Can there be love without lust?
-
I had this thought on my mind suddenly. That is, love is actually something artificial, something someone manufactured so as to make money out of it. Look at all the Valentine's Day stuff, gifts and presents designed for your SO.
Love does not really exist. It's just a reason to conceal the more morally unacceptable idea of "lust". When you talk about love at first sight, I believe that most, if not all cases, are due to lust and not really, as some people described as "chemistry".
Am I being cynical here and are these words the views of a loser who cannot get a galfriend or is there some truth in this?
Can there be love without lust? Comments are welcomed.
-
well...lust can be counted as a intrest...so u could say that lust does play a part in love but how much it plays...differs from each
-
yah of course. do u lust for ur mother?? do u lust after ur siblings??? maybe u could lust for your cousins but they deathfinitely can be love without lust.
A couple that has been married for half a century, do they still lust for each other?? can they even get horny?? do they still love each other??? yes deathfinitely. -
Dear CoolMyth,
Love is already complicated enough without you having to complicate it further with your thoughts, which are at best, irrelevant, at worst, incoherent (pardon me for being blunt, I get irritated when I'm confused after reading a post).
To answer your questions in a systematic order:
1. Valentine's Day, Christmas Day, birthdays, weddings, etc, are commercialised, yes. Shops are there to supply a DEMAND (go read up basic economics, I can't be bothered to launch into an explanation here). Sure, shops can do all the advertising, sell the nicest products, but if there wasn't a demand, & people didn't buy into that kinda commercialised nonsense, how would the shops have an opportunity to make a quick buck during such seasons?
Love itself is a feeling. It's people who make the celebration of Love commercialised. Hamster (my nick for my guy) & I don't buy each other expensive presents during Valentine's Day. Neither do we book a table at posh restaurants. Rather, we relax & cook together (he cooks, I dice & cut very slowly), give each other massages, & maybe a small present. It's the same for X'mas & birthdays. We also buy each other "Just because" gifts, which are most precious & treasured. Some people feel that since Valentine's Day is to celebrate love, why Not celebrate? Surely you can't begrudge them that. Afterall, it's a positive thing if they wish to make their partners happy.
2. Love does Not really exist. It does. If you go by this argument, then you don't really love your parents.
3. Lust. Lust is Not chemistry. I lust after Brad Pitt, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna sleep with him. Neither do I love him. But I love Hamster, & it's natural to lust after him. What the hell's wrong with that?
4. Are you being a cynic or are your views that of a loser? Only you would know. I can't be bothered to ponder over it.
FeowFeowOriginally posted by CoolMyth:I had this thought on my mind suddenly. That is, love is actually something artificial, something someone manufactured so as to make money out of it. Look at all the Valentine's Day stuff, gifts and presents designed for your SO.
Love does not really exist. It's just a reason to conceal the more morally unacceptable idea of "lust". When you talk about love at first sight, I believe that most, if not all cases, are due to lust and not really, as some people described as "chemistry".
Am I being cynical here and are these words the views of a loser who cannot get a galfriend or is there some truth in this?
Can there be love without lust? Comments are welcomed. -
When I first saw my GF it was her innocent eyes that captivate me , guess it was love at first sight. It was later in our relationship I lust after her body
-
studies have shown that when one is in love, the brain displays signals very similar to insanity and craziness...
-
love and lust are just states of mindOriginally posted by CoolMyth:I had this thought on my mind suddenly. That is, love is actually something artificial, something someone manufactured so as to make money out of it. Look at all the Valentine's Day stuff, gifts and presents designed for your SO.
Love does not really exist. It's just a reason to conceal the more morally unacceptable idea of "lust". When you talk about love at first sight, I believe that most, if not all cases, are due to lust and not really, as some people described as "chemistry".
Am I being cynical here and are these words the views of a loser who cannot get a galfriend or is there some truth in this?
Can there be love without lust? Comments are welcomed.
the connection between the two can exist or but it does not mean always nor does it mean they cannot exists alone. Love/Lust some times tie in with pain but that's another long winded discussion.
what we do can be related or not related to these states of mind ... but it is not always a representation of that state - ie buy flowers and candy etc. Lots of adulterers buy houses for their mistresses but don't mean they actually "love" them. Some times lust begins because of love and sometimes lust led to love.
ideally people can live alone till they die but usually people want some form of company or want to produce offsprings - to continue the line. There might be other reasons or needs -ie emotional needs. In many a times, "love" is an over-rated, overused, overkill and often abused word in the name of lust... However, it cannot be said there is no real love.. Lust sometimes arise out of love but it cannot then be said to be tainted but it does have a negative view. But some times lust arise out of just pure need/wants where there is no emotional attachement. Just as love can also arise out of simply want/need where it makes a person seek companionship.
This kind of discussion is very general and lengthy and endless actually. Because there cannot be physical prove. Everything said here is just an opinion you can agree to a certain extend or not agree to a certain extend. Everyone's experience is different and so drawing on experience and what is presented in this site and everywhere... one becomes an observer and learn/evolve thought for oneself. Discussion do not do justice to experience and observation ... and the answer lies in oneself
I guess I added more confusion...
-
Well said! hi..feowfeow...Originally posted by FeowFeow:Dear CoolMyth,
Love is already complicated enough without you having to complicate it further with your thoughts, which are at best, irrelevant, at worst, incoherent (pardon me for being blunt, I get irritated when I'm confused after reading a post).
To answer your questions in a systematic order:
1. Valentine's Day, Christmas Day, birthdays, weddings, etc, are commercialised, yes. Shops are there to supply a DEMAND (go read up basic economics, I can't be bothered to launch into an explanation here). Sure, shops can do all the advertising, sell the nicest products, but if there wasn't a demand, & people didn't buy into that kinda commercialised nonsense, how would the shops have an opportunity to make a quick buck during such seasons? Love itself is a feeling. It's people who make the celebration of Love commercialised. Hamster (my nick for my guy) & I don't buy each other expensive presents during Valentine's Day. Neither do we book a table at posh restaurants. Rather, we relax & cook together (he cooks, I dice & cut very slowly), give each other massages, & maybe a small present. It's the same for X'mas & birthdays. We also buy each other "Just because" gifts, which are most precious & treasured. Some people feel that since Valentine's Day is to celebrate love, why Not celebrate? Surely you can't begrudge them that. Afterall, it's a positive thing if they wish to make their partners happy.
2. Love does Not really exist. It does. If you go by this argument, then you don't really love your parents.
3. Lust. Lust is Not chemistry. I lust after Brad Pitt, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna sleep with him. Neither do I love him. But I love Hamster, & it's natural to lust after him. What the hell's wrong with that?
4. Are you being a cynic or are your views that of a loser? Only you would know. I can't be bothered to ponder over it.
FeowFeow -
they all answeredyour question with the utmost detail. I know you are bordeing on madness now trying to understand.. so let me give u one that wont confuse u.
' THER CAN BE LOVE WITHOUT LUST.
-
Can there be love without money?
-
wad kinda love?? if you're talking about Love for money, then nope, there cant be love for money without money... other then that, you're just being an Ass if you believe there cannot be love without money.Originally posted by drx:Can there be love without money?
back to cool's question. there are all kinds of love inthe world. so there is bound to be love without lust. personally, i think love will inevtiably lead to lust, but not necessarily the opposite. under this kinda situation, who can say lust and love in a r/s is bad?? just like feow jie said... she loves her Hamster (who ever he is) and that's why she lusts for him... now that's just so normal between a couple, aint it???
dun be skeptical about love. take hope.
-
love can exist and its not conditional on moneyOriginally posted by drx:Can there be love without money?
EG1 you can love a person but it does not mean you need to be filthy rich to feel love.
EG2 a filty rich person with loads of money but do not love anyone. -
Nope, without $, both parties would be dead from starvation.
FeowFeowOriginally posted by drx:Can there be love without money? -
Hello *smiles*
FeowFeowOriginally posted by megatron:Well said! hi..feowfeow... -
I think it's quite a poor comparision?Originally posted by FeowFeow:Nope, without $, both parties would be dead from starvation.
FeowFeow
Lust and Love - Emotions/feelings and intangibles.
Money and Love - Tangibles and feelings/emotion.
Back to lust - there could be this positive 'lust' called desire?
If your point holds water.
It should safe to say tat 'without desire, both parties would be dead from renewal of love?
Cheers -
to your question,
yeah there can be love without lust.
your mother loves you...er and does she lust for you? no (hopefully).
so there you have it.
obviously, romantic relationships are different. -
its all about control.....discipline....
-
So you believe it exist, but all depends on control is it?Originally posted by mohawkan10:its all about control.....discipline.... 
-
you bdsm freak!Originally posted by mohawkan10:its all about control.....discipline.... -
love involoves lust.if no lust no luv
-
Dear Feow Feow,Originally posted by FeowFeow:Dear CoolMyth,
Love is already complicated enough without you having to complicate it further with your thoughts, which are at best, irrelevant, at worst, incoherent (pardon me for being blunt, I get irritated when I'm confused after reading a post).
To answer your questions in a systematic order:
1. Valentine's Day, Christmas Day, birthdays, weddings, etc, are commercialised, yes. Shops are there to supply a DEMAND (go read up basic economics, I can't be bothered to launch into an explanation here). Sure, shops can do all the advertising, sell the nicest products, but if there wasn't a demand, & people didn't buy into that kinda commercialised nonsense, how would the shops have an opportunity to make a quick buck during such seasons? Love itself is a feeling. It's people who make the celebration of Love commercialised. Hamster (my nick for my guy) & I don't buy each other expensive presents during Valentine's Day. Neither do we book a table at posh restaurants. Rather, we relax & cook together (he cooks, I dice & cut very slowly), give each other massages, & maybe a small present. It's the same for X'mas & birthdays. We also buy each other "Just because" gifts, which are most precious & treasured. Some people feel that since Valentine's Day is to celebrate love, why Not celebrate? Surely you can't begrudge them that. Afterall, it's a positive thing if they wish to make their partners happy.
2. Love does Not really exist. It does. If you go by this argument, then you don't really love your parents.
3. Lust. Lust is Not chemistry. I lust after Brad Pitt, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna sleep with him. Neither do I love him. But I love Hamster, & it's natural to lust after him. What the hell's wrong with that?
4. Are you being a cynic or are your views that of a loser? Only you would know. I can't be bothered to ponder over it.
FeowFeow
1)Okay, I accept that.
2)Peharps I shall be more strict with my post. I am talking about "love" between man and woman. Let's try to make things simple and not too complicated by bringing in other sorts of "love", such as "pet-owner"
3)I am talking about "Love without Lust". Not the reverse case of "Lust without love". You're over-complicating my point of view here.
You love your Hamster, but which one comes first, Lust or Love? Just think about it carefully. I don't need your personal input, just objective opinions.
4)Then why did you post that as a point in the first place?
Love is already complicated enough without you having to complicate it further with your thoughts, which are at best, irrelevant, at worst, incoherent (pardon me for being blunt, I get irritated when I'm confused after reading a post).I am sorry for confusing you and also how my post felt irrelevant or even incoherent. I am just stating out my thoughts and it is your choice to reply accordingly or not even reply at all.
I agree that Love is complicated, even though I have not experienced "Love" in my stated definition here. As I repeat once again, it's just my personal thoughts.
CoolMyth. -
So when people are in love, they are crazy and insane.Originally posted by Fucking Bitch:studies have shown that when one is in love, the brain displays signals very similar to insanity and craziness... -
Actually, I was just being idiotic with that answer about $
Stating the obvious
Don't worry, I understand what you're saying.
FeowFeowOriginally posted by M©+square:I think it's quite a poor comparision?
Lust and Love - Emotions/feelings and intangibles.
Money and Love - Tangibles and feelings/emotion.
Back to lust - there could be this positive 'lust' called desire?
If your point holds water.
It should safe to say tat 'without desire, both parties would be dead from renewal of love?
Cheers -
I also understand la.Originally posted by FeowFeow:Actually, I was just being idiotic with that answer about $
Stating the obvious
Don't worry, I understand what you're saying.
FeowFeow
Just posting something since i having been posting for the last five days. -
Y bother the difference or similarities?Originally posted by CoolMyth:I had this thought on my mind suddenly. That is, love is actually something artificial, something someone manufactured so as to make money out of it. Look at all the Valentine's Day stuff, gifts and presents designed for your SO.
Love does not really exist. It's just a reason to conceal the more morally unacceptable idea of "lust". When you talk about love at first sight, I believe that most, if not all cases, are due to lust and not really, as some people described as "chemistry".
Am I being cynical here and are these words the views of a loser who cannot get a galfriend or is there some truth in this?
Can there be love without lust? Comments are welcomed.
So what you know n so what if you don't know?