocin release during coitus, and the amounts and intensity of their release is contingent on a number of factors, including emotional and spiritual connection. Adrenaline plays a role too.

 

Very good information, I was unaware of what chemicals actually had fun when we did too.

 

As for all of our opinionated sexual psychology goes.

there are a billion reasons why we do what we do,

or are there infinite?

 

It's fun,

I think it's fun.

I know it's fun.

And not just rocking and rolling,

but everything that occurs while trying to rock

and after you roll.

 

Afterward when all those chemicals sink in,

it's such an amazing high.

It's a shame so many guys go to sleep right afterward,

I would dance if I had the space,

[HydrogenBond]

Neuro-chems is where making lust (seratonin, dopamine, and oxytocin) and making love are sort of different. For many when the chemical production rate of lust goes down so does the basis for the relationship or marriage. Love may be due to an entirely different set of neutro-chems. These chems may be the same for all types of love, from mother-child, friends, mates, etc. Maybe making love and making lust need to be better differentiated so people know what they are getting into.

[InfiniteNow]

Maybe making love and making lust need to be better differentiated so people know what they are getting into.

But since these terms mean something different to each of us... ;)

 

 

Also, there is some overlap in the neurotransmitters, but the interpretation tends to be more contingent on our background.

 

 

Cheers. :)

[HydrogenBond]

I am happy with either set but the high rate of divorce may be due to a misinterpretation between love and lust neuro-chems. If one realizes the latter only lasts at its peak for a couple of years, just long enough to allow the former to begin processing, one may realize there is love after lust. The love neuro-chems may quite well provide a secondary boost to the former. There are many couples who work through the stormy transition only to find both sets of neuro-chems growing stronger over time. Maybe many quit too early because they assume this is only one type.

[InfiniteNow]

You are confusing me on just what you think a neurotransmitter is. It sounds a bit like you're saying, "Too many people don't realize that lust sodium only lasts for a few days, and they need to realize that love sodium lasts longer." It's just a chemical... :doh:

 

There's not "love seratonin" and "lust seratonin,"... just, seratonin. (dopamine, oxytocin, etc.)

[HydrogenBond]

Different behaviors/emotions use different chems or the same chems in different proportions. If we use flight/flight for an analogy, this behavior is very high in adreniline. At lower levels of adrenline the behavior may only manifest itself with extreme excitement that doesn't require fight or flight.

 

Lust is far more animal dynamic than love. The ratio and concentrations of x,y, and z will need to shift to get these two different responses. Love/lust together, may be an average of the two or could be schewed in either direction, but will be different that pure lust or pure love.

[InfiniteNow]

How would either of them ever be anything other than pure?