• Thought
    4
    I have been giving it some thought, really, about the differences between Lust and Love. I suppose I should start by defining what I mean by the two terms regardless of their official definitions and if anyone wishes to correct the words or definitions then they can do so.

    I define the word "Love" as having a somewhat spiritual, emotional, mental and perhaps metaphysical bond with another soul, or being. In this case, I mean it towards an intimate relation rather than a friendly or family type "Love".
    By "Lust" I mean the want and desires associated with sexual intercourse and anything with that nature. Just for the gratification, and for the physical pleasures and perhaps release of stresses moreover than the actual connection it offers to the counterpart involved.

    Getting to the point, the idea I wanted to discuss is that I believe there to be a distinction between people when looking through people. I have witnessed and am aware myself of the male tendency to divide females between those who would only be good enough for the Lust (sex), compared with those that could offer Love as the emotional and relieving bond and relationship.

    Of course, I would believe that women would do the same thing their side when judging the men. There would be a distinction between which men would be only good enough for Lust and which for Love.

    How does this then work for homosexuals? Believably the same, but associated with the same sex. If Gay they would look through the men and divide between lust and love. And if lesbian then the same with the women.

    Is it therefore possible to divide orientation between Love and Lust?

    Therefore, being open for Lust with either sex, male or female, but only being orientated for one through love. It would bring a whole new dimension to the table. I believe there is a distinction between the two. It is possible and perhaps somewhat common, for person to only be interested in one sex for Love and relationships but be open sexually and lustfully for the more than one.

    For example, A man that is open to other men, and women for sex or anything of that nature. But, does not develop a connection with men in terms of love, that which he does have with women. It is simply Lust and nothing more.

    This then brings forward, are the terms Gay, Straight, Lesbian..Etc to generalized? Do they include more than they should? If we think of someone who is Gay we attribute them to only being interested in the same sex. But what do we mean by "interested"? Sexually? Emotionally? I believe that it should be more closely defined.

    For example, "I am straight (meaning in terms of Love) and Femaphilic" suggesting they are oriented to the opposite sex for a relationship but orient themselves for Lust towards females.
    Likewise, suggesting "I am Gay (again in terms of Love) and Mascaphilic" would imply they are attracted to the same sex for a relationship but orient themselves for Lust towards males.
    Yes, I am aware Femaphilic amd Mascaphilic are not real words I made them to demonstrate the point. Of course, if you were interesting in both sexually then you could be perhaps Biphilic, or using a prefix that would suggest both.

    What I would like to know from people willing to discuss this point is, what do you think of this idea? Do you agree or disagree and why? If your going to state your point, back it up and explain it.
  • Judaka
    1.7k
    This is a dangerous question to asking in a philosophy forum...

    People can give reasonable, plausible answers that are backed up by logic and theory but ultimately is that really going to lead you towards the correct answer? I don't really want to discuss this topic because all I can do is theorise and provide anecdotal evidence but if I really wanted an answer to your question then I'd be looking for legitimate studies on sexuality done by experts to indicate what the truth is.
  • Thought
    4
    That's a reasonable response. I guess I'm looking for the theorised responses just to get the thoughts on whether there is something plausible or whether my idea is brings up something that rejects it. As it is related to the thought processes and a distinction that would more than likely be different for each person. How exactly would you test for something that is based on the generation of the thought? So yes, theory and justified discussion will suffice.
  • xyz-zyx
    16
    If you can find people who are only interested in the same sex when it comes to sex, but only in the opposite when it comes to love, you are right.

    My first thought was that if you can get sexually aroused by a sex you will definitely be open to falling in love with them, but than I came to think of prisoners who sometimes have sexual relationships, but might still not consider having open relationships.

    I'm not sure if this is simply because some get desperate to release stress and get human touch or that they are bisexuals and in a normal situation can chose what is the most socially accepted and simply supress some of their sexual desires.

    But if you are right, the defintionens has to be expanded.
  • Thought
    4
    Exactly, it will more than likely result in those people open to one sex for sex also being open to love that sex too. I suppose it may be rare to find someone open sexually to one sex only and then open to love the opposite sex only. But the example of the prisoners is perfect. In normal conditions they probably wouldn't lust for the same sex, however they do in those circumstances and potentially don't love them and don't develop a connection with them. It's the same for soldiers, they were the same. The only thing that would need to be tested in those conditions is whether they differentiate between the people that are suitable for their lust too.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment