A less self-contradictory line of argument is suggested by her remark about “explorative sex lives,” which points toward what you might call the Julian Sanchez theory – which is that “interesting and varied sex” is an end unto itself whose upside outweighs the putative benefits of only having sex with people you love, and thus Stepp’s “sex and love should go together” theory risks, er, stepping on people’s god-given right to interesting, promiscuous copulation.
While I’m flattered, I do feel compelled to point out that the observation that sex is fun is not, alas, original to me. And at the risk of denting my libertine cred, I thought it pretty clear that the “variety” I endorsed in the post he links consisted of more than a string of anonymous zipless fucks, though I suppose it’s possible Ross regards everything short of holding out for your One True Love as equivalent to “nice shoes, wanna shag?” bartrawling.
Addendum: Is it excessively cynical of me to think that the first casualty of an insistence on love and sex always going together might be your criteria for being “in love?” As in: “Holy hell, I’m 25 and have never had sex… You! SOUL MATE! NOW!”