What's the difference between lust and love?
Is there even a difference?
What's the difference as you've experienced it?

As for myself I've only experienced romantic love once in all my years. Everything else was lust. Physical, animal, instinctual lust.
What about you?

I guess I'm the opposite.  I've fallen in love many times but am a bit jealous/confused of those who feel lust.  Most of the time that I feel love, it is not returned because I don't LUST them enough.  One girlfriend, who professed love for me, opted out because she felt I was not that interested in sex, something many or most are interested in.  For me, leaning against a person I love, touching her, being close, I'm in nirvanna.

My lot in life.

Teri Anne

Both are alike because they each confuse me and I have no idea of how to express them.

Hmmmm...if I had to choose between the two, I'd go for love; however, I think that a combination of both love and lust is important in a relationship.  I have only fallen in love three times in my life and so far one of those three relationships involves "Lust"  It's something I was not familiar with but I like it.  It is not something I would like to do forever but for starters, it makes sense.  I think.

I would imagine that as time progresses, lust becomes less important, or perhaps I should say "less intense" and turns into a more balanced feeling that is congruent with what love is.

tink

Quote from: Tink on September 06, 2007, 07:26:36 PM
I would imagine that as time progresses, lust becomes less important, or perhaps I should say "less intense" and turns into a more balanced feeling that is congruent with what love is.

tink

That has been my experience.

I think that love is not one thing. The 'love' I feel for my daughter is different to the 'love' I have for my wife which is different to 'love' I have for my cats.

Perhaps lust is related, goes hand-in-hand with some kinds of love. I think it taps into different emotions. I could say I love and lust for my wife, but just after sex the love I feel is different from the love and lust I felt before sex as the lust componant usually drops out of it.

Maybe love can be one kind of trigger for lust (which can also be triggered in otherways).

Love has to do with caring and putting the loved one first before yourself. Lust is selfish and usually about sex.

I agree totally with lisagurl, that "love has to do with caring and putting the loved one first before yourself.  Lust is selfish and usually about sex."

Wow, perfect definitions.

If we buy society's stereotypes, lust is what men feel and love is what women want.  I don't buy into the stereotype completely because men are responsible for writing most of the love songs and romantic films.  Men who just lust could not write such beautiful things without a deep understanding of the NEED for love.

As society changes, I think women are feeling liberated enough to feel lust.  Older women that I know can't understand men's preoccupation with Viagra and men's lustful urges.  When older women take a mild amount of testosterone, they seem to want sex more -- they lust.

For me, and presumably others, lust only lasts awhile.  Love is forever.

Teri Anne

One can love to lust but not lust to love.


if all you had was love, you would have everything.
if all you had was lust, you would be lacking.

My thought is, the two are dramatically different from each other, yet they can (and often should) co-exist in a solid relationship between spouses (or partners).

When we were young, lust is about all we knew. When that hot classmate walked by, I don't think too many of us thought about how we could build a life with that person. In most cases, we just thought about how HOT they were (if it was a concious thought at all).

Lust is an urge, a desire, a need to consume. It is VERY similar to avarice, and certainly isn't limited to sex. Lust should never be confused with love, since lust has a "hook" every single time... "If you love me, you'll have sex with me" is a good example of that.

Like lisagirl said so eloquently, it is at its core SELFISH. It's self-centered.

Love, on the other hand is an enigma that is far more than an emotion. It's more than a commitment. At its very core, it is self-less. Love (especially in the divine) is pouring your life into another.

Love has no hook, there are no expectations, and is as much a choice as it is an emotion. I love what Scripture says about love:

QuoteLove is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. (1 Cor 13:4-8a, NIV)

This passage speaks of the true nature of love almost completely.

The problem in some relationships is that there are times when the one who lusts is literally draining out the life force of the one who loves. The "lover" is pouring their life and heart into the "luster," who's doing nothing more than consuming. In the end, both are left empty.

I think it's important that we all reflect in our own lives whether we're truly giving as much as we're taking. Sometimes, our relationships depend on it.

Rebis said, "if all you had was love, you would have everything."

And the Beatles said, "All you need is love."

But love is imperfect, too.  You can love someone deeply and, if they're not interested, there's pain.  Hence, a lot of love songs that deal with that pain or that heart-breaking loss.  Loving someone, as we've agreed, is a giving thing.  Once I fall in love, I never stop loving them even if they hurt me (in an emotional way) and walk away.  The people I've dated and fell in love with will always live in my heart.  There are some great romantic writers that lived, for the most part...

Alone.

Both lust and love can be painful.

Teri Anne