This is a guest blog submitted by dobserver.The terms "love" and "lust" have always been a subject of interest to me. I have always wondered if it was possible to love another without the existence of lust.
To me, the existence of lust represents the physical desire for the object of your affection. (I refrain from using the term "significant other" because, well, we lust after others that are NOT our significant others.) And without the physical desire for a partner, does it then become true that love cannot exist? The love I speak of is obviously romantic love, because love for a family or a friend can easily exist without lust.
I have heard in many places that these two things cannot exist together. If that is true, then my interpretation of lust must be wrong in some way. Or is it those that have said that they cannot exist are the ones that are wrong?
I have to admit, in some way, lust has destroyed all the relationships I've been in. I still struggle with it today. But to me, lust (by my definition) directed toward a significant other should not be considered wrong; should it? One can argue that it can be at the wrong time or place, but should it be flat out wrong and dismissed from a relationship?
I am sure many of you will counter that lust does not take into account the other person's emotions or feelings and thus disqualifies it from being a part of love. But I think it is possible to lust while fully taking into account the other person's emotions and feelings. Does sex not spawn from the lust of each other? Is sex not the pinnacle and the height of love? The belief that the two become one?
P.S. I know it isn't regarded as such today...but some really old fashioned people (like myself) believe so.
Recommend
Comments (65)
i think lust can be a part of love. otherwise, you wouldn't want to have sex with your SO. if you're in love with someone then you are attracted to them which means you can lust after them. and obviously you can lust without love and visa versa. but i think a relationship is made up of both love and lust.
it should not be wrong.. how are we going to be reproduce then1?!? lol
I believe that Love and Lust go hand in hand. You can have Lust without love, but you cannot have (romantic) love without lust. relationships are physical as well as emotional and intellectual.
I agree that there has to be a degree of desire for the person that you are with. I guess, per Webster, you can label it lust. It think one has to be careful with lust because it can be consuming and get out of control. I think within love it doesn't necessary look like that because of the nature of love itself. It isn't self seeking where lust does cause you to sometimes disregard the other person's feelings. Just my thoughts.
Lust and love are intertwined, but they can exist separately. You can lust after some random person, but I love lots of people that I don't lust after. I don't know if you took into account that there are several different types of love, though...
You should lust after the one you love. At least that's how it works for me.
What's wrong with lusting after the person you love? I think that's how it should be.
The problem is when you start lusting after other people while you're loving one person. Then maybe you should consider if you either don't really love/lust that person enough. Or if maybe you're not ready for, or even built for, monogamy.
I think the biggest problem, though, is when you feel lust but don't have anyone in particular to express it toward. That's where self-gratification comes in handy, I guess!
They're mutually exclusive. Like a woman that cooks and cleans.
You need lust in a good loving relationship. But you usually don't get love in a good lusting relationship.
So love + lust = good.
Lust by itself = still ok, as long as you're alright with that.
Love by itself = boringggg.
Lust towards your SO is not only NOT wrong (gah...double negative), but encouraged I believe. Love and lust go hand in hand in a healthy relationship, and begin to intertwine. It's when you have only one or the other in relationship that the relationship spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e.
@midgetmachine@xanga - couldn't have said it better.
Lust and love can (and should) coexist in a romantic relationship; the problem starts when lust exists by itself.
Krista
to be blunt..if i didn't think my guy was sexy, i wouldn't be dating him. can't love fully without a little lust.
Not only can you, but you have to, in my opinion. It all depends on your definition of lust. To me, lust is more than physical attraction. Love and physical attraction can, and should, go together in a good balance in my opinion. Love and lust? No way.
I think you may be right, but to me, lust is something selfish - you only want to satisfy yourself. Unless I am wrong, and I don't mind being corrected (CIVILLY).
@ccarothers@xanga - I like how you wrote this comment.
Interesting...I can recommend my own post...
So it seems that lust is required for a romantic relationship to last...what about in this instance:
An accident has physically handicapped your partner in someway. It has impaired your lust for them...is it then still possible for the relationship to continue? Would this be a case where there is just love and no lust?
-A^2 -- dobserver
I definitely think that lust, or physical attraction, is key in a relationship. Honestly: why would you be with someone you aren't physically attracted to?
It's a natural human reaction to lust after a mate. I think that the younger we are, the more it matters to us, but as we age, we develop a more companionable bond that's hard to break and based more on trust and friendship than attraction.
It makes sense to me. -shrug-
Lust, or an immoderate desire for the flesh of another (outside of matrimony), is considered a sin, or impure act.
I have a desire for my husband.
While we were dating, I did lust after him, but that was only after I fell in love. I think that's the next step after forming a bond with someone..To join as one. But that's why God prefers and ask that we join in a holy matrimony. It's dangerous and painful to go though such a process, and then have the relationship end. It's like being torn apart or going through a divorce!
The only reason it's called "lust" and considered a sin in the Bible, is because so often most people don't love the other person. It's all about being sexual with them. Love is so much deerper than lust, so it's dangerous to equate love and lust as the same. Because many people lust, but feel no true love.
I don't consider my love and desire for my husband lust anymore. And I do not lust after other men...and I haven't since the moment that I met the love of my life.
i loved someone with 0 lust and i considered the lack of physical attraction was part of the detriment of our relationship.
Mmmmm, Well I Do Not Consider You An Old Fashioned Person Because I Understand What Conclusion You Are Coming Out With. I Personally Believe That You Can Love, Without Lust. Atleast I Am Positive, That I Can. I Have Fallen In Love But Never Have Wanted Lust, From My Lover Even Though He Has Shown It. In My Opinion, Lust Mean's Pure Nothing. It Make's Me Think Of How The Only Way You Could Show Your Emotion's, Is By Physical Touch. Which Men Or Women, Find It Easy To Do. Love Is A Bit Different, Since You Express Your Emotion's By Your Word's And Your Adore Toward's One Another. Yet, That Is Just One Women's Opinion.
you're right. one must lust after potential mates. and when the relationship calls for it, lust leads to sex. no shame. love without lust is for family and friends.
"The Mirror Has Two Faces" (directed/starring Barbra Streisand) is about a couple starting a new relationship. He wants love without lust while she wants both. I think it pretty much says how both needs to exist in order for a relationship to work. And @Bubbles1088 is right about where the problem lies.
thanks for posting this up. i've been trying figure that out, too.