This thread is created due to a conversation in this thread, to stop that one from going too off topic. So here goes my badly constructed OP.
The opinion that "if she loves you, she will want to have sex with you - if she doesn't want to have sex with you (yet), she doesn't love you (yet)". Love = desire. Nonsexual love (for one's family and friends, or even pets) is then only affection?
That might be a matter of semantics, but the opinion that sexual desire always accompanies genuine feelings of love is what got brought up.
Compare Strop's opinion of "Love = Care and commitment" - also catch up on this page and the preceding to know exactly where this came from and find the stuff I possibly should have mentioned.
Also see the Triangular Theory of Love for an (in my opinion) rather plausible way of "sorting" types of love (the Wikipedia article currently covers it well, and I can't find the place I heard of it first, so my apologies if you distrust that wiki).
Do you not love someone if you do not desire sexual contact with them?
honestly its a matter of opinion and how you feel love should be shown. to some people sex is only a means of affection whereas to others it is to sate a carnal desire
if you're under 18, you most definitely do not know what love is and for the matter even if you are over 18 you still probably wouldnt find out until you are married. what sickens me in american society is how much people are just together for the casual sex there is no love involved between them. Love is about willing to sacrifice things to be together for example if your woman hate the fact you play games or something, and you give it up to make her happy, that is a basic idea behind it.
inb4 kevin coming up with some kind of bs about sexual desire = love
yes sexual desire is a part of it but it doesnt make/break a relationship built through love.
It depends on what you mean. Romantic love is culture based and deals with all the things you think when you think "love"- be it candy hearts or candles or whatever. This is probably the "If she loves you, she will have sex with you" kind of love.
Hormonal love is basically what you would call "lust". Basically it is the desire to have sex. It is useful to keep the species going but western culture seems to frown on it.
Then there is "Brotherly love", the natural social emotion that you feel to your clan mates. It is also a useful "emotion" to have in social creatures as it helps society function.
I think its more of the word expanding over several definitions as the problem...
I think that triangular theory of love is pretty accurate and pretty much sums up my thoughts. Love can be categorized into general types of love, love without passion it more like a friendship, even with commitment its more like a long term friendship.
But I think love purely through one component isn't love at all, pure liking would be approval without even a little bit of commitment (you would commit to at least helping your friends through hardships). Passion in it self is only a desire, and pure commitment is co-dependancy(forced marriage isn't commitment).
I love my mother but I have no desire to have sex with her, because my love for her is not passionate...
Sexual desire, in my opinion, is a form of loving some one. Affection is a form of loving someone. Caring is a form of loving someone. Those things are not love, alone.
The Oedipal Crisis states that our first love for all boys is our mother. We want her attention; we want her affection; we want her caresses; we want her in a broadly sexual way. The young boy, however, has a rival for his mother's charms: his father. Ergo, his father is the enemy. His father is bigger, stronger, smarter, and he gets to sleep with mother, while the boy is alone in his small bed, having wet dreams, subconsciously thinking about his mother.
Well you could easily get them drunk at the bar,then you make your move! XD
This statement is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Not ways to get laid, but perceptions of what love is.
But I think love purely through one component isn't love at all, pure liking would be approval without even a little bit of commitment (you would commit to at least helping your friends through hardships). Passion in it self is only a desire, and pure commitment is co-dependancy(forced marriage isn't commitment).
I agree with this.
I think it varies from person to person, and definitely also from culture to culture what love is perceived to be, and how it functions. The effect of popculture on what is perceived to be romantic and/or normal for relationships is possibly interesting. Haven't researched it, but I would imagine it to set up the same kind of expectations about how things should be as a porno may do for youngsters that haven't tried it in real life.
Love has sexual desire hidden beneath it. It takes time to develop, but it shall happen. The problem is, men are stupid to think that it is instant.
Lust, however, is different. The desire to engage in sexual intercourse, but not with the passion, affection, and love underlying the sexual intercourse, it is not real.
if you're under 18, you most definitely do not know what love is and for the matter even if you are over 18 you still probably wouldnt find out until you are married. what sickens me in american society is how much people are just together for the casual sex there is no love involved between them. Love is about willing to sacrifice things to be together for example if your woman hate the fact you play games or something, and you give it up to make her happy, that is a basic idea behind it.
lol. That is a quite a generalization. I don't think I should have to sacrifice my own needs and wants for my lover. Sacrificing the things you love to make your lover happy. That would make you her slave, in a way, and that is not love.
Love has sexual desire hidden beneath it. It takes time to develop, but it shall happen. The problem is, men are stupid to think that it is instant.
I suspect that you are applying your own varying definition of love, as far as I understand your definition of love is my definition of romantic love, where as you do not see friendship as a form of love.
Unless you are implying that all friendships has sexual desire hidden beneath it, which I disagree with. Not all friendships can turn into romantic love.
Lust, however, is different. The desire to engage in sexual intercourse, but not with the passion, affection, and love underlying the sexual intercourse, it is not real.
I guess you are defining lust as pure passionate love, or rather a partial manifestation of passion. While you may argue that this is not real love, many relationships start with passion, and mixed with other factors, this can develop into real love.
Well you did mention "sex" in your description of love,so maybe I post tat anyways!
Yeah, but you gave an example of what Kevin just labeled "lust", possibly even one-sided before the influence of alcohol. And only an example, no actual context for it. *shrug*
Love has sexual desire hidden beneath it. It takes time to develop, but it shall happen. The problem is, men are stupid to think that it is instant.
While it sounds like you're describing it in a relationship, what about love that isn't between two partners? Is that unworthy of being called love, because it isn't going to include a sexual desire? To skip around the Freudian arguments, let's take up pets. Can you not love a pet without wanting to engage in sex with it? Oh, and can you not love your child without potential sexual feelings lurking somewhere?
I'm just questioning your definition of love. I don't believe everyone is into bestiality or pedophilia.
Lust, however, is different. The desire to engage in sexual intercourse, but not with the passion, affection, and love underlying the sexual intercourse, it is not real.
Which is it that isn't real here? Lust, passion and desire can be genuine for a one night stand. If you meant this as a counterpoint to the "love = desire"ish point, well yeah, it can't be reversed. In my opinion, at least. Desire isn't love. It can be included in love, but it isn't on its own...
I suspect that you are applying your own varying definition of love, as far as I understand your definition of love is my definition of romantic love, where as you do not see friendship as a form of love.
There is no official definition for love, that is what we discussing here. Geez, did you not pay attention to that at all?
Unless you are implying that all friendships has sexual desire hidden beneath it, which I disagree with. Not all friendships can turn into romantic love.
You have sexual desire for your mother, but you don't engage in sexual intercourse with her. Same goes for friends. That aside, have you ever heard of friends with benefits? lol
I guess you are defining lust as pure passionate love, or rather a partial manifestation of passion. While you may argue that this is not real love, many relationships start with passion, and mixed with other factors, this can develop into real love.
No, the exact opposite. I am defining love as passionate, and lust as not passionate. I know that relationships start with passion, but they also start with commitment, kindness, and affection.
Like I said, I think the problem is that the word itself spans over several meanings, I will post it here and bold the ones you speak of. Notice they are different definitions.
â"noun 1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend. 3. sexual passion or desire. 4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart. 5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love? 6. a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour. 7. sexual intercourse; copulation. 8. ( initial capital letter ) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid. 9. affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor. 10. strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books. 11. the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love. 12. the benevolent affection of god for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God. 13. Chiefly Tennis . a score of zero; nothing. 14. a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
