Love and Sex: What’s Love Got to Do with It?
Exploring why love and sex are not a packaged deal, but could just happen together—and how Tina Turner might have been onto something.
Ah, love and sex—the age-old duo that many believe are inseparable, thanks to centuries of religious and cultural conditioning. But let’s get real: love and sex are not mutually exclusive, and sometimes, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It might surprise you to learn that much of this assumption about the inseparability of love and sex actually stems from religious doctrine—because, just like we have a number of different religions, the concept of love (and its sexual counterpart) is heavily tied to how it's defined within various spiritual traditions.
Cue the immortal words of Tina Turner: “What’s love got to do, got to do with it?” The answer, at least historically speaking, is a lot, if you subscribe to certain religious views. But in today’s world, for many, the answer is: not much at all.
The Religious Roots of Love and Sex
For much of history, religious doctrines have painted a very particular picture of love and sex—a picture in which the two are supposed to be intertwined, sacred, and, for the most part, exclusive to monogamous marriage. In Christianity, for example, sex is considered the physical expression of love within the sanctity of marriage, symbolizing a spiritual and emotional union that cannot be separated. In Islam, marriage is also seen as a contract not only of love but of sexual rights and responsibilities. Even Hinduism, with its deep explorations of love in texts like the Kama Sutra, still largely reserves sex for the married, the sacred, and the spiritual.
But here's the thing: just like we have a multitude of religions, each with their own ideas about life and divinity, people have different concepts of love and sex. For some, love is an emotion that fuels sexual desire, while for others, sex is purely a physical experience that doesn’t need to be bound by romantic love. If religion serves as a map for how we navigate relationships, it’s no wonder that people have different routes when it comes to mixing love and sex.
Tina Turner once asked, "Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?"—and while she was singing about the perils of romantic love, she was unintentionally hitting on a broader truth: sex doesn’t always require love. Many religious teachings would have you believe that the two are intrinsically linked, but for many, sex and love can exist in entirely separate spheres. Sometimes, all people want is the pleasure without the emotional complexity—and that's where things start to deviate from the traditional narratives spun by religious institutions.
Sex Without Love?
Let’s face it—people have been engaging in sex without love for centuries, and society hasn’t collapsed (well, not yet). This isn’t just about rebellion; it’s about acknowledging that physical connection can satisfy biological needs without requiring the emotional or spiritual union that many religions preach. Sex can simply be an act of pleasure, exploration, or connection—devoid of any deeper emotional commitment.
In some religious frameworks, this would be seen as a transgression—a separation of body from soul. But for many people today, it’s not about transgression at all. It’s about honesty. The body has its needs, and sometimes, those needs don’t align with the emotional or spiritual aspects of love. To them, the “sin” isn’t in seeking out sex without love—it’s in pretending that love must always accompany it.
So, when Tina asks, “What’s love got to do with it?” for some, the answer is clear: nothing at all. It’s about mutual pleasure, plain and simple.
Love Without Sex?
On the flip side, many people find themselves in relationships where love thrives even in the absence of physical intimacy. This is where the cultural expectation that love and sex must always go hand in hand falls apart. There are countless examples—religious and otherwise—of deep emotional bonds that are never consummated physically.
Think of celibate priests, Buddhist monks, or devout followers of certain sects of Hinduism. For them, love is an emotional or spiritual connection that has no need for sex. It’s about devotion, not desire. Even within secular relationships, some people find that they can love deeply without feeling the need to express it sexually. Love becomes about companionship, trust, and shared experiences rather than physical acts. And that’s perfectly valid.
So, What’s the Verdict?
At the end of the day, love and sex are two distinct entities that can co-exist, but they don’t have to. The real trick is figuring out what kind of relationship you want—and being honest about it. For some, love and sex are forever intertwined, as their religious or cultural background might suggest. For others, love is an emotion, and sex is an act—and the two don’t always meet on the same road.
In the end, it’s all about being true to what you need in a relationship. Maybe you want both. Maybe you only want one. The key is understanding that neither choice is wrong. You don’t have to be a hopeless romantic to enjoy intimacy, and you don’t have to be emotionally detached to embrace love. It’s your relationship, your rules.
So next time Tina Turner belts out, "What’s love but a second-hand emotion?" you might just find yourself nodding along. Maybe love and sex don’t need to share the same bed. Maybe we need to stop looking at relationships as fixed formulas, dictated by ancient texts and societal norms, and admit that love and sex can—in most situations—live very separate lives.
Sincerely,
Adam
