Does consummate love require sex?

according to the triangular theory of love


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_...





consummate love is the ultimate ideal of love, encompassing all three elements of love- passion, intimacy, and commitment. but when I looked consummate up, it was defined as many definitions, all of which focused primarily on sex. the ones that didn't focus on sex were defined as "complete" "perfection", etc. with the appropriate definition for the context stating "the act of having intercourse after marriage" In my opinion sex has nothing to do with love, with my argument being the love is possible without sex, and sex possible without love. Personally, I aim to have a loving relationship with sex at a minimum. the triangular theory of love is something I look to for insight, but could it be possible consummate was the wrong word to use? (I hope so).

Does consummate love require sex?
There're two different words here, and I think either you or some of your sources (or both) might be conflating them.





There's "consummate", which is an adjective meaning ultimate, complete, etc. - the "consummate x" is someone/something who perfectly embodies all the traits we assign to "x", at all times and without fail. So in the phrase "consummate love", the word "consummate" implies nothing whatsoever about the present or absence of sex; only if we associate "love" with sex would the phrase imply anything about the subject.





The other word is "consummation", which sounds very similar, but has a specific meaning in the context of marriage: it refers to the first sex act after the wedding. There was (or perhaps still is) a general idea that a marriage isn't real until the partners have had sex. For example, in the Catholic church, divorce is forbidden, but a marriage which hasn't been consummated can be annulled. Note that none of this makes any reference to love. The context is the legal institution of marriage, which exists independently of love (i.e. both marriage and love exist, but the one does not necessarily depend on the other - each can exist on its own).








(Then there's the romance-novel cliché "they consummated their love," but that can get filed along with the other euphemisms used by the genre.)
Reply:Tsk. Don't confuse one word with multiple meanings and applications for several words. Report It

Reply:The word 'consummate' derives from Latin. 'Con-' means together and '-summus' means highest (like a summit). Thus consummating is reaching the highest level by bringing parts together. (link 1)





It came to have the meaning of the first sex that a bride and groom have together, because according to custom a marriage can be annulled if this does not or cannot happen. Thus, even though the vows are taken between a bride and groom, it is actually having sex that makes the marriage binding. For some really important marriages in the past, there were even WITNESSES placed in the bedroom on the wedding night so the families could attest that sex did actually occur. Yikes.





So one word, just with different implications based on context. That just leaves us with the question of what Sternburg (whose theory this is) means when he uses the term.





While it seems obvious he's talking about long-term relationships and not a single act of sex, he also refers to 'intimacy' and 'passion', both of which are generally associated with sex as well. Some of his other works tend to downplay the idea, however, suggesting that other elements (like expectations - link 2) are more important than actual physical intercourse.





So it would seem that the answer is 'it depends'. Some people cannot maintain passion without sex, and some people cannot feel intimate without sex. If we stick to triangle theory, then they MUST have sex to have a longer-lasting relationship. But I also know people who are uncomfortable about sex, and so it would be likely to make them less passionate and intimate. So it goes.
Reply:At the outset, you are comparing two different things, the verb form "to consumate" and the descriptive adjective "consumate". Both at their root refer to the act of completion, but their differing uses explain the differing sexual focus.





Assuming a historical model in which couples court, fall in love, and only then have sex, then the sexual act is the final completion of their love. Note that this does not mean it's the most important part...simply that it is the final or last development in the courtship/marriage cycle. After all, you can (again assuming you wait till marriage) do all the things *other* than sex (i.e. tenderness, caring, companionship, etc.) prior to marriage.





Compare that to the adjective form in which we are describing someone as complete. For example....we can say that Tiger Woods, for example, is a consumate golfer, that is to say a golfer who has a complete game and is competent in all aspects of his field (i.e. driving, approach shots, putting, etc.)





Note however this does not mean that someone is especially talented. One could be a consumate journeyman, someone who is not brilliant in any one aspect of his field, but is merely average in all fields.





As to the underlying question about sex and love, I'm not sure I agree with your basic premise, i.e. that "consummate love is the ultimate ideal of love, encompassing all three elements of love - passion, intimacy, and commitment." First off, I think you have a definitional problem - what's the difference between passion and intimacy? If you're not passionate, is it really intimate? If you're not intimate, is it really passionate?





Love is certainly possible without sex, and sex is possible without love. Not very good mind you, but certainly possible. However, can you have complete love for your partner without expressing it physically? Let me pose this question - if physical intimacy (sex) is not a part of that expression of love, then surely your partner won't mind if you sleep with someone else, right? Yet we all know this isn't the case....when someone has sex with someone other than their partner, their partner feels, rightly I believe, that something that was theirs has been taken and given to another....and therefore one could say thier love is no longer "consumate" (as opposed to "consumated" the past tense of the verb form).
Reply:No, love and sex are two different things.
Reply:i dont think sex has anything to do with love if it did then casual sex would not exist... But when 2 people are in love sex for me just seems to strengthen the bond as it physical touch is something out of this world... It can give an amazing sense of security
Reply:Consummate love is an all consuming love. The root word being consume. It implies that a person is being consumed with a love that devours all aspects of it. Therefore, it does imply sex. The type of love that does not imply sex is platonic love.
Reply:No.
Reply:I agree with you. Sex- synergistic energy exchange- has nothing to do with love. In fact, when you get older sex is just another chore!!! but love stays. Love yourself first.
Reply:No, but it sure makes it even better!