[quote=@NuttsnBolts]
I actually think many people can't do romance without sex. A breakdown in communication over the years and publicity through media, internet, hyperactive teens, and ease in available porn sites has confused people into thinking that romance is created through sex, rather sex is created through romance. I know that sounds a bit philosophical but proof can be seen in how popular a book like 50 shades of grey was, a story about a girl's sexual desires. 
[/quote]

That's a really interesting statement. I'm not sure just how much I agree, but I would say that your statement carries some weighty truth.

Now, I don't think this is a modern phenomenon necessarily. I think it's very human to relate sex and love. After all, sex is the act through which babies are made, and creating a family with someone is typically seen as, well, love. I'd go so far as to argue that our modern world has allowed us to separate sex and love: we are more able than ever thanks to the invention of things like birth control pills to partake in sexual activities without actually procreating. I'm not saying it was impossible to do so before, or that forms of birth control didn't exist in the past, but the modern era is well suited for allowing us to control birth. Tack on the fact that the modern era is the first era historically in which nations are secular (I.E. religion and the state are no longer associated with one another), religious restrictions on sex have been effectively lifted.

The trouble is that [i]so much[/i] emphasis is put on the sexual aspects of romance. That is but one facet of a relationship. When two people decide to dedicate themselves to one another, they have a crapload of questions to answer. Are they exclusive? What does their relationship together mean? How will they share responsibilities? Will they have children? When will they have children? Is this a long-term thing or just a fun excursion? And both persons will bring different assumptions to these questions and more into the relationship; both people will have their own ideas of what their life together will be like. These assumptions and the wants and needs of the two partners will inevitably cause them to have points of contention in their relationship... most of which will never, ever actually be solved.

Roleplayers are especially prone to this fault. Whether I see it in MMO RP or on a forum, I always see people A) emphasizing sex and B) not actually roleplaying out the [i]downs[/i] in a relationship. I know this isn't a universal thing; I know there are roleplayers who can write romance. But sometimes it seems as if the pretense of finding each other is a mere formality in these roleplays and they jump straight to doin' the deed. And there's rarely, if ever, a roleplay in which romance is platonic.

And again: I know that sex is very much part of the human condition. At the very least, it's important in the sense that none of us would exist if not for our parents getting naughty. I also know a ton of people view it as a sort of physical and emotional ecstasy, or at least as really freakin' fun. Still, damn it, you can have romance without sex. They are not one and the same. They are related, and they can come hand in hand, but they are NOT the same.

[quote=@tsukune]I don't hate romance - in fact, when people come together and build bonds with one another, it's natural for the feelings go beyond mere friendship and the characters would ponder about going further as they become closer together. It can help to develop the characters collectively as they try to sort out the increasing complication of their relationship with one another.

...Until some people misinterpret that closeness as an opportunity to jump the sex wagon.
[/quote]

Word. Word.

(Word is a good word.)

It's not necessary for that wagon to be jumped, but frankly that's the [i]goal[/i] of a lot of RPers. It's a quest of sorts to get the character into sexual interaction ASAP. I remember this one guy on the City of Heroes Virtue server who made it a goal of his to get his character to bone every character he possibly could - and as soon as he did so, he sort of just moved on to the next person.

And something that I've also noticed and don't think has been brought up yet is how [i]possessive[/i] some roleplayers can be when romance and characters having sex becomes a thing. On WoW's Wyrmrest Accord server, there's this creepy idea that's floated around in the past that two players whose characters are romantically involved need to be in a sort of relationship themselves. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I played there it was very much part of the roleplaying culture on the server: you were supposed to be emotionally invested in your character's romantic interactions with another character, and people would get super pissed off out of character if they learned that someone-or-other was having their character in a relationship with someone that wasn't theirs. It gets... weird, and it made me glad I didn't get involved in that.

But the worst part about it all is there's NO way when you're writing smutty stuff to actually know what the age of the other person involved is. Hell, let me reveal something that I hate talking about: when I was a Freshamn or Sophomore in High School, someone who later turned out to be much older than me tried to pressure me into essentially writing smut with them. As I said, I'm not a very sexual being to begin with; but the manipulation involved was just... deplorable. And I knew people that just took it on word that the people they were roleplaying sexual encounters with were adults. (Guess what: they sometimes weren't.) And... Yeah. Etcetera. I don't think I need to go on.

So, beyond my not being a very sexual being, I've got some beef with folks that go into RP with the goal of "get the cybers." And I hate saying that because, again, sex is a human thing, and the desire to experience it or write about it isn't unusual. But... Gah. There's just so many reasons this topic bugs me.

Sorry. This turned into a full-on rant. I didn't intend that, folks.