Love or Lust?


Ad: Buy Girls Und Panzer Merch from Play Asia!
Naqh love isn't higher form of lust people just confuse being in love for lust sometimes. Grant it that there has to to be an attaction/ obession for those stalkers out ther (j/k). Though truthfully its all relative. For me love is once you get by that stage of introductions, getting to know you, and the rush of horomones you stick with the person/want to be with them despite all the flaws and problems.
wink.gif
 
Love does not exist.
Love is a broad idea, with no identity, or set standards. One cannot simply write down the requirements something must have to be considered "love" or "in love". Therefore, it's existence is relative to your conscious. It is a word to describe a fantasy we see in media. One can associate a situation he is in with a story he read or watched, but the"love" in that story does not really translate into real world situations. I'm sure somwhere there's a detailed history of Love and it's portrayal through the ages, but I'm not digging it up.

tl;dr: If you can't see it, nor prove that it is there, it does not exist.

Lust, however, is much more simpler.
Lust is just a desire to reproduce. All organisms have it. It's just a part of Survival of the Fittest.

Now, tell the n00b why he's doing it wrong.
 
I'd have to throw in an obvious question: are we suggesting that love is one or two-sided inherently?

For the most part, it seems like lust doesn't matter if its only one-sided. The definition accepts a sort of objectification of the other person, whether for sexual drive or other uses of pleasure and desire.

But is love inherently mutual, or does it work in just one way?

For example, I could be fervently in love with a person. Take photos of said person going into his or her house, work, car, favorite bar, friends' houses, etc. Rifle through his or her trash. Want to know everything about the person. But is that love? Or is there a difference between that and obsession?

If that scenario shows that love has to be two-sided, I have another one for you. Suppose I am dating a person, having gone out with him or her formally for a couple years. And I decide, "I want to make sure this person will be in my life. I'm going to dedicate myself to (him/her). No matter what." And before you get a chance to let him or her know, (he/she) ends the relationship. Well, if it's love then do you go along with it, or do you somehow try and drag it out? Would it make more sense to move on, or to at least say, "I'll always be here if you need me"? Does love demand participation from the other person, or can it be just a complete dedication to that other person?

Sorry if I broke some people's minds. This is what I do
tongue.gif
 
They are seperate for the simple reason that you can have one without the other.
Lust is an attraction rooted in self gratification where as love is the desire to please someone else no matter the cost. Putting someone elses happiness above yours.
 
i agree with that last statement. lust is the extreme urge to make love to someone, while love is the feeling of butterflies in your stomach. two completely different things. i can see where they would get confused with each other, but they are different. love, for one, is a lot more innocent than lust. well, this is just my opinion. i havent really felt love all that much; just once, a long time ago
 
I agree with both of the last stataments. In my opinion love is a feeling of deep attachment or attraction to someone in a way that surpasses things like physical attraction which to me is just what lust is( an etreme physical attraction, a "booty call"). I also think ( kind of contradicting my self) that love can in some cases lead to lust and that lust can lead to lust. We might love someone so much that we kind of lust for them. In the other way, You can lust for someone and realize that the reason you actually feel that way is because you like them.
 
I would say that love and lust are pretty much the same. They are desire or crave for something. By following that, you get a certain satisfaction. The main difference between love and lust is probably the material of affection.

Lust, is the craving of physical desire. Sexual affection, beauty, and all other pysical desire to your partner would be a lust. While love is more to the caring, romance, and treatment of your partner. And yes, I would say love is the higher degree of lust, since the materials you craved are more complex (not only physical).

That's what I think......
 
lust is a very bad thing and it is very very very hard to control one of the things i use is the bounce effect and right when u are about to look and bounce away
 
Lust is a basic instinct that nearly everyone will experience one time or another. It is more self centred as a person is not really attached to the person they simply want to fulfill their needs.

Love on the other hand is deeper. People who are in love are genuinely concerned about the others needs. They do not do it for personal gain but simply because they care. Love does not have to be based on sexual feelings (think love between parent and child). Although it can help. Sometimes a bit of lust can actually strengthens the bonds of love although it is not necessary.

Love and lust can occur separately but I believe feelings of lust can develop into feelings of love. Indeed if we did not have lust their would probably be a lot less love. So lust is not always terrible. That said if everyone fulfilled their needs for lust the world would not be a very nice place.
 
QUOTE (dragon9735 @ May 13 2008, 08:35 AM) lust is a very bad thing and it is very very very hard to control one of the things i use is the bounce effect and right when u are about to look and bounce away
A very bad thing? Hmm well lust can also turn into a very good thing
wink.gif
Let's just be honest and keep it real we aren't going to fall in love with every person we desire. It would be nice if that were true in an ideal world. Sometimes you are just really horny and want to receive and/or give pleasure.

If there is to be blamed placed it should be on our reproductive organs. Now I know you could say what of self-control but that is an entirely different subject. Bottom line sometimes you wanna fulfill those desires and you just have to deal w/the consequences.

Love is nice though but there are so many emotions that go into it and people get broken in the process from being dealt too much damage to the heart. That's why I can't be a hypocrite and tell someone that lust is bad... maybe it's bad but good at the same time *wooh!* haha j/k XD.
 
I'm kinda wondering about lust after seeing two dogs...

Isn't lust a natural response to several given circumstances? Like, it's mating season or whatever? Because i've seen a dog who's literally a "horndog" and mind you, but no one seems to see anything wrong with it since it's an "animal" and doesn't have the same level of sentience as we do...

Has this been brought up yet? The biological aspect of "lust"?

Maybe it's because it's become such a taboo to talk about sex or to have sex at all in the old times that the reproductive function has become demonized. And maybe it really is a bad thing since "horndogs" are responsible for the overpopulation that's happening. Does this mean that if lust or the "strong urge for sexual intercourse" is genetic, can it be manipulated to protect the planet from being overrun by us?

I am not making an argument, i just got this thought from 2 dogs. Of course overpopulation has quite a few other factors other than lust, like lack of education on family planning, culture etc. But [forgive me for the stereotypical type of character] aren't most of those "horndogs" most of the time if not all the time, poor students, or have never ever studied at all? Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.
 
All living creatures have the instinct to propagate. Influenced by many factors such as the seasons or cycles of hormonal changes. In our case, humans, we termed it as lust. Lust, governed by raging hormones in preparation for sex with a potential mate or the drive to search for a potential mate is innate in all of us, even in the most conventional/conservative human being. It is the very reason why we find a mate and or a relationship. But lust is a pleasure principle according to Freud and can be manipulated by rationale or 'Ego and super-Ego'. Lust can be suppressed by morals, norms and values.

Love on the other hand is an unexplained emotion by science that differs individually, depending on his/her values, norms and beliefs. Human emotions are as explained by science, are influenced by hormones in our body (just like our libido / sex drive/ lust). They are adaptive mechanisms that guides us to do or not to do an impulse/ instinct.

For me, Lust exist without love but love cannot exist without lust. Lust is natural and is a drive for the quest or love.
 
QUOTE (khael @ May 17 2008, 06:26 PM)I'm kinda wondering about lust after seeing two dogs...

Isn't lust a natural response to several given circumstances? Like, it's mating season or whatever? Because i've seen a dog who's literally a "horndog" and mind you, but no one seems to see anything wrong with it since it's an "animal" and doesn't have the same level of sentience as we do...

It's true humans like dogs have natural sex drives which we carry out instinctively (that's basically what lust is). Unlike dogs women do not go in heat when they are at their most fertile period. Indeed this period of highest fertility is quite well hidden (it's not obvious what stage of the menstruation cycle a woman is in). So for a mate to be successful they have a better chance if they don't use women in a one night stand (unlike dogs). So there can be a biological basis as to why love comes about.


QUOTE (Meiry @ May 22 2008, 09:36 AM)For me, Lust exist without love but love cannot exist without lust. Lust is natural and is a drive for the quest or love.

Love can exist in the absence of lust. Think of the love between a parent and child. Then again I don't believe in Sigmond Freud's theory of infants loving their parents (in a sexual sense). His theory states that the son is jealous of the father and wants to have sex with the mother while the daughter suffers from penis envy... And wants to have sex with the father.
wacko.gif
I think many of his theories do not stand up to modern scientific methods anyway...
 
QUOTE It's true humans like dogs have natural sex drives which we carry out instinctively (that's basically what lust is). Unlike dogs women do not go in heat when they are at their most fertile period. Indeed this period of highest fertility is quite well hidden (it's not obvious what stage of the menstruation cycle a woman is in). So for a mate to be successful they have a better chance if they don't use women in a one night stand (unlike dogs). So there can be a biological basis as to why love comes about.

Therefore, isn't it safe to argue that "lust" might just be a result of hormonal imbalance? Or it could also be a result or a form of addiction to sex? OR more importantly, lust could be a natural biological response. BUT even if that were the case i doubt the general public's view on it would sway. Another point is that if lust was biological, then there's the possibility of creating drugs that may eliminate the urges. Hey if we could make a drug to make men horny, why not a drug that does the reverse? A good birth control IMO, because the safest sex is no sex at all...

As for lust related to porn viewing and child porn etc. That's another story...
 
QUOTE (khael @ May 23 2008, 08:37 PM)Therefore, isn't it safe to argue that "lust" might just be a result of hormonal imbalance?
Yes and no. I mean hormones play a part (testosterone increases sex drive) but I think there are other factors at work. There are mental aspects to lust (not everyone is attracted to the same people) so what I find attractive might not apply to you. I don't think the same applies to dogs where reproduction is more hormonal. They'll hump anything when on heat, even me (no joke)!
fdohxw7.gif



QUOTE Or it could also be a result or a form of addiction to sex?
Are we all addicted to sex?
tongue.gif



QUOTE OR more importantly, lust could be a natural biological response. BUT even if that were the case i doubt the general public's view on it would sway.

Lust is generally percieved as self centred (your fulfilling your own needs) while love is deeper (you are caring for someone else). So there will always be a stigma with lust. Natural or not.


QUOTE Another point is that if lust was biological, then there's the possibility of creating drugs that may eliminate the urges. Hey if we could make a drug to make men horny, why not a drug that does the reverse? A good birth control IMO, because the safest sex is no sex at all...
Ignoring the ethics and cases of possible abuse creating a drugs would be difficult. If the treatment was based on changing hormones they would probably have nasty side effects. Using testosterone as example it may increase your libido but it can also increase the chances of heart disease, or breast cancer for women etc. Then there is stuff like increased muscle mass, do all people want this? I remember a doctor once saying:

The bigger the effect of the drug the more dramatic the side-effects will be.


QUOTE As for lust related to porn viewing and child porn etc. That's another story...
I think this a clear case that shows lust is not all about hormones. I don't think there are hormones that make people paedophiles. Before you ask people with high libidos aren't more likely to go for children, at least I seriously doubt it. I believe environmental factors could play a part (if a person is exposed to child pornography; is sexually abused as a child etc). Just goes to show lust may be a complicated beast!
 
QUOTE Are we all addicted to sex?
I was stating this in referrence to nymphomania etc. And a theory that sex is addictive, of course not to all.

QUOTE Lust is generally percieved as self centred (your fulfilling your own needs) while love is deeper (you are caring for someone else). So there will always be a stigma with lust. Natural or not.

Precisely the case. The stigma will remain even if the theory is proven, much like how morals will still remain even if religion gets disproven...


QUOTE The bigger the effect of the drug the more dramatic the side-effects will be.

QUOTE Yes and no. I mean hormones play a part (testosterone increases sex drive) but I think there are other factors at work. There are mental aspects to lust (not everyone is attracted to the same people) so what I find attractive might not apply to you. I don't think the same applies to dogs where reproduction is more hormonal. They'll hump anything when on heat, even me (no joke)!

Good point. It could be mental [addiction or other disorders], environmental and social [Freud and all his weirdness] or physiological [hormones]. That's why i think it should be grounds for further study. On a side note i find it hard to see any positive effects that the current governments have when it comes to population control. And most of the countries suffering from overpopulation and high poverty are SOME [Read as NOT ALL] of the third world ones, where the masses consist mostly of illiterates. Of course there's also the culture and religious tradition, but that's another story again.

The reason why i thought up of this drug thing is because of overpopulation and it's correlation with lust and illiteracy [Specifically in third world countries]. But if we were to find a working "cure" whose side effects are of minimal danger to the user, i'm sure there'll be opposers. But what would be its difference to birth control pills? Wait omg that's it. Birth control pills. But we all know how effective those are which is... WTF 2.4 persons a day...
 
QUOTE (khael @ May 24 2008, 12:33 PM)On a side note i find it hard to see any positive effects that the current governments have when it comes to population control. And most of the countries suffering from overpopulation and high poverty are SOME [Read as NOT ALL] of the third world ones, where the masses consist mostly of illiterates. Of course there's also the culture and religious tradition, but that's another story again.
More importantly factors that influence birth rates are woman going to higher education and working. After all in many third world countries most women never go to school and don't have full time jobs like in the west.

A few centuries ago women in industrialised countries faced a similar fate and the birth rate was high like in the third world countries. So the high birth rate is more to do with circumstances than attitudes. One thing I do know is that first generation immigrants often have the same birth rates as their native country. The second generation however has birth rates more typical of the country. This is the case for Indian/Pakistani communities in Britain. The first generation immigrants had birth rates typical of India/Pakistan but the second generation had birth rates typical of England. So the environment rather than the people play a big part in birth rates.


QUOTE The reason why i thought up of this drug thing is because of overpopulation and it's correlation with lust and illiteracy [Specifically in third world countries]. But if we were to find a working "cure" whose side effects are of minimal danger to the user, i'm sure there'll be opposers. But what would be its difference to birth control pills? Wait omg that's it. Birth control pills. But we all know how effective those are which is...

Population control by controlling peoples' sex drive via drugs? It can only be ethical if people willingly take it. Which not many people will (less than condoms anyway). I mean most people wouldn't want to lower their sex drives. So it wouldn't be effective. If the government where to force this drug to control birth rates it would be approaching the realms of eugenics. I mean who would take the drug and who wouldn't? The fittest candidates? No that's a dangerous path to take...


QUOTE WTF 2.4 persons a day...

It's the average number of children per woman. To maintain a stable population a birth rate of 2.1 is required. As many countries in the Western world have a rate lower than this their native population is dropping. Things like immigration can help maintain the population . I'm pretty sure that's what it's referring to because 2.4 children per day. The country would be f*****!
laugh.gif
 
to me, lust is more like some archaic word from years and years ago. it generally has the connotations of sin associated with it, which in modern times doesn't have much bearing aside from certain fanatical groups. the whole seven sins thing is really ancient history.

as one may have previously noted, there are several definitions, and love can hold a variety of meanings. of course if you fall in love with someone, there are generally some connections to physical attraction; but this is something that fluctuates wildly from person to person, and you certainly can't measure feelings of this kind(or any others). and with the other most commonly recognized type (that has least interest in this topic), it would surely be thought peculiar to have strong physical attractions amongst family or similar
 
QUOTE More importantly factors that influence birth rates are woman going to higher education and working. After all in many third world countries most women never go to school and don't have full time jobs like in the west.

Yes, illiteracy/lack of proper education even just on simple family planning is a huge problem, especially in third world countries.


QUOTE A few centuries ago women in industrialised countries faced a similar fate and the birth rate was high like in the third world countries. So the high birth rate is more to do with circumstances than attitudes. One thing I do know is that first generation immigrants often have the same birth rates as their native country. The second generation however has birth rates more typical of the country. This is the case for Indian/Pakistani communities in Britain. The first generation immigrants had birth rates typical of India/Pakistan but the second generation had birth rates typical of England. So the environment rather than the people play a big part in birth rates.

My bad on fogetting to take into account individual circumstances, but I digress on the notion that it has more bearing on overpopulation than attitudes. I still do think that attitude towards sex has a huge effect. E.g. in some cultures having 12 children is considered "great" or good, not necessarily financially of course. Also, weren't the industrialized countries/first world countries the ones who thought of birth control and family planning?


QUOTE Population control by controlling peoples' sex drive via drugs? It can only be ethical if people willingly take it. Which not many people will (less than condoms anyway). I mean most people wouldn't want to lower their sex drives. So it wouldn't be effective. If the government where to force this drug to control birth rates it would be approaching the realms of eugenics. I mean who would take the drug and who wouldn't? The fittest candidates? No that's a dangerous path to take...

Yes i agree that it's quite a dangerous path to take, bordering on political suicide. And yet again another problem i see with this scenario is that people want change but aren't willing to accept it. People don't want overcrowding, poverty etc. but they don't discipline themselves when it comes to sex. Of course this doesn't apply to everybody, but that is what i've seen first hand. And the majority of people with this kind of attitude are bordering on middle class and the poor.


QUOTE It's the average number of children per woman. To maintain a stable population a birth rate of 2.1 is required. As many countries in the Western world have a rate lower than this their native population is dropping. Things like immigration can help maintain the population . I'm pretty sure that's what it's referring to because 2.4 children per day. The country would be f*****!

Haha i see. And yes it's quite true that the native population of western countries are being overrun by the population of eastern countries. Again, i think it has to do with the difference between western and eastern attitudes and cultures towards sex and family raising.
 
QUOTE (box100 @ May 25 2008, 06:07 PM)The whole seven sins thing is really ancient history.
Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth (laziness), wrath, envy and pride. True some of the terms maybe old fashioned but I think the ideas are still relevant to modern life. Certainly not something to be discarded as ancient history. Let's take wrath, uncontrolled anger that can result in self-denial, impatience, revenge and vigilante. I think these things are entirely relevant to real life. Like khael said religion may die but it's morals will still exist.

Oh and stuff like greed, being self-centred and always caring about your needs first is not a great quality when taken to the extreme. Why do people have thanksgiving and Christmas?


QUOTE (khael @ May 28 2008, 10:18 AM)My bad on forgetting to take into account individual circumstances, but I digress on the notion that it has more bearing on overpopulation than attitudes. I still do think that attitude towards sex has a huge effect. E.g. in some cultures having 12 children is considered "great" or good, not necessarily financially of course. Also, weren't the industrialized countries/first world countries the ones who thought of birth control and family planning?
In my native Sudan attitudes towards sex are a lot less liberal. It is unthinkable to have sex with a girlfriend. Sex can ONLY come after marriage. Yet the birth rate in Sudan is far higher than Britain which takes a more liberal approach to sex. I'm pretty sure similar things can be said about other third world countries. Even in the past when sex outside marriage was more taboo in Britain it had a higher birth rate (think Victorian times). So I don't think attitudes toward sex is a major factor towards birth rates.

It's also interesting to consider the birth rate of different classes. I believe the birth rate in the working-class is higher than the middle class as unemployment is more prevalent. I say this as the number of teenage mothers (who are mostly from the working class backgrounds). These people often drop out of school early and do not go to higher education unlike their middle-class counterparts. Such factors make women hold off pregnancy until a later age.


QUOTE It's quite true that the native population of western countries are being overrun by the population of eastern countries.

Overrun I think is a bit strong of a word. In some ways immigration is necessary. If the population is decreasing you need something to offset it. Otherwise you will find the younger generation having to support more people. Which is difficult for an economy (more money on health care, pensions and less spending). Immigration is also a quick way of gaining employment i.e it takes 10 years to train a doctor but 2 months (or less) to get a trained doctor from abroad.

Of course immigrants can never win!
laugh.gif
They are either stealing our money (not getting a job) or stealing our jobs (ironically jobs that we didn't want in the first place i.e cleaners). Also is benefit fraud limited to immigrants?
fermud7.gif
I don't think so but it always makes good headlines...

NOTE: Looks like we're straying off-topic!
ph34r.gif
It's seems to be more about family planning and birth control rather than lust itself. Yes I'm as guilty as you!
tongue.gif
But let's try and go back to the topic in hand?
wink.gif
Or do you want to discuss this more in a separate thread?
fermud7.gif
PM me if so!
wink.gif
 
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Back
Top