Lust vs. Love: What's the diff?

INFJ16 said:
I didn't want to bother, but okaay.

I think:
*Love is rooted in selflessness.
*Feelings aren't constant. Love can be.
*You can love someone without liking them or like someone without loving them. It is easier to love someone you like, but love is selfless and so does not have to be dependent on how you feel towards someone else.
* The feelings with love aren't a choice, but loving actions are a choice.
*Love is more than just sweet words and feelings. Selfless actions embody love.
*Love lasts as long as selfless behaviors do. Love is a choice that continues (on your end) as long as you let it. Whether it be for a friend or a lover, love creates demands beyond just words and feelings; it demands action.
*Love doesn't mean being perfect, selfless, or 100% happy all the time: that's just an ideal.
*There are different kinds of love (storge, philia, agape, eros, etc).
*An ideally loving and lasting relationship requires mutual selflessness and commitment.

*Lust is dependent on feelings (of attraction/desire), not love.
Click to expand...

You are not naive, you have wisdom beyond your youth, and that was an excellent post.
 
Gale said:
Lust vs. Love: What's the diff? When did lust turn into love? How was it different? What it easy to figure out?

SIGNS OF LUST

  • You're totally focused on a person's looks and body.
  • You're interested in having sex, but not in having conversations.
  • You'd rather keep the relationship on a fantasy level, not discuss real feelings.
  • You want to leave soon after sex rather than cuddling or breakfast the next morning.
  • You are lovers, but not friends.
SIGNS OF LOVE

  • You want to spend quality time together other than sex.
  • You get lost in conversations and forget about the hours passing.
  • You want to honestly listen to each other's feelings, make each other happy.
  • He or she motivates you to be a better person.
  • You want to get to meet his or her family and friends.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...01108/lust-vs-love-do-you-know-the-difference
Click to expand...
Qft

Milktoast Bandit said:
Love is sustainable and grows over time.
Click to expand...
Qft.

It's not something that imo even that needs to be said as a token gesture. It's a feeling and doesn't need to fade as long as two people communicate well, have insightful conversations, enjoy one another''s company, wish the best for their partner, and make their lives together an adventure. And really so much more, but those are the main ones for me.
 
I see lust as a need that wants to be fulfilled. Once the need is fulfilled the object of lust can be discarded, temporarily or permanently. The difference between attachment and convenience. I don't want to get into comparing and contrasting love and lust, not only because they don't preclude one another, but also because love is much harder to define. In simple, everyday terms, it's the difference between calling up on your partner only when you want that need fulfilled versus wanting them to be a part of your life in a much greater way.
 
Last edited:
James said:
I have to say @Pin I respectfully disagree. I think education and empathy are the true drivers of civilization. Even animals are capable of lust. If we only had that we'd still be in the caves you mention.
Click to expand...
Human beings are animals, albiet more capable animals. Lust is as much a driver for humans as it is for a dog.

Our education and empathy would get us nowhere without lust (the drive that compels all animals to reproduce).
 
Pin said:
Human beings are animals, albiet more capable animals. Lust is as much a driver for humans as it is for a dog.

Our education and empathy would get us nowhere without lust (the drive that compels all animals to reproduce).
Click to expand...
Shhhh.....
 
Eventhorizon said:
Shhhh.....
Click to expand...
It's true. Versailles wasn't built out of empathy. It was built because King Louie wanted to consolidate power, which also happens to be the "ultimate aphrodisiac."

The particular king who built Versailles, it's no coincidence that he fathered at least seven illegitimates. He was driven to power because of the guarantee that he could quench his lust, if even for a short while. High rank ensures the pinnacle of reproductive success.

A few by Kissinger.
http://www.nytimes.com/1973/10/28/a...-henry-language-negotiation-humility-the.html

Humans operate on a dominance hierarchy. There is a strong correlation between high rank and reproductive success in primates, which humans are.
 
Last edited:
Pin said:
Human beings are animals, albiet more capable animals. Lust is as much a driver for humans as it is for a dog.

Our education and empathy would get us nowhere without lust (the drive that compels all animals to reproduce).
Click to expand...

Lust is not only a description for a desire for reproduction, which I regard as being completely normal. I think that we have a natural drive for procreation.

I think we'll have to agree to differ.
 
Pin said:
Lust is the drive that compels reproduction, not the desire for reproduction.
Click to expand...

Pin I know you're an entj so I'm not trying to "change your mind". Reproduction occurs often in nature, without any need for sex or lust. As in deed life itself seemingly began on earth.

Words carry different meanings to different people. Lust assuredly exists, we all have it to a degree. How we decide to deal with it is up to each of us. I think it carries many negative associations.
 
James said:
Pin I know you're an entj so I'm not trying to "change your mind". Reproduction occurs often in nature, without any need for sex or lust. As in deed life itself seemingly began on earth.

Words carry different meanings to different people. Lust assuredly exists, we all have it to a degree. How we decide to deal with it is up to each of us. I think it carries many negative associations.
Click to expand...
I will change your mind on this.

You're correct that we define lust differently.

Lust as I define it, "The drive that compels reproduction," extends to all organisms; even microorganisms, which encompasses both sexual and asexual reproduction.

How do you define lust?
 
Pin said:
I will change your mind on this.

You're correct that we define lust differently.

Lust as I define it, "The drive that compels reproduction," extends to all organisms; even microorganisms, which encompasses both sexual and asexual reproduction.

How do you define lust?
Click to expand...

I think of "lust" as a word that conveys a strong desire for something, and that quite often contains a dark undertone.

If I told you I "loved your (adult) daughter" I'd see that as being different to saying I "had a lot of lust" for her. I don't really see plants etc as capable of such thoughts, but they still reproduce.

No two dictionaries say the same thing, and the meaning of words can change across cultures and time. Here though is a dictionary description I often associate with it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lust

  1. intense sexual desire or appetite.

  2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
 
James said:
I think of "lust" as a word that conveys a strong desire for something, and that quite often contains a dark undertone.

If I told you I "loved your (adult) daughter" I'd see that as being different to saying I "had a lot of lust" for her. I don't really see plants etc as capable of such thoughts, but they still reproduce.

No two dictionaries say the same thing, and the meaning of words can change across cultures and time. Here though is a dictionary description I often associate with it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lust

  1. intense sexual desire or appetite.

  2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see the issue. My definition is closer to the first, while yours is closer to the second.

My definition: denotative.

Your definition: connotative.

Unfortunately, we're both correct.
 
Dictionaries aside, I guess feelings of love do play some part in lust, as the other way around. This is why they are mistaken for each other quite often. But there is a difference to the love that involves lust and the one that doesn't and the lust that involves no love. The "love" that most people are looking for involves lust as well, but it is hard to weigh the balance that makes that love sustainable. A love without lust is possible, that is family and friendship. And lust without love is rarely anything more than a one night stand.

In our culture, a seemingly civilised world, most of us are to some degree looking for a relationship that has such an even balance of love and lust, which eventually corresponds with the concept of love that we were taught by rom coms. In the context of christianity, love is giving freely without expecting or wanting anything in return. It's love without lust. Which doesn't mean that they didn't just leave it out to make it sound better, or less sinful.

You can implement all the biological terminology you want in here, but basically, it still comes down to this. We are slaves to our emotions, no matter what hormone they come from. In that moment, you will barely be able to think about that stuff, because it won't matter. Paint me in all the colours you like, but I want that feeling. And I guess most of you too, even if you won't admit it.
 
INFJ16 said:
Hmm. I disagree. The feelings associated with love may be biological, but love is more than a feeling.
Click to expand...


Ohhhh the Boston reference is so strong!!!

*kudos are given*

Edit - Also Mr. Rector once said:

I still need to think of other people more
Yes I've thought of that before
Maybe one day I'll figure out
You don't find peace
Until you love somebody else
Note to self

-Ben Rector
Click to expand...

Which of course rings true with me. Because I tend to view love as being gracious, kind and the like. Choosing to love someone over and over again regardless of their flaws...now that sounds like a great (yet difficult) way to polish your own character.

Might just be mine own idealism though. Nobody said life was going to be easy.

It....never....is....LOL
 
Last edited:
I think that in a healthy romantic relationship, it is important to feel connected both physically and emotionally to the other person.

I associate lust with a romantic relationship where the focus is exclusively focused on the physical aspect, and the emotional aspect is ignored. In my opinion, lust is unstable, never satisfied, dishonest and violent.

Physical desire on the other hand is normal for healthy adults. A healthy management/attitude towards physical desire will prevent lust from entering a relationship.

I remember a quote of marriage advice along the lines of, "Play like children, love like teenagers and think like adults."
 
Some have said it pretty well. Can't add much different. For me, love includes an element of desire, but it's the kind of desire that's never-ending and based on how you feel about the person, not just physical attraction. Lust can be intense, passionate, and all consuming, but I don't think it wants more than to be fulfilled. It wants the person for sex and that's it. In love, even if sex is not always possible or desired, there's still a want to be around the person, engage with them, care about them, enjoy their company, and do things with them. There is an act of selflessness involved in love that is not present in lust. Lust is more about using someone to fulfill a sexual need or desire. Love is more about embracing the whole person, and sees them as more than a sexual interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top