Are you in love or lust?

[gobear]

How do you know you're in love with someone? Are you in love with your SO right now, or are you with him/her for the sex/comfort/the sake of the children? If you are in love with someone, how did you know this was The One?

[soulsling]

first, define for yourself what you see as love. lust is obviously not as strong emotionally, and relies more on the physical. second, realize that if you place expectations on your SO, you are diminishing the love, and you will know if you are truly IN love when you sense that no matter what, and unconditionally, you feel that way regardless of anything physical or past experiences. Lust, is when you are interested for a period of time, and don't personally care as much about your SO, and usually involves more of a physical attraction then anything truly substantial.
Love is unconditional, free of obligations, free of terms.
Lust is conditional, carries a weight of fear with it, and doesn't last as long as love.

[Edwardina]

Am I in love or in lust?

Yes.

[cher3]

I don't know about terms and conditions, soulsling, but I can think of at least one widely accepted list of obligations associated with love. I mean the one that ends "As long as we both shall live."

[Ozone]

Edwardina is funny, but not necessarily wrong. Can't you lust after the one you are in love with? I think so. For men (I can't speak for women, because I'm not one) attraction is very visual. Why do men, on the average, buy magazines (Playboy, Penthouse), watch porn, etc., much more than women? Because we like to look. :p I think lust always comes first for a man. You can't wait to get into some chick's pants, so you wine her, dine her, etc., then one day, you realize that you actually care about her. I'm not saying ALL men are like this ALL the time, but I think it's probably what happens most of the time. Hell, I would hate to be involved with someone I didn't have a little lust for. That's how it should be, isn't it?

I think love takes time to build, or grow. I don't believe in love at first sight, or even in the first week or so. At least for men (or at least me). You'll have to spend time with your SO, and one day, you'll just know if it's love or not. Don't know what else to tell you.

[ricepad]

I'm in love with Mrs. ricepad, all the time. But when she wears lingerie (crosspost points?), I'm definitely in lust, too.

[Fanny May]

If you have to ask, it's not love.

[Saint Zero]

Lust and Love. She's my best friend, too.

[nashiitashii]

love and lust are two different things which are often confused. Love is a different thing for each person, and, as Fanny May said, if you have to ask, it's not love. Love is one of those things that grows stronger with every day, and may not be strong to start with. Just wait it out and your heart will tell you what you're feeling.

[vanilla]

I am in Love; but sex also goes along with this, like corned beef hash and tofu. hee hee.
How did I know he was The One?
Ya just know...

[JavaMaven1]

I'm in both, of course.

I lust after him because he's deadly handsome--he's got a smile that brightens a room, a nice body, and always seems to smell good.

I love him because he's always there when I need him. I love him because he tries to understand where I'm coming from, and is willing to work something out instead of letting an arguement fester. He is kind, warm, and generous--not only to me, but to all he knows and cares about. He has a sense of humor. He's bright and loves to hold crazy conversations with me at 2 in the morning. I love him because we met not too long after my divorce went final and didn't try to push me too hard into a new relationship--and waited months before things got hot and heavy. Obviously, he's patient. We have enough common ground to feel close, but enough difference in our lives that we are not bored to death with the same things.

See where the scale is dipping? The love only makes me want him more.

[soulsling]

Cher, your'e bringing religious terms and conditions in, which still don't make for a basis of what the difference of Love and Lust are. No one said you had to be married to fall in Love, or that you couldn't love more then one person. I believe that you can lust after someone and fall in love with them afterwards, and that lusting is the physical attraction with out the emotional attachment involved. For those of you who feel like you love your SO's but "lust" them when they're wearing lingerie etc. perhaps it makes you feel better to think this way. You are still in love, and that carries all the physical as well as the emotional with it, only there is no question as to how you feel. with lust, you don't question how you feel, because you don't feel, you're attracted to in a physical sense only.

[cher3]

Soulsling:

Yes, that did refer to the Christian marriage ceremony, but as an athiest who believes that Biblical definitions of love were quite humanly inspired (as opposed to divinely) I still offer it up as a widely accepted definition of what love means.

I feel that, in contrast to lust, love brings a number of obligations with it, although probably not "terms and conditions."

[Linney]

Maybe the question should be "Do you love, or do you lust?" I personally feel that love is way more than just a feeling. If you have these warm fuzzy feelings of love, then you can also not have them. But, if you make it a priority to love, as an ongoing action, then the feelings of love will be a by-product.

But, what do I know. I'm only 22.


"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, love does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails..." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 NAS

[soulsling]

Cher, honestly, what obligations do you believe come along with love? Love shouldn't have any obligations IMO or it becomes hampered down and creates problems. Other than obligations to yourself, what obligations are there within the relationship itself In Your Opinion as to Love?

[Edwardina]

Maybe the question should be "Do you love, or do you lust?" I personally feel that love is way more than just a feeling. If you have these warm fuzzy feelings of love, then you can also not have them. But, if you make it a priority to love, as an ongoing action, then the feelings of love will be a by-product.

But, what do I know. I'm only 22.


"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, love does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails..." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 NAS


A very wise and insightful 22.

[cher3]

Well, in my opinion, the obligations brought by love to a relationship (and I'm assuming we're talking about a romantic relationship) really do pretty much parallel those outlined in the traditional marriage ceremony:

To honor and cherish in sickness and in health, in plenty and in want, as long as we both shall live.

If those aren't obligations, what would you call them?

In short, love, as opposed to lust, is not focused on one's own gratification. It requires service to another person--supporting them through hard times, seeking out ways to help them be happy, being faithful (whatever your definition of that might be.)

Obligations to oneself? Well, okay. That's self-love, I guess.

[Vestal Blue]

We can spend all day making angels dance on the heads of pins, and splitting hares.

It's quite simple for me, as I have experienced both.

Love and Lust are not mutually exclusive, but are different.

Love to me means her well-being is more important than my own, that no sacrifice would be too great in her behalf.
It means I would give my life for hers, if necessary.

Love, in terms of a marriage, is a decision as well as a feeling, and must be cultivated and nurtured, as each partner goes through life and it's changes.

I think we are all pretty sure in our minds what lust is; IMO, if you're not willing to grow the lust into love, stick to masturbation; it's more sanitary, and you don't have to go home alone in the dark.

[purrplebear]

Numerous great points already said.
The love only makes me want him more.
Love inspires one to look out for the other, to want their happiness above your own, to care for one another.

Love means his well-being is far more paramount than your own, that no sacrifice is too great, that you'd follow him to the ends of the earth just to be with him.

Love means that time and it's changes matters not to your love, except to give it an new, rich dimension, that it seeps into your very soul until your love is so much a part of you that you could no more stop it than you could stop breathing. That the life of your love becomes more important than your own, you would die or kill to protect that person, if it were required.

I like what VB said, well put. As well as the others, though Cher, I think you're putting it a bit simply, and whatever else love is or isn't, simple isn't one of the things.

I could go on, but you get the idea, I think.
Lust is more a physical reaction, and as VB said, different, but not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[cher3]

I see what you mean, purplebear, but I wasn't trying to define love. I was just taking issue with the idea that love can only exist without obligations of any sort. Quite the reverse.

As to what it is, well, as you say, that's more complicated.

[soulsling]

i see what your'e saying about obligations now, though i percieve them as unconditional, not obligations in the sense that we feel we must do something, rather what we do naturally and becomes some of the signs of love. as for self love, without that, i don't think you can move on to truly have the best of love for another can offer. still, as for lust, Vestal said it best i think :)

[PunditLisa]

Are we talking "love" or "commitment" here? Because they are two separate concepts.

I've loved lots of different men in my life, and was glad I met them. Hell, I was glad I slept with them, too. They enriched my life, amused me, pushed my buttons, and helped me grow as a person. But there was only two out of the whole bunch who'd I would have considered committing to in a marriage situation.

Why? Because love isn't enough. And whoever thinks it is, is kidding himself. To love someone you only need an open heart. To commit to someone you need love PLUS compatibility. If you find yourself battling over the tiniest thing, for instance, then I'd think long and hard about committing to him for life. If he's ever walked out on you or broken up with you, he may be the type to walk out of a marriage. If you've ever felt physically threatened by him, he's not commitment material. If you want kids and he doesn't, forget about it.

Food for thought.

[Linney]

Thanks to edwardina. I appreciate it.

[Norway Maple]

Love is when you volunteer to sleep on the wet spot.