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?
There is no official definition for love, that is what we discussing here. Geez, did you not pay attention to that at all?
That is the whole point of my counter-argument, your definitions and mine differ. Still you must at least consider and not simply put aside other peoples opinions and continue to assert your opinions which you have already made clear.
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.
And I am defining lust as pure passion, and Im also saying that commitment, kindness and affection are other factors which can contribute to making a relationship successful when mixed with passion instead of having passion on its own.
Love is subjective, therefore I don't think you can simply look it up on a dictionary to find the answers you want, this is what the discussion is about.
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?
Hm. Love is showing strong affection, passion, caring, and commitment. Underlying that love, is sexual desire. It may be unjust to apply that theory to all forms of love, but is just to not apply that relationships including women?
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?
Let's not. Freud left tons of information about the human brain, and love, after all, is in the human brain.
I think that Freud meant that love compared to the opposite sex has sexual desire. You may love a man, but not want him to sleep with you. It is true that children are very attached to their parent of the opposite sex, and very competitive with their parent of their same sex. I think you can fill in some blanks and apply that to all women. I love my father, but subconsciously, I hate him.
I'm just questioning your definition of love. I don't believe everyone is into bestiality or pedophilia.
I think it is considered bestiality and pedophilia when it involves consciousness.
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...
For the last time, love has no synonyms. Desire underlies love, but it isn't love. It is included in love.
That is the whole point of my counter-argument, your definitions and mine differ. Still you must at least consider and not simply put aside other peoples opinions and continue to assert your opinions which you have already made clear.
I was asking if you knew the point of the thread. I was not demanding you to listen to my definition.
And I am defining lust as pure passion, and Im also saying that commitment, kindness and affection are other factors which can contribute to making a relationship successful when mixed with passion instead of having passion on its own.
Lust as pure passion? Look, lust is sexual desire, but it can happen without love.
I am not definish passion as love, I am saying that passion is a part of love. And while passion in it self is just lust, it can be combined with other things to make love.
I am not definish passion as love, I am saying that passion is a part of love. And while passion in it self is just lust, it can be combined with other things to make love.
You are saying that lust is pure passion, and passion is part of love, right? That still means that Pure Passion (lust) comes first. Which is not true.
wut? thats horribly misinterpreting my statement and then mangling it beyond belief
I just restated what you said. You said passion is part of love. You also said that lust is pure passion (lust) is part of love. Oh. I see what you mean.
Excuse me, again.
Hm, well if sexual desire is pure passion, then yes, lust is part of love. That's semantics. Some may disagree and say that sexual desire is not pure passion.
Love is subjective, therefore I don't think you can simply look it up on a dictionary to find the answers you want, this is what the discussion is about.
Dictionaries provide definitions. People provide perceptions. I didn't start this thread to argue about the definitions, but about how different people view what love is differently - not depending on what a dictionary defines it to be.
That said, the triangular theory does encompass a nice variety of the dictionary definitions and their differences.
For the last time, love has no synonyms. Desire underlies love, but it isn't love. It is included in love.
I'll apologize for putting it too simply, I didn't want to indicate them to be synonyms. I just disagree that love always has an element of desire hidden somewhere, which appears to be what you argue.
I think it is considered bestiality and pedophilia when it involves consciousness.
Can you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure I understand what you mean with it.
Zophia, I think I shall reform my idea based on Freud's theories. If you think about it, we have sexual desire for the opposite sex and hatred for the same sex, subconsciously, well, if you're not a homosexual (homosexuals usually prefer the same sex because the opposite sex parent abuses the child emotionally).
I think love between pets and the same sex does not have sexual desire, unless, of course, you are homosexual.
I think love between pets and the same sex does not have sexual desire, unless, of course, you are homosexual.
Gotta love the accidental "homosexuals are into bestiality" your sentence structure let slip there :P Naw, I kid, I doubt you even thought of that.
I'm actually not sure whether or not I disagree with you on the rest, though. I've never read any of Freud's theories, so I don't actually know the things you're referencing.
Gotta love the accidental "homosexuals are into bestiality" your sentence structure let slip there :P Naw, I kid, I doubt you even thought of that.
No, I was stating that you desire sex from your opposite sex, or same sex, if you are homosexual.
I'm actually not sure whether or not I disagree with you on the rest, though. I've never read any of Freud's theories, so I don't actually know the things you're referencing.
Didn't you make it to tenth grade? I took Psychology in tenth grade, it wasn't mandatory, but if you want to get into John Hopkins, you kind of need to.
No, I was stating that you desire sex from your opposite sex, or same sex, if you are homosexual.
I know, I was joking about how you had that bit about pets in the same sentences, essentially not separating "love of pets" and "love of people of the same sex".
Didn't you make it to tenth grade? I took Psychology in tenth grade, it wasn't mandatory, but if you want to get into John Hopkins, you kind of need to.
Fell out of school somewhere during tenth grade, but we did not have psychology classes, optional or otherwise. Think that's saved for, err, gymnasier. Can't remember what their equivalent is in America or England, though.
Lust is when you want sex. Love is when you adore everything about that person, or you are willing to see past the bad things in the person. There is a difference between sex and making love in my opinion. It may be the same thing physically, but on the emotional level, making love is like sealing the bond to live the rest of your life with this one person, and only that ONE person. Sex could be with some stranger or whore off of the street. Making love is with the one you love. So there is a difference between Love and desire in my opinion.
